Datasets:

timaeus
/

pile-arxiv

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 100k rows

text stringlengths 4 2.78M	meta dict
--- abstract: 'Let $\omega$ be a differential $q$-form defining a foliation of codimension $q$ in a projective variety. In this article we study the singular locus of $\omega$ in various settings. We relate a certain type of singularities, which we name persistent, with the unfoldings of $\omega$, generalizing previous work done on foliations of codimension $1$ in projective space. We also relate the absence of persistent singularities with the existence of a connection in the sheaf of $1$-forms defining the foliation. In the latter parts of the article we extend some of these results to toric varieties by making computations on the Cox ring and modules over this ring.' author: - 'César Massri[^1]' - 'Ariel Molinuevo[^2]' - 'Federico Quallbrunn$^$' title: Foliations with persistent singularities --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Overview of the subject and existing work {#overview-of-the-subject-and-existing-work .unnumbered} ----------------------------------------- Foliations of arbitrary codimension over algebraic varieties have been considered at least since the seminal works of Malgrange [@malgrange; @malgrange2] in the local case, and Jouanolou [@jou] in a more global approach. Aside from the main result of [@malgrange2] and general definitions, most of the early theorems about foliations on projective algebraic varieties have been formulated for codimension $1$ foliations on the projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. In those articles, codimension $q$ foliations were defined locally by $1$-forms $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_q$ satisfying Frobenius integrability equations: $d\omega_i\wedge\omega_1\wedge\dots\wedge\omega_q=0$ for $i=1,\dots,q$. Later, de Medeiros observed that this definition is not general enough for singular foliations of codimension $q$, as singular foliations by curves in dimension $n\geq 3$ cannot be given by $n-1$ forms even locally, see [@deMed1] and Example \[exampleCodimension2inA3\]. The correct definition is given by a $q$-form verifying the Plücker relations and Frobenius integrability (see below for definitions). As for why many results were stated with ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ as ambient variety, notice that working in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ allows the use of homogeneous coordinates and so one can define a codimension $1$ foliation with an integrable polynomial $1$-form $\omega=\sum_i f_i(x) dx_i$, that is a $1$-form verifying $\omega\wedge d\omega=0$ and $\sum_i x_i f_i(x)=0$. Such a setting can give concrete examples of foliations which may be hard to produce and study in more general contexts, see for instance the book [@omegarlibro]. Going beyond isolated examples there is the problem of establishing irreducible components for the space $\mathcal{F}ol(X)$ parameterizing all integrable forms on a variety $X$. The existence of this space for a projective variety $X$ follows from the existence of the $\mathrm{Quot}_X(\Omega^1_X)$ scheme and have been settled in [@quallbrunn]. In the case of codimension $1$ and $X={\mathbb{P}}^n$ there are several known examples of such components, the first known examples were established in [@jou] and up to the present is a very active research subject, in [@omegarlibro; @fj] one can find (non-exhaustive) lists of components. In the case of codimension $1$ and a general variety $X$ much less is known. In [@omegar] Calvo-Andrade proves that for a variety $X$ with $H^1(X,{\mathbb{C}})=0$ generic logarithmic $1$-forms give rise to integrable $1$-forms that are stable under small perturbations, i.e.: that there is an irreducible component of the space of integrable forms whose generic member defines a logarithmic foliation. Besides stability, another important problem is the local and global characterization of the singularities of a foliation. Local results include the main theorems of [@malgrange] in codimension $1$ and of [@saito] and [@malgrange2] in higher codimension. Global studies have been made in the case of logarithmic foliations in [@fmi] and in the case of foliations defined by polynomial representations of affine lie algebras in [@ocgln] among others. An important type of singularity of a holomorphic foliation was discovered by Ivan Kupka in [@kupka]. A Kupka singularity for an integrable $1$-form $\omega$ is a point $p$ such that $\omega(p)=0$ and $d\omega(p)\neq 0$. Kupka showed that this type of singularity of codimension $1$ foliation is stable, meaning that if $\omega_t$ is a family of integrable $1$-forms parameterized by $t$ and $\omega_0$ has a Kupka singularity then $\omega_t$ also has a Kupka singularity for small enough $t$. Also if a foliation have a Kupka singularity then there is a codimension $2$ subvariety whose points are singular points of the foliation. Kupka singularities were generalized to arbitrary codimension by de Medeiros in [@deMedTesis], where stability for this singularities is proved in general. In codimension $q$ Kupka singularities come in subvarieties of codimension less or equal than $q+1$. In codimension $1$ there are many results relating the geometry of the variety of Kupka points with the global properties of the foliation, see e.g.: [@omegar-ivan; @omegar-kupka]. In higher codimension there is the work of Calvo-Andrade [@omegar2009]. A third subject we look upon in this work is the study of the unfoldings of a foliation. Unfoldings in the context of foliations were introduced independently by Suwa and Mattei in different contexts, see [@suwa-review] for a survey on the subject. Unfoldings of foliations where computed mostly in some codimension $1$ cases, locally by Suwa (see loc. cit.) and on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ by Molinuevo in [@moli]. Recently we have related the study of unfoldings and singularities of a codimension $1$ foliation on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. Indeed, in [@mmq] we define a homogeneous ideal $I(\omega)$ defining a subscheme of the singular scheme of $\omega$ (see below for precise definitions), the elements of degree equal to the degree of $\omega$ in $I(\omega)$ are in natural correspondence with the infinitesimal unfoldings of $\omega$. Under generic conditions we can prove that if $K(\omega)$ is the ideal defining the closure of the variety of Kupka points then $\sqrt{I(\omega)}=\sqrt{K(\omega)}$, using this result we were able to compute the unfoldings of foliations of codimension $1$ on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ with split tangent sheaf and also prove the existence of Kupka points for every foliation in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ with reduced singular scheme. Main results {#main-results .unnumbered} ------------ Our aim in this article is to generalize previous results on the relation of unfoldings and singular points of a foliation to arbitrary codimension and to foliations on a non-singular projective variety. We also begin a study of this relation in toric varieties by making use of the Cox ring of the variety and modules over this ring. In codimension $1$ there is a direct relation between unfoldings and a certain type of singularities which we call persistent singularities. In this respect we prove Proposition \[JJcIIcKK\] relating Kupka and persistent singularities: Let ${\mathscr{J}}$ be the ideal sheaf of the singular locus of $\omega$, ${\mathcal{K}}$ the ideal of the Kupka singularities of $\omega$ and ${\mathscr{I}}$ the ideal of persistent singularities. Then the following inclusions hold, $${\mathscr{J}}\subseteq {\mathscr{I}}\subseteq {\mathcal{K}}.$$ and Theorem \[teoKnotempty\] stating the existence of Kupka points under certain hypotheses: Let $X$ be a projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$ a foliation of codimension $1$ such that ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)$ is a sheaf of radical ideals and such that $c_1({\mathcal{L}})\neq 0$ and $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$. Then $\omega$ has Kupka singularities. In higher codimension the relation of persistent and Kupka singularities is not so clear, specially in the case where the foliation is not given locally by a complete intersection of $1$-forms, as in Example \[exampleCodimension2inA3\]. However, under suitable cohomological conditions the absence of persistent singularities impose very strong consequences on the foliation. If ${\mathcal{E}}$ is the sheaf of $1$-forms defining the foliation, and if ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}}, \mathrm{Sym}^2{\mathcal{E}})=0$ then the absence of persistent singularities implies the existence of a connection on ${\mathcal{E}}$, see Theorem \[teoConnectionE\]: Let $X$ be a projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega_X^q$ be an integrable $q$-form and ${\mathcal{E}}$ be the associated subsheaf of $1$-forms ${\mathcal{E}}\subseteq \Omega^1_X$. Let $\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})$ denote the symmetric power of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and suppose ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=0$. If ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)={\mathcal{O}}_X$ then ${\mathcal{E}}$ admits a holomorphic connection, in particular is locally free and every Chern class of ${\mathcal{E}}$ vanishes. In the case of toric varieties we can extend some of the results known for ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ by making use of the Cox ring, in this regard we obtain Theorem \[prop1notinI\]: Let $X_\Sigma$ be a projective simplicial toric variety, $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$ a codimension $q$ foliation and let $\mathcal{E}=\{\eta\in\widehat\Omega^1\,\colon\,\omega\wedge\eta=0\}$. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ is locally free (e.g.* $q=1$), $H^1(X_\Sigma,\mathcal{E})=0$ and $\beta$ not a torsion element. Then $\omega$ has persistent singularities. Furthermore, if instead ${\mathcal{E}}$ locally free, we require $\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}}$ reflexive, the same conclusion holds. Kupka scheme in the Projective space for codimension 1 foliations ================================================================= Along this section we will revisit some definitions that we used in [@mmq], among them we will define the Kupka variety as a projective scheme ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$ over ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ and $I=I(\omega)$ the ideal of persistent singularities (a.k.a. unfoldings ideal) of $\omega$. Then we will recall some results that we proved in loc. cit. that we will generalize later. The scheme ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$ and the ideal $I$ were of central importance in those results. We refer the reader to [@mmq] for a full overview of this subjects. With the exception of Theorem \[teodivision\] through this section we will restrict to the projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. So let us denote $S={\mathbb{C}}[x_0,\dots,x_n]$ to the homogeneous coordinate ring of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ and $\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(e)$ the sheaf of twisted differential 1-forms in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ of degree $e$. With ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}_{set}$ we will denote the (set theoretic) singular set of $\omega\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^n, \Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(e))$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$, $${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}_{set} = \{p\in {\mathbb{P}}^n: \omega(p) = 0 \}\ .$$ \[foliation\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}\simeq {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(-e)$, $e\geq 2$, be a line bundle and $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}$ be a morphism of sheaves, we will say that $\omega$ defines an algebraic foliation of codimension 1 on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$, if $\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}/{\mathcal{L}}$ is torsion free and the morfism is generated by a non zero global section $\omega\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^n,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(e))$ such that $\omega\wedge d\omega = 0$. We recall that such foliations have geometric degree $e-2$. The condition of $\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}/{\mathcal{L}}$ to be torsion free in the definition of a foliation is equivalent to ask the singular set to have codimension greater than 2. Indeed, this is the same to ask that $\omega$ is not of the form $f.\omega'$, for some global section $f\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^n,{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(d))$ and a 1-form $\omega'\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^n,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(e-d))$. Also, integrable differential 1-forms define the same foliation up to scalar multiplication. Then, we will denote the set of codimension 1 foliations of geometric degree $e-2$ as $$\label{torsion} {\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e) := \left\{\omega\in{\mathbb{P}}\left(H^0({\mathbb{P}}^n,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(e))\right):\ \omega\wedge d\omega=0,\ {\mathrm{codim}}({\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}_{set})\geq 2 \right\}.$$ \[IJ\] We define the graded ideals of $S$ associated to $\omega$ as $$\begin{aligned} I(\omega) &:= \left\{ h\in S:\ h\ d\omega = \omega\wedge\eta\text{ for some } \eta\in\Omega^1_S\right\}\\ J(\omega) &:= \left\{ i_X(\omega)\in S:\ X\in T_S \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ We will name $I(\omega)$ the ideal of persistent singularities of $\omega$. We will also denote them $I=I(\omega)$ and $J=J(\omega)$ if no confusion arises. \[1notinI\] Notice that $1\not\in I$, since the class of $d\omega$ in the Koszul complex of $\omega$, $H^2(\omega)$ is not zero, see Definition \[koszulcomplex\]. Also $J(\omega)$ equals the ideal defining the singular locus of $\omega$. This last thing, can be seen by contracting with the vector fields ${\partial}/{\partial x_i}$. The definition given for $J(\omega)$ is better suited for our schematic approach that we will develop next. For $\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$, we define the Kupka set as the subset of the singular set $$\mathpzc{K}_{set} = \overline{\{p\in {\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}_{set} : d\omega(p)\neq 0 \}}\ .$$ Notice that the definition above it is not the standard definition of the Kupka set. Usually it is defined just as the set of points in ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}_{set}$ such that $d\omega(p)\neq 0$. Instead, we consider the closure of that set. \[KK\] For $\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$, we define the Kupka scheme ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$ as the scheme theoretic support of $d\omega$ at $\Omega^2_{S}\otimes_S (S\big/J)$. Then, ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}={\mathrm{Proj}}(S/K(\omega))$ where $K(\omega)$ is the homogeneous ideal defined as $$K(\omega)={\mathrm{ann}}(\overline{d\omega})+J(\omega)\subseteq S,\quad \overline{d\omega}\in \Omega^2_{S}\otimes_S \left(S\big/J(\omega)\right).$$ We will denote $K=K(\omega)$ if no confusion arises. We recall the notion of ideal quotient of two $S$-modules $M$ and $N$ as $$(N:M) := \left\{a\in S: a.M\subseteq N\right\},$$ then, one could also define $K(\omega)$ as $K(\omega)=(J\cdot \Omega^2_S: d\omega)$. Also, given that $\Omega^2_S$ is free, we can also write $$\label{Kbis} K(\omega)=(J(\omega):J(d\omega)),$$ where $J(d\omega)$ denotes the ideal generated by the polynomial coefficients of $d\omega$. From the properties of ideal quotient, it follows that if $J$ is radical, then $K$ is radical as well. With the Example 4.5 in [@mmq]\[p. 1034\] we showed that the algebraic geometric approach is indeed necessary, since the reduced structure associated to the Kupka scheme ${\mathcal{K}}$ differs from the reduced variety associated to $\mathpzc{K}_{set}$. With the following lemma we show that the Kupka scheme and the Kupka set coincide when the singular locus it is radical. ([@mmq]\[Lemma 4.6, p.1034\])\[K=Kset\] Let $\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$ such that $J=\sqrt{J}$. Then $${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}= \mathpzc{K}_{set}.$$ We have the following chain of inclusions, see Proposition \[JJcIIcKK\] and Proposition \[JJcIIcKK2\] for a generalization, in the codimension one and codimension $q$ case, respectively: ([@mmq]\[Proposition 4.7, p. 1035\])\[incl2\] Let $\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$. Then, we have the following relations $$J\subseteq I\subseteq K\ .$$ Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a point in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$, e.g., an homogeneous prime ideal in $S$ different from the irrelevant ideal $(x_0.\ldots,x_n)$, and let $\omega$ be an integrable differential 1-form. We will denote with a subscript $\mathfrak{p}$ the localization at the point $\mathfrak{p}$ and with $\widehat{S}_\mathfrak{p}$ the completion of the local ring $S_\mathfrak{p}$ with respect to the maximal ideal defined by $\mathfrak{p}$. We say that $\mathfrak{p}\in{\mathbb{P}}^n$ is a division point of $\omega$ if $1\in I(\omega)_\mathfrak{p}$. We now define a subset of the moduli space of foliations on which we are going to state our next result. \[generic\] We define the set ${\mathcal{U}}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$ as $${\mathcal{U}}= \left\{\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e): \ \forall \mathfrak{p}\not\in{\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)},\,\mathfrak{p}\text{ is a division point of }\omega\right\}.$$ See Theorem \[propP=K\] for a generalization of the following: ([@mmq]\[Theorem 4.12, p. 1036\])\[teo1\] Let $\omega\in\mathcal{U}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$. Then, $$\sqrt{I}=\sqrt{K}.$$ Furthermore, if $\sqrt{I}=\sqrt{K}$ then $\omega\in{\mathcal{U}}$. See Theorem \[teoKnotempty\] for a generalization of the following: ([@mmq]\[Theorem 4.24, p. 1041\])\[teo3\] Let $\omega\in{\mathcal{F}}^1({\mathbb{P}}^n,e)$ such that $J=\sqrt{J}$. Then $${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}=\mathpzc{K}_{set}\neq \emptyset.$$ The following statement is valid in a non-singular variety $X$ and we will use it later. We will consider a $1$-form $\omega$ on $X$ with singular set of codimension equal or greater than 2. And we will denote with $\mathcal{J}$ the ideal sheaf of ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$. ([@mmq]\[Theorem 2.7, p. 1030\])\[teodivision\] Let $\omega$ be an integrable $1$-form in a non-singular variety $X$ and let ${\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ be such that ${\mathscr{J}}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is radical and such that $d\omega_{\mathfrak{p}}\in {\mathscr{J}}_{\mathfrak{p}}\cdot \Omega^2_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Then there is a formal $1$-form $\eta$ such that $d\omega=\omega\wedge\eta$. Unfoldings over schemes {#unf-schemes} ======================= Along this section we will give the definition of codimension $q$ foliation on a smooth variety $X$. Then we will redefine the singular locus with a scheme theoretic approach. Finally we define an unfolding of a codimension $q$ foliation. For the rest of the article, until Section \[section\_toric\], let us consider $X$ as a non-singular projective variety unless stated otherwise. If $\Xi \in \Gamma(U, \bigwedge^p TX)$ is a multivector and $\varpi\in \Gamma(U,\Omega^q_X)$ a $q$-form we will denote by $i_\Xi \varpi \in \Gamma(U,\Omega^{q-p}_X)$ the contraction. Recall that the Plücker relations for $\varpi$ are given by $$i_\Xi \varpi\wedge \varpi=0$$ for any $\Xi\in\bigwedge^{q-1} TX$. When $\varpi({\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0$ for some closed point ${\mathfrak{p}}\in X$ then $\varpi$ is locally decomposable as a product $\varpi=\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q$ of $q$ $1$-forms. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a line bundle and $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^q_X$ be a morphism of sheaves, we will say that the morphism is integrable if - $\Omega^q_X/{\mathcal{L}}$ is torsion free. - The map $$i_\Xi \omega\wedge \omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to\Omega^{q+1}_X\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$$ is zero for every local section $\Xi$ of $\bigwedge^{q-1} TX$. - For every local section $s$ of ${\mathcal{L}}$ and $\Xi$ of $\bigwedge^{q-1} TX$, $\omega(s)$ verifies $$\label{frobenius2} d (i_\Xi \omega(s))\wedge \omega(s)=0.$$ We also say that $\omega$ determines a codimension $q$ foliation. By using Equation (\[frobenius2\]) with $q=1$ we recover the definition of codimension one foliation as in Definition \[foliation\]. The fact that $\omega(s)$ is locally decomposable as a product of $q$ $1$-forms $\varpi_1,\dots,\varpi_q$ implies that there exist a rank $q$ vector bundle $\mathcal{E}\hookrightarrow \Omega^1_X$, locally generated by $\omega_1(s),\dots,\omega_q(s)$ and such that ${\mathcal{L}}\simeq \bigwedge^q\mathcal{E}$. Reciprocally, given a locally free sheaf of rank $q$, $\mathcal{E}$ and a map $\mathcal{E}\hookrightarrow \Omega^1_X$, we have that $\bigwedge^q\mathcal{E}$ is a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ and a map ${\mathcal{L}}\to\Omega^q_X$. The condition that $\Omega^q_X/{\mathcal{L}}$ is torsion free is equivalent to $\Omega^1_X/\mathcal{E}$ being torsion free. Example \[exampleCodimension2inA3\] shows that the condition locally free is necessary for this equivalence. Let $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to\Omega^q$ be a integrable $q$-form. Then, we can consider two maps, $$\xymatrix{ \bigwedge^{q-1} TX\otimes {\mathcal{L}}\ar[r]^<<<<<{i_{(\cdot)}\omega} &\Omega^1_X\ar[r]^<<<<<{(\cdot)\wedge\omega}&\Omega_X^{q+1}\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1} }$$ The integrability condition on $\omega$ implies that this diagram is a complex and it is easy to check that its homology is supported over the points where $\omega$ is not decomposable. We define the sheaf associated to $\omega$, denoted ${\mathcal{E}}={\mathcal{E}}(\omega)$, as the kernel of $(\cdot)\wedge\omega$. By definition, ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a reflexive sheaf. \[exampleCodimension2inA3\] Let $X=\mathbb{A}^3$ or, in the holomorphic case, a polydisk of dimension $3$. We take $v\in \Gamma(X,TX)$ a vector field, generic in the sense that in a coordinate system $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ we can write $v=f_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}-f_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+f_3\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}$ with $f_1, f_2, f_3 \in k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ and such that the ideal $(f_1, f_2,f_3)\subseteq k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ is a complete intersection, that is, there are no nontrivial relations among the $f_i$’s. The vector field $v$ generates a codimension $2$ foliation in $X$, this foliation is determined by a $2$-form $\omega$ such that $i_v\omega=0$. One such $\omega$ is given by $$\omega= f_3 dx_1\wedge dx_2 + f_2 dx_1\wedge dx_3 + f_1 dx_2\wedge dx_3.$$ It can be verified that this $\omega$ satisfies Plücker relations, is integrable, $i_v\omega=0$ and that $\Omega^2_X/(\omega)$ is torsion free. Therefore $\omega$ determines the same foliation of codimension $2$ as $v$. If we now look at the $1$-forms annihilated by $v$ we get the subsheaf generated by the forms $$\omega_1= f_3 dx_2+f_2dx_3,\quad \omega_2=f_3 dx_1- f_1 dx_3\ \text{ and } \omega_3=f_2 dx_1 + f_1 dx_2.$$ These generators satisfy the relation $f_1\omega_1 + f_2 \omega_2= f_3\omega_3$. The subsheaf $\mathcal{E}=(\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is generically of rank $2$ outside the zeros of the ideal $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$ but $\mathcal{E}\otimes k({\mathfrak{p}})$ is of rank $3$ when ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is in the zeros of this ideal. Therefore $\mathcal{E}$ is not locally free. Moreover when we compute the determinant of $\mathcal{E}$ we get $\wedge^2\mathcal{E}= (f_1,f_2,f_3)\cdot(\omega)\subseteq \Omega^2_X$, $$\omega_1\wedge\omega_2=f_3\omega,\quad \omega_3\wedge\omega_1=f_2\omega,\quad \omega_2\wedge\omega_3=f_1\omega.$$ In particular $\omega$ is not in $\wedge^2\mathcal{E}$. But by [@GH Lemma, p. 210], if $\omega$ is locally decomposable, then $\omega\in \wedge^2\mathcal{E}$. Then $\omega$ is not locally decomposable around the zeros of the ideal $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$. Composing a morphism $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^q$ with the contraction of forms with vector fields give us a morphism $$\bigwedge^q TX\otimes {\mathcal{L}}\to{\mathcal{O}}_X.$$ The ideal sheaf ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)$ is defined to be the sheaf-theoretic image of the morphism $\bigwedge^q TX\otimes {\mathcal{L}}\to{\mathcal{O}}_X$. The subscheme it defines is called the singular set of $\omega$ and denoted ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}\subseteq X$. We will denote it just as ${\mathscr{J}}$ if no confusion arises. This definition agrees with Remark \[1notinI\], where we said that the ideal $J(\omega)$ gives the ideal defining the singular locus of $\omega$. From [@suwa-review]\[(4.6) Definition, p. 192\] we get the following definition for a codimension $q$ foliation: Let $S$ be a scheme, $p\in S$ a closed point, and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega} \Omega^q_X$ a codimension $q$ foliation on $X$. An unfolding of $\omega$ is a codimension $q$ foliation $\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}\xrightarrow{\widetilde{\omega}}\Omega^q_{X\times S}$ on $X\times S$ such that $\widetilde{\omega}\|_{X\times\{p\}}\cong \omega$. In the case $S=\mathrm{Spec}(k[x]/(x^2))$ we will call $\widetilde{\omega}$ a first order infinitesimal unfolding. Kupka scheme in general for codimension 1 foliations ==================================================== Over this section we will restate the definition of persistent singularities and of the Kupka scheme, through its ideal sheaf, in a more general setting, see Definition \[II2\] and Definition \[KK2\], respectively. In [@mmq] we showed that persistent singularities are related to unfoldings in codimension one. We want to extend this relation to higher codimension. First we prove Proposition \[JJcIIcKK\], generalizing Proposition \[incl2\] in the codimension one case. Then we define the Kupka scheme and we prove Theorem \[propP=K\] and Theorem \[teoKnotempty\], generalizing Theorems \[teo1\] and \[teo3\]. Given a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ and a global section $\omega\in H^0\left(X,\Omega^1_X\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}\right)$ we will consider the Koszul complex associated with $\omega$, $$\label{koszulcomplex} \xymatrix{K(\omega): & {\mathcal{O}}_X\ar[r]^-{\wedge\omega}& \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1} \ar[r]^-{\wedge\omega} & \dots\ar[r] & \Omega^i\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-i}\ar[r]& \dots}$$ where we are following [@GKZ Chapter 2, B, p. 51] and using the identification $\bigwedge^k\left(\Omega^1_X\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}\right)\simeq \left(\bigwedge^k \Omega^1_X \right)\otimes \left({\mathcal{L}}^{-k}\right)$. We will denote the cohomology sheaves of this complex by $H^\bullet(\omega)$, the Koszul cohomology sheaves of $\omega$. We can use $K(\omega)$ to compute the codimension of ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ by the well known result, see [@eisenbud Theorem 17.4, p. 424]: \[koszul\] Let $\omega\in H^0\left(X,\Omega^1_X\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}\right)$. The following statements are equivalent: - $codim({\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)})\geq k$ - $H^\ell(\omega)=0$ for all $\ell <k$ \[notation\] Suppose now the morphism $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^1_X$ defines a foliation on $X$. Given a trivializing open set $U$ and a choice of a trivialization ${\mathcal{O}}_X\|_U\cong {\mathcal{L}}\|_U$, we take a local generator $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{L}}(U)$ (we think about it as a $1$-form through the morphism ${\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^1_X$) and take the differential $d \varpi$. This defines a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear morphism ${\mathcal{L}}(U)\to \Omega^2_X(U)$, which in turn we can compose with the projection $\Omega^2_X\to H^2(\omega)\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{\otimes 2}$. Note that the submodule ${\mathcal{O}}_X(U)\cdot (d\varpi)$ of $\left(H^2(\omega)\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{\otimes 2}\right)(U)$ is independent of the choice of the trivialization. In this way one gets a morphism of coherent sheaves, $${\mathcal{L}}\to H^2(\omega)\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{\otimes 2}.$$ Or, equivalently, a (non trivial) global section of $H^2(\omega)\otimes{\mathcal{L}}$. We will denote the global section or the morphism indistinctly by $[d\omega]$. By Theorem \[koszul\] above, we conclude that $codim({\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)})\geq 2$. \[II2\] The subscheme of persistent singularities of $\omega$ is the one defined by the ideal sheaf ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega):={\mathrm{ann}}([d\omega])$, for $[d\omega]\in H^0\left(X,H^2(\omega)\otimes{\mathcal{L}}\right)$. We will denote it just as ${\mathscr{I}}$ if no confusion arises. \[remarkI\] Let $\varpi\in \Omega^1_X(U)$ be a local generator of the image of ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$, then the local sections of ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$ in $U$ are given by $${\mathscr{I}}(U)=\{h\in {\mathcal{O}}_X(U): \text{there is a section } \eta\in\Gamma(U,\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}})\text{ s.t. } hd \varpi=\varpi\wedge\eta\}.$$ \[formalremark\] For a regular local ring $(R,\mathfrak{m})$, an $R$-module $M$ and an element $m\in M$, let us denote $\widehat{R}$ the $\mathfrak{m}$-adic completion of $R$ and $\widehat{M}=M\otimes\widehat{R}$. The element $m\otimes 1\in\widehat{M}$ has as annihilator the ideal ${\mathrm{ann}}(m)\otimes \widehat{R}$. Setting $R={\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$, $M= \left(H^2(\omega)\otimes{\mathcal{L}}\right)_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and $m=[d\omega]_{\mathfrak{p}}$, and following the notation of Remark \[notation\], we have that $${\mathrm{ann}}([d\omega]_{\mathfrak{p}}\otimes 1)=\{h\in \widehat{{\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}}: \text{there is a formal $1$-form } \eta \ \text{ s.t. } hd \varpi=\varpi\wedge\eta\}.$$ Let ${\mathfrak{p}}\in X$ be a point in ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$, ${\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$ the local ring around ${\mathfrak{p}}$, and $X_{\mathfrak{p}}=\mathrm{Spec}({\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}})$. Then ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is in the subscheme of persistent singularities if and only if for any infinitesimal first order unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ of $\omega$ in $X_{\mathfrak{p}}$, the point $({\mathfrak{p}}, 0)\in X_{\mathfrak{p}}\times \mathrm{Spec}(k[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2))$ is a singular point of $\widetilde{\omega}$. Let $S=\mathrm{Spec}(k[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2))$, $0\in S$ be its closed point, $p:X\times S\to S$ be the projection and $\iota:X\cong X\times\{0\}\hookrightarrow X\times S$ be the inclusion. Then the sheaf $\Omega^1_{X\times S}$ can be decomposed as direct sum of $\iota_({\mathcal{O}}_X)$-modules as $$\Omega^1_{X\times S}\cong \iota_(\Omega^1_X)\oplus \epsilon\cdot \iota_(\Omega^1_X)\oplus \iota_({\mathcal{O}}_X)d\epsilon.$$ A point ${\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ is not a persistent singularity if and only if $1\in {\mathscr{I}}_{\mathfrak{p}}\subseteq {\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$ which, by Remark \[remarkI\], means that there is an open neighborhood $U\subseteq X$ of ${\mathfrak{p}}$, a local generator $\varpi$ of the image of ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$, and a section $\eta\in\Gamma(U,\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}})$ such that $d\omega=\omega\wedge \eta$. By shrinking $U$ if necessary we can take a lifting of $\eta$ in $\Omega^1_X$ which by abuse of notation we also call $\eta$ and define $$\widetilde{\omega}= \omega + \varepsilon \eta + d\varepsilon.$$ Thus $\widetilde{\omega}$ is a form in $\Omega^1_{X\times S}$ and $\widetilde{\omega}({\mathfrak{p}},0)= d\varepsilon\neq 0$, so ${\mathfrak{p}}\times \{0\}$ is not a singular point of $\widetilde{\omega}$. Reciprocally, if there is an unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ of $\omega\|_U$, then $$\widetilde{\omega}({\mathfrak{p}}, 0)=\omega({\mathfrak{p}}) + h(0) d\varepsilon.$$ As ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is a singular point of $\omega$, we have $\omega({\mathfrak{p}})$, so if $({\mathfrak{p}},0)$ is not a singular point of $\widetilde{\omega}$, then $h(0)\neq 0$, so again shrinking $U$ if necessary we have that $h$ is a unit, hence $1\in {\mathscr{I}}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Most of the known families of foliations on algebraic varieties present persistent singularities, see [@gmln; @omegar; @celn; @pullback; @fji; @fmi; @fj; @mmq]. As it happens the absence of persistent singularities impose some restrictions on the line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$. To explain this we have to make explicit use of a result that is implied in the proof of Lefschetz Theorem on $(1,1)$ classes as is proved in [@GH Chapter 1.1 p.: 141]. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a line bundle. Choose a trivialization $(U_i, \phi_i)_{i\in I}$ of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with gluing data $g_{ij}\in {\mathcal{O}}^_X(U_{ij})$. The Čech cocycle $\frac{1}{2\pi i }[d\log g_{ij}]\in Z^1(\Omega^1_X)$ represents the Chern class $c_1({\mathcal{L}})$ of ${\mathcal{L}}$ in $H^1(X,\Omega^1_X)$. The claim follows from a careful reading of the proof of the Proposition in page 141 of [@GH Chern classes of line bundles, Chapter 1.1, p. 141], as we will show next. There is shown that de Rham’s Theorem for $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-forms with complex coefficients give us exact sequence of sheaves $$0\to {\mathbb{C}}\to \mathcal{A}^0\to \mathcal{Z}^1_d\to 0,\qquad 0\to\mathcal{Z}^1_d\to\mathcal{A}^1\to \mathcal{Z}^2_d\to 0,$$ where $\mathcal{A}^i$ are $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ $i$-forms with complex coefficients and $\mathcal{Z}^i_d$ are the cycles of the de Rham complex. These exact sequences give us boundary isomorphisms $$\frac{H^0(\mathcal{Z}^2)}{dH^0(\mathcal{A}^1)}\xrightarrow{\delta_1}H^1(\mathcal{Z}^1_d),\qquad H^1(\mathcal{Z}^1_d) \xrightarrow{\delta_2} H^2({\mathbb{C}}).$$ As explained in loc. cit.* the multiple of the Chern class $-(2\pi i)c_1({\mathcal{L}})$ can be calculated as $\delta_2\delta_1(\Theta)$, where $\Theta$ is the curvature form of a connection on ${\mathcal{L}}$. It also follows from loc. cit. that $\delta_1(\Theta)$ is represented by the cocycle $-d\log g_{ij}$. \[propc1L=0\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$. If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a line bundle such that $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$ and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$ is a foliation without persistent singularities then $c_1({\mathcal{L}})=0$, where $c_1({\mathcal{L}})$ is the Chern class of the line bundle viewed in $H^2(X,{\mathbb{C}})$. Let $(U_i,\phi_i)$ be a trivialization of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with gluing data $g_{ij}\in {\mathcal{O}}^_X(U_{ij})$. On each $U_i$ we have a local generator of ${\mathcal{L}}(U_i)$, namely $\phi_i^{-1}(1)$, we denote by $\omega_i$ the image under $\omega$ of this generator. The fact that the foliation defined by $\omega$ has no persistent singularities means that on each $U_i$ there is a local section $\eta_i$ of $\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}}(U_i)$ such that $d\omega_i=\omega_i\wedge\eta_i$. On $U_{ij}$ the restriction of the local $1$-form $\omega_i$ satisfies $$\omega_i=g_{ij}\omega_j.$$ So computing the de Rham differential of this forms on $U_{ij}$ gives us, $$\begin{aligned} \omega_i\wedge\eta_i=d\omega_i=d(g_{ij}\omega_j)=\\ =g_{ij}d\omega_j+dg_{ij}\wedge \omega_j=\\ =g_{ij} \omega_j\wedge\eta_j + dg_{ij}\wedge \omega_j=\\ =g_{ij}\omega_j\wedge\left(\eta_j-\frac{dg_{ij}}{g_{ij}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Subtracting both sides of the equality we get that, on $U_{ij}$, $$\eta_i-\eta_j=\frac{dg_{ij}}{g_{ij}},$$ as sections of $\Gamma(U_{ij},\Omega^1_X /{\mathcal{L}})$. Therefore we get a Čech cochain $(\eta_i)_{i\in I}$ of $C^0(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}})$ whose border is $$\partial (\eta)_{ij}=d\log g_{ij}\in B^1(\Omega^1/{\mathcal{L}}).$$ As the cocycle $(d\log g_{ij})\in Z^1(\Omega^1_X)$ represents $(2\pi i )c_1({\mathcal{L}})$, the existence of the cochain $(\eta_i)$ implies $c_1({\mathcal{L}})$ is in the kernel of the map $H^1(\Omega^1_X)\to H^1(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}})$ induced by the short exact sequence of sheaves $$0\to{\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X\to \Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}}\to 0.$$ The hypothesis $H^1({\mathcal{L}})=0$ then implies $c_1({\mathcal{L}})=0$. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$ such that every line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ verifies $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$ and such that $Pic(X)$ is torsion-free (e.g.: $X$ smooth complete intersection). Then every foliation on $X$ have persistent singularities. From the exponential sequence and the hypothesis $H^1(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$ it follows that $c_1:Pic(X)\to H^2(X,{\mathbb{Z}})$ is injective. Assume that $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to\Omega^1_X$ is a foliation without persistent singularities. Then the above Proposition imply that $c_1({\mathcal{L}})$ is a torsion element in $H^2(X,{\mathbb{Z}})$. But given that $Pic(X)$ is torsion-free, we get ${\mathcal{L}}\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X$. In particular, $\omega$ is a global differential $1$-form which contradicts the fact that $H^0(X,\Omega^1_X)=H^1(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. \[[domega]{}\] Given a trivializing open set $U$, a choice of a trivialization ${\mathcal{O}}_X\|_U\cong {\mathcal{L}}\|_U$ and a local generator $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{L}}(U)$, the mapping $\varpi\mapsto d\varpi$ defines a ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-linear morphism ${\mathcal{L}}\to \Omega^2_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}$. We will denote by $\{d\omega\}$ this morphism or equivalently the global section of $\Omega^2_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$ it defines. \[KK2\]The subscheme of Kupka singularities* of $\omega$ is the one defined by the ideal sheaf ${\mathcal{K}}(\omega):={\mathrm{ann}}(\{d\omega\})\in\Omega^2_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$. We will denote it just as ${\mathcal{K}}$ if no confusion arises. \[JJcIIcKK\] Let ${\mathscr{J}}$ be the ideal sheaf of the singular set of $\omega$, ${\mathcal{K}}$ the ideal of the Kupka singularities of $\omega$ and ${\mathscr{I}}$ the ideal of persistent singularities. Then the following inclusions hold, $${\mathscr{J}}\subseteq {\mathscr{I}}\subseteq {\mathcal{K}}.$$ Let $U\subseteq X$ be an open subscheme such that ${\mathcal{L}}\|_U\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_X$, and $\varpi$ a local generator of ${\mathcal{L}}(U)$. Suppose $h\in{\mathscr{J}}(U)\subseteq{\mathcal{O}}_X(U)$ is a local section. By shrinking $U$ if necessary we may assume that there is a vector field $v\in T_X(U)$ such that $h= i_v(\omega)$. Then we have $$0=i_v(\varpi\wedge d\varpi)=i_v(\varpi)d\varpi - \varpi \wedge i_v(d\varpi).$$ So, calling $\eta=i_v(d\varpi)$, we get $hd\varpi=\varpi\wedge \eta$. Hence $h$ is in ${\mathscr{I}}(U)$, which proves the first inclusion. Now assume $h\in {\mathscr{I}}(U)$, then again by shrinking $U$ if necessary, we may assume that there is a $\eta\in \Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{L}}(U)$ such that $hd\varpi= \varpi\wedge\eta$. By definition we have $\varpi \in {\mathscr{J}}(U)\cdot \Omega^1_X(U)$, then $hd\varpi\in {\mathscr{J}}(U)\cdot \Omega^2_X(U)$ so $h$ is in the annihilator of $\{d\omega\}$ in $\Omega^2_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}$. Then $h\in {\mathcal{K}}(U)$, which proves the second inclusion. With the following results we can generalize Theorem \[teo1\] and Theorem \[teo3\] giving conditions for the existence of Kupka singularities: Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$ a foliation of codimension $1$, we are going to call ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}\subseteq X$ the subschemes of persistent singularities. \[propP=K\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$ a foliation of codimension $1$ such that ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)$ is a sheaf of radical ideals. Let ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}\subseteq X$ and ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}\subseteq X$ be the subschemes of persistent and Kupka singularities respectively. Then ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}_{\mbox{red}}={\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}_{\mbox{red}}$. We are going to prove that $X\setminus{\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}=X\setminus{\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$. By Proposition \[JJcIIcKK\] we have ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}\subseteq{\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}$, so $X\setminus {\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}\subseteq X\setminus {\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$. Now suppose ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is a point not in ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$, by abuse of notation we will call $\omega$ a local generator of ${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ viewed as a $1$-form. As ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is not in ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$ then $d\omega \in {\mathscr{J}}_{\mathfrak{p}}\cdot\Omega^2_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$. By hypothesis ${\mathscr{J}}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is radical and so by Theorem \[teodivision\] we have that $d\omega$ decomposes as $\omega\wedge\eta$ for some formal $1$-form $\eta$, this implies $1\in {\mathscr{I}}_{\mathfrak{p}}$, so ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is not in ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}$ (see Remark \[formalremark\]). \[teoKnotempty\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^1_X$ a foliation of codimension $1$ such that ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)$ is a sheaf of radical ideals and such that $c_1({\mathcal{L}})\neq 0$ and $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$. Then $\omega$ has Kupka singularities. This follows from Proposition \[propc1L=0\] and Theorem \[propP=K\], as a foliation with $c_1({\mathcal{L}})\neq 0$ and $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$ has persistent singularities on one hand, and having radical singular ideal implies the reduced scheme defined by persistent singularities is equal to the reduced scheme of Kupka singularities, in particular this last scheme is not empty. Infinitesimal unfoldings in codimension $q$ =========================================== Along this section we review the definition of unfolding of a codimension $q$ foliation on a variety $X$. We will also generalize the definitions of persistent singularities and of Kupka singularities for codimension $q$ foliations, see Definition \[defII\] and Definition \[defKK\], respectively. We classify which singular points of $\omega$ are such that they extend to singular points of every unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ (Proposition \[prop\]) and then, we generalize Proposition \[incl2\] and Proposition \[JJcIIcKK\] to the codimension $q$ case (Proposition \[JJcIIcKK2\]). Finally, with Theorem \[teoConnectionE\] we establish that the absence of persistent singularities implies the existence of a connection on ${\mathcal{E}}$, the sheaf of 1-forms defining the foliation. Let $S=\mathrm{Spec}(k[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2))$, $0\in S$ be its closed point, $p:X\times S\to S$ be the projection and $\iota:X\cong X\times\{0\}\hookrightarrow X\times S$ be the inclusion. Then the sheaf $\Omega^q_{X\times S}$ can be decomposed as direct sum of $\iota_({\mathcal{O}}_X)$-modules as $$\Omega^q_{X\times S}\cong \iota_\Omega^q_X\oplus \varepsilon\cdot (\iota_\Omega^q_X)\oplus \iota_\Omega^{q-1}_X\wedge d\varepsilon.$$ Given a codimension $q$ foliation determined by a morphism ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_X$, and a first order infinitesimal unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}: \widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}\to \Omega^q_{X\times S}$ of $\omega$, we take local generators $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{L}}(U)$ and $\widetilde{\varpi}$ of $\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}(U\times S)$. Suppose $\omega$ and $\widetilde{\omega}$ are locally decomposable, then we may take $U$ small enough such that $\varpi$ and $\widetilde{\varpi}$ decompose as products $$\varpi=\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q, \qquad \widetilde{\varpi}=\widetilde{\varpi}_1\wedge\dots\wedge \widetilde{\varpi}_q.$$ Then we can write $\widetilde{\varpi}_i=\varpi_i + \varepsilon \eta_i + h_i d\varepsilon$ and the equations $d\widetilde{\varpi}_i\wedge \widetilde{\varpi}=0$ for $i=1,\dots, q$ are equivalent to the equations $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} &d\eta_i\wedge \varpi+ d\varpi_i\wedge \left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j\eta_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)=0,\qquad (i=1,\dots,q), \\ &(dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge \varpi+ d\varpi_i\wedge \left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)=0,\qquad (i=1,\dots,q), \end{aligned} \right.$$ where $ \varpi_{\widehat{j}}=\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_{j-1}\wedge\varpi_{j+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q\in \Omega^{q-1}_X(U)$. As is shown in [@suwa-review proof of (6.1) Theorem, p. 199] the second equation implies the first. So we finally get that the equations $d\widetilde{\varpi}_i\wedge \widetilde{\varpi}=0$ for $i=1,\dots, q$ are equivalent to $$\label{equnfcodq} \begin{aligned} \left\{ (dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge \varpi+ d\varpi_i\wedge \left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)=0,\qquad (i=1,\dots,q)\ . \right. \end{aligned}$$ \[prop\] Suppose ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is a singular point of $\omega$. Then there exist an infinitesimal unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ of $\omega$ in $X_{\mathfrak{p}}$ such that $({\mathfrak{p}},0)$ is not a singular point of $\widetilde{\omega}$ if and only if $\omega$ is decomposable locally around ${\mathfrak{p}}$, not all $\varpi_{\widehat{j}}({\mathfrak{p}})$ vanish and there are $1$-forms $\alpha_{ij}$ such that $$d\varpi_i=\sum_{j=1}^q \alpha_{ij}\wedge \varpi_j,\qquad (i=1,\dots,q).$$ Given local forms $\alpha_{ij}\in \Omega^1_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$ such that $d\varpi_i=\sum_{j=1}^q \alpha_{ij}\wedge \varpi_j, (i=1,\dots,q)$ we may take local sections $h_i\in{\mathcal{O}}_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^q(-1)^ih_i({\mathfrak{p}})\varpi_{\widehat{i}}({\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0$. With that choice of $h_i$’s we take $\eta_i:=dh_i+\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ij}$. We will see that the $\eta_i$’s and $h_i$’s determine an unfolding of $\omega$ locally around ${\mathfrak{p}}$. For that we need to verify the Equation (\[equnfcodq\]) above. Indeed we have $$\begin{aligned} (dh_i-\eta_i)&\wedge\varpi+d\varpi_i\wedge\left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j\varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)=\\ &= (dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge\varpi+\left( \sum_{k=1}^q\alpha_{ik}\wedge \varpi_k \right)\wedge\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j\varpi_{\widehat{j}}=\\ &=(dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge\varpi + \left(\sum_{j,k=1}^1(-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ik}\wedge\varpi_k\wedge\varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)=\\ &=(dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge \varpi + \left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j\alpha_{ij}\wedge \varpi\right) =\\ &=\left((dh_i-\eta_i)+\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ij} \right)\wedge \varpi . \end{aligned}$$ And from the definition of the $\eta_i$ we have that $$\begin{aligned} &\left((dh_i-\eta_i)+\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ij} \right)\wedge \varpi =\\ &= \left(-\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ij} +\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^j h_j\alpha_{ij} \right)\wedge \varpi= 0\\ \end{aligned}$$ Then we have an unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ given locally around ${\mathfrak{p}}$ by $$\bigwedge_{i=1}^q (\varpi_i+\varepsilon \eta_i + h_i d\varepsilon)= \varpi+\varepsilon \left(\sum_{i=1}^q \eta_i\wedge \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)+ \left(\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\right)\wedge d\varepsilon.$$ As $\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}\neq 0$ then $\widetilde{\omega}$ does not vanishes on $({\mathfrak{p}},0)$. Reciprocally, let us suppose there is an unfolding $\widetilde{\omega}$ such that $\widetilde{\omega}({\mathfrak{p}},0)\neq 0$. As $\widetilde{\omega}$ satisfies Plücker relations and does not vanish in ${\mathfrak{p}}$, then it decomposes as a product of $1$-forms $\varpi_i+\varepsilon\eta_i+h_id\varepsilon$, $i=1,\dots,q$. As $\widetilde{\omega}\|_{X\times\{0\}}=\omega$ then any local generator $\varpi$ of the image of $\omega$ is locally decomposable as $\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q$. We want to prove that the class $[d\varpi_i]$ of $d\varpi_i$ in $\Omega^2_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}/((\varpi_1,\dots,\varpi_q)\wedge\Omega^1_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}})$ is zero for $i=1,\dots, q$. Let $\mathfrak{q}$ be a point in the support of $[d\varpi]$, then $\omega$ is singular in $\mathfrak{q}$, for otherwise $[d\varpi]=0$ because of the Frobenius condition $d\varpi_i\wedge \varpi = 0$, for $i=1,\ldots,q$. By Equation (\[equnfcodq\]), we have $\sum_{j=1}^q (-1)^jh_j \varpi_{\widehat{j}}({\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0$, in particular not all of the $\varpi_{\widehat{j}}({\mathfrak{p}})$ vanishes. Without any loss of generality, we may assume $\varpi_{\widehat{1}}({\mathfrak{p}})$ does not vanish. Then also $\varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})\neq 0$. But $\varpi(\mathfrak{q})=0$, therefore $\varpi_2(\mathfrak{q}),\dots,\varpi_q(\mathfrak{q})$ are linearly independent and $\varpi_1(\mathfrak{q})$ is a linear combination of them. Hence $\varpi_{\widehat{j}}(\mathfrak{q})=f_j \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})$. Then evaluating Equation (\[equnfcodq\]) in $\mathfrak{q}$, and adding the term $h_{1}(\mathfrak{q}) d\varpi_i(\mathfrak{q}) \wedge \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})$, gives $$h_{1}(\mathfrak{q}) d\varpi_i(\mathfrak{q}) \wedge \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})=(dh_i-\eta_i)\wedge\varpi(\mathfrak{q}) +\left(\sum_{j=2}^q h_j(\mathfrak{q}) f_j(\mathfrak{q})\right)d\varpi_i(\mathfrak{q})\wedge\varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q}) \ .$$ So, after clearing $h_1(\mathfrak{q})\neq 0$, there is a $1$-form $\alpha_{i1}$ such that $$d\varpi_i\wedge \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})= \alpha_{i1}\wedge \varpi_1\wedge \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q}) ,$$ then we have $(d\varpi_i-\alpha_{i1}\wedge\varpi_1)\wedge \varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})=0$, but as $\varpi_{\widehat{1}}(\mathfrak{q})\neq 0$ , this implies that there are forms $\alpha_{ij}$ such that $$(d\varpi_i-\alpha_{i1}\wedge\varpi_1)(\mathfrak{q})=\sum_{j\neq 1}\alpha_{ij}\wedge \varpi_j(\mathfrak{q}).$$ Hence $[d\varpi_i]=0$ in any point of its support, a contradiction, so $[d\varpi_i]=0$ in $\Omega^2_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}}/((\varpi_1,\dots,\varpi_q)\wedge\Omega^1_{X,{\mathfrak{p}}})$. Let ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_X$ be an integrable morphism determining a subsheaf $\mathcal{E}\to\Omega^1_X$. Composing $\omega$ with wedge product gives a morphism ${\mathcal{L}}\otimes\Omega^2_X\xrightarrow{\omega\wedge -} \Omega^{q+2}_X$. As $\omega$ is integrable the sheaf $\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_X$ is in the kernel of $\omega\wedge -$. We define the sheaf $H^2(\omega)$ as $$H^2(\omega):= \ker(\omega\wedge -) /\mathcal{E}\otimes \Omega^1_X.$$ The restriction of the de Rham differential to $\mathcal{E}$ gives a sheaf map $\mathcal{E}\to \Omega^2_X$ which is not ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-linear but whose image is in $ \ker(\omega\wedge -) $ as $\omega$ is integrable. The projection of this map to $H^2(\omega)$ is however ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-linear as $d g\varpi\cong g d\varpi \mod \mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_X$ for every local section $\varpi$ of $\mathcal{E}$. Let us fix ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_X$ be an integrable morphism determining a subsheaf $\mathcal{E}\to\Omega^1_X$. Then we have the following definitions: \[defII\] The subscheme of persistent singularities of $\omega$ is the one defined by the ideal sheaf ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$ to be the annihilator of $d(\mathcal{E})$ in $H^2(\omega)$. In other words the local sections of ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$ in an open set $U\subseteq X$ are given by $${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)(U)=\{ h\in {\mathcal{O}}_X(U): \forall \varpi\in\mathcal{E}(U),\ hd\varpi=\sum_j \alpha_j\wedge\omega_j \},$$ for some local $1$-forms $\alpha_j$ and forms $\omega_j$ in $\mathcal{E}(U)$. We will denote it just as ${\mathscr{I}}$ if no confusion arises. With the following example we are showing that the ideal ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$ can have codimension greater than $2$. Let us consider the $2$-form in ${\mathbb{P}}^3$: $$\begin{aligned} \omega&=(-288 x_2+2880 x_3) dx_0 dx_1+(288 x_1-96 x_3) dx_0 dx_2+\\ &\hspace{.3cm}+(-288 x_0-1152 x_3) dx_1 dx_2+(-2880 x_1+96 x_2) dx_0 dx_3+\\ &\hspace{.3cm}+(2880 x_0+1152 x_2) dx_1 dx_3+(-96 x_0-1152 x_1) dx_2 dx_3 \end{aligned}$$ Suche a differential form it is locally decomposable and locally integrable and has singular locus of codimension 3. The ideal of persistent singularities has also codimension 3. We did the computations using the software [DiffAlg]{}, see [@diffalg]. We can consider an extension of Remark \[[domega]{}\] for $\omega\in\Omega^q_X$. Then: \[defKK\] The subscheme of Kupka singularities of $\omega$ is the one defined by the ideal sheaf ${\mathcal{K}}(\omega):= {\mathrm{ann}}(\{d\omega\})\in \Omega^{q+1}_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$. We will denote it just as ${\mathcal{K}}$ if no confusion arises. We would like to notice that both definitions above coincide to the ones given in the codimension 1 case, as the reader can see by comparing them to Definition \[II2\] and Remark \[remarkI\] and to Defintion \[KK2\], respectively. \[pluckerFiltration\] Given a short exact sequence of modules $$0\to M\to P\to N \to 0,$$ there is a filtration in $\bigwedge^q P$. $$\bigwedge^q P=F^0 \supseteq F^1\supseteq \dots \supseteq F^{q+1}=(0),$$ such that $$F^i/F^{i+1}\cong \bigwedge^{q-i}N\otimes \bigwedge^{i}M.$$ The result follows from defining $F^i\subseteq \bigwedge^q P$ to be the submodule generated by the elements of the form $(m_1\wedge\dots\wedge m_i\wedge a_{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge a_q)$ where $m_j\in M$. \[JJcIIcKK2\] Given an integrable morphism ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_X$ we have the inclusions ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)\subseteq{\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$ and ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega) \subseteq {\mathcal{K}}(\omega)$. If moreover $\omega$ is locally decomposable (i.e.: if ${\mathcal{E}}$ is locally free) then we have ${\mathscr{J}}(\omega)\subseteq{\mathscr{I}}(\omega)\subseteq {\mathcal{K}}(\omega)$. To ease the notation let us set ${\mathscr{J}}={\mathscr{J}}(\omega)$, and likewise with ${\mathscr{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$. Let $h$ be a local section of ${\mathscr{J}}$, and by abuse of notation we will call $\omega$ a local generator of the image of the morphism $\omega:{\mathcal{L}}\to\Omega^q_X$, then by definition of ${\mathscr{J}}$ there is a local $q-1$-vector $v\in \bigwedge^{q}T_X$ such that $h=i_v\omega$. Then taking the filtration $\Omega^2_X=F^0\supseteq F^1\supseteq F^2\supseteq F^3=0$ of lemma \[pluckerFiltration\], we can say that $h$ is in ${\mathscr{I}}$ if and only if for every local section $\varpi \in {\mathcal{E}}$ we have $d\varpi\in F^1$. To establish this we recall that for every local section $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$ the equation $d\varpi\wedge\omega=0$ holds. Then contracting with $v$ we get $$\begin{aligned} 0= i_v(d\varpi\wedge\omega)=\\ =d\varpi\wedge i_v\omega + \sum_{\substack{a_j\in T_X,\ b_j\in \bigwedge^{q-1}T_X\\ a_1\wedge b_1+\dots +a_r\wedge b_r=v}} i_a d\varpi\wedge i_b \omega+ \sum_{\substack{c_j\in \bigwedge^2 T_X,\ d_j\in \bigwedge^{q-2}T_X\\ c_1\wedge d_1+\dots +c_r\wedge d_s=v}} i_c d\varpi \wedge i_d\omega. \end{aligned}$$ By definition of ${\mathcal{E}}$ we have that $i_b \omega$ is a local section of ${\mathcal{E}}$, so every summand of the form $i_a d\varpi \wedge i_b \omega$ is in $\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$. Hence, to see that $hd\omega\in F^1$ it suffices to show that $i_d\omega$ is in $F^1$ for every $d\in \bigwedge^{q-2}T_X$. To see this we can calculate the class of $i_d\omega$ in $\Omega^2_X/F^1=F^0/F^1\cong \bigwedge^2(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{E}})$. The dual sheaf $(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{E}})^\vee \subseteq T_X$ is the distribution defined by $\omega$, that is, is the sheaf of vector fields $w$ such that $i_w\omega=0$. Then, when we evaluate $i_d \omega$ in a section $w_1\wedge w_2\in \bigwedge^2(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{E}})^\vee$ we get $0$. As $\bigwedge^2(\Omega^1_X/{\mathcal{E}})$ is torsion-free then the class of $i_d \omega$ in $\Omega^2_X/F^1$ is zero, then $i_d\omega\in F^1$, which means $h d\omega$ is in $F^1$ as we wanted to show. The second assertion is clear by definition, as ${\mathcal{K}}$ is the annihilator of a section whose support is contained in ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$. Now suppose ${\mathcal{E}}$ is locally free. So we can take local generators $\varpi_1,\dots,\varpi_q$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$, this sections verify that $\omega=\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q$. Then for every section $h$ of ${\mathscr{I}}$ there are local $1$-forms $\alpha_{ij}$ such that $$hd\varpi_i=\sum_{j} \alpha_{ij}\wedge\varpi_j.$$ Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned} hd\omega&=d(\varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q)=\sum_i (-1)^i \varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge d\varpi_i \wedge \varpi_{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q=\\ &=\sum_{i} (-1)^i \varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge (\sum_j \alpha_{ij})\wedge\varpi_j \wedge \varpi_{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q=\\ &=\sum_i \alpha_{ii}\wedge \varpi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\varpi_q=(\sum_i \alpha_{ii})\wedge\omega. \end{aligned}$$ In particular $hd\omega$ vanishes in ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ so $h$ is in ${\mathcal{K}}$. Let $\omega\in \Omega^2_{\mathbb{A}^3}$ be like in Example \[exampleCodimension2inA3\] so we write $$\omega= f_3 dx_1\wedge dx_2+f_2 dx_1\wedge dx_3+f_1 dx_2\wedge dx_3.$$ So we have $$d\omega = \left(\frac{\partial f_3 }{\partial x_3}- \frac{\partial f_2 }{\partial x_2}+ \frac{\partial f_1 }{\partial x_1}\right) dx_1\wedge dx_2\wedge dx_3.$$ For a general choice of the $f_i$’s the restriction $d\omega\|_{{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}}$ does not vanish, so ${\mathscr{J}}={\mathcal{K}}$. However, by setting for instance $f_3=f_3(x_1,x_2)$, $f_2=f_2(x_1,x_3)$ and $f_1=f_1(x_2,x_3)$, we get a form $\omega$ such that $d\omega=0$. With this choice of $\omega$ we have ${\mathcal{K}}={\mathcal{O}}_X$. When computing the ideal ${\mathscr{I}}$ for this case we need to check that $h d\omega_i= \alpha_{i1}\wedge\omega_1+\alpha_{i2}\wedge\omega_2+\alpha_{i3}\wedge\omega_3$ for $i=1,2,3$, where the $\omega_i$’s are the generators of ${\mathcal{E}}$ of Example \[exampleCodimension2inA3\] and $h\in {\mathcal{O}}_X$. Further specializing our choice of $\omega$ we can take $f_3=x_2$ and $f_2=-x_1$, in order to get $d\omega_1=dx_1\wedge dx_2 + dx_1\wedge dx_3$, so clearly $1\notin {\mathscr{I}}(\omega)$. So we see that there are cases where ${\mathcal{K}}={\mathcal{O}}_X$ and $1\notin {\mathscr{I}}$. This is in stark contrast to the situation in codimension $1$ where, from Theorem \[teodivision\], follows that the condition ${\mathscr{J}}=\sqrt{{\mathscr{J}}}$ implies $\sqrt{{\mathscr{I}}}=\sqrt{{\mathcal{K}}}$. \[teoConnectionE\] Let $X$ be a projective variety and ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega_X^q$ be an integrable $q$-form and ${\mathcal{E}}$ be the associated subsheaf of $1$-forms ${\mathcal{E}}\subseteq \Omega^1_X$. Let $\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})$ denote the symmetric power of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and suppose ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=0$. If ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)={\mathcal{O}}_X$ then ${\mathcal{E}}$ admits a holomorphic connection, in particular is locally free (in other words the foliation is locally decomposable) and every Chern class of ${\mathcal{E}}$ vanishes. In order to prove the vanishing of the Chern classes of ${\mathcal{E}}$ we are going to use Atiyah’s classical result [@atiyah Theorem 4, p. 192] which states that if a holomorphic vector bundle on a compact Kähler manifold admits a holomorphic connection, then its Chern classes are all zero. We will then produce a holomorphic connection for ${\mathcal{E}}$ in this case. The condition ${\mathscr{I}}(\omega)={\mathcal{O}}_X$ implies that for every local section $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$ we have $d\varpi=\sum_i\alpha_i\wedge\omega_i$ for some local $1$-forms $\alpha_i$ and $\omega_i \in {\mathcal{E}}$. In other words, de Rham differential applied to sections of ${\mathcal{E}}$ give us a map $d:{\mathcal{E}}\to F^1\subseteq \Omega^2_X$ such that $d(f\varpi)=df\wedge\varpi+fd\varpi$, that is a differential operator of order $1$ between ${\mathcal{E}}$ and $F^1$. We will call $\mathrm{Diff}^{\leq 1}(A, B)$ the set of differential operators of order $\leq 1$ between two sheaves $A$ and $B$. Let us denote with $\mathcal{PE}$ the sheaf of principal parts of ${\mathcal{E}}$ of order $1$, this sheaf is defined by the universal property ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},M)=\mathrm{Diff}^{\leq 1}({\mathcal{E}}, M)$ for every coherent sheaf $M$. So the de Rham differential defines a coherent sheaves morphism $[\nabla]:\mathcal{PE}\to F^1$. To see if we can lift $[\nabla]$ to a morphism $\nabla:\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ defining a connection, we observe that the short exact sequence $0\to\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})\to\Omega^1_X\otimes {\mathcal{E}}\to F^1\to 0$ gives an exact sequence of modules $$\begin{aligned} 0 &\to {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})\to {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1 )\xrightarrow{\delta} \\ &\xrightarrow{\delta} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})\to\cdots \end{aligned}$$ So $[\nabla]$ lifts to a morphism $\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ if and only if is in the kernel of $ {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1)\xrightarrow{\delta} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$. In order to compute ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ recall the short exact sequence of sheaves $$0\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\to \mathcal{PE} \to {\mathcal{E}}\to 0,$$ which give rise to an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned} \cdots\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))&\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to \\ &\to{\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to \cdots\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the group ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ can be regarded as the group of isomorphism classes of extensions of $\mathcal{PE}$ by $\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})$. Viewed like this, the morphism $\delta: {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1 )\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ evaluated at an element $a\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1)$ returns the isomorphism class of the extension $0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})\to A \to \mathcal{PE}\to 0$ where $A$ is the pull-back of the diagram $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d] \ar[r] & \mathcal{PE}\ar[d]^a \\ \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] & F^1 }$$ In particular the composition $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1 )\xrightarrow{\delta} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$$ evaluated at the element $[\nabla] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},F^1 )$ returns the isomorphism class of the extension $0\to \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}) \to B \to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ where $B$ is the pull-back of the diagram $$\xymatrix{ B \ar[d] \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[d]^{[\nabla]\circ i} \\ \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] & F^1 }$$ where $i:\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\to\mathcal{PE}$ is the canonical immersion. Now to compute $[\nabla]\circ i:\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\to F^1$ recall that $[\nabla]$ is defined by being the unique ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-linear morphism making the following diagram commute, $$\xymatrix{ {\mathcal{E}}\ar[d]^{d^{(1)}} \ar[r]^d & F^1 \\ \mathcal{PE} \ar[ru]_{[\nabla]} & }$$ where $d^{(1)}:{\mathcal{E}}\to \mathcal{PE}$ is the universal differential operator of order $1$. Then, as follows from the formulas of [@atiyah p. 193] explicitly describing the ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module structure of $\mathcal{PE}$, given local sections $f$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$ and $\varpi$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$ we have $$[\nabla](df\otimes \varpi) = d(f\varpi)-fd(\varpi).$$ So, $[\nabla]\circ i$ is just the exterior product of forms, hence the sequence $0\to \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}) \to B \to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\to 0$ splits, then the class of $\delta([\nabla])$ in ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ is zero. Therefore $\delta([\nabla])$ is in the image of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))\to {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$. Hence if ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=(0)$ then $\delta([\nabla])=0$. So, if ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=(0)$, then there is a morphism $\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ lifting $[\nabla]$. What we need to prove to conclude is that among the morphisms $\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$, there is one $\nabla:\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ such that $\nabla\|_{\Omega^1_X\otimes {\mathcal{E}}}$ is the identity. To do this we consider the short exact sequence $0\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\to \mathcal{PE}\to {\mathcal{E}}\to 0$ and the exact sequence of ${\mathrm{Hom}}$ groups $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})\to{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\mathcal{PE},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})&\to{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})\xrightarrow{\delta} \\ &\xrightarrow{\delta}{\mathrm{Ext}}^1({\mathcal{E}},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})\to\cdots \end{aligned}$$ The identity is an element $\mathrm{id}\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})$ and we want to show that it is the restriction of some morphism $\nabla:\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$, which is equivalent to the condition $\delta(\mathrm{id})=0$. We already know that there is a morphism $\tilde{\nabla}:\mathcal{PE}\to \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$ lifting $[\nabla]$, so the restriction of $\tilde{\nabla}$ to $\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}$, which we also denote $\tilde{\nabla}$, makes the following diagram commute. $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}) \ar[d] \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[d]^{\tilde{\nabla}} \ar[r] & F^1 \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}) \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] & F^1 \ar[r] & 0 }$$ Being a restriction we have $\delta(\tilde{\nabla})=0$. If we can prove that $\delta(\tilde{\nabla}-\mathrm{id})=0$ then $\delta(\mathrm{id})=0$ and we are set. The image of $\tilde{\nabla}-\mathrm{id}$ is in $\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}})$ so the element $\delta(\tilde{\nabla}-\mathrm{id})\in {\mathrm{Ext}}^1({\mathcal{E}},\Omega_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})$ is the class of the extension in the last row of the diagram: $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[d]^{\tilde{\nabla}-\mathrm{id}} \ar[r] & \mathcal{PE} \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}) \ar[d] \ar[r] & I \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\mathcal{E}}\ar[d] \ar[r] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] & II \ar[r] & {\mathcal{E}}\ar[r] & 0 }$$ Where $I$ and $II$ are push-forwards. If ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=(0)$ then $[I]=0\in {\mathrm{Ext}}^1({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ and so $\delta(\tilde{\nabla}-\mathrm{id})=[II]=0\in {\mathrm{Ext}}^1({\mathcal{E}},\Omega^1_X\otimes{\mathcal{E}})$. So the condition ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=(0)$ implies that there is a connection on ${\mathcal{E}}$. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$ such that every line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ verifies $H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}})=0$ and such that $Pic(X)$ is torsion-free (e.g.: $X$ smooth complete intersection). And let ${\mathcal{L}}\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_X$ be a foliation such that ${\mathcal{E}}\cong\bigoplus_i {\mathcal{L}}_i$ for some line bundles ${\mathcal{L}}_i$. Then ${\mathcal{L}}$ has persistent singularities. As ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a direct sum of line bundles the group ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_X({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))$ decomposes as $${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_X({\mathcal{E}},\mathrm{Sym}^2({\mathcal{E}}))=\bigoplus_{i}\bigoplus_{j\le k} H^1(X,{\mathcal{L}}_i^{-1}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}_j\otimes{\mathcal{L}}_k)=0.$$ So, as $\omega$ is decomposable, if it does not posses persistent singularities then ${\mathscr{I}}={\mathcal{O}}_X$ so by Theorem \[teoConnectionE\] there is a connection on ${\mathcal{E}}$. This implies that the Chern classes of the line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{L}}_q$ are all zero. Then ${\mathcal{L}}_i\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X$ for $i=1,\dots,q$, giving global sections of $\Omega^1_X$, contradicting the fact that $H^0(X,\Omega^1_X)=H^1(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Applications to toric varieties {#section_toric} =============================== In this section we try to generalize some of our results to foliations on varieties that may have singularities. We focus our attention in normal toric varieties and make use of the Cox ring of such a variety to generalize what is known in the case of projective space. Let $X_{\Sigma}$ be a toric variety with no torus factors and let $S$ be its Cox ring graded by $\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma})$, $$S={\mathbb{C}}[x_\rho\,\colon\,\rho\in\Sigma(1)].$$ The graded pieces $S_\beta$ for $\beta\in \text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma})$ consist of toric-homogeneous polynomials. Given $\phi\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma}),{\mathbb{Z}})$, let us define the vector field $R_{\phi}$, $$R_\phi:=\sum_{\rho\in\Sigma(1)}\phi(\rho)x_\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial x_\rho}.$$ Denote $Lie_\phi$ to the Lie derivative with respect to $R_\phi$, $$Lie_\phi=di_{R_{\phi}}+i_{R_{\phi}}d.$$ Let $X_{\Sigma}$ be a toric variety with no torus factors and let $S$ be its Cox ring. A $q$-form $\omega=\sum a_I dx_I$ with coefficients in $S$ has (homogeneous) degree $\beta\in\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma})$ if $a_Ix_I\in S_{\beta}$ for all multi-index $\|I\|=q$. Clearly if $\omega'$ is a $q'$-form of degree $\beta'$, then $\omega\wedge\omega'$ has degree $\beta+\beta'$. Furthermore, the degree of $d\omega$ and of $i_{R_{\phi}}(\omega)$ is also $\beta$. Let $X_{\Sigma}$ be a toric variety with no torus factors and free class group $\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma})$. The following are equivalent for a $q$-form $\omega$, - $\omega$ has degree $\beta$. - $Lie_\phi(\omega)=\phi(\beta)\omega$ for all $\phi\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma}),{\mathbb{Z}})$ Given that $Lie_\phi$ is a derivation and commutes with $d$, the result follows from the $0$-form case, see [@COX Exercise 8.1.8, p. 357], $$Lie_{\phi}(f)=\phi(\beta)f,\quad \forall f\in S_\beta.$$ Let $X_{\Sigma}$ be a toric variety with no torus factors and let $S$ be its Cox ring. A $q$-form $\omega$ with coefficients in $S$ is said to descend to $X_{\Sigma}$ if $i_{R_\phi}\omega=0$ for all $\phi\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(\text{Cl}(X_{\Sigma}),{\mathbb{Z}})$. Let $X_{\Sigma}$ be a simplicial toric variety with no torus factors and let $\omega$ be a $q$-form of degree $\beta$. Let $\widehat{\Omega}^q=(\Omega^q)^{\vee\vee}$ be the sheaf of Zariski $q$-forms, [@COX Equation 8.0.5, p. 347]. The following are equivalent, - $\omega$ descends to $X_{\Sigma}$. - $\omega\in H^0(X_{\Sigma},\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$. If $\omega$ is a $1$-form, the result follows from [@COX Corollary 8.1.5, p. 354] and [@COX Theorem 8.1.6, p. 355]. The general case follows from [@COX Corollary 8.2.17, p. 368] and [@COX Theorem 8.2.16, p. 367]. \[prop1notinI\] Let $X_\Sigma$ be a projective simplicial toric variety (hence with no torus factors) and let $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$. If $d\omega=\omega\wedge\eta$ for some $1$-form $\eta$, then $\beta$ is a torsion element and $d\omega=0$. Let us apply the contraction with respect to the radial field $R_\phi$, where $\phi:\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ is some linear function, $$i_{R_\phi}(d\omega)=i_{R_\phi}(\omega\wedge\eta)\Longrightarrow \phi(\beta)\omega+\omega i_{R_\phi}(\eta)=0\Longrightarrow \phi(\beta)+i_{R_\phi}(\eta)=0.$$ Given that the degree of $d\omega$ is equal to the degree of $\omega$, it follows that the degree of $\eta$ is $0\in\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)$, $$\eta=\sum_{\rho\in\Sigma(1)} a_{\rho}dx_{\rho}\Longrightarrow -\phi(\beta)=\sum_{\rho\in\Sigma(1)} \phi(\rho)a_{\rho}x_{\rho}\Longrightarrow \phi(\beta)\in\langle x_\rho\,\colon\,\rho\in\Sigma(1)\rangle.$$ Since $X_{\Sigma}$ has no torus factors, it follows $\phi(\beta)=0$ for all $\phi$ and this implies $\beta$ a torsion element and $\eta\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^1)$, but from [@materov Theorem 2.14], $H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^1)=0$. Hence, $\eta=0$ and then $d\omega=0$. It is a priori unclear what a foliation is when the ambient space is singular. At the very least, we should ask a foliation on a singular space $X$ to restrict to a foliation on its maximal non-singular subscheme $U$. When $X$ is a normal variety, which is the case we will consider here, $U$ is an open subscheme whose complement $X\setminus U$ is a closed subset of codimension at least $2$. So whatever a codimension $q$ foliation on such an $X$ is, it should determine a morphism $L\xrightarrow{\omega}\Omega^q_{U}$ for some line bundle on $U$ verifying the Plücker relations and integrability. As $X$ is normal and the complement of $U$ is of codimension at least $2$ then restriction of line bundles defines an isomorphism $\mathrm{Pic}(X)\simeq\mathrm{Pic}(U)$, so there is a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ on $X$ such that ${\mathcal{L}}\|_U\simeq L$. So the foliation on $U$ defines a section (which we also call $\omega$ by abuse of notation) $\omega \in \Gamma(U, \Omega^q_X\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}\|_U)$. Would $\Omega^q_X$ be a reflexive sheaf, a section on $U$ would extend in a unique way to a section on the whole $X$, this needs not to be the case if $X$ has singularities. To remedy this we can take the reflexive hull of $\Omega^q_X$, this sheaf is known as the sheaf of Zariski $q$-forms on $X$, we denote it by $\widehat{\Omega}^q_X$ and is defined as the double dual $\widehat{\Omega}^q_X:=({\Omega^q_X})^{\vee\vee}$. As $U$ is by definition a non-singular open subcheme we have identifications $\Omega^q_U=\Omega^q_X\|_U=\widehat{\Omega}^q_X\|_U$. Therefore a foliation on $X$ defines a section $\omega\in\Gamma(U, \widehat{\Omega}^q_X\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1})$, as $X$ is normal, $\widehat{\Omega}^q_X\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$ is a reflexive sheaf on $X$ and $\omega$ is a section defined outside a codimension $2$ subset, there is a unique way in which $\omega$ extends to a global section of $\widehat{\Omega}^q_X\otimes{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}$. As $\omega\|_U$ verify the Plücker relations and the integrability condition, so does its global extension. We see in this way that considering twisted Zariski forms which are integrable is general enough and, as we will see bellow, is also manageable enough. Let $X_\Sigma$ be a toric variety, let $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$. We say that $\omega$ defines a codimension $q$ foliation if ${\mathrm{codim}}({\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)})\ge 2$ and for all $\eta\in E$, $$\begin{array}{rcl} i_\Xi(\omega)\wedge\omega=0,&\forall\,\Xi\in\bigwedge^{q-1}T_S&\text{(Pl\"ucker relations),}\\ i_\Xi(\omega)\wedge d\omega=,0&\forall\,\Xi\in\bigwedge^{q-1}T_S&\text{(locally integrable).} \end{array}$$ Notice that if the first condition is true, then the second condition is equivalent to $d(i_\Xi(\omega))\wedge\omega=0$. The ideal of singularities of $\omega$ is the ideal in the Cox ring $S$ generated by the coefficients of $\omega$, $$J(\omega)=\{i_\Xi(\omega)\,\colon\, \Xi\in\bigwedge^{q}T_S\}\subseteq S.$$ Analogously, define $J(d\omega)$ as the ideal of coefficients of $d\omega\in\widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_S$. Notice that if $\beta$ is not a torsion element, there exists $\phi:\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\phi(\beta)\neq 0$ and then contracting with $R_{\phi}$, the equation $i_{R_{\phi}}d\omega=\phi(\beta)\omega$ implies $J(\omega)\subseteq J(d\omega)$. Let $$E:=\{\eta\,\colon\,\eta\wedge\omega=0\} \subseteq\widehat\Omega^1_S.$$ The ideal of persistent singularities is $$I(\omega):= (E\wedge\widehat{\Omega}^1_S\,:dE)= \bigcap_{\eta\in E}(E\wedge\widehat{\Omega}^1_S\,:d\eta)$$ and the Kupka ideal is defined as the colon ideal, $$K(\omega):=(J\cdot \widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_S:d\omega). $$ The subscheme of persistent singularities ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}$ is defined by the homogeneous ideal $I(\omega)\subseteq S$, the subscheme of singularities ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ by $J(\omega)$ and the Kupka subscheme ${\mathpzc{Kup}(\omega)}$ by $K(\omega)$. In this simple example we show that the ideals $J(\omega)$ and $I(\omega)$ might be nontrivial ideals of the Cox ring although they may define empty subschemes. Let $\omega$ be the following $1$-form $$\omega=-x_3dx_2+x_2dx_3$$ and let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the vector fields, $$R_1= x_0\partial_{x_0}+x_1\partial_{x_1} ,\quad R_2= x_2\partial_{x_2}+x_3\partial_{x_3}.$$ Notice that, $$d\omega= 2dx_2\wedge dx_3 ,\quad i_{R_1}d\omega= 0 =0\omega ,\quad i_{R_2}d\omega= -2x_3dx_2+2x_2dx_3 =2\omega.$$ So clearly $\omega\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^1\times{\mathbb{P}}^1,\Omega^1(0,2))$. Indeed, $\omega$ is the pull-back $\pi_2^\eta$, where $\pi_2:{\mathbb{P}}^1\times{\mathbb{P}}^1\to{\mathbb{P}}^1$ is the projection on the second factor and $\eta\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^1,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^1}(2))$ is the unique (up to multiplication by a constant) global $1$-form of degree $2$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^1$. Then the foliation defined by $\omega$ is non-singular, its leaves being the subvarieties ${\mathbb{P}}^1\times\{p\}$ with $p\in{\mathbb{P}}^1$. Also note that in this case $I(\omega)=J(\omega)=(x_3,x_2)$ is a non-trivial ideal of the Cox ring although it contains the irrelevant ideal of ${\mathbb{P}}^1\times{\mathbb{P}}^1$ (so they define the empty subscheme in $X_{\Sigma}$) in accordance to the foliation defined by $\omega$ being non-singular. Let $X_\Sigma$ be a toric variety and let $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$. The sheaves associated to $J(\omega)$, $K(\omega)$ and $I(\omega)$ are $\mathscr{J}(\omega)$, $\mathscr{K}(\omega)$ and $\mathscr{I}(\omega)$ respectively. First of all, if $\omega=\sum a_Idx_I$, then $J(\omega)$ is the ideal generated by $\{a_I\}$. Hence, $\Gamma_{}(\mathscr{J}(\omega))=J(\omega)$. Now, let ${\mathfrak{p}}\in X_\Sigma$ and consider the stalk $K(\omega)_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Then, $K(\omega)_{{\mathfrak{p}}}=(J_{\mathfrak{p}}\cdot \widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_{\mathfrak{p}}:d\omega)= \{f\in S_{\mathfrak{p}}\,\colon\,fd\omega\in J_{\mathfrak{p}}\cdot \widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_{\mathfrak{p}}\}$ and this is equal to the annihilator of $d\omega$ in $\widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_{\mathfrak{p}}/(J_{\mathfrak{p}}\cdot \widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_{\mathfrak{p}})\cong \widehat{\Omega}^{q+1}_{\mathfrak{p}}\otimes (S/J)_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Hence, $\Gamma_{}(\mathscr{K}(\omega))=K(\omega)$. Finally, $I(\omega)_{\mathfrak{p}}=\{f\in S_p\,\colon\,fd\varpi=\sum \alpha_j\wedge\varpi_j \text{ where } \varpi,\varpi_j\in E_{\mathfrak{p}}\}=\mathscr{I}(\omega)_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Then, $\Gamma_{}(\mathscr{I}(\omega))=I(\omega)$. Let $X_\Sigma$ be a projective simplicial toric variety and let $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$ be a codimension $q$ foliation such that $\omega$ is locally decomposable on $X_\Sigma$ (e.g. $q=1$). If $H^1(X_\Sigma,\mathcal{E})=0$ and $\beta$ not a torsion element, then ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}\neq\emptyset$, where $\mathcal{E}=\{\eta\in\widehat\Omega^1\,\colon\,\omega\wedge\eta=0\}$. Let $\{U_r\}$ be an open cover trivializing ${\mathcal{O}}_X(\beta)$ and let $(g_{rs},U_{rs})$ be a 1-cocycle in $\check{H}^1(X_\Sigma,{\mathcal{O}}_{X_\Sigma}^)$ such that $\omega_{r}=g_{rs}\omega_s$ in $\Gamma(U_{rs},\widehat{\Omega}^q)$, where $U_{rs}:=U_r\cap U_s$. Assume ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}=\emptyset$. On $U_r$, the $q$-form $\omega_r$ is decomposable and there exists $\eta_r\in\Gamma(U_r,\widehat\Omega^1)$ such that $d\omega_r=\eta_r\wedge\omega_r$. Indeed, if $\omega_r=\varpi_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\varpi_q$, then $d\varpi_i=\sum\theta_{ij}\wedge\varpi_j$ because ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}=\emptyset$. Then $d\omega_r=(\sum\theta_{ii})\wedge\omega_r$. Now, on $U_{rs}$ we have, $$\eta_r\wedge\omega_r=d\omega_r=d(g_{rs}\omega_s)=dg_{rs}\wedge\omega_s+g_{rs}d\omega_s= dg_{rs}\wedge\omega_s+g_{rs}\eta_s\wedge\omega_s\Longrightarrow$$ $$(\eta_r-dg_{rs}/g_{rs}-\eta_s)\wedge\omega_s=0\Longrightarrow \overline\eta_r-\overline\eta_s=\overline{dg_{rs}/g_{rs}}\in \Gamma(U_{rs},\widehat\Omega^1/\mathcal{E}).$$ Hence, the 1-cocycle $(dg_{rs}/g_{rs},U_{rs})$ is in the kernel of the map $$\check{H}^1(X_{\Sigma},\widehat\Omega^1)\to \check{H}^1(X_{\Sigma},\widehat\Omega^1/\mathcal{E})$$ which is $0=\check{H}^1(X_\Sigma,\mathcal{E})$. Then, $0=[(dg_{\alpha\beta}/g_{\alpha\beta},U_{\alpha\beta})] \in \check{H}^1(X_{\Sigma},\widehat\Omega^1)$. Now, let us recall several results from complete simplicial toric varieties. By [@COX proof of Theorem 12.3.11, p. 588] $H^2(X_\Sigma,\mathbb{C})\cong H^1(X_{\Sigma},\widehat\Omega^1)$, by [@COX Theorem 12.3.2, p. 577] $H^2(X_\Sigma,\mathbb{C})\cong \text{Pic}(X_\Sigma)_{\mathbb{C}}$ and by [@COX Proposition 4.2.7, p. 180] $\text{Pic}(X_\Sigma)_{\mathbb{C}}\cong\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)_{\mathbb{C}}$. Then, $$H^1(X_{\Sigma},\widehat\Omega^1)\cong\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)_{\mathbb{C}}.$$ Hence, $[\beta]=0$ in $\text{Cl}(X_\Sigma)_{\mathbb{C}}$ and this implies $\beta$ is a torsion element. Let $X_\Sigma$ be a projective simplicial toric variety and let $\omega\in H^0(X_\Sigma,\widehat{\Omega}^q(\beta))$ be a codimension $q$ foliation such that $\widehat{\Omega}^1/{\mathcal{E}}$ is reflexive. If $H^1(X_\Sigma,\mathcal{E})=0$ and $\beta$ not a torsion element, then ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}\neq\emptyset$. Let $\mathrm{Sing}(X_\Sigma)$ be the singular locus of $X_\Sigma$ and let $Z:=\text{Sing}(X_\Sigma)\cup{\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ which has codimension $\ge 2$. Let $\{U_r\}$ be an open cover trivializing ${\mathcal{O}}_X(\beta)$ and let $(g_{rs},U_{rs})$ be a 1-cocycle in $\check{H}^1(X_\Sigma,{\mathcal{O}}_{X_\Sigma}^)$ such that $\omega_{r}=g_{rs}\omega_s$ in $\Gamma(U_{rs},\widehat{\Omega}^q)$, where $U_{rs}:=U_r\cap U_s$. Assume ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}=\emptyset$. Take an open cover $\{V_a\}$ of $U_r\setminus Z$ small enough such that the $q$-form $\omega_r$ is decomposable. Hence, as before, there exists $\zeta_a\in\Gamma(V_a,\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}})$ such that $d\omega_r=\zeta_a\wedge\omega_r$ on $V_a$. Notice that $\zeta_a-\zeta_b=0$ in $\Gamma(V_a\cap V_b,\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}})$. Then, $\zeta_r:=\{(\zeta_a,V_a)\}$ defines a section in $\check H^0(U_r\setminus Z,\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}})$. Being $\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}}$ reflexive, there exists a unique extension $\eta_r\in\check H^0(U_r,\widehat\Omega^1/{\mathcal{E}})$ and it satisfies $d\omega_r-\eta_r\wedge\omega_r\in \Gamma_Z(U_r,\widehat\Omega^{q+1})$. From the reflexivity of $\widehat\Omega^{q+1}$, we get $\Gamma_Z(U_r,\widehat\Omega^{q+1})=0$. Then, $d\omega_r=\eta_r\wedge\omega_r$ in $\Gamma(U_r,\widehat\Omega^{q+1})$. The result follows by repeating the arguments of the previous proof. Let $\omega$ be the following $1$-form $$\omega= x_2^2x_0dx_1-x_2^2x_1dx_0+x_0^2x_2dx_3-x_0^2x_3dx_2$$ and let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the vector fields, $$R_1= x_0\partial_{x_0}+x_1\partial_{x_1} ,\quad R_2= x_2\partial_{x_2}+x_3\partial_{x_3}.$$ Clearly $\omega\in H^0({\mathbb{P}}^1\times{\mathbb{P}}^1,\Omega^1(2,2))$ and, as $H^1({\mathbb{P}}^1\times{\mathbb{P}}^1,{\mathcal{O}}(-2,-2))=0$ it follows from the previous corollary that $\omega$ must have persistent singularities. Indeed $$\begin{aligned} d\omega&= 2x_2^2dx_0\wedge dx_1+(2x_1x_2-2x_0x_3)dx_0\wedge dx_2\\ &-2x_0x_2dx_1\wedge dx_2+ 2x_0x_2dx_0\wedge dx_3+2x_0^2dx_2\wedge dx_3,\\ i_{R_1}d\omega&= -2x_1x_2^2dx_0+2x_0x_2^2dx_1-2x_0^2x_3dx_2+2x_0^2x_2dx_3 =2\omega,\\ i_{R_2}d\omega&= -2x_1x_2^2dx_0+2x_0x_2^2dx_1-2x_0^2x_3dx_2+2x_0^2x_2dx_3 =2\omega.\end{aligned}$$ And from this one can compute the ideal $I(\omega)$, it turns out to be $$I(\omega)= (x_0^2, x_3 x_0 + x_4 x_1, x_4 x_0, x_4^2),\quad \sqrt{I(\omega)}=(x_0,x_4).$$ This computations were done with [DiffAlg]{}, see [@diffalg]. The singular ideal in this case is $J(\omega)=(x_0^2, x_4^2)$, so ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}$ and ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$ have equal reduced structure although their scheme structure is not the same. Here we provide an example were the subscheme ${\mathpzc{Per}(\omega)}$ is supported on a proper closed subset of ${\mathrm{Sing}(\omega)}$. This example was done with [DiffAlg]{}, see [@diffalg]. Let $\omega$ be the following $1$-form $$\omega = x_1x_2x_3dx_0+x_0x_2x_3dx_1+2x_0x_1x_3dx_2-2x_0x_1x_2dx_3$$ and let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the vector fields, $$R_1= x_0\partial_{x_0}+x_1\partial_{x_1}+x_3\partial_{x_3} ,\quad R_2= x_2\partial_{x_2}+x_3\partial_{x_3}.$$ Then, it is easy to see that $i_{R_1}\omega=i_{R_2}\omega=0$, hence $\omega$ defines a $1$-form over the Hirzebruch surface $\mathcal{H}_1\cong \text{Bl}_{p}({\mathbb{P}}^2)$ of bi-degree $(2,3)$. From $$\begin{aligned} d\omega&= x_1x_3dx_0\wedge dx_2+ x_0x_3dx_1\wedge dx_2 -3x_1x_2dx_0\wedge dx_3\\ &-3x_0x_2dx_1\wedge dx_3-4x_0x_1dx_2\wedge dx_3,\\ i_{R_1}d\omega&= 3x_1x_2x_3dx_0+3x_0x_2x_3dx_1+6x_0x_1x_3dx_2-6x_0x_1x_2dx_3 =3\omega,\\ i_{R_2}d\omega&= 2x_1x_2x_3dx_0+2x_0x_2x_3dx_1+4x_0x_1x_3dx_2-4x_0x_1x_2dx_3 =2\omega,\end{aligned}$$ follows that $$I(\omega)=(x_2,x_1)\cap (x_1,x_0)\cap (x_2,x_3),\quad J(\omega)=(x_2,x_1)\cap (x_1,x_0)\cap (x_2,x_3)\cap (x_0, x_3).$$ [CACGLN04]{} M. F. Atiyah. Complex analytic connections in fibre bundles. , 85(1):181–207, 1957. O. Calvo-Andrade. Irreducible components of the space of holomorphic foliations. , 299(4):751–767, 1994. O. Calvo-Andrade. Foliations with a [K]{}upka component on algebraic manifolds. , 30(2):183–197, 1999. O. Calvo Andrade. . Instituto Interuniversitario de estudios de Iberoam[é]{}rica y Portugal, 2003. O. Calvo-Andrade. Foliations of codimension greater than one with a kupka component. , 8(2):241–253, 2009. O. Calvo-Andrade, D. Cerveau, L. Giraldo, and A. Lins Neto. Irreducible components of the space of foliations associated to the affine lie algebra. , 24(4):987–1014, 2004. O. Calvo-Andrade, L. G. Mendes, and I. Pan. Foliations with radial [K]{}upka set and pencils of [C]{}alabi-[Y]{}au hypersurfaces. , 142(6):1587–1593, 2006. D. Cerveau and A. Lins Neto. Irreducible components of the space of holomorphic foliations of degree two in [$\mathbf C{\rm P}(n)$]{}, [$n\geq 3$]{}. , 143(3):577–612, 1996. D. Cerveau, A. Lins Neto, and S. J. Edixhoven. Pull-back components of the space of holomorphic foliations on [${\mathbb C}{\mathbb P}(n)$]{}, [$n\geq 3$]{}. , 10(4):695–711, 2001. D. A. Cox, J. B. Little, and H. K. Schenck. , volume 124 of [Graduate Studies in Mathematics]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011. F. Cukierman and J. V. Pereira. Stability of holomorphic foliations with split tangent sheaf. , 130(2):413–439, 2008. F. Cukierman, J. V. Pereira, and I. Vainsencher. Stability of foliations induced by rational maps. , 18(4):685–715, 2009. F. Cukierman, M. G. Soares, and I. Vainsencher. Singularities of logarithmic foliations. , 142(1):131–142, 2006. A. S. De Medeiros. Structural stability of integrable differential forms. In [Geometry and topology]{}, pages 395–428. Springer, 1977. A. S. De Medeiros. Singular foliations and differential $ p $-forms. In [Annales de la Facult[é]{} des sciences de Toulouse: Math[é]{}matiques]{}, volume 9, pages 451–466, 2000. M. Dubinsky, C. Massri, A. Molinuevo, and F. Quallbrunn. Diff[A]{}lg: a [D]{}ifferential algebra package. , 9:11–17, 2019. D. Eisenbud. , volume 150 of [Graduate Texts in Mathematics]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. With a view toward algebraic geometry. P. Griffiths and J. Harris. . Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1994. Reprint of the 1978 original. I. M. Gelfand, M. M. Kapranov, and A. V. Zelevinsky. . Modern Birkhäuser Classics. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2008. Reprint of the 1994 edition. X. G[ó]{}mez-Mont and A. Lins Neto. Structural stability of singular holomorphic foliations having a meromorphic first integral. , 30(3):315–334, 1991. J. P. [Jouanolou]{}. , volume 708. Springer, Cham, 1979. I. Kupka. The singularities of integrable structurally stable [P]{}faffian forms. , 52:1431–1432, 1964. B. Malgrange. Frobenius avec singularités. [I]{}. [C]{}odimension un. , (46):163–173, 1976. B. Malgrange. Frobenius avec singularités. [II]{}. [L]{}e cas général. , 39(1):67–89, 1977. E. N. Materov. The [B]{}ott formula for toric varieties. , 2(1):161–182, 200, 2002. C. Massri, A. Molinuevo, and F. Quallbrunn. The kupka scheme and unfoldings. , 22(6):1025–1046, 2018. A. Molinuevo. Unfoldings and deformations of rational and logarithmic foliations. , 66(4):1583–1613, 2016. F. Quallbrunn. Families of distributions and [P]{}faff systems under duality. , 11:164–189, 2015. K. Saito. On a generalization of de-[R]{}ham lemma. , 26(2):vii, 165–170, 1976. T. Suwa. Unfoldings of codimension one complex analytic foliation singularities. In [Singularity theory ([T]{}rieste, 1991)]{}, pages 817–865. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1995. ----------------------------- -- César Massri$^$ Ariel Molinuevo$^\dag$ Federico Quallbrunn$^\ddag$ ----------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------- -- $^$[Departamento de Matemática]{} [Pabellón I]{} [Ciudad Universitaria]{} [CP C1428EGA]{} [Buenos Aires]{} [Argentina]{} $^\dag$Instituto de Matemática Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Caixa Postal 68530 CEP. 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro - RJ BRASIL ---------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------- -- $^\ddag$ Departamento de Matemática Universidad CAECE Av. de Mayo 866 CP C1084AAQ [Buenos Aires]{} [Argentina]{} ------------------------------------- -- [^1]: The author was fully supported by CONICET, Argentina. [^2]: The author was fully supported by Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We offer the following explanation of the statement of the Kuratowski graph planarity criterion and of $6/7$ of the statement of the Robertson–Seymour–Thomas intrinsic linking criterion. Let us call a cell complex [dichotomial]{} if to every nonempty cell there corresponds a unique nonempty cell with the complementary set of vertices. Then every dichotomial cell complex is PL homeomorphic to a sphere; there exist precisely two $3$-dimensional dichotomial cell complexes, and their $1$-skeleta are $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$; and precisely six $4$-dimensional ones, and their $1$-skeleta all but one graphs of the Petersen family. In higher dimensions $n\ge 3$, we observe that in order to characterize those compact $n$-polyhedra that embed in $\R^{2n}$ in terms of finitely many “prohibited minors”, it suffices to establish finiteness of the list of all $(n-1)$-connected $n$-dimensional finite cell complexes that do not embed in $\R^{2n}$ yet all their proper subcomplexes and proper cell-like combinatorial quotients embed there. Our main result is that this list contains the $n$-skeleta of $(2n+1)$-dimensional dichotomial cell complexes. The $2$-skeleta of $5$-dimensional dichotomial cell complexes include (apart from the three joins of the $i$-skeleta of $(2i+2)$-simplices) at least ten non-simplicial complexes. address: 'Steklov Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Gubkina 8, Moscow, 119991 Russia' author: - 'Sergey A. Melikhov' title: Combinatorics of embeddings --- [^1] Introduction {#intro} ============ This introduction attempts to motivate the notions we eventually arrive at. The fast reader may want to first look at the Main Theorem and its corollaries in §\[dichotomial spheres\]; these involve only the (very short) definitions of linkless and knotless embeddings (in §\[graphs\]), of a cell complex (in §\[notation\]) and of an $h$-minor (in §\[h-minors\]). However most of the examples and remarks in §\[section:main\] do depend on much of the preceding development. The constructively minded reader might be best guided by §\[algorithmic\], which explains how non-algorithmic topological notions such as PL spheres and contractible polyhedra can be eliminated from our results and conjectures. All posets, and in particular simplicial complexes, shall be implicitly assumed to be finite. By a [graph]{} we mean a $1$-dimensional simplicial complex (so no loops or multiple edges). By a [circuit]{} in a graph we mean a connected subgraph with all vertices of degree $2$. Following the terminology of PL topology (as opposed to that of convex geometry), by a [polyhedron]{} we mean a space triangulable by a simplicial complex, and moreover endowed with a PL structure, i.e. a family of compatible triangulations (see e.g. [@Hu]); by our convention above, all polyhedra are compact. The polyhedron triangulated by a simplicial complex $K$ is denoted $\|K\|$. All [maps]{} between polyhedra shall be assumed piecewise linear, unless stated otherwise. Two embeddings $f$, $g$ of a polyhedron in a sphere are considered [equivalent]{} if they are related by an isotopy $h_t$ of the sphere (i.e. $h_0=\operatorname{id}$ and $h_1f=g$). Graphs ------ The complete graph $K_5$ and the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ (also known as the utilities graph) are shown in Fig. 1. They can be viewed as the $1$-skeleton $(\Delta^4)^{(1)}$ of the $4$-simplex and the join $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$ of two copies of the three-point set. A graph $G$ contains no subgraph that is a subdivision of $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ iff $\|G\|$ embeds in $S^2$. Known proofs of the ‘only if’ part involve exhaustion of cases. A relatively short proof was given by Yu. Makarychev [@Mak] and further developed in [@Sk-A1]. An interesting configuration space approach was suggested by Sarkaria [@Sa3] (but beware of an error, pointed out in [@Sk-M]). Given the considerable difficulty of the result, it is astonishing that besides Kuratowski’s own proof [@Ku] (announced in 1929), there were independent contemporary proofs: by L. S. Pontryagin (unpublished[^2], but acknowledged in Kuratowski’s original paper [@Ku]), and by O. Frink and P. A. Smith, announced in 1930 [@FS], [@Wh]. A useful reformulation of Kuratowski’s theorem was suggested by K. Wagner [@Wa]. The following non-standard definition is equivalent to the standard one (see Proposition \[nevo\] below). We call a graph $H$ a [minor]{} of a graph $G$, if $H$ is obtained from a subgraph $F$ of $G$ by a sequence of edge contractions, where an edge contraction as a simplicial map $f$ that shrinks one edge $\{v_1,v_2\}$ onto a vertex, provided that $\operatorname{lk}\{v_1\}\cap\operatorname{lk}\{v_2\}=\emptyset$. The latter condition is equivalent to saying that all point-inverses of $\|f\|$ are points, except for one point inverse, which is an edge. It is easy to see that $S^2$ modulo an arc is homeomorphic to $S^2$ (cf. Lemma \[trivial\]); hence if $\|G\|$ embeds in $S^2$ and $H$ is a minor of $G$, then $\|H\|$ embeds in $S^2$. This observation along with Kuratowski’s theorem immediately imply A graph $G$ has no minor isomorphic to $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ iff $\|G\|$ embeds in $S^2$. We are now ready for a more substantial application of minors. We call an embedding $g$ of a $1$-polyhedron $\Gamma$ in $S^m$ [knotless]{} if for every circuit $C\subset\Gamma$, the restriction of $g$ to $C$ is an unknot. We call an embedding $g$ of a polyhedron $X$ into $S^m$ [linkless]{} if for every two disjoint closed subpolyhedra of $g(X)$, one is contained in an $m$-ball disjoint from the other one. An $n$-polyhedron admitting no linkless embedding in $S^{2n+1}$ is also known in the literature (at least for $n=1$) as an “intrinsically linked” polyhedron. ![image](graphs) For $n>1$, the notion of a linkless embedding in $S^{2n+1}$ can be reformulated in terms of linking numbers of pairs of [co]{}cycles (see Lemma \[circuits\] and Lemma \[is-linkless\]). When $n=1$, variations of the notion of “linking” (such as existence of a nontrivial two-component sublink, or of a two-component sublink with nonzero linking number) lead to inequivalent versions of the notion of a linkless embedding in $\R^3$. It is amazing, however, that they all become equivalent upon adding a quantifier: \[RST0\] Let $G$ be a graph. If $\|G\|$ admits an embedding in $S^3$ that links every pair of disjoint circuits with an even linking number, then $\|G\|$ admits a linkless, knotless embedding in $S^3$. This is a very powerful result; it implies, [inter alia]{}, that the Whitney trick can be made to work in dimension four in a certain limited class of problems (Theorem \[Whitney\]). Theorem \[RST0\] above as well as the following Theorem \[RST\] are essentially due to Robertson, Seymour and Thomas [@RST], [@RST']; they had a different formulation but its equivalence with the present one is relatively easy [@M2] (see also Lemma \[panels\] and Remark \[erratum\] below). \[RST\] Let $G$ be a graph. \(a) Two linkless, knotless embeddings of $\|G\|$ in $S^3$ are inequivalent iff they differ already on $\|H\|$ for some subgraph $H$ of $G$, isomorphic to a subdivision of $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$. \(b) $\|G\|$ linklessly embeds in $S^3$ iff $G$ has no minor in the Petersen family. The [Petersen family]{} of graphs is shown in Fig. 1 (disregard the colors for now) and includes the Petersen graph $P$, the complete graph $K_6$, the complete tripartite graph $K_{3,3,1}$, the graph $K_{4,4}\but$(edge), and three further graphs which we denote $\Gamma_7$, $\Gamma_8$ and $\Gamma_9$. These seven graphs can be defined as all the graphs obtainable from $K_6$ by a sequence of $\nabla{\mathrm Y}$- and ${\mathrm Y}\nabla$-[exchanges]{}, which as their name suggests interchange a copy of the $1$-skeleton of a $2$-simplex $\Delta^2\subset\Delta^3$ with a copy of the triod, identified with the remaining edges of the $1$-skeleton of $\Delta^3$. Of course, (a) can be reformulated in terms of minors, for given a minor $H$ of $G$ and a knotless and linkless embedding of $\|G\|$ in $S^3$, the homeomorphism $S^3/\text{tree}\cong S^3$ (see Lemma \[trivial\]) yields a knotless and linkless embedding of $\|H\|$ in $S^3$, unique up to equivalence (by an orientation-preserving homeomorphism of $S^3$). Robertson and Seymour have proved, in a series of twenty papers spanning over 500 pages, that every minor-closed family of graphs is characterized by a finite set of forbidden minors (see [@Di] for an outline). Let us abbreviate “a subdivision of a subgraph” to a [$\tau$-subgraph]{}. There exists a $\tau$-subgraph-closed family of trees that is not characterized by a finite set of forbidden $\tau$-subgraphs (cf. [@Di §12, Exercise 5]). However, it is well-known and easy to see that every minor-closed family of graphs that is characterized by a finite set $S$ of forbidden minors is also characterized by a possibly larger but still finite set $S^+$ of forbidden $\tau$-subgraphs. (For each $G\in S$ and each $v\in G$, replace the star $\operatorname{st}(v,G)$ by a tree with $\deg v$ leaves and no vertices of degree $2$. Since for every $v$ there are only finitely many such trees, we obtain a finite set of graphs containing $S^+$.) It is easy to see that $\{K_5,\,K_{3,3}\}^+=\{K_5,\,K_{3,3}\}$, but $\Pi^+\ne\Pi$ where $\Pi$ is the Petersen family. Y. Colin de Verdiere introduced a combinatorially defined invariant $\mu(G)$ of the graph $G$, for which it is known that $\mu(G)\le 3$ iff $\|G\|$ is planar, and $\mu(G)\le 4$ iff $\|G\|$ admits a linkless embedding in $S^3$ (see [@LS], [@Iz]). Van der Holst conjectured that $\mu(G)\le 5$ iff $\|\hat G\|$ has zero $\bmod 2$ van Kampen obstruction, where $\hat G$ is the cell complex obtained by glueing up all circuits in $G$ by $2$-cells [@Ho]. His supporting evidence for this conjecture is that if $G$ is any of the 78 graphs (called the [Heawood family]{} in [@Ho]), related by a sequence of $\nabla$Y- and Y$\nabla$-exchanges to $K_7$ or $K_{3,3,1,1}$, then $\mu(G)=6$, and $\|\hat G\|$ has nonzero $\bmod 2$ van Kampen obstruction (so in particular does not embed in $S^4$); but if $H$ is a proper minor of $G$, then $\mu(G)\le 5$ and $\|\hat H\|$ has zero $\bmod 2$ van Kampen obstruction [@Ho]. On the other hand, since $K_7$ contains circuits of length $\ge 4$, $\hat K_7$ itself contains a [proper]{} subcomplex isomorphic to the $2$-skeleton of the $6$-simplex, and it is well-known (see [@M2]) that $\|(\Delta^6)^{(2)}\|$ still has a nonzero $\bmod 2$ van Kampen obstruction. The similar proper subcomplex of $\hat K_{3,3,1,1}$ is discussed in §\[dichotomial spheres\] below. Let $E_n$ stand for “the problem of embeddability of a certain $n$-polyhedron in $S^{2n}$”, and let $L_n$ stand for “the problem of linkless embeddability of a certain $n$-polyhedron in $S^{2n+1}$”; it is understood that the polyhedron is specified, but nevertheless omitted in the notation. In §\[commensurability\] we describe a reduction (if and only if) of every $E_n$ to an $L_n$; and of every $L_n$ to an $E_{n+1}$ (Theorem \[commensuration\]). The construction is geometric, i.e. does not involve configuration spaces. The case $n=1$ was also done by van der Holst [@Ho]. Let us mention other known relations between embeddability and linkless embeddability. (i) M. Skopenkov has derived the non-embeddability of a certain $n$-polyhedron in $S^{2n}$ from non-existence of linkless embeddings of its links of vertices in $S^{2n-1}$ (thereby reducing a certain $E_n$ to a few $L_{n-1}$’s) by a geometric argument [@Sk-M2]. (ii) Conversely, the author derived the linkless non-embeddability of the $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+3)$-simplex in $S^{2n+1}$ from the fact that the $(n+1)$-skeleton of the $(2n+4)$-simplex has nonzero van Kampen obstruction even modulo $2$ (thereby reducing a certain $L_n$ to a certain strengthened $E_{n+1}$ by an algebraic argument with configuration spaces) [@M2 Example 4.7]. (iii) An odd-dimensional version of the van Kampen obstruction $\theta_{2n}$ to an $E_n$ can be identified as a complete obstruction $\theta_{2n+1}$ to an $L_n$ [@M2]. Arguments which might relate to a possible common higher dimensional generalization of the Kuratowski and Robertson–Seymour–Thomas theorems could include, apart from those in §\[commensurability\], those in [@Sa0], [@Sa1] (see also [@Um1]), [@Sk-A2]. Unfortunately, the present paper gives little clue to understanding [proofs]{} of the Kuratowski and Robertson–Seymour–Thomas theorems, but it does attempt to provide a better understanding of their [statements]{}. To this end let us first look at a more statistically representative selection of cases. Self-dual complexes ------------------- MacLane and Adkisson proved that two embeddings of a $1$-polyhedron $\Gamma$ in the plane are inequivalent iff they differ already on a copy of $S^1$ or on a copy of the triod contained in $\Gamma$ [@AdM]. We restate this as follows. If $K$ is a simplicial complex, then two embeddings of $\|K\|$ in $S^2$ are inequivalent iff they differ already on $\|L\|$ for some subcomplex $L$ of $K$, isomorphic to $\Delta^2$ or $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}\Delta^0$ or a subdivision of $\Delta^0\sqcup\partial\Delta^2$. It is quite obvious also that $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^1$ iff $K$ contains no subcomplex isomorphic to $\Delta^2$ or $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}\Delta^0$ or a subdivision of $\Delta^0\sqcup\partial\Delta^2$. Halin and Jung were able to go one dimension higher and gave a list of prohibited subcomplexes for the problem of embedding of a $2$-polyhedron in the plane [@HJ]. We again restate it as applied to the problem of embedding a polyhedron of an arbitrary dimension in $S^2$: If $K$ is a simplicial complex, $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^2$ iff it does not contain a subcomplex, isomorphic to a subdivision of $K_5$, $K_{3,3}$, or one of the following complexes: $$\begin{gathered} HJ_0\bydef\Delta^3,\\ HJ_1\bydef\Delta^0\sqcup\partial\Delta^3,\\ HJ_2\bydef\Delta^0(\Delta^0\sqcup\partial\Delta^2),\\ HJ_3\bydef\Delta^1\partial\Delta^1\emptyset\cup \partial\Delta^1\emptyset\Delta^0\cup\emptyset\Delta^1\emptyset,\\ HJ_4\bydef(\Delta^2)^{(0)}\Delta^1,\\ HJ_5\bydef\Delta^2\emptyset\cup(\Delta^2)^{(0)}\partial\Delta^1.\\\end{gathered}$$ See [@MTW Appendix A] for pictures of $HJ_1$ through $HJ_5$. We note that $\|HJ_0\|$, $\|HJ_3\|$, $\|HJ_4\|$ and $\|HJ_5\|$ each contain a subpolyhedron homeomorphic to one of $\|K_5\|$, $\|K_{3,3}\|$, $\|HJ_1\|$ and $\|HJ_2\|$. This leads to a shorter list of prohibited [subpolyhedra]{} for the problem of embedding a polyhedron in $S^2$. A proof of this weak version of the Halin–Jung theorem is rather easy modulo the Kuratowski theorem (see [@Sk-A1]). A statement like that of the preceding theorem might look bewildering, and just like with the previously mentioned results, its proof does not seem to explain what is special about these particular complexes. But the following definition, going back to Schild [@Sch], does it, by $7/8$: A subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^n$ is called [self-dual]{} in $\partial\Delta^n$ if it contains precisely one face out of each pair $\Delta^k$, $\Delta^{n-k-1}$ of complementary faces of $\Delta^n$. Now observe that $K_5$, as well as each $HJ_i$, is self-dual as a subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^4$. Indeed, this is obvious for $HJ_0$. But each $HJ_{i+1}$, can be obtained from $HJ_i$ by exchanging a pair of complementary faces of $\partial\Delta^4$, except that $HJ_5$ is obtained in this way from $HJ_3$ not $HJ_4$. Also, $K_5$ is obtained in this way from $HJ_5$. It is not hard to check that the seven complexes $K_5$ and the $HJ_i$, are in fact all the self-dual subcomplexes of $\partial\Delta^4$ (up to isomorphism). Note that $K_{3,3}$ is missing in this picture (but see Example \[Halin-Jung revisited\] below). Similarly one can check that the three complexes $\Delta^2$, $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}\Delta^0$ and $\Delta^0\sqcup\partial\Delta^2$ in the MacLane–Adkisson theorem are precisely all the self-dual subcomplexes of $\partial\Delta^3$. This is no coincidence; in fact, the following general result already implies that the prohibited subcomplexes that occur in the Kuratowski, MacLane–Adkisson and Halin–Jung theorems as well as in part (a) of the Robertson–Seymour–Thomas theorem [must]{} occur there (possibly along with some additional ones). \[self-dual\] Let $K=K_1\dotsK_r$, where each $K_i$ is a self-dual subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^{m_i}$, where $m_1+\dots+m_r=m$. Then \(a) [(Schild, 1993)]{} $\|K\|$ does not embed in $S^{m-2}$; but $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^{m-2}$ for every proper subcomplex $L$ of $K$; \(b) every embedding $g$ of $\|K\|$ in $S^{m-1}$ is inequivalent to $hg$, where $h$ is an orientation-reversing homeomorphism of $S^{m-1}$; but for every proper subcomplex $L$ of $K$, the restrictions of $j$ and $hj$ to $\|L\|$ are equivalent, where $j$ denotes the inclusion of $\|K\|$ in $\|\partial\Delta^{m_1}\dots\partial\Delta^{m_r}\|=S^{m-1}$. A simple proof of the assertions on proper subcomplexes in (a) and (b) is given below. A simple proof of the non-embeddability in (a) and the inequivalence in (b) is given in §\[embeddings\], where we also elaborate on historic/logical antecedents of Theorem \[self-dual\]. Let $\sigma$ be a maximal simplex of $K$ that is not in $L$. Then $\sigma=\sigma_1\dots\sigma_r$, where each $\sigma_i$ is a maximal (and in particular nonempty) simplex of $K_i$. Since $K_i$ is self-dual, the complementary simplex $\tau_i$ to $\sigma_i$ is not in $K_i$. It follows that $L\subset(\partial\tau_1\dots\partial\tau_r)\partial\sigma$. The latter is a combinatorial sphere, which is of codimension $r+1$ in the $(m+r-1)$-simplex $(\tau_1\dots\tau_r)\sigma=\Delta^{m_1}\dots\Delta^{m_r}$. The preceding construction exhibits, within the sphere $S^{m-1}$ that contains $\|K\|$, an embedded copy of $S^{m-2}$ that contains $\|L\|$. Let $r{\colon}S^{m-1}\to S^{m-1}$ be the reflection in $S^{m-2}$. Then $hr^{-1}=hr$ is orientation preserving, and so is isotopic to the identity by the Alexander trick. Hence $hj$ is equivalent to $rj=j$. \[van Kampen\] The above construction can be easily extended (cf. [@M2 Example 3.5]) to yield, for any maximal simplex $\sigma$ of $K$, a map $f_\sigma{\colon}\|K\|\to S^{m-1}$ with precisely one double point, one of whose two preimages lies in the interior of $\|\sigma\|$. This implies that every proper subpolyhedron $P$ of $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^{2m-2}$. Indeed, since $P$ is compact, it is disjoint from some point in the interior of $\|\sigma\|$ for some maximal face $\sigma$ of $K$, and therefore from a disk $D$ in the interior of $\|\sigma\|$. Then $P$ is embedded in $S^{m-1}$ by $f_\sigma$ precomposed with an appropriate self-homeomorphism of $\|K\|$, fixed outside $\|\sigma\|$. We shall next see that Theorem \[self-dual\] is not as exciting as it might appear to be. Collapsible and cell-like maps ------------------------------ In this subsection we assume familiarity with collapsing and regular neighborhoods (see e.g. [@Hu]). The following fact is well-known. \[trivial\] If $Q$ is a collapsible subpolyhedron of a manifold $M$, then the quotient $M/Q$ is homeomorphic to $M$. Let $N$ be a regular neighborhood of $Q$ in $M$. Since $Q$ is collapsible, $N$ is a ball. On the other hand, $N/Q$ is homeomorphic rel $\partial N$ to $pt\partial N$, which is also a ball. This yields a homeomorphism $N\to pt\partial N$ keeping $\partial N$ fixed, which extends by the identity to a homeomorphism $M\to M/Q$. Let us call a map between polyhedra [finite-collapsible]{} if it is the composition of a sequence of quotient maps, each shrinking a collapsible subpolyhedron to a point. \[finite-collapsible\] Let $f{\colon}P\to Q$ be a finite-collapsible map between polyhedra. If $P$ embeds in $S^m$, then so does $Q$. We use this nearly trivial observation to give a simple proof of a result by Zaks [@Za] (see also [@Um2], [@Sa1 3.7.1]); as a byproduct, we also get a slightly stronger statement: \[Zaks\] For each $n\ge 2$ there exists an infinite list of pairwise non-homeomorphic compact $(n-1)$-connected $n$-polyhedra $P_i$ such that each $P_i$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$, but every its proper subpolyhedron does. Zaks’ series of examples satisfied the conclusion of Theorem \[Zaks\] except for being $(n-1)$-connected. Let $K$ be the $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+2)$-simplex and let $\sigma$ be an $(n-1)$-simplex of $K$. By inspection, it is a face of at least three $n$-simplices; let $\tau$ be one of them. Let $b$ be the barycenter of $\sigma$, and let $B_i$ (resp. $D_i$) be the star of $b$ in the $i$th barycentric subdivision of $\tau$ (resp. of $\sigma$). Let $C_i$ be the closure of $\|\partial B_i\|\but \|D_i\|$; it is a codimension one ball properly embedded in $\|\tau\|$, with boundary sphere embedded in $\|\sigma\|$. Given a positive integer $r$, let $P_r$ be the polyhedron obtained from $P_0\bydef\|K\|$ by shrinking each $C_i$ to a point $p_i$ for $i=1,\dots,r$. Then the quotient map $f_r{\colon}P_0\to P_r$ is finite-collapsible, and sends $\|B_1\|$ onto a collapsible polyhedron $X_r$. The quotient $P_r/X_r$ is homeomorphic to $P_0/\|B_1\|$ and therefore to $P_0$. Thus we obtain a finite-collapsible map $g_r{\colon}P_r\to P_0$. The links of the points $p_i$ in $P_r$ are homeomorphic to each other and not homeomorphic to the link of any other point in $P_r$. Consequently, $P_0,P_1,P_2,\dots$ are pairwise non-homeomorphic. Since $P_0$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$ (see Theorem \[self-dual\]), and $g_r$ is finite-collapsible, $P_r$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$. If $Q$ is a proper subpolyhedron of $P_r$, then $R\bydef f_r^{-1}(Q)$ is a proper subpolyhedron of $P_0$, and $f_r\|_R{\colon}R\to Q$ is clearly finite-collapsible. Since $R$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ (see Remark \[van Kampen\]), so does $Q$. A map between polyhedra is called [collapsible]{}, resp. [cell-like]{} if every its point-inverse is collapsible, resp. contractible (and so, in particular, nonempty). The following generalization of Corollary \[finite-collapsible\] is a relatively easy consequence of well-known classical results. \[minors embed\] (a) If $f{\colon}P\to Q$ is a collapsible map between polyhedra, and $P$ embeds in a manifold $M$, then $Q$ embeds in $M$. \(b) If $f{\colon}P\to Q$ is a cell-like map between $n$-polyhedra, and $P$ embeds in an $m$-manifold $M$, where $m\ge n+3$, then $Q$ embeds in $M$. The proof is not hard and quite instructive, but as this introduction is getting a bit too involved we defer it until §\[collapsing\]. There we also elaborate on the following \[quasi-embedding\] If $f{\colon}X\to Y$ is a map between $n$-polyhedra whose nondegenerate point-inverses lie in a subpolyhedron of dimension $\le m-n-2$, and $X$ embeds in $S^m$, then $Y$ embeds in $S^m$. The given embedding of $X$ extends by general position to an embedding of $X\cup_Z MC(f\|_Z)$, where $Z$ is the given subpolyhedron and $MC$ denotes the mapping cylinder. On the other hand, the point-inverses of the projection $X\cup_Z MC(f\|_Z)\to Y$ are cones, so Theorem \[minors embed\](a) yields an embedding of $Y$. Let us call a polyhedron $Z$ an [$h$-minor]{} of a polyhedron $X$, if there exists a subpolyhedron $Y$ of $X$ and a cell-like map $Y\to Z$. (We note that composition of cell-like maps is obviously cell-like, cf. [@Sm]; see also [@Hat comment to Corollary 2.3] for a combinatorial proof.) By Theorem \[minors embed\](a), all $h$-minors of an $n$-polyhedron embeddable in $S^m$, $m-n\ge 3$, also embed in $S^m$. One could hope that using $h$-minors instead of subpolyhedra enables one to prevent Theorem \[Zaks\] from “driving us from the paradise” which Theorem \[self-dual\] might seem to promise. This is not so: using Corollary \[quasi-embedding\], it is easy to construct an infinite list $P_0,P_1,\dots$ of pairwise non-homeomorphic $n$-polyhedra, $n\ge 3$, such that each $P_i$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$, but every its proper (in any reasonable sense) $h$-minor embeds in $S^{2n}$. In fact, the original examples of Zaks [@Za] work (compare [@Ne 6.5]). However, all such examples (Zaks’ examples and their modifications constructed using Corollary \[quasi-embedding\]) are not going to be $(n-1)$-connected. Relevance of $(n-1)$-connected $n$-polyhedra is ensured by the following observation. \[connected\] Let $P$ be an $n$-polyhedron, $n\ne 2$, that embeds in $S^{2n}$. Then $P$ embeds in an $(n-1)$-connected $n$-polyhedron $Q$ such that $Q$ embeds in $S^{2n}$. We shall show that more generally if $P$ is an $n$-polyhedron, $n\ge 2$, with vanishing van Kampen obstruction, then $P$ embeds in a polyhedron $Q$ with vanishing van Kampen obstruction. The van Kampen obstruction is well-known to be complete for $n\ne 2$ (see [@M2] and Remark \[erratum2\] below). Let $K$ be some triangulation of $P$. By general position $P\cup \|CK^{(n-2)}\|$ embeds in $S^{2n}$. So without loss of generality $P$ is $(n-2)$-connected. Then $P$ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of $(n-1)$-spheres. If $n=2$, $\pi_1(P)$ is finitely generated (and even finitely presented). If $n\ge 3$, $P$ is simply-connected, hence $\pi_{n-1}(P)$ is finitely generated over $\Z$ (see [@tD 20.6.2(3)] for a new simple proof of this classical result). Let $f_i{\colon}S^{n-1}\to P$ represent the free homotopy classes of some finite basis of $\pi_{n-1}(P)$. We may amend the $f_i$ so that the image of each $f_i$ meets each $n$-simplex of $K$. Let $Q$ be obtained by adjoining $n$-disks to $P$ along the $f_i$. By construction, $Q$ is $(n-1)$-connected. Moreover, due to our choice of the $f_i$, the van Kampen obstruction of $Q$ is zero. \[dual-collapsible\] The proof of Theorem \[minors embed\](a) works to establish it for the more general class of dual-collapsible maps. A map is [dual-collapsible]{} if it can be triangulated by a simplicial map $f{\colon}K\to L$ such that for each simplex $\tau$ of $L$, its dual cone $\tau^$ has collapsible preimage $\|f^{-1}(\tau^)\|$. It can be shown that composition of dual-collapsible maps is dual-collapsible (which seems not to be the case for collapsible maps, even though it happens to be the case for collapsible retractions [@Co2 8.6]). Many assertions in the present paper involving cell-like maps (directly or through $h$-minors), including the statement of the main theorem, hold for dual-collapsible maps. Edge-minors ----------- An [edge contraction]{} is a simplicial map $f{\colon}K\to L$ that sends every edge onto an edge, apart from one edge $\{v_1,v_2\}$ which it shrinks onto a vertex. We call $f$ admissible if $\operatorname{lk}\{v_1\}\cap\operatorname{lk}\{v_2\}=\operatorname{lk}\{v_1,v_2\}$. An equivalent condition is that $\{v_1,v_2\}$ is not contained in any “missing face” of $K$, i.e. in an isomorphic copy of $\partial\Delta^n$ in $K$ that does not extend to an isomorphic copy of $\Delta^n$ in $K$. We define a simplicial complex $L$ to be an [edge-minor]{} of a simplicial complex $K$ if $L$ is obtained from a subcomplex of $K$ by a sequence of admissible edge contractions. Yet another equivalent formulation of the admissibility condition is that every point-inverse of $\|f\|$ is collapsible. This has the following consequences: 1. If $f{\colon}K\to L$ is an edge contraction, and $\Lambda$ is a subcomplex of $L$, then $f\|_{f^{-1}(\Lambda)}$ is either an edge contraction or a homeomorphism. 2. If $L$ is an edge-minor of $K$ and $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^m$, then $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^m$. E. Nevo considered a slightly different definition of a “minor” which we shall term a [Nevo minor]{} [@Ne]. It is similar to that of edge-minor, with the following amendment. We call an edge contraction $f{\colon}K\to L$, where $\dim K=n$, Nevo-admissible, if the $(n-2)$-skeleton $(\operatorname{lk}\{v_1\}\cap\operatorname{lk}\{v_2\})^{(n-2)}=\operatorname{lk}\{v_1,v_2\}$; an equivalent condition is that $\{v_1,v_2\}$ is not contained in any missing face of $K$ of (missing) dimension $\le n$. Note that in the case of graphs this is a vacuous condition. \[nevo\] The notions of Nevo minor and edge-minor are equivalent. The author learned from E. Nevo that the published version of his paper in fact contains this remark, which was also pointed out by his referee. We note that Proposition \[nevo\] along with assertion (2) above yields a proof of Conjecture 1.3 in [@Ne]: if $L$ is a Nevo minor of $K$, and $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^m$, then $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^m$. By assertion (1) above, it suffices to show that if $f{\colon}K\to L$ is a Nevo-admissible edge contraction, then $L$ is a minor of $K$. Suppose that $f$ shrinks an edge $e=\{v_1,v_2\}$. If $f$ is not admissible, $\operatorname{lk}(v_1)\cap\operatorname{lk}(v_2)$ is the union of $\operatorname{lk}(e)$ with a nonempty collection of $(n-1)$-simplices $\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_k$. Let $K^+$ be the subcomplex of $K$ obtained by removing the $n$-simplices $\{v_0\}\sigma_i$ from $K$. Then $f\|_{K^+}{\colon}K^+\to L$ is an admissible edge contraction. Hence $L$ is a minor of $K$. \[Steinitz\] A simplicial complex of dimension $\le 2$ is an edge-minor of every its subdivision. This is proved in §\[edge-minors2\] using innermost circle arguments. Since every triangulation $T$ of $S^2$ is easily seen to be a subdivision of $\partial\Delta^3$, Lemma \[Steinitz\] implies the result of Steinitz (1934) that $\partial\Delta^3$ is a minor of $T$; see [@Zo] and [@Su]. In contrast, there exists a subdivision $S$ of $\partial\Delta^4$ such that $\partial\Delta^4$ is not an edge-minor of $S$; see [@Ne Example 6.1]. The preceding results now imply the following version of the Halin–Jung theorem: A simplicial complex $K$ has no edge-minors among the seven self-dual subcomplexes of $\partial\Delta^4$ along with $K_{3,3}$ iff $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^2$. Since a given (finite) simplicial complex only has finitely many minors, this yields an algorithm deciding embeddability of $\|K\|$ in $S^2$. A presumably faster, but more elaborate algorithm is discussed in [@MTW]. \[self-dual-addendum\] Let $K=K_1\dotsK_r$, where each $K_i$ is a self-dual subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^{m_i}$, where $m_1+\dots+m_r=m$, and let $L$ be a proper edge-minor of $K$. Then \(a) $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^{m-2}$; \(b) the embeddings of $\|L\|$ in $S^{m-1}$ induced by $j$ and $hj$ are equivalent, where $j$ is the inclusion of $\|K\|$ in $S^{m-1}\bydef\|\partial\Delta^{m_1}\dots\partial\Delta^{m_r}\|$, and $h$ is an orientation-reversing homeomorphism of $S^{m-1}$. The proof, given in §\[edge-minors2\], is reminiscent of the above argument towards Theorem \[self-dual\]. Hemi-icosahedron and hemi-dodecahedron {#semi} -------------------------------------- The central symmetry of $\R^3$ in the origin yields a simplicial free involution on the boundary of a regular icosahedron centered at the origin. Its quotient by this involution is a simplicial complex $\R P^2_\triangle$ with $6$ vertices, triangulating the real projective plane. It is easy to see that its $1$-skeleton is the complete graph $K_6$, and for each pair of disjoint circuits in $K_6$, precisely one bounds a $2$-simplex in $\R P^2_\triangle$. Hence $\R P^2_\triangle$ is self-dual as a subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^5$ (compare [@Mat 5.8.5]). By Theorem \[self-dual\] this implies that the projective plane $\R P^2=\|\R P^2_\triangle\|$ does not embed in $S^3$, embeds in $S^4$, and every embedding of $\R P^2$ in $S^4$ is inequivalent to its reflection. In fact, every embedding of $\R P^2$ in $S^4$ with fundamental group of the complement isomorphic to $\Z/2$ is known to be topologically equivalent to either the standard embedding or its reflection [@La3]. A well-known $9$-vertex triangulation of $\C P^2$ [@KB] (see [@MY], [@BD1], [@MS], [@BD3] for other constructions) is easily seen to be self-dual as a subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^8$. Thus Theorem \[self-dual\] applies again. In this connection we note that every embedding of $\C P^2$ in $S^7$ is known to be equivalent to either the standard embedding or its reflection [@Sk-A3]. In fact, it is known that a combinatorial $n$-manifold with $v$ vertices is self-dual as a subcomplex of $\partial\Delta^{v-1}$ if and only if $2v=3n+6$ [@ArM] (if), [@Da] (only if). Combinatorial $n$-manifolds with $\frac{3n}2+3$ vertices can only occur in dimensions $n=0,2,4,8,16$ and with a $\bmod 2$ cohomology ring isomorphic to that of the respective projective plane [@BK1] (see also [@La2]). In dimensions $2$ and $4$ these are unique (up to a relabelling of vertices); an algebraic topology proof can be found in [@ArM] and a combinatorial one in [@BD2]. In dimension $8$, there exist three self-dual subcomplexes of $\partial\Delta^{14}$, all triangulating a certain $8$-manifold $\Ham P^2_{(?)}$ [@BK2]. The existence in dimension $16$ seems to be still open. Theorem \[self-dual\] now implies \[1.10\] The join of $r$ copies of $\R P^2$, $c$ copies of $\C P^2$ and $h$ copies of $\Ham P^2_{(?)}$ embeds in $S^{5r+8c+14h-1}$ and does not embed in $S^{5r+8c+14h-2}$. Every embedding $g$ of this join in $S^{5r+8c+14h-1}$ is inequivalent to $hg$, where $h$ is an orientation reversing homeomorphism of the sphere. We note that $K_6$ admits an embedding in $S^3$ that links any given disjoint circuits $\|C\|$, $\|C'\|$ in $\|K_6\|$ with any given odd linking number and does not link any other disjoint pair of circuits. Similar arguments work to prove the same assertion for any other graph of the Petersen family (cf. Remark \[hemi-exchanges\]). Indeed, one of $C$, $C'$ bounds a simplex in the semi-icosahedron and the other one can be identified with $\R P^1$. Thus $K_6$ is the $1$-skeleton of a triangulation of the Möbius band $\mu$ where $\partial\mu$ and the middle curve of $\mu$ are triangulated by $C$ and $C'$. Using various embeddings of $\mu$ in $S^3$, e.g. those corresponding to all half-odd-integer framings of the trivial knot, we obtain embeddings of $K_6$ in $S^3$ with $\operatorname{lk}(\|C\|,\|C'\|)$ equal to any given odd number and all other disjoint pairs of circuits geometrically unlinked. Similarly to the hemi-icosahedron $\R P^2_\triangle$ we have the hemi-dodecahedron $\R P^2_\bigstar$ (compare [@McS §6C]), whose $1$-skeleton is the Petersen graph $P$, and for each pair of disjoint circuits in $P$, precisely one bounds a cell in $\R P^2_\bigstar$. This suggests that we should not be too fixed on simplicial complexes; this will be our next concern. Main results {#section:main} ============ By a cell complex we mean what can be described as a finite CW-complex where each attaching map is a homeomorphism of the sphere onto a subcomplex. (We recall that we assume all maps between polyhedra to be PL by default.) Note that the empty set is not a cell in our notation. Cell complexes, and in particular simplicial complexes, are uniquely determined by their face posets, so we may alternatively view them as posets of a special kind. This view is inherent in the following combinatorial notation [@M3]. Combinatorial notation {#notation} ---------------------- Given a poset $P$ and a $\sigma\in P$, the [cone]{} $\fll\sigma\flr$ (resp. the [dual cone]{} $\cel\sigma\cer$) is the subposet of all $\tau\in P$ such that $\tau\le\sigma$ (resp. $\tau\ge\sigma$). The [prejoin]{} $P+Q$ of posets $P=(\mathcal P,\le)$ and $Q=(\mathcal Q,\le)$ is the poset $(\mathcal P\sqcup\mathcal Q,\le)$, where $\mathcal P$ and $\mathcal Q$ retain their original orders, and every $p\in\mathcal P$ is set to be less than every $q\in\mathcal Q$. The [cone]{} $CP=P+\{\hat 1\}$ and the [dual cone]{} $C^P=\{\hat 0\}+P$, where $\{\hat 1\}$ and $\{\hat 0\}$ are just fancy notations for the one-element poset. The [boundary]{} $\partial Q$ of a cone $Q=CP$ is the original poset $P$, and the [coboundary]{} $\partial^Q$ of a dual cone $Q=C^P$ is again $P$. Given a finite set $S$, we denote the poset of all subsets of $S$ by $2^S$; and the poset $\partial^2^S$ of all nonempty subsets by $\Delta^S$. When $S$ has cardinality $n+1$ and the nature of its elements is irrelevant, the [(combinatorial) $n$-simplex]{} $\Delta^S$ is also denoted $\Delta^n$. We call a poset $P$ a [simplicial complex]{} if it is a complete quasi-lattice (i.e. every subset of $P$ that has an upper bound in $P$ has a least upper bound in $P$; or equivalently every subset of $P$ that has a lower bound in $P$ has a greatest lower bound in $P$), and every cone of $P$ is order-isomorphic to a simplex. For a poset $P$ we distinguish its [barycentric subdivision]{} $P^\flat$ that is the poset of all nonempty chains in $P$, ordered by inclusion, and the [order complex]{} $\|P\|$ that is the polyhedron triangulated by the simplicial complex $P^\flat$. It should be noted that many fundamental homeomorphisms in combinatorial topology can be promoted to combinatorial isomorphisms by upgrading from the barycentric subdivision to the [canonical subdivision]{} $P^\#$ that is the poset of all order intervals in $P$, ordered by inclusion [@BBC], [@M3]. We call a poset $P$ a [cell complex]{} if for every $p\in P$ the order complex $\|\partial\fll p\flr\|$ is homeomorphic to a sphere. It is not hard to see that the so defined cell/simplicial complexes are precisely the posets of nonempty faces of the customary cell/simplicial complexes [@M3] (the case of cell complexes is trivial and well-known [@Mc], [@Bj]). General posets may be thought of as “cone complexes” [@vK2], [@Mc], [@M3], and their order-preserving maps may be thought of as “conical” maps. From now on, we switch to the new formalism. A few more auxiliary definitions follow. The [dual]{} of a poset $P=(\mathcal P,\le)$ is the poset $P^\bydef(\mathcal P,\ge)$. We note that $2^S$ is isomorphic to its own dual (by taking the complement); and therefore so is $\partial\Delta^S=\partial(\partial^2^S)$. A poset $Q=(\mathcal Q,\preceq)$ is a [subposet]{} of $P$ if $\mathcal Q$ is a subset of $\mathcal P$, and $p\preceq q$ iff $p\le q$ for all $p,q\in\mathcal Q$. We will often identify a poset with its underlying set by an abuse of notation. A subposet $Q$ of $P$ is a [subcomplex]{} of $P$ if the cone (in $P$) of every element of $Q$ lies in $Q$. Let $P=(\mathcal P,\le)$ and $Q=(\mathcal Q,\le)$ be posets. The [product]{} $P\x Q$ is the poset $(\mathcal P\x\mathcal Q,\preceq)$, where $(p,q)\preceq (p',q')$ iff $p\le p'$ and $q\le q'$. It is easy to see that $2^S\x 2^T\simeq 2^{S\sqcup T}$ naturally in $S$ and $T$. The [join]{} $PQ\bydef\partial^(C^P\x C^Q)$ is obtained from $(C^P)\x (C^Q)$ by removing the bottom element $(\hat0,\hat0)$. Thus $C^(PQ)\simeq C^P\x C^Q$, whereas $PQ$ itself is the union $C^P\x Q\cup P\x C^Q$ along their common part $P\x Q$. From the above, $\Delta^S\Delta^T\simeq\Delta^{S\sqcup T}$ naturally in $S$ and $T$. It follows that the join of simplicial complexes $K\subset\Delta^S$ and $L\subset\Delta^T$ is isomorphic to the simplicial complex $\{\sigma\cup\tau\subset S\sqcup T\mid\sigma\in K\cup\{\emptyset\}, \tau\in L\cup\{\emptyset\},\,\sigma\cup\tau\ne\emptyset\}\subset\Delta^{S\sqcup T}$. The join and the prejoin are related via barycentric subdivision: $(P+Q)^\flat\simeq P^\flatQ^\flat$. Indeed, a nonempty finite chain in $P+Q$ consists of a finite chain in $P$ and a finite chain in $Q$, at least one of which is nonempty. Note that in contrast to prejoin, join is commutative: $PQ\simeq QP$. Prejoin is associative; in particular, $C(C^P)\simeq C^(CP)$. [h]{}-Minors of cell complexes {#h-minors} -------------------------------- We call a cell complex $L$ an [$h$-minor]{} of a cell complex $K$, if there exists a subcomplex $M$ of $K$ and an order preserving map $f{\colon}M\to K$ such that on the level of order complexes, $\|f\|{\colon}\|M\|\to\|K\|$ is a cell-like map. (Note that cell-like maps include dual-collapsible maps, see Remark \[dual-collapsible\].) \[subdivision\] If a simplicial complex $L$ is an edge-minor of a simplicial complex $K$, then of course $L$ is an $h$-minor of $K$; but not vice versa. Indeed, let $K$ be a simplicial complex and $K'$ its simplicial subdivision such that $K'$ is not an edge-minor of $K$ (see [@Ne Example 6.1]); we may fix an identification of their order complexes. Let $f{\colon}K'\to K$ send every $\sigma\in K'$ to the minimal $\tau\in K$ such that $\|\sigma\|\subset\|\tau\|$. Then $f$ is an order preserving map such that $\|f^{-1}(\fll\tau\flr)\|$ is an $n$-ball for each $n$-simplex $\tau\in K$. (This understanding of a subdivision also arises in the study of PL transversality [@M3] and in that of combinatorial grassmanians [@Mn].) It is easy to see that $\|f^{-1}(\fll\tau\flr)\|$ collapses onto $\|f^{-1}(\tau)\|$ for each $\tau\in K$, and it follows that $\|f\|$ is a cell-like map. More generally, we say that an order preserving map $f{\colon}P'\to P$ between posets is a [subdivision]{} if $\|f^{-1}(\fll\tau\flr)\|$ is homeomorphic to $\|Cf^{-1}(\partial\fll\tau\flr)\|$ by a homeomorphism fixed on $\|f^{-1}(\partial\fll\tau\flr)\|$. It is easy to see that $\|f\|$ is a cell-like map and $\|P'\|$ is homeomorphic to $\|P\|$ [@M3] (see also [@Ak], [@DM 1.4] for a special case). In particular, a cell complex is an $h$-minor of every its simplicial subdivision. Another special case of taking an $h$-minor is zipping. Given a poset $P$ and a $\sigma\in P$ such that $\fll\sigma\flr$ is isomorphic to $Q+\Delta^1$ for some $Q$, by an isomorphism $h$, we say that $P$ [elementarily zips]{} to $P/h^{-1}(\Delta^1)$ (the quotient in the concrete category of posets over the category of sets, cf. [@AHS]). A [zipping]{} is a sequence of elementary zippings. It is not hard to see that if $K$ edge-contracts to $L$, then $K$ zips to $L$ (for instance, it takes two elementary zippings to zip a $2$-simplex onto a $1$-simplex). The author learned from E. Nevo that he has independently observed this fact, and that a definition of zipping appears in Reading’s paper [@Re]. In fact, we borrow the term “zipping” from that paper. E. Nevo also observed that if $K$ elementarily zips to $L$, then the barycentric subdivision $K^\flat$ edge-contracts to $L^\flat$ in two steps. We shall encounter a modification of zipping with $\Delta^1$ replaced by $C((\Delta^2)^{(0)})$, as well as zipping itself, in the proof of Proposition \[homology mfld\]. \[conjecture:main\] For each $n$ there exist only finitely many $n$-dimensional cell complexes $K$ such that $\|K\|$ is $(n-1)$-connected and does not embed in $S^{2n}$, but $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ for each proper $h$-minor $L$ of $K$. The author is not absolutely committed to this particular formulation, but he strongly feels that at least some reasonable modification of this conjecture should hold. Some variations are discussed in §\[algorithmic\]. Dichotomial spheres {#dichotomial spheres} ------------------- Some members of the list in the preceding conjecture are provided by the following result. Let $B$ be an $m$-dimensional [dichotomial]{} cell complex, that is a cell complex that together with each cell $A$ contains a unique cell $\bar A$ whose vertices are precisely all the vertices of $B$ that are not in $A$. Let $K$ be the $n$-skeleton of $B$, where $m=2n+1$ or $2n+2$, and let $L$ be any proper $h$-minor of $K$. Then: \(i) $B$ is uniquely determined by $K$. \(ii) $\|B\|\cong S^m$. \(iii) If $m=2n+1$, $n\ne 2$, then $\|K\|$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$, but $\|L\|$ does. (iii$'$) If $m=2n+1$, $n=2$, then $\|K\|$ has non-zero van Kampen obstruction, even modulo $2$ (so in particular does not embed in $S^4$) but $\|L\|$ has zero van Kampen obstruction. \(iv) If $m=2n+2$, then $\|K\|$ does not linklessly embed in $S^{2n+1}$, but $\|L\|$ does. \(v) If $m=2n+1$, then every embedding $g$ of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ is inequivalent with $hg$, where $h$ is an orientation-reversing homeomorphism of $S^{2n+1}$; but every two embeddings of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ (knotless when $n=1$) have equivalent “restrictions” to $\|L\|$. \(vi) Moreover, if $m=2n+1$, then every embedding of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ is linkless; and if $m=2n+2$, then every embedding of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ contains a link of a pair of disjoint $n$-spheres with an odd linking number. \(vii) If $M$ is a [self-dual]{} subcomplex of $B$ (that is, $M$ contains precisely one cell out of every pair $A$, $\bar A$ of complementary cells), then $\|M\|$ does not embed in $S^m$, and every embedding $g$ of $\|M\|$ in $S^{m+1}$ is inequivalent with $hg$, where $h$ is an orientation-reversing homeomorphism of $S^{m+1}$. The simplest example of a dichotomial complex is the boundary of a simplex. In particular, for $n=1$, the graphs in (iii) and (iv) include respectively the complete graphs $K_5$ and $K_6$. It is easy to see that there are no other dichotomial simplicial complexes, apart from the boundary of a simplex. The term “dichotomial” was suggested to the author by E. V. Shchepin. It is easy to construct the dichotomial $3$-sphere whose $1$-skeleton is $K_{3,3}$. In accordance with (i), we may start with $K_{3,3}$ itself. For every edge $\tau$ of $K_{3,3}$, the four edges disjoint from $\tau$ form a circuit; we glue up this circuit by a quadrilateral $2$-cell. (Note that circuits of length $6$ are [not]{} glued up by hexagonal $2$-cells.) For every vertex $\sigma$ of $K_{3,3}$, the edges disjoint from $\sigma$ form a $K_{3,2}$, to which we have attached three $2$-cells. Their union is a $2$-sphere; we glue it up by a $3$-cell. Let us verify that the resulting dichotomial cell complex $B_{3,3}$ is indeed a $3$-sphere. We shall identify each element of $B_{3,3}$ with a subcomplex of the barycentric subdivision of $\partial\Delta^2\partial\Delta^2$. The atoms of $B_{3,3}$ are identified with the vertices of $\partial\Delta^2\partial\Delta^2$, and the maximal elements of edges of $B_{3,3}$ are identified with the edges of $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$. The maximal element of the $2$-cell of $B_{3,3}$ disjoint with an edge $\sigma_1\sigma_2$ of $K_{3,3}$ is identified with the disk $D_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}\bydef c\partial\tau_1\partial\tau_2$, where $\tau_i$ is the $1$-simplex in $\Delta^2$ disjoint from the vertex $\sigma_i$, and $c$ is the barycenter of the simplex $\tau_1\tau_2$. The maximal element of the $3$-cell of $B_{3,3}$ disjoint with a vertex $\sigma\emptyset$ (resp. $\emptyset\sigma$) of $K_{3,3}$ is identified with the ball $E_{\sigma\emptyset}\bydef c(D_{\sigma\sigma_1}\cup D_{\sigma\sigma_2}\cup D_{\sigma\sigma_3})$ (resp. $E_{\emptyset\sigma}\bydef c(D_{\sigma_1\sigma}\cup D_{\sigma_2\sigma}\cup D_{\sigma_3\sigma})$), where $c$ is the barycenter of the $1$-simplex $\tau$ of $\Delta^2$ disjoint form $\sigma$, and $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_2$ are the three vertices of $\Delta^2$. It is easy to see that the six balls $E_{\sigma\emptyset}$, $E_{\emptyset\sigma}$ cover the entire $(\partial\Delta^2\partial\Delta^2)^\flat$. Similarly, it is not hard to construct the dichotomial $4$-sphere whose $1$-skeleton is the Petersen graph $P$. Firstly we glue up every circuit consisting of $5$ edges by a pentagonal $2$-cell. (Note that circuits of length $6$ are [not]{} glued up by hexagonal $2$-cells.) Then each $2$-cell already has its opposite $2$-cell. For each edge $\tau$ of $P$, the edges disjoint from $\tau$ form a graph that is a subdivision of the $1$-skeleton of the tetrahedron, and the four $2$-cells disjoint from $\tau$ can be identified with the $2$-simplices of this tetrahedron, with boundaries subdivided into pentagons. Thus these edges and $2$-cells cellulate a $2$-sphere; we glue it up by a $3$-cell. For every vertex $\sigma$ of $P$, the edges and the $2$-cells disjoint from $\sigma$ form a cell complex that subdivides $(\partial\Delta^2)+(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$. Then the edges, the $2$-cells and the $3$-cells disjoint from $\sigma$ form a cell complex that subdivides the $3$-sphere $(\partial\Delta^2)+(\partial\Delta^2)$. We glue it up by a $4$-cell. According to part (ii) of the Main Theorem, the resulting dichotomial cell complex $B_P$ is a $4$-sphere. Note that the hemi-dodecahedron is isomorphic to its self-dual subcomplex. It can be similarly verified by hand that the graphs of the Petersen family except $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) are $1$-skeleta of $4$-dimensional dichotomial cell complexes; whereas $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) is not. We describe a more industrial way of seeing this in §\[transforms\], where we also observe that $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) is the $1$-skeleton of a $4$-dimensional dichotomial poset, whose order complex admits a collapsible map onto $S^4$ (so in particular is homotopy equivalent to $S^4$). It should be possible to include this graph into the general framework of the Main Theorem by extending it to cone complexes whose cones are singular cells, with not ‘too many’ cells being ‘too singular’. There can be other approaches (see Example \[4.9\]). We note that the assertion on minors in part (iii) of the Main Theorem does not extend to cover arbitrary self-dual subcomplexes in part (vii). Indeed, by zipping an edge of the hemi-icosahedron we obtain a non-simplicial proper minor of the hemi-icosahedron which still cellulates $\R P^2$. The author believes that it should be possible to overcome this trouble, at least in the metastable range, by considering only minors that belong to a restricted class of cell complexes, such as ones whose cells have collapsible (or empty) pairwise intersections. (Note that two cells do not always intersect along a cell, and three cells do not always have a collapsible or empty intersection in the dichotomial $4$-sphere whose $1$-skeleton is the Petersen graph.) Taking into account the Kuratowski–Wagner and Robertson–Seymour–Thomas theorems and the obvious fact that a $0$-polyhedron admits a linkless embedding in $S^1$ iff it contains less than $4$ points, we obtain \[main corollary\] The only dichotomial complex in dimension two is $\partial\Delta^3$; there exist precisely two in dimension $3$, with $1$-skeleta $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$, and precisely six in dimension $4$, with $1$-skeleta all graphs of the Petersen family excluding $K_{4,4}\but e$. Let us now review three constructions of new examples of dichotomial spheres. \(i) An $n$-dimensional join of the $i$-skeleta of dichotomial $(2i+1)$-spheres is the $n$-skeleton of some dichotomial $(2n+1)$-sphere dimensional cell complex (see Lemma \[5.3\] and Theorem \[construction\]). For instance, this yields, in addition to $\partial\Delta^6$, two dichotomial $5$-complexes, with $1$-skeleta $K_{1,1,1,1,1,3}$ and $K_{3,3,3}$ and with simplicial $2$-skeleta. \(ii) If $B$ is a dichotomial cell complex, it is easy to see, using part (ii) of Main Theorem, that $CB\cup_B Bpt$ is again a dichotomial cell complex. Applied to $B_{3,3}$, this construction produces the dichotomial $4$-sphere $B_{3,3,1}$ with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3,1}$ (which belongs to the Petersen family). Applying this construction to the six dichotomial $4$-spheres, we get, apart from $\partial\Delta^6$, five dichotomial $5$-complexes whose $1$-skeleta are obtained from the graphs $\Gamma_7$, $\Gamma_8$, $\Gamma_9$, $K_{3,3,1}$, $P$ by adjoining an additional vertex and connecting it by edges to all the existing vertices. For instance, in the case of $B_{3,3,1}$ this yields a dichotomial sphere $B_{3,3,1,1}$ with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3,1,1}$. A more general construction is: given a dichotomial $m$-sphere $B$ and a dichotomial $n$-sphere $B'$, the boundary sphere $\partial(CBCB')$ of the join of the cones is a dichotomial $(m+n+2)$-sphere. (The previous paragraph treated the case where $B'$ is the dichotomial $(-1)$-sphere $\emptyset$.) Taking $B$ to be the dichotomial $3$-sphere with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3}$ and $B'$ to be the dichotomial $0$-sphere, we arrive again at $B_{3,3,1,1}$. We note that the $2$-skeleton of $B_{3,3,1,1}$ is the union of the $2$-skeleton of $B_{3,3}$ with the $2$-skeleton of the join $K_{3,3}\Delta^1$. Since the circuits of length $6$ in $K_{3,3}$ are not glued up by $2$-cells in $B_{3,3}$, they are similarly not glued up by $2$-cells in $B_{3,3,1,1}$ (although they of course bound [subdivided]{} $2$-cells in the $2$-skeleton of $B_{3,3,1,1}$). Thus the $2$-skeleton of $B_{3,3,1,1}$ is a proper subcomplex of van der Holst’s $2$-complex $\hat K_{3,3,1,1}$ (see §\[graphs\]). \(iii) A more interesting method, called ($\nabla$,Y)-transform, is introduced in §\[transforms\]. It is natural to expect that an appropriate generalization of this transform (or perhaps even the transform itself) would suffice to relate any two dichotomial spheres of the same dimension (compare the proof of Steinitz’ theorem in [@Zi Chapter 4]). It does relate with each other the two dichotomial $3$-spheres and all six dichotomial $4$-spheres. When applied to $\partial\Delta^6$, it produces, inter alia, dichotomial $5$-complexes with $1$-skeleta obtained by adjoining an additional vertex to any of the graphs $\Gamma_7$, $\Gamma_8$, $\Gamma_9$, $K_{4,4}\but$(edge), $P$ and connecting it to all existing vertices that are not marked red in Fig. 1. (The details are similar to Examples \[4.8\], \[4.9\].) To summarize, we have just used the easy (existence) part of Corollary \[main corollary\] to show the following \[2-skeleta\] There exist at least $13$ dichotomial $5$-spheres, distinct already on the level of their $1$-skeleta, of which $10$ have non-simplicial $2$-skeleta. The three simplicial $2$-skeleta, $(\Delta^6)^{(2)}$, $K_5(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$ and $K_{3,3}(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$, are well-known [@Gr], [@Sa1]. The non-simplicial ones are probably new, although some (all?) of their $1$-skeleta are in the Heawood family (see §\[graphs\]; it is clear that there in fact must be many more dichotomial $5$-spheres with $1$-skeleta in the Heawood family). By part (iii$'$) of the Main Theorem, none of the $13$ cell complexes in Corollary \[2-skeleta\] is a minor of any other one. But beware that some of these $2$-complexes have underlying polyhedra that are $h$-minors of each other (namely, some can be obtained from the others by shrinking $2$-simplices to triods). \[Halin-Jung revisited\] The self-dual subcomplexes of the dichotomial $3$-sphere with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3}$ are, apart from $K_{3,3}$ itself: $$\begin{gathered} HJ'_4=I\x I\cup \{(0,0),(1,1)\}a\cup\{(0,1),(1,0)\}b,\\ HJ'_3=I\x I\cup_{0\x I\cup I\x 0}I\x I\cup \{(0,0)\}a,\\ HJ'_2=S^2_\square\sqcup a,\\ HJ'_1=CS^2_\square,\end{gathered}$$ where $S^2_\square$ is the cellulation of $S^2$ obtained by glueing up all three circuits in $K_{3,2}$ by $2$-cells. Each $\|HJ'_i\|$ is homeomorphic with some $\|HJ_j\|$, but none of $HJ_i$, $HJ'_j$, $K_5$, $K_{3,3}$ is a subdivision of any other one. \[problem:main\] Given an $n\ge 5$, are there only finitely many of dichotomial $n$-spheres? Algorithmic issues {#algorithmic} ------------------ Due to the algorithmic nature of the van Kampen obstruction, the problem of embeddability of a compact $n$-polyhedron (given by a specific triangulation) in $\R^{2n}$ is algorithmically decidable for $n\ge 3$ [@MTW]. This suggests seeking a higher-dimensional Kuratowski embeddability criterion that would also provide an algorithm deciding the embeddability of the polyhedron. Let us thus discuss amendments needed to fit Problem \[problem:main\], Conjecture \[conjecture:main\], and the Main Theorem in the algorithmic framework. We do not address issues of complexity of algorithms here. 1\. The definition of a cell complex involves PL homeomorphism with $\|\partial\Delta^n\|$ which is not a fully algorithmic notion by S. P. Novikov’s theorem (see [@CL]). A standard workaround is to consider only cell complexes whose cells are shellable (see [@Bj]). This might potentially exclude some interesting examples, but the Main Theorem is still valid and Conjecture \[conjecture:main\] and Problem \[problem:main\] are still sensible. 1$'$. An alternative possibility is to generalize cell complexes to [circuit complexes]{}, where the boundary of every cone is a circuit; we call an $n$-dimensional poset $M$ an [$n$-circuit]{}, if $H^n(\|M\but\cel p\cer\|)=0$ for every $p\in M$. Then part (ii) of the Main Theorem has to be amended; its proof can be reworked to show that every $m$-dimensional dichotomial circuit complex has the integral homology of $S^m$. (Whether it must still be PL homeomorphic to $S^m$ is unknown to the author.) Other parts of the Main Theorem hold without changes, and so do their proofs; Conjecture \[conjecture:main\] and Problem \[problem:main\] stand. 2\. The condition of being $(n-1)$-connected is not algorithmically decidable already for $n=2$ by Adian’s theorem (see [@CL]). However, the proof of Theorem \[connected\] produces, for each $n$-dimensional cell complex $K$ such that $\|K\|$ embeds in $\R^{2n}$, $n\ge 3$, a cell complex $K^+$ containing $K$, whose $1$-skeleton lies in a collapsible subcomplex of the $2$-skeleton. On the other hand, if a cell complex $K$ satisfies (i) along with $H_i(\|K\|)=0$ for $i\le n-1$, then $\|K\|$ is $(n-1)$-connected by the Hurewicz theorem. The modification of Conjecture \[conjecture:main\] with the hypothesis that $\|K\|$ is $(n-1)$-connected replaced by the algorithmically decidable conditions (i) and (ii) still makes sense. 3\. The definition of an $h$-minor involves cell-like maps, which in turn involve the non-algorithmic notion of contractibility. An [ad hoc]{} solution is the following condition on the order-preserving map $f$: instead of requiring the geometric realization $\|f\|$ to be cell-like, we require the barycentric subdivision $f^\flat$ to be the composition of a sequence of admissible edge contractions (see §\[edge-minors\]). Drawbacks of this condition have been discussed in Example \[subdivision\], but it is working so that the Main Theorem remains valid and Conjecture \[conjecture:main\] remains meaningful. 4\. The fragmentary character of this subsection suggests that combinatorial topology is badly missing a coherent algorithmic development of foundations, which would include, [inter alia]{}, mutually compatible notions of an algorithmic cell complex, of an algorithmic subdivision, and of an algorithmic cell-like map. The author is working on such a project whose success is not yet obvious. Embeddings ========== Flores–Bier construction (simplified and generalized) {#embeddings} ----------------------------------------------------- In this subsection we prove the van Kampen–Flores–Grünbaum–Schild non-embedding theorem (see Theorem \[self-dual\]) and its generalization to dichotomial posets. Let $R$ be a poset and $P$, $Q$ be embedded in $R$. The [deleted product]{} $P\otimes Q$ is the embedded poset in $P\x Q$, consisting of all $(p,q)$ such that $\fll p\flr\cap\fll q\flr=\emptyset$. The [deleted join]{} $P\circledast Q=C^P\otimes C^Q$ (where $(\hat 0,\hat 0)$ is not subtracted like in the definition of $PQ$ since it is already missing here). The [deleted prejoin]{} is not $P\oplus Q$ as one might guess, but $P\oplus Q^=(\mathcal P\sqcup\mathcal Q,\preceq)$, where $P=(\mathcal P,\le)$, $Q=(\mathcal Q,\le)$, and $p\preceq q$ iff either - $p,q\in P$ and $p\le q$, or - $p,q\in Q$ and $p\ge q$, or - $p\in P$, $q\in Q$ and $\fll p\flr\cap\fll q^\flr=\emptyset$. Similarly to the non-deleted case, $(P\oplus Q^)^\flat\simeq (P\circledast Q)^\flat_{P\circledast\emptyset \cup\emptyset\circledast Q}\subset P^\flatQ^\flat$ (using that $(Q^)^\flat\simeq Q^\flat$). In particular, $\|P\oplus Q^\|\cong \|P\circledast Q\|$. More specifically, it is not hard to see that $(P\circledast Q)^\flat$ is a subdivision of $(P\circledast Q)^\flat_{P\circledast\emptyset\cup\emptyset\circledast Q}\simeq (P\oplus Q^)^\flat$. An advantage of the deleted prejoin $P\oplus Q^$ over the would-be $P\oplus Q$ is revealed already by the slightly more delicate isomorphism $(P\oplus Q^)^\#\simeq (P\circledast Q)^\#_{P\circledast\emptyset \cup\emptyset\circledast Q}\subset P^\#Q^\#$, where the star can no longer be dropped. Associativity of join implies $(K\circledast K)(L\circledast L)\simeq (KL)\circledast (KL)$. Thinking of the $n$-simplex $\Delta^n$ as the join of $n+1$ copies of a point, we get that $\Delta\circledast\Delta$ is isomorphic to the join of $n+1$ copies of $pt\circledast pt=S^0$, which is the boundary of the $(n+1)$-dimensional cross-polytope. A poset $Q$ will be called an [$m$-obstructor]{} if $\|Q\circledast Q\|$ with the factor exchanging involution is $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to $S^{m+1}$ with the antipodal involution. Much of what follows can be done without assuming the homeomorphism to be $\Z/2$-equivariant or to be with the genuine sphere, because it follows from the Smith sequences that every free involution on a polyhedral ($\Z/2$-)homology $m$-sphere has cohomological ($\bmod 2$) sectional category equal to $m$ (see [@M2]). \[5.1\] Let $[3]=\{0,1,2\}$ denote the three-point set. It is easy to see that $[3]\oplus[3]\simeq\partial\Delta^2$, whence $\|[3]\circledast[3]\|\cong\|[3]\oplus[3]\|\cong S^1$. From an explicit form of this homeomorphism it is easily seen to be equivariant. Thus $[3]$ is a $0$-obstructor. (In fact, this is a special case of a general fact, which will be given a more conceptual explanation in Example \[5.5\] and Theorem \[5.6\].) \[5.2\] If $Q$ is an $m$-obstructor, then \(a) $\|Q\|$ does not embed in $S^m$; \(b) every embedding $g$ of $\|Q\|$ in $S^{m+1}$ is inequivalent with $hg$, where $h$ is an orientation-reversing self-homeomorphism of $S^{m+1}$. Part (a) is due essentially to Flores [@F1] (see also [@Ro]). The following proof of (a) occurs essentially in [@VS]. The method of (b) yields another proof of (a), see [@M2 Example 3.3]. If $\|Q\|$ embeds in $S^m$, then the cone $\|C^Q\|$ over $\|Q\|$ embeds in $B^{m+1}$. Since the homeomorphism $S^{m+1}\to \|Q\circledast Q\|=\|C^Q\otimes C^Q\|$ is equivariant, its composition with the projection $\|C^Q\otimes C^Q\|\subset \|C^Q\x C^Q\|\to\|C^Q\|$ does not identify any pair of antipodes in $S^{m+1}$. The embedding $\|C^Q\|\emb B^{m+1}$ then yields a map $S^{m+1}\to B^{m+1}$ identifying no pair of antipodes, which contradicts the Borsuk–Ulam theorem. For the proof of (b) we need the following definition. Given a poset $K$ and an embedding $g{\colon}\|K\|\emb\R^m$, define a map $\|K\x K\|\but\Delta_{\|K\|}\to S^{m-1}$ by $(x,y)\mapsto \frac{G(x)-G(y)}{\|\|G(x)-G(y)\|\|}$. This map is equivariant with respect to the factor exchanging involution on $\|K\x K\|\but\Delta_{\|K\|}$ and the antipodal involution on $S^{m-1}$. In particular, we have a $\Z/2$-map $\tilde g{\colon}\|K\otimes K\|\subset \|K\x K\|\but\Delta_{\|K\|}\to S^{m-1}$. An embedding $g{\colon}\|Q\|\emb S^{m+1}$ extends to an embedding $G{\colon}\|C^Q\|\emb B^{m+2}$. Since $C^Q\x C^Q\simeq Q\circledast Q$, this yields a cohomology class $\tilde G^(\Xi)\in H^{m+1}(\|Q\circledast Q\|)$, where $\Xi\in H^{m+1}(S^{m+1})$ is a generator (cf. [@M2 §3, subsection “1-Paramater van Kampen obstruction”]). The $\bmod 2$ reduction of $\tilde G^(\Xi)$ is nonzero, since the Yang index of the factor exchanging involution on $\|Q\circledast Q\|\cong S^{m+1}$ is $m+1$ (see [@M2 §3, subsection “Unoriented van Kampen obstruction”]). The mirror symmetry $r$ in the equator $S^m\subset S^{m+1}$ extends to the mirror symmetry $R$ in $B^{m+1}\subset B^{m+2}$, which in turn corresponds to $r$ (i.e. $\widetilde{RG}=r\tilde G$). Since $r^(\Xi)=-\Xi$ and $\tilde G^(\Xi)$ is a nonzero integer, $RG$ is inequivalent to $G$. Hence $rg$ is inequivalent to $g$. Lemma \[5.2\] and Example \[5.1\] imply that the three-point set $[3]$ does not embed in $S^0$ and knots in $S^1$. However, this is not the end of the story. \[5.3\] If $K$ is a $k$-obstructor and $L$ an $l$-obstructor, then $KL$ is an $(k+l+2)$-obstructor. We are given $\Z/2$-homeomorphisms $S^{k+1}\to\|K\circledast K\|$ and $S^{l+1}\to \|L\circledast L\|$. Their join is a $\Z/2$-homeomorphism $S^{k+l+3}\to \|(K\circledast K)(L\circledast L)\|$. From the associativity of join $(K\circledast K)(L\circledast L)\simeq (KL)\circledast (KL)$, which implies the assertion. Now from Example \[5.1\] and Lemma \[5.3\], the join $[3][3]$ is a $2$-obstructor. Thus the graph $K_{3,3}\bydef\|[3][3]\|$ does not embed in $S^2$. Moreover (by the proof of Lemma \[5.2\]), the cone over $K_{3,3}$ does not embed in $B^3$. The same argument establishes \[5.4\] The join of $n+1$ copy of the three-point set $[3]$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$. The more precise assertion that the join of $n+1$ copy of $[3]$ is an $n$-obstructor is due to Flores [@F1] (see also [@Ro]). An element $\sigma$ of a poset $P$ is called an [atom]{} of $P$, if $\fll\sigma\flr=\{\sigma\}$. The set of all atoms of $P$ will be denoted $A(P)$. A poset $P$ is called [atomistic]{}, if every its element is the least upper bound of some set of atoms of $P$. It is easy to see that $A(\fll\sigma\flr)=A(P)\cap\fll\sigma\flr$. Hence every element $\sigma$ of an atomistic poset is the least upper bound of $A(\fll\sigma\flr)$. (Beware that “atomic” has a different meaning in the literature on posets.) Let us call a poset $B$ [dichotomial]{}, if it is atomistic, and for each $\sigma\in B$ the set of atoms $A(B)\but A(\fll\sigma\flr)$ has the least upper bound, denoted $h(\sigma)$, in $B$. In other words the latter condition says that there exists an $h(\sigma)\in B$ such that $\fll\sigma\flr\cap\fll h(\sigma)\flr=\emptyset$ and at the same time $\fll\sigma\flr\cup\fll h(\sigma)\flr$ contains all the atoms of $B$. Clearly, $h(h(\sigma))=\sigma$, so there is defined an involution $h{\colon}B\to B$. Clearly, the composition $H{\colon}B\xr{h}B\xr{\operatorname{id}}B^$ is order-preserving. In particular, every dichotomial poset $B$ is isomorphic to its dual $B^$. If $K$ is a subcomplex of a dichotomial poset $B$, then $B\but K$ is a dual subcomplex of $B$. Hence $H(B\but K)$ is a dual subcomplex of $B^$. Then $D(K)\bydef H(B\but K)^$ is subcomplex of $B$. In particular, $D(K)=K$ iff $K$ is a fundamental domain of the involution $h$; in this case we say that $K$ is [self-dual]{} as a subcomplex of $B$. \[5.5\] The boundary of every simplex $\partial\Delta^S$ is dichotomial: $h(\sigma)=S\but\sigma$. If $n<m$ and $K=(\Delta^m)^{(n)}$ is the $n$-skeleton of (the boundary of) the $m$-simplex, then it is easy to see that $D(K)=(\Delta^m)^{(m-n-2)}$. In particular, the $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+2)$-simplex is self-dual in $\partial\Delta^{2n+2}$. \[5.6\] If $K$ is a subcomplex of a dichotomial poset $B$, then the deleted prejoin $K\oplus D(K)^$ is isomorphic to $B$. Moreover, if $K=D(K)$, then the isomorphism $f$ is anti-equivariant with resect to the anti-involution $H$ and the factor-exchanging anti-involution $t$, i.e. the following diagram commutes: $$\begin{CD} B@>f>>K\oplus K^\\ @VHVV@VtVV\\ B^@>f^>>(K^\oplus K)^. \end{CD}$$ The first assertion of Theorem \[5.6\] implies the following “Semi-combinatorial Alexander duality” theorems: \(i) $(K\circledast D(K))^\flat$ is a subdivision of $B^\flat$; \(ii) $\|K\circledast D(K)\|$ is homeomorphic to $\|B\|$. In the case where $B$ is the boundary of a simplex (see Example \[5.5\]), (ii) was originally proved by T. Bier in 1991 (see [@Mat]) and reproved in a more direct way by de Longueville [@dL]. The assertion of (i) is a special case of a result of Björner–Paffenholz–Söstrand–Ziegler [@BPSZ] (see also [@CD]). Let us map $K\oplus D(K)^$ to $B$ by sending the first factor via the inclusion $K\subset B$ and the second factor via $H^{-1}{\colon}H(B\but K)\to B\but K$. The resulting bijection $f{\colon}K\oplus D(K)^\to B$ is clearly an order-preserving embedding separately on the first factor and on the second factor. If $p\in K$ and $q\in D(K)^$, then $p\le q$ in $K\oplus D(K)^$ iff $\fll p\flr\cap\fll q^\flr=\emptyset$. The latter is equivalent to $A(\fll p\flr)\cap A(\fll q^\flr)=\emptyset$ (since $B$ is atomistic). Now $f(p)=p$, and $A(\fll f(q)\flr)$ is the complement of $A(\fll q^\flr)$ in $A(B)$. Hence $A(\fll p\flr)\cap A(\fll q^\flr)=\emptyset$ is equivalent to $A(\fll f(p)\flr)\subset A(\fll f(q)\flr)$. The latter is in turn equivalent to $\fll f(p)\flr\subset\fll f(q)\flr$ (since $B$ is atomistic), which is the same as $f(p)\le f(q)$. Thus $f$ is an isomorphism. In the case $K=D(K)$, the composition $K\oplus K^\xr{f}B\xr{H}B^$ is the the identity on the second factor and is $H$ on the first factor. The same is true of the composition $K\oplus K^\xr{t}(K^\oplus K)^\xr{f^}B^$. We say that a dichotomial poset $B$ with its $$-involution $H{\colon}B\to B^$ is a [dichotomial $m$-sphere]{} if $\|B\|$ is $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to $S^m$ with the antipodal involution. Since $\|K\circledast K\|\cong\|K\oplus K^\|$ equivariantly, we obtain \[5.7\] Let $B$ be a dichotomial $(m+1)$-sphere. Then every self-dual subcomplex of $B$ is an $m$-obstructor. In particular, the self-dual subcomplex $(\Delta^4)^{(1)}$ of the dichotomial $3$-sphere $\partial\Delta^4$ is a $2$-obstructor. Thus the graph $K_5\bydef(\Delta^4)^{(1)}$ does not embed in the plane. The same argument establishes \[5.8\] The $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+2)$-simplex does not embed in $S^{2n}$. The more precise assertion that the $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+2)$-simplex is an $n$-obstructor is due to Flores [@F2]. Bringing in Lemma \[5.3\], we immediately obtain the following generalization of Theorem \[5.8\], which includes Theorem \[5.4\] as well: \[5.9\] Every $n$-dimensional join of skeleta $(\Delta^{2n_i+2})^{(n_i)}$ does not embed in $S^{2n}$. The more precise assertion that $n$-dimensional $2n$-obstructors include $n$-dimensional joins of the form $F_{i_1}\dotsF_{i_r}$, where each $F_i$ is the $i$-skeleton of the $(2i+2)$-simplex has a converse. Using matroid theory, Sarkaria has shown that these are the only simplicial complexes among $n$-dimensional $2n$-obstructors [@Sa1]. It would be interesting (in the light of Problem \[problem:main\]) to extend his methods to cell complexes. Construction of dichotomial spheres ----------------------------------- Our only example so far of a dichotomial poset is the boundary of simplex. To get more examples, we can move in the opposite direction and utilize Lemma \[5.3\]. We say that an atomistic poset $K$ has [atomistic category $\ge n$]{} if the set of atoms $A(K)$ is not contained in a union of $n$ cones of $K$. \[5.10\] If $K$ is atomistic and has atomistic category $\ne 1$, then $K\oplus K^$ is dichotomial. The proof shows that if $K$ is atomistic and has atomistic category $1$, then $K\oplus K^$ is not atomistic. The hard part is to show that $K\oplus K^$ is atomistic. Since $K$ is a subcomplex of $K\oplus K^$, we have $A(K)\subset A(K\oplus K^)$. If $\sigma\in K$, then $\sigma$ is the least upper bound in $K$ of some set $S$ of atoms of $K$. If some $\tau\in K^$ is an upper bound of $S$, then $\fll\tau^\flr\cap S=\emptyset$. Hence $\fll\tau^\flr\cap\fll\sigma\flr=\emptyset$, and so $\tau>\sigma$. Thus $\sigma$ is the least upper bound of $S$ in $K\oplus K^$. If $\sigma\in K^$, then it is an upper bound of $S\bydef A(K)\but A(\fll\sigma^\flr_K)$. If $S$ is nonempty and $K$ is not a cone, then by the hypothesis $S$ has no upper bound in $K$. If $\tau\in K^$ is another upper bound of $S$, then $\fll\tau^\flr\cap S=\emptyset$. Hence $A(\fll\tau^\flr)\subset A(\fll\sigma^\flr)$. Since $K$ is atomistic, $\fll\tau^\flr\subset\fll\sigma^\flr$. Then $\tau^\le\sigma^$, so $\tau\ge\sigma$. Thus $\sigma$ is the least upper bound of $S$ in $K\oplus K^$. In the case $S=\emptyset$ we have that $\sigma^$ is an upper bound of $A(K)$. Since $\sigma^$ is also the least upper bound of some subset of $A(K)$, the least upper bound of $A(K)$ exists and equals $\sigma^$. Since $K$ is atomistic, this implies as above that the least upper bound of $K$ exists and equals $\sigma^$. Then $\sigma\le\tau$ for each $\tau\in K^$ and also $\sigma$ is incomparable with any element of $K$. Thus $\sigma$ an atom of $K\oplus K^$ and so the least upper bound of a set of atoms. If $S\ne\emptyset$ and $K$ is a cone, in symbols $K=\fll\hat 1\flr$, then similarly to the above, $\sigma$ is the least upper bound of $S\cup\{\hat 1^\}$ in $K\oplus K^$. Thus $K\oplus K^$ is atomistic. Moreover, we have proved that $A(K\oplus K^)=A(K)$ if $K$ is not a cone, and if $K$ is a cone, then $A(K\oplus K^)=A(K)\cup\{\hat 1^\}$. Given a $\sigma\in K$, let $h(\sigma)=\sigma^\in K^$. If $K$ is not a cone, then by the above $A(\fll\sigma^\flr)=A(K)\but A(\fll\sigma\flr)$. If $K$ is a cone, then $A(\fll\sigma^\flr)=(A(K)\but A(\fll\sigma\flr))\cup\{\hat 1^\}$. In either case $A(\fll\sigma^\flr)=A(K\oplus K^)\but A(\fll\sigma\flr)$, so $K\oplus K^$ is dichotomial. If $P$ and $Q$ are posets, the atomistic category of $PQ$ is clearly the maximum of the atomistic categories of $P$ and $Q$. The atomistic category of the $n$-skeleton of the $(2n+2)$-simplex is two, since the $2n+3$ vertices of the simplex cannot be covered by two $n$-simplices but can be covered by three. Hence all the joins in Theorem \[5.9\] have atomistic category two as well. \[5.11\] If $K$ is a join of the $n_i$-skeleta of the $(2n_i+2)$-simplices, then $K\oplus K^$ is a dichotomial sphere. More generally: \[construction\] Every atomistic $2n$-obstructor that is an $n$-dimensional cell complex is the $n$-skeleton of some dichotomial $(2n+1)$-sphere. Let $K$ be the cell complex in question. Suppose that $K$ is a union of two cells, $K=C\cup D$. If $C\cap D=\emptyset$, then $K$ embeds in the $2n$-sphere $\partial CD\cup D\partial C$, contradicting Lemma \[5.2\]. Else let $C'$ be the union of all cells of $C$ that are disjoint from $D$. Then $C'\subset\partial C$. On the other hand, since $K$ is atomistic, it embeds in $C'D$. Hence $K$ embeds in the $2n$-ball $\partial CD$, again contradicting Lemma \[5.2\]. Proof of Main Theorem (beginning) --------------------------------- \[4.3\] Let $B$ be a dichotomial poset. The following are equivalent: \(i) $\|B\|$ is homeomorphic to a sphere; \(ii) $B^\flat$ is a combinatorial manifold; \(iii) $B$ a cell complex. Let $h{\colon}B\to B^$ be the order-preserving isomorphism in the definition of a dichotomial poset. We note that (i)(ii) is obvious. Let $\sigma\in B$. Then $h(\cel\sigma\cer)=\fll h(\sigma)\flr^$, so $\partial^\cel\sigma\cer\simeq(\partial\fll h(\sigma)\flr)^$. Let $[\sigma]\in B^\flat$ be the chain consisting of $\sigma$ only. Then $\operatorname{lk}([\sigma],B^\flat)\simeq (\partial\fll\sigma\flr+\partial^\cel\sigma\cer)^\flat$. This is in turn isomorphic to $(\partial\fll\sigma\flr)^\flat(\partial^\cel\sigma\cer)^\flat\simeq (\partial\fll\sigma\flr)^\flat(\partial\fll h(\sigma)\flr)^\flat$, which is a combinatorial sphere. Thus $B^\flat$ is a combinatorial manifold. If $\sigma\in B$, and $\fll\tau\flr$ is a maximal simplex in $\fll h(\sigma)\flr^\flat$, then the combinatorial sphere $\operatorname{lk}(\tau,B^\flat)=(\partial\cel h(\sigma)\cer)^\flat$ is the barycentric subdivision of $(\partial\cel h(\sigma)\cer)^=h(\partial\fll\sigma\flr)$. Hence $\|\partial\fll\sigma\flr\|$ is a sphere. Suppose that $B^\flat$ is a combinatorial $m$-manifold, and let $\fll\sigma\flr$ be an $m$-cell of $B$. Then $h(\fll\sigma\flr)=\cel h(\sigma)\cer^$. Let $\tau$ be a $d$-cell of $B$ not contained in $\fll\sigma\flr$. Then $h(\sigma)\in\fll\tau\flr$. The intersection $\cel h(\sigma)\cer\cap\fll\tau\flr$ is the interval $[\sigma,\tau]=\{\sigma\}+P+\{\tau\}$, where $S=\operatorname{lk}(\sigma,\partial\fll\tau\flr)$. Hence $[\sigma,\tau]^\flat\simeq\{[\sigma]\}S^\flat\{[\tau]\}$, where $S^\flat\simeq\operatorname{lk}([\sigma],(\partial\fll\tau\flr)^\flat)$ is a combinatorial $(d-2)$-sphere since $(\partial\fll\tau\flr)^\flat$ is a combinatorial $(d-1)$-sphere and so in particular a combinatorial $(d-1)$-manifold. Thus $\cel h(\sigma)\cer^\flat\cap\fll\tau\flr^\flat$ is a combinatorial $d$-ball which meets $(\partial\fll\tau\flr)^\flat$ in a combinatorial $(d-1)$-ball. Let $S$ be the subposet of $B$ consisting of all $\rho\in B$ that lie neither in $\fll\sigma\flr$ nor in $\cel h(\sigma)\cer$. Note that $h(S)=S^$. Since $B^\flat$ is a combinatorial $m$-manifold and $\fll\sigma\flr^\flat$ is a combinatorial $m$-ball, $\fll S\flr^\flat$ is a combinatorial $m$-manifold with two boundary components, $\fll S\flr^\flat\cap\fll\sigma\flr^\flat$ and $\fll S\flr^\flat\cap\cel h(\sigma)\cer^\flat$. By the above, $\fll S\flr^\flat$ meets $\fll\tau\flr^\flat$ in a combinatorial $d$-ball $B_\tau$ meeting $(\partial\fll\tau\flr)^\flat$ in a combinatorial $(d-1)$-ball $D_\tau$. (We are using the relative combinatorial annulus theorem, which follows from the uniqueness of regular neighborhoods, see e.g. [@RS]). Collapsing each $\|B_\tau\|$ onto $\|D_\tau\|$ in an order of decreasing dimension, we obtain a collapse of $\|\fll S\flr\|$ onto $\|\fll S\flr\cap\fll\sigma\flr\|$. Hence $C\bydef\fll S\flr^\flat\cup\fll\sigma\flr^\flat$ is a regular neighborhood of $\fll\sigma\flr^\flat$, and therefore $C$ is a combinatorial ball. Thus $B^\flat$ is the union of two combinatorial balls $\cel h(\sigma)\cer^\flat$ and $C$ along an isomorphism of their boundaries. By the Alexander trick, it must be a combinatorial sphere. \[3.3b\] If $K$ is a poset and $L$ is its $h$-minor, there exists a $\Z/2$-map $H{\colon}\|L\circledast L\|\to \|K\circledast K\|$. Moreover, if $K$ is atomistic and $L$ is its proper $h$-minor, then $H$ is non-surjective. It suffices to consider the case where $K$ maps onto $L$ by a non-injective order-preserving map $f$ such that $\|f\|$ is cell-like. Let us define a map $g{\colon}\|L\|\to\|K\|$ such that $g(\|C\|)\subset \|f^{-1}(C)\|$ for each cone $C$ of $L$. Assume that $g$ is defined on cones of dimension $<d$, and let $C$ be a $d$-dimensional cone of $L$. Since $f$ is cell-like, $\|f^{-1}(C)\|$ is contractible. We then define $g$ on $\|C\|$ by mapping it via some null-homotopy of $g(\|\partial C\|)$ in $\|f^{-1}(C)\|$. Since $f$ is order-preserving, $f^{-1}(C)$ is a subcomplex of $K$ for each cone $C$ of $L$. Since $g(\|C\|)\subset \|f^{-1}(C)\|$ for each cone $C$ of $L$, and $f$-preimages of disjoint cones are disjoint, $g$ sends every disjoint pair of cones to a pair of disjoint unions of cones. Hence $(gg)(\|L\circledast L\|)\subset \|K\circledast K\|$. To prove the non-surjectivity, note that $g$ in fact sends every disjoint pair of cones to a pair of unions of cones whose $\|f\|$-images are disjoint. Since $f$ is order-preserving and non-injective, there exist distinct $\sigma,\tau\in K$ whose $f$-images are the same. Since $K$ is atomistic, $\sigma$ and $\tau$ may be assumed to be its atoms. Then $(gg)(\|L\circledast L\|)$ does not contain $\|\{\sigma\}\x\{\tau\}\cup\{\tau\}\x\{\sigma\}\|$, which lies in $\|K\circledast K\|$. \[quotient\] Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional poset. Then there exists a $\Z/2$-map $p{\colon}\|K\circledast K\|\to S^0\|K\otimes K\|$ such that $p$ and $p/t$ induce isomorphisms on $i$-cohomology with arbitrary (possibly twisted) coefficients for $i\ge n+2$ and an epimorphism for $i=n+1$. The map $p$ is the quotient map shrinking $\|K\emptyset\|$ and $\|\emptysetK\|$ to points. The relative mapping cylinder of $p$ collapses onto the pair of $(n+1)$-polyhedra $(\|CK\sqcup CK\|,\|K\sqcup K\|)$, and the assertion follows. \[is-linkless\] Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional cell complex, $n\ge 2$. An embedding $g{\colon}\|K\|\emb B^{2n+1}$ is linkless iff for every pair of disjoint subcomplexes $L$ and $M$ of $K$, the map $\tilde g\|_{\|L\x M\|}{\colon}\|L\x M\|\to S^{2n}$ is null-homotopic. Let $P$ and $Q$ be disjoint subpolyhedra of $\|K\|$. Let $P'$ be obtained by puncturing $K$ in some interior point of each $n$-cell $C$ of $K$ such that $\|C\|\not\subset P$; define $Q'$ similarly. Then $P'$ deformation retracts onto $\|L\|\cup\|K^{(n-1)}\|$ and $Q'$ deformation retracts onto $\|M\|\cup \|K^{(n-1)}\|$, where $L$ and $M$ are the maximal subcomplexes of $K$ such that $\|L\|\subset P$ and $\|M\|\subset Q$. Now the hypothesis implies that $\tilde g\|_{P'\x Q'}$ is null-homotopic, and therefore $\tilde g\|_{P\x Q}$ is null-homotopic. Then by the Haefliger–Weber criterion [@We], $g\|_{P\sqcup Q}$ is equivalent to the embedding $h{\colon}P\sqcup Q\emb B^{2n+1}$, obtained by combining $e_1g\|_P$ and $e_2g\|_Q$, where $e_1,e_2{\colon}B^{2n+1}\to B^{2n+1}$ are embeddings with disjoint images. \[all-linkless\] Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional cell complex. If $H^{2n+1}(\|K\circledast K\|)$ is cyclic, then every embedding of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ is linkless. Let $L$ and $M$ be disjoint subcomplexes of $K$, and let $G=H^{2n}(\|L\x M\|)$. Since $L$ and $M$ are disjoint, $H^{2n}(\|L\x M\cup M\x L\|)$ is isomorphic to $G\oplus G$ and also is an epimorphic image of $H^{2n}(\|K\otimes K\|)$. The latter group is cyclic by Lemma \[quotient\] (as long as $n>0$), so $G$ must be zero. If $n\ge 2$, the assertion follows from Lemma \[is-linkless\] and the Hopf classification theorem. For $n=1$, the proof of Lemma \[is-linkless\] works to show that if $P$ and $Q$ are disjoint subpolyhedra of $\|K\|$, then $H^2(P\x Q)=0$. But then either $P$ or $Q$ must be a forest, and the assertion follows. \[deleted\] Let $L$ be an $n$-dimensional cell complex. Then $H^{2n}(\overline{\|L\|},\|L\otimes L\|/t)=0$, where $\overline{\|L\|}=(\|L\|\x \|L\|\but\Delta_{\|L\|})/t$. If $C$ is a maximal cell of $L\x L$ that is not in $L\otimes L$, then $\|C\|$ meets the diagonal $\Delta_{\|L\|}$. Let us call an $n$-polyhedron $M$ an [$n$-circuit]{}, if $H^n(M\but\{x\})=0$ for every $x\in M$. \[proper minor\] Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional atomistic cell complex such that $\|K\circledast K\|/t$ is a $(2n+1)$-circuit, and let $L$ be a proper $h$-minor of $K$ that is a cell complex. Then \(a) $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ if $n\ne 2$; \(b) every two embeddings (knotless if $n=1$) of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ become equivalent when “restricted” to $\|L\|$. It is interesting to compare this with the well-known result that an $n$-polyhedron $P$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ if $P$ itself is an $n$-circuit [@Sa-1], [@M2 8.2]. By Lemma \[3.3b\] we have a non-surjective $\Z/2$-map $f{\colon}\|L\circledast L\|\to\|K\circledast K\|$. Let $t$ denote the factor exchanging involution, let $\phi{\colon}\|L\circledast L\|/t\to\R P^\infty$ be its classifying map, and let $\xi\in H^{2n+1}(\R P^\infty;\,\Z_T)\simeq\Z/2$ be the generator, where $\Z_T$ denotes the twisted integer coefficients. Since $\phi$ factors up to homotopy through the non-surjective map $f/t$ into the $(2n+1)$-circuit $\|K\circledast K\|/t$, we have $\phi^(\xi)=0$. By Lemma \[quotient\], there exists a $\Z/2$-map $p{\colon}\|L\circledast L\|\to S^0\|L\otimes L\|$ such that $p/t$ induces an isomorphism on $(2n+1)$-cohomology, as long as $n>0$. Since $\phi$ factors up to homotopy as $p$ followed by a classifying map $\psi{\colon}(S^0\|L\otimes L\|)/t\to\R P^\infty$ of $t$, we have $\psi^(\xi)=0$. It follows (see [@CF (5.1)]) that $\chi^(\zeta)=0$, where $\chi{\colon}\|L\otimes L\|/t\to\R P^\infty$ is a classifying map of $t$ and $\zeta\in H^{2n}(\R P^\infty;\,\Z)\simeq\Z/2$ is the generator. By Lemma \[deleted\], $\chi_+^(\zeta)=0$, where $\chi_+{\colon}\overline{\|L\|}\to\R P^\infty$ is a classifying map of $t$. Now $\chi_+^(\zeta)$ is the van Kampen obstruction $\theta(\|L\|)$; so $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ as long as $n\ge 3$ (see [@M2]). Let $g,h{\colon}\|K\|\to\R^{2n+1}$ be the given embeddings and $g',h'{\colon}\|L\|\to\R^{2n+1}$ their “restrictions”. We have $d(\tilde g',\tilde h')=d(\tilde gF,\tilde hF)=F^d(\tilde g,\tilde h)$, where the $\Z/2$-map $F{\colon}\|L\otimes L\|\to\|K\otimes K\|$ is defined similarly to $f$. Now $(F/t)^{\colon}H^{2n}(\|K\otimes K\|/t;\,\Z_T)\to H^{2n}(\|L\otimes L\|/t;\,\Z_T)$ is the zero map, since it is equivalent to $(f/t)^{\colon}H^{2n+1}(\|K\circledast K\|/t;\,\Z)\to H^{2n+1}(\|L\circledast L\|/t;\,\Z)$ via Thom-isomorphisms. So $\tilde g'$ and $\tilde h'$ are equivalent as long as $n\ge 2$. It remains to consider the case $n=1$. Since $\phi^(\xi)=0$, there exists a $\Z/2$-map $\|L\circledast L\|\to S^2$ (this is similar to [@M2 proof of 3.2]). Hence by the Borsuk–Ulam theorem there exists no $\Z/2$-map $S^3\to\|L\circledast L\|$. Then by Lemma \[3.3b\], $L$ has no $2$-obstructor as a minor. In particular, by the preceding observations, $L$ has no minor isomorphic to $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$. Then by Wagner’s version of the Kuratowski theorem, $\|L\|$ embeds in $S^2$. Also, given a knotless embedding of $\|K\|$ in $S^3$, it is also linkless by Lemma \[all-linkless\]. Its “restriction” to $\|L\|$ is also linkless and knotless, using Lemma \[trivial\] and the definition of a knotless embedding as an embedding $g$ such that $g(\|C\|)$ bounds an embedded disk in $S^3$ for every circuit $C$ of the graph. Hence the Robertson–Seymour–Thomas theorem implies that every two such “restrictions” are equivalent. Linkless embeddings =================== Proof of Main Theorem (conclusion) ---------------------------------- Let $K=(\mathcal K,\le)$ be an $n$-dimensional poset, for instance, an $n$-dimensional simplicial or cell complex. If $S$ is a subcomplex of $K$, let $\bar S$ be the subcomplex of $K$ consisting of all cones of $K$ disjoint from $S$. Note that $\bar{\bar S}=S$. Consider the set $\lambda_K$ of all subcomplexes $S$ of $K$ such that $H^n(\|S\|)\otimes H^n(\|\bar S\|)$ is nonzero (or, equivalently, not all maps $\|S\x\bar S\|\to S^{2n}$ are null-homotopic). Then $t_K{\colon}S\mapsto\bar S$ is a free involution on $\lambda_K$. \[4.4’\] If $L$ is the $n$-skeleton of a $(2n+2)$-dimensional dichotomial cell complex $B$, then each $S\in\lambda_L$ is the boundary of some $(n+1)$-cell of $B$. Let $K$ be the union of $L$ and a half of the $(n+1)$-cells of $B$, with precisely one cell from each complementary pair. Then $K$ is self-dual in $B$, so by Theorem \[5.6\], $K\oplus K^$ is isomorphic to $B$. Hence by Lemma \[4.3\], $\|K\oplus K^\|$ is a sphere, and therefore so is $\|K\circledast K\|$. By Lemma \[quotient\], $H^{2n+1}(\|S\bar S\|)\simeq H^n(\|S\|)\otimes H^n(\|\bar S\|)\ne 0$, so by the Alexander duality the complement to $\|S\bar S\|$ in the sphere $\|K\circledast K\|$ contains at least two connected components. Since $S$ and $\bar S$ are disjoint, and $\|\bar SS\|$ is connected (regardless of whether any of $\|S\|$ and $\|\bar S\|$ is connected!), $\|\bar SS\|$ lies one of these open components. The closure of that component is cellulated by a subcomplex $W$ of $K\circledast K$, and the closure of the union of the remaining components by a subcomplex $V$. Since $\|V\|$ has nonempty interior, $V$ contains at least one $(2n+2)$-cell. It must be of the form $CD$, where $C$ is an $(n+1)$-cell of $K\emptyset$ and $D$ is an $n$-cell of $\emptysetK$, or vice versa. Let us consider the first case. If $v$ is a vertex of $S$ not contained in $C$, the join $Cv$ lies in $K\circledast K$. Then it is a cell of $K\circledast K$, and therefore lies either in $V$ or in $W$. Since $\|\emptysetv\|$ lies in $\|\bar SS\|$ and so in the interior of $\|W\|$, we have $Cv\subset W$. On the other hand, $C\emptyset$ lies in $CD$ and so in $V$. Hence $C\emptyset$ lies in $V\cap W$, which is a subcomplex of $S\bar S$. Thus $C\subset S$. But this cannot be since $S$ is $n$-dimensional and $C$ is an $(n+1)$-cell. Thus $C$, and therefore also $\partial C$, contains all vertices of $S$. But $B$ is atomistic, so its subcomplex $K$ is atomistic, and we have $S\subset\partial C$. Since $H^n(\|S\|)\ne 0$ and $\|\partial C\|$ is an $n$-sphere, $\partial C=S$. In the case where $V$ contains $CD$, where $C$ is an $n$-cell of $K\emptyset$ and $D$ is an $(n+1)$-cell of $\emptysetK$, we can similarly show that $\partial D=\bar S$. This proves that either $S$ or $\bar S$ bounds a cell in $K$ (not just in $B$). Suppose that $S$ does not bound a cell in $K$. Then by the above, $\bar S$ bounds a cell $D$ in $K$. Let us amend $K$ by exchanging $D$ with its complementary $(n+1)$-cell, and let $K'$ denote the resulting subcomplex of $B$. Then $\bar S$ does not bound a cell in $K'$. Hence by the above, $S$ bounds a cell in $K'$. Let $\hat K$ be the poset $(\mathcal K\cup\lambda_K,\preceq)$, where $p\preceq q$ iff either $p,q\in K$ and $p\le q$ or $p\in K$, $q\in S$ and $p\in q$. Given a section $\xi{\colon}\lambda_K/t_K\to\lambda_K$ of the double covering $\lambda_K\to\lambda_K/t_K$, we have the subcomplex $K_\xi$ of $\hat K$ obtained by adjoining to $K$ all elements of $\xi(\lambda_K/t_K)$. Note that under the hypothesis of Lemma \[4.4’\], $\hat K$ and $K_\xi$ are cell complexes. If $K=K_6$, then $K_\xi$ can be chosen to be the semi-icosahedron, and if $K$ is the Petersen graph, then $K_\xi$ can be chosen to be the semi-dodecahedron (see §\[semi\]). \[3.3a\] If $K$ is a poset and $L$ is its (proper) $h$-minor, then each $L_\zeta$ is a (proper) $h$-minor of some $K_\xi$. Suppose that $f{\colon}K\to L$ is an order-preserving surjection such that $\|f\|$ is cell-like. Given subcomplexes $M$, $N$ of $L$ such that $t_L(M)=N$ and $M,N\in\lambda_L$, we have that $M'\bydef f^{-1}(M)$ and $N'\bydef f^{-1}(N)$ belong to $\lambda_K$ since $\|f\|$ restricts to a homotopy equivalence $\|f\|^{-1}(P)\to P$ for every subpolyhedron $P$ of $\|L\|$. Up to relabelling, we may assume that $\zeta(\{M,N\})=M$. Then we set $\xi(\{M',t_K(M')\})=M'$ and $\xi(\{N',t_K(N')\})=t_K(N')$. If $t_K(N')\ne M'$, then we label $M'$ as a “primary” element of the image of $\xi$. This defines $\xi$ on a subset of $\lambda_K/t_K$. We extend it to the remaining elements arbitrarily, and do not introduce any new labels. The subcomplex $K_\xi'$ of $K_\xi$ obtained by adjoining to $K$ all primary elements of $\xi(\lambda_K/t_K)$ then admits an order-preserving surjection $g$ onto $L_\zeta$ such that $g$ is an extension of $f$, and $\|g\|$ is cell-like. The remaining case where $L$ is a subcomplex of $K$ is similar (and easier). Let $K\hat\oplus K^=K_\xi\oplus (K_\xi)^$. This poset does not depend on the choice of $\xi$, since it is isomorphic to $\hat K\oplus K^$ (and also to $K\oplus (\hat K)^$). Moreover, it is easy to see that the involution on $K\hat\oplus K^$ also does not depend on the choice of $\xi$. Lemma \[4.4’\] has the following \[4.4\] If $L$ is the $n$-skeleton of a $(2n+2)$-dichotomial cell complex $B$, then $L\hat\oplus L^$ is anti-equivariantly isomorphic to $B$. By Lemma \[4.4’\], $L_\xi$ is a cell complex for every $\xi$. Hence $L_\xi$ is isomorphic to a $K$ as in the proof of Lemma \[4.4’\], and therefore by Theorem \[5.6\], $L_\xi\oplus L_\xi^$ is anti-equivariantly isomorphic to $B$. Let $K\hat\circledast K$ be the union of $K\circledast K$ and cones of the form $C(S\bar S)$, where $S\in\lambda_K$. In more detail, $K\hat\circledast K=(P\cup\lambda_K,\preceq)$, where $(P,\le)$ is the deleted join $K\circledast K=C^K\otimes C^K\subset KK$, and $p\preceq q$ iff $p,q\in P$ and $p\le q$ or $p=(\sigma,\tau)\in P$, $q\in\lambda_K$, and either - $\sigma,\tau\ne\hat 1$ and $\sigma\in q$ and $\tau\in t_K(q)$, or - $\sigma=\hat 1$ and $\tau\in t_K(q)$, or - $\tau=\hat 1$ and $\sigma\in q$. Since $C(S\bar S)$ is subdivided by $(CS)\bar S$ (and also by $S(C\bar S)$), we obtain that $K_\xi\circledast K_\xi$ is a subdivision of $K\hat\circledast K$, for each $\xi$. Then from Lemmas \[3.3b\] and \[3.3a\] we get the following \[3.3\] If $L$ is an $h$-minor of a poset $K$, there exists a $\Z/2$-map $H{\colon}\|L\hat\circledast L\|\to \|K\hat\circledast K\|$. Moreover, if $K$ is atomistic and $L$ is its proper $h$-minor, then $H$ is non-surjective. Since $K_\xi\circledast K_\xi$ (which does depend on $\xi$) is a subdivision of $K\hat\circledast K$, we also obtain that $\|K\hat\circledast K\|\cong \|K\hat\oplus K^\|$, equivariantly. It is easy to find such a $\Z/2$-homeomorphism that does not depend on the choice of $\xi$. \[3.0\] Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional cell complex. $\|K\|$ is linklessly embeddable in $S^{2n+1}$ iff there exists a $\Z/2$-map $\|K\hat\circledast K\|\to S^{2n+1}$. This is similar to [@M2 Theorem 4.2] but we give a more detailed proof here. A part of the proof is also parallel to a part of the proof of Lemma \[proper minor\]. Given a linkless embedding $g{\colon}\|K\|\emb S^{2n+1}$, we may extend it to an embedding $G{\colon}\|C^K\|\emb B^{2n+2}$ and pick null-homotopies $H_S{\colon}\|C^S\sqcup C^\bar S\|\to B^{2n+2}$ of the links $g(\|S\cup\bar S\|)$ such that $H_S(\|C^S\|)\cap H_S(\|C^\bar S\|)=\emptyset$ and $H_S^{-1}(S^{2n+1})=\|S\sqcup\bar S\|$, for each $S\in\lambda_K$. Since each $H_S$ is homotopic through maps $H_t:\|C^S\sqcup C\bar S\|\to B^{2n+2}$ satisfying $H_t^{-1}(S^{2n+1})=\|S\sqcup\bar S\|$ (but not necessarily $H_t(\|C^S\|)\cap H_t(\|C^\bar S\|)=\emptyset$) to the restriction of $G$, the deleted product maps $\tilde G{\colon}\|C^K\otimes C^K\|\to S^{2n+1}$ and $\tilde H_S\|_{\dots}{\colon}\|C^S\x C^\bar S\sqcup C^\bar S\x C^S\|\to S^{2n+1}$ have equivariantly homotopic restrictions to $\|S\bar S\sqcup\bar SS\|$. Hence $G$ extends to an equivariant map $\|K\hat\circledast K\|\to S^{2n+1}$ (using the homeomorphism $\|C^(S\bar S)\|\cong \|C(S\bar S)\|$). Conversely, let $K\hat\otimes K$ be the union of $K\otimes K$ and cones of the form $C(S\x\bar S)$, where $S\in\lambda_K$. Then the quotient of $\|K\hat\circledast K\|$ obtained by shrinking $\|K\emptyset\|$ and $\|\emptysetK\|$ to points is $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to the suspension $S^0\|K\hat\otimes K\|$. Then similarly to Lemma \[quotient\] there exists a $\Z/2$-map $S^0\|K\hat\otimes K\|\to S^{2n+1}$. By the equivariant Freudenthal suspension theorem, $\|K\otimes K\|$ admits a $\Z/2$-map $\phi$ to $S^{2n}$ whose restriction to $\|S\x\bar S\|$ is null-homotopic for each $S\in\lambda$. By Lemma \[deleted\], $\phi$ extends equivariantly over $\|K\x K\|\but\Delta_{\|K\|}$. Hence by the Haefliger–Weber criterion ([@We]; alternatively, see [@M2 3.1] and Remark \[erratum2\] below), $\|K\|$ admits an embedding $g$ into $B^{2n+1}$ such that $\tilde g{\colon}\|K\otimes K\|\to S^{2n}$ is $\Z/2$-homotopic to $\phi$. In particular, the restriction of $\tilde g$ to $S\x\bar S$ is null-homotopic for each $S\in\lambda_K$. When $n=1$, this implies that any two disjointly embedded circles in $g(\|K\|)$ have zero linking number. Then by Theorem \[RST\](b), $\|K\|$ admits a linkless embedding in $S^3$. When $n\ge 2$, the embedding $g$ itself is linkless by Lemma \[is-linkless\]. Let $K$ be the $n$-skeleton of a $(2n+2)$-dimensional dichotomial cell complex. Then every embedding of $\|K\|$ in $S^{2n+1}$ contains a link of two disjoint $n$-spheres with an odd linking number. By Lemma \[4.4’\], every $S\in\lambda_K$ cellulates an $n$-sphere. If $g{\colon}\|K\|\emb\R^{2n+1}$ is an embedding that for every $S\in\lambda_K$ links $\|S\|$ and $\|\bar S\|$ with an even linking number, then by proof of the “only if” part of Theorem \[3.0\], $\|K\hat\circledast K\|$ admits an $\Z/2$-map to $S^{2n+2}$ of even degree. However no even degree self-map of a sphere can be equivariant with respect to the antipodal involution. (For the resulting self-map of the projective space lifts to the double cover, so must send $w_1$ of the covering to itself. However the top power of $w_1$ goes to zero if the degree is even.) Let $K$ be an $n$-dimensional atomistic cell complex such that $\|K\hat\circledast K\|$ is a $(2n+2)$-circuit. Then $\|K\|$ admits a linkless embedding in $S^{2n+1}$. The proof is similar to a part of the proof of Lemma \[proper minor\]. By Corollary \[3.3\] we have a non-surjective $\Z/2$-map $f{\colon}\|L\hat\circledast L\|\to\|K\hat\circledast K\|$. Let $t$ denote the factor exchanging involution, let $\phi{\colon}\|L\hat\circledast L\|/t\to\R P^\infty$ be its classifying map, and let $\xi\in H^{2n+2}(\R P^\infty;\,\Z)\simeq\Z/2$ be the generator. Since $\phi$ factors up to homotopy through the non-surjective map $f/t$ into the $(2n+2)$-circuit $\|K\hat\circledast K\|/t$, we have $\phi^(\xi)=0$. Then $\|L\hat\circledast L\|$ admits a $\Z/2$-map into $S^{2n+1}$ (see [@M2 proof of 3.2]), and the assertion follows from Thorem \[3.0\]. Equivariant homotopy of the Petersen family {#Petersen topology} ------------------------------------------- \[3.4\] Let $\Delta$ be the $(2n+3)$-simplex and $L$ its $n$-skeleton. For each pair of complementary $(n+1)$-simplices, choose one, and let $L_\xi$ be the union of $L$ with the chosen $(n+1)$-simplices. Then $L_\xi$ is self-dual, hence by Theorem \[5.6\], $\|L_\xi\circledast L_\xi\|$ is $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to the $(2n+2)$-sphere. On the other hand, $\|L_\xi\circledast L_\xi\|$ is also $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to $\|L\hat\circledast L\|$ by the above. Hence by the Borsuk–Ulam theorem the latter admits no $\Z/2$-map to $S^{2n+1}$. Thus by Theorem \[3.0\], $L$ is not linklessly embeddable in $S^{2n+1}$. In particular, $K_6$ is not linklessly embeddable in $S^3$. This was first proved by Conway and Gordon, see also [@Sac1], [@Sac2]; the $n$-dimensional generalization is proved in [@LS Corollary 1.1], [@Ta] and [@M2 Example 4.7] (in all cases, by methods different from the above). A graph $H$ is said to be obtained by a $\nabla$Y-[exchange]{} from a graph $G$, if $G$ contains a subgraph $\nabla$ isomorphic to $\partial\Delta^2$, and $H$ is obtained from $G$ by removing the three edges of $\nabla$ and instead adjoining the triod Y$\bydef\Delta^0(\nabla)^0$. We shall call a $\nabla$Y-exchange [dangerous]{} if $G$ contains no circuit disjoint from $\nabla$; and [allowable]{} if either (i) it is dangerous, or (ii) it is non-dangerous and $G$ contains precisely one circuit $C$ disjoint from $\nabla$, and $H$ contains no circuit disjoint from $C$. Let us consider an allowable $\nabla$Y-exchange $G\rightsquigarrow H$. The obvious map $\|\nabla\|\to\|$Y$\|$, sending the barycenters of the edges to the cone point and keeping $\|\nabla^{(0)}\|$ fixed, yields a map $f{\colon}\|G\|\to \|H\|$, which sends every pair of disjoint cells of $G$ to a pair of disjoint subcomplexes of $H$. Given an $H_\zeta$, let us choose a $G_\xi$ as follows. In the dangerous case we have a canonical bijection between $\lambda_G$ and $\lambda_H$, and we let $\xi$ correspond to $\zeta$ under this bijection. In the non-dangerous case, $\lambda_G$ contains two additional circuits, $\nabla$ and $C$, and we set $\xi(\{\nabla,C\})=\nabla$. Conversely, every $\xi$ satisfying the latter property uniquely determines a $\zeta$ for a non-dangerous exchange, and every $\xi$ whatsoever uniquely determines a $\zeta$ for a dangerous exchange. With such $\zeta$ and $\xi$, our $f$ extends to an $f_\zeta{\colon}\|G_\xi\|\to \|H_\zeta\|$, which in the non-dangerous case is collapsible. This $f_\zeta$ still sends every pair of disjoint cells of $G_\xi$ to a pair of disjoint subcomplexes of $H_\zeta$. Hence $f_\zetaf_\zeta$ restricts to a $\Z/2$-map $F_\zeta{\colon}\|G_\xi\circledast G_\xi\|\to \|H_\zeta\circledast H_\zeta\|$. In the non-dangerous case, $F_\zeta$ is collapsible, and so is an equivariant homotopy equivalence. \[3.5\] There is the following diagram of $\nabla$Y-exchanges, which uses the notation of Fig. 1: $$\begin{CD} @.\!\!\!\!K_{3,3,1}\!\!\!\!@.@.@.\\ @.\hskip25pt\searrow\hskip-25pt@.@.@.\\ K_6@>>>\Gamma_7@>>>\Gamma_8@>>>\Gamma_9@>>>P\\ @.\hskip15pt_{\mathbf !}\searrow\hskip-30pt@.@.@.\\ @.@.\!\!\!\!K_{4,4}\!\but\! e\!\!\!\!@.@. \end{CD}\tag{$$}$$ It can be verified by inspection that all these $\nabla$Y-exchanges are allowable, and that no further $\nabla$Y- or Y$\nabla$-exchange (allowable or not) can be applied to any graph in this diagram; thus these seven graphs are the Petersen family graphs. The only dangerous $\nabla$Y-exchange is marked by an “$\mathbf !$”. Write $L=K_6$, and select $L_\xi$ so that it contains a quadruple of $2$-cells whose pairwise intersections contain no edges. For instance, the hemi-icosahedron (see §\[semi\]) will do. Then the horizontal sequence of $\nabla$Y-exchanges in ($$) can be made along these four $2$-cells, which compatibly defines a $G_\xi$ for each $G$ in this sequence. These also uniquely determine compatible $G_\xi$ for $G=K_{3,3,1}$ and $K_{4,4}\but$(edge). Then by the above, for each $G$ in the Petersen family, we obtain a $\Z/2$-map $\|L\hat\circledast L\|\to \|G\hat\circledast G\|$ (using the invertibility of the $\Z/2$-homotopy equivalence in the case of $K_{3,3,1}$). On the other hand, by the preceding example $\|L\hat\circledast L\|$ is $\Z/2$-homeomorphic to $S^4$, hence by the Borsuk–Ulam Theorem it admits no $\Z/2$-map to $S^3$. Thus $\|G\hat\circledast G\|$, for each $G$ in the Petersen family, admits no $\Z/2$-map to $S^3$. The (easy) “only if” direction in Theorem \[3.0\] now implies that none of the graphs of the Petersen family is linklessly embeddable in $S^3$, a fact originally observed by Sachs [@Sac1], [@Sac2]. Corollary \[3.3\] then implies the easy direction in the Robertson–Seymor–Thomas Theorem \[RST\](b). \[hemi-exchanges\] If we do choose $L_\xi$ to be the hemi-icosahedron, then all the non-dangerous $\nabla$Y and Y$\nabla$-exchanges in ($$) yield cellulations of $\R P^2$ by the complexes $G_\xi$, in particular, by the hemi-dodecahedron $P_\xi$. \[K44-nonembed\] We shall see in the next subsection that the $F_\xi$ corresponding to all the non-dangerous $\nabla$Y-exchanges in ($$) can be approximated by equivariant homeomorphisms (for those in the horizontal line this also follows from the Cohen–Homma Theorem \[Cohen-Homma\]). This cannot be the case for the dangerous one. Indeed if $G=K_{4,4}\but$(edge), then $G\circledast G$ alone contains a join of two triods, which is non-embeddable in $S^4$ since the link of its central edge is $K_{3,3}$, which does not embed in $S^2$. Combinatorics of the Petersen family {#transforms} ------------------------------------ Following van Kampen [@vK2] and McCrory [@Mc], we define a [combinatorial manifold]{} as a cell complex $K$ such that $K^$ is also a cell complex (cf. [@M3]). If additionally both $K$ and $K^$ are atomistic, we say that $K$ is an [$\alpha$-combinatorial]{} manifold. Now an [homology ($\alpha$-)combinatorial manifold]{} as an (atomistic) homology cell complex $K$ such that $K^$ is also an (atomistic) homology cell complex. Here a poset $K$ is called an [homology cell complex]{} if for each $\sigma\in K$ there exists an $m$ such that $H_i(\|\partial\fll\sigma\flr\|)\simeq H_i(S^m)$, with integer coefficients. Let $K$ be a poset and let $C\in K$. We say that $K$ is Y$\nabla$[-transformable]{} at $C$ if $C$ is covered by precisely three elements $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$ such that $\partial\fll D_i^\flr \subset\partial\fll D_{i+1}^\flr\cup\partial\fll D_{i-1}^\flr$, and $\fll D_{i-1}\flr\cap\fll D_{i+1}\flr=\fll C\flr$ for each $i$ (addition $\bmod 3$). \[homcomb\] Suppose that $K$ is an homology combinatorial $\alpha$-manifold and $C\in K$ is covered by precisely three elements $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$. Then $K$ is Y$\nabla$-transformable at $C$. The proof of property (ii) uses the hypothesis that $K^$ is atomistic. If $E>D_i$, pick an $E'<E$ such that $E'$ covers $D$. The homology combinatorial sphere $\partial E$ is a pseudo-manifold, so $\fll C\flr$ is contained in precisely two homology $(c+1)$-cells in $\partial E$. One of them is $\fll D_i\flr$, so the other can only be $\fll D_{i+1}\flr$ or $\fll D_{i-1}\flr$. [(ii).]{} Since the link $\partial\cel C\cer^L$ of $C$ in $L\bydef\fll D_1\flr\cup\fll D_2\flr\cup\fll D_3\flr$ is the $3$-point set, which is not a homology sphere, $K$ cannot be of dimension $c+1$, and therefore $D_i$ is not maximal. Hence $C^$ and $D_i^$ are not atoms of $\fll C^\flr$ and so all the atoms of $\fll C^\flr$ lie in $\fll C^\flr\but\{C^,D_i^\}$. By (i) the latter equals $\fll D_{i-1}^\flr\cup\fll D_{i+1}^\flr$. Hence $D_{i-1}^$ and $D_{i+1}^$ do not simultaneously belong to any cell of $K^$ other than $\fll C^\flr$. Suppose that $K$ is a poset that is Y$\nabla$-transformable at some $C\in K$. Then we define the Y$\nabla$[-transform]{} of $K$ at $C$ to be the poset $K_C$ that has one element $\hat B$ for each $B\in K$ and satisfies the following for each $A,A'\notin\{C,D_1,D_2,D_3\}$: - $\hat C>\hat D_i$, $i=1,2,3$; - $\hat A<\hat D_i$ iff $A<D_{i+1}$ or $A<D_{i-1}$; - $\hat A<\hat C$ iff $A<D_1$ or $A<D_2$ or $A<D_3$; - $\hat A>\hat D_i$ iff $A>D_{i+1}$ and $A>D_{i-1}$; - $\hat A>\hat C$ iff $A>D_1$ and $A>D_2$ and $A>D_3$; - $\hat A>\hat A'$ iff $A>A'$. This definition immediately implies that $(K_C)^$ is Y$\nabla$-transformable at $(\hat C)^$. A straightforward Boolean logic using that $K$ is Y$\nabla$-transformable at $C$ shows further that the Y$\nabla$-transform of $(K_C)^$ at $(\hat C)^$ is isomorphic to $K^$. We say that a poset $L$ is $\nabla$Y[-transformable]{} at $E\in L$ if $L^$ is Y$\nabla$-transformable at $E^$. In that case the $\nabla$Y[-transform]{} of $L$ at $E$ is defined to be the poset $L^E\bydef ((L^)_{E^})^$. Let $M$ be a triangulation of the Mazur contractible $4$-manifold. Let $M_1\cup M_2\cup M_3$ be the union of three copies of $M$ identified along an isomorphism of their boundaries. Then each $M_i\cup M_{i+1}$ (addition $\bmod 3$) is the double of $M$ and hence is homeomorphic to $S^4$. We glue it up by a $5$-cell $C_{i-1}$. Then $C_1\cap C_2=M_3$, so $C_1\cup C_2$ is simply-connected and acyclic, hence contractible. Its boundary $M_1\cup M_2\cong S^4$, so $(C_1\cup C_2)\cup C_3$ is a homotopy sphere, hence the genuine $5$-sphere. We glue it up by a pair of $6$-cells $D_1$, $D_2$. The resulting cell complex $K$ is homeomorphic to $S^6$, and hence its dual is also a cell complex (see [@M3]). Now $D_1^$ is covered by precisely three elements $C_1^$, $C_2^$, $C_3^$ of $K^$. Let $L=(K^)_{D_1^}$ and let $D=\widehat{D_1^}$. Then $D^$ is a cell of $L^$ such that $\|\partial\fll D^\flr\|\cong\|\partial M\|$, is a nontrivial homology $3$-sphere. Note that $D_1^$ is of codimension $6$ in $K^$. \[homology mfld\] Let $K$ be a homology $\alpha$-combinatorial manifold, and suppose that $C\in K$ is covered by precisely three elements of $K$. Then the [Y]{}$\nabla$-transform $K_C$ is a homology $\alpha$-combinatorial manifold. If additionally $K$ is an $\alpha$-combinatorial manifold, and $\fll C\flr$ is of codimension $\le 5$ in $K$, then $K_C$ is an $\alpha$-combinatorial manifold. [Case 1.]{} Let us first prove that $\|R\|$ and $\|A_i\|$ are homology spheres, where $R=\partial\fll(\hat C)^\flr$ and $A_i=\partial\fll(\hat D_i)^\flr$. Let $S=\partial\fll C^\flr$ and let $B_i=\fll D_i^\flr$. If $\fll C\flr$ has codimension $k$ in $K$, then the homology $(k-1)$-sphere $\|S\|$ is the union of three homology $(k-1)$-balls $\|B_i\|$. Since $\|\partial B_1\|$ is a homology $(k-2)$-sphere, by the Alexander duality the closures of its complementary domains, including $\|B_2\cup B_3\|$, are homology balls. Then the Mayer–Vietoris sequence implies that $\|B_2\cap B_3\|$ is a homology $(k-2)$-ball, and in particular $\|\partial(B_2\cap B_3)\|$ is a homology $(k-3)$-sphere. Now $\partial(B_2\cap B_3)=B_1\cap B_2\cap B_3\simeq R$, and $(B_2\cap B_3)\cup_R CR\simeq A_1$. If $k\le 5$, then the homology $(k-3)$-sphere $\|R\|$ must be a genuine sphere; and if additionally $K$ is an $\alpha$-combinatorial manifold, then $\|\partial B_2\|$ is a genuine $(k-2)$-sphere, so by the Schönflies and Alexander theorems, $\|R\|$ bounds in it a genuine $(k-2)$-ball $\|B_2\cap B_3\|$. [Case 2.]{} Next, each $\fll\hat D_i\flr$ is an (homology) cell since it is isomorphic to the union of the (homology) cells $\fll D_{i-1}\flr$ and $\fll D_{i+1}\flr$ whose intersection is the (homology) cell $\fll C\flr$. Also, $\fll\hat C\flr$ is an (homology) cell since it is isomorphic to the union of the (homology) cells $\fll\hat D_{i-1}\flr$ and $\fll\hat D_{i+1}\flr$ whose intersection is isomorphic to $(\partial\fll D_i\flr)\but\{C\}$. The latter cellulates an (homology) ball, which is the closure of the complement to the homology ball $\|\fll C\flr\|$ in the homology sphere $\|\partial\fll D_i\flr\|$. [Case 3.]{} Finally, let us consider a poset $K_C'$ that has one element $\check B$ for each $B\in K$ and additional elements $\check F_1$, $\check F_2$, $\check F_3$ and $\check E_{12}$, $\check E_{13}$, $\check E_{21}$, $\check E_{23}$, $\check E_{31}$, $\check E_{32}$, and satisfies the following for each $A,A'\notin\{C,D_1,D_2,D_3\}$ and all $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$, $i\ne j$: - $\check D_i>\check C>\check F_j$ and $\check D_i>\check E_{ij}>\check F_j$; - $\check C$ is incomparable with $\check E_{ij}$; - $\check A<\check E_{ij}$ iff $\check A<\check D_i$ iff $A<D_i$; - $\check A<\check F_j$ iff $\check A<\check C$ iff $A<C$; - $\check A>\check E_{ij}$ iff $\check A>\check F_j$ iff $A>D_{j+1}$ and $A>D_{j-1}$; - $\check A>\check D_i$ iff $\check A>\check C$ iff $A>D_1$ and $A>D_2$ and $A>D_3$; - $\check A>\check A'$ iff $A>A'$. It is easy to see that there exist subdivisions $\phi{\colon}K_C'\to K_C$ and $\psi{\colon}(K_C')^\to K^$. We note that $K_C'$ and $(K_C')^$ are non-atomistic posets whose cones are cells, except for one cone $\fll C\flr$ in $K_C'$ isomorphic to $(\partial\fll C\flr)+T$ and one cone $\fll E^\flr$ in $(K_C')^$ isomorphic to $(\partial\fll(\hat C)^\flr)+T$, where $T$ denotes the cone over $(\Delta^2)^{(0)}$. Then each of $\phi^{\colon}(K_C')^\to (K_C)^$ and $\psi^{\colon}K_C'\to K$ is obtained by taking the quotient by the copy of $T$ followed by three elementary zippings. Either from this, or because $\phi$ and $\psi$ are subdivisions, $\|\phi^\|=\|\phi\|$ and $\|\psi^\|=\|\psi\|$ are collapsible. On the other hand, for each $A\notin\{C,D_1,D_2,D_3\}$ we have $(\psi^)^{-1}(\fll A\flr)=\fll\check A\flr=\phi^{-1}(\fll\hat A\flr)$ and $\psi^{-1}(\fll A^\flr)=\fll(\check A)^\flr=(\phi^)^{-1}(\fll(\hat A)^\flr)$. Since a collapsible map is a homology equivalence, we obtain that each cone of $K_C$ other than $\fll\hat C\flr$ and $\fll\hat D_i\flr$, and each cone of $(K_C)^$ other than $\fll(\hat C)^\flr$ and $\fll(\hat D_i)^\flr$ is a homology cell. Then by the above, $K_C$ and $K_C^$ are homology cell complexes. It is clear that they are atomistic. Moreover, for each $A\in K$ other than $C$, $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$, if $\|\partial\fll A^\flr\|$ (resp. $\|\partial\cel A^\cer\|$) is a sphere, then so is the subdivided $\|\partial\fll(\check A)^\flr\|$ (resp.$\|\partial\cel(\check A)^\cer\|$), and hence by the Cohen–Homma Theorem \[Cohen-Homma\] so is $\|\partial\fll(\hat A)^\flr\|$ (resp.$\|\partial\cel(\hat A)^\cer\|$). Suppose that $K$ is a dichotomial homology cell complex and $(A,\bar A)$ is a pair of its complementary elements such that $A$ is covered by precisely three elements and $\bar A$ covers precisely three elements. Consider first the Y$\nabla$-transform $K_{\bar A}$. Then the $\nabla$Y-transform $(K_{\bar A})^{\hat A}$ is again a dichotomial homology cell complex. We shall call it the ($\nabla$,Y)[-transform]{} of $K$ along $(A,\bar A)$, and also the (Y,$\nabla$)[-transform]{} of $K$ along $(\bar A,A)$. \[4.5\] The ($\nabla$,Y)-transform of $\partial\Delta^3$ along $(\Delta^2,\Delta^0)$ is isomorphic to $\partial\Delta^3$. \[4.6\] The ($\nabla$,Y)-transform of $\partial\Delta^4$ along $(\Delta^2,\Delta^1)$ is the dichotomial complex with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3}$. \[4.8\] It is easy to see that the horizontal sequence of $\nabla$Y-exchanges in ($$) lifts to a sequence of ($\nabla$,Y)-transforms of dichotomial cellulations of $S^4$, along pairs of the types $(\Delta^2,D_i)$ with $i=3,4,5,6$, where $D_i$ is a $2$-cell with $i$ edges in the boundary. The inverse (Y,$\nabla$)-transforms are along pairs of the type (vertex, $4$-cell). The Y$\nabla$-exchange $\Gamma_8\rightsquigarrow K_{3,3,1}$ lifts to a similar (Y,$\nabla$)-transform, whose inverse ($\nabla$,Y)-transform is of the type $(\Delta^2,D_4)$. Thus all $\Gamma_i$’s, $P$, and $K_{3,3,1}$ are the $1$-skeleta of their respective dichotomial cellulations of $S^4$. \[4.9\] Let us think of $K_6$ as the $1$-skeleton of the boundary of a top cell of $\partial\Delta^6$. The sequence of two $\nabla$Y-exchanges leading to $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) lifts to a sequence of two ($\nabla$,Y)-transforms of dichotomial cellulations of $S^5$, along pairs of the types $(\Delta^2,\Delta^3)$ and $(\Delta^2,\Sigma^3)$, where $\Sigma^3$ is isomorphic to a top cell of the dichotomial $3$-complex with $1$-skeleton $K_{3,3}$. Thus $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) is the $1$-skeleton of the boundary of a top cell of a dichotomial $5$-sphere. Suppose that $K$ is a poset and $\fll D_1\flr$, $\fll D_2\flr$, $\fll D_3\flr$ are its $(c+1)$-dimensional cones such that no two of them have a common $c$-dimensional subcone. The [pseudo-[Y]{}$\nabla$-transform]{} of $K$ at $(D_1,D_2,D_3)$ is the poset $L$ that has one element $\hat B$ for each $B\in K$, and an additional element $\hat C$, and satisfies the following (same as above) for each $A,A'\notin\{D_1,D_2,D_3\}$: - $\hat C>\hat D_i$, $i=1,2,3$; - $\hat A<\hat D_i$ iff $A<D_{i+1}$ or $A<D_{i-1}$; - $\hat A<\hat C$ iff $A<D_1$ or $A<D_2$ or $A<D_3$; - $\hat A>\hat D_i$ iff $A>D_{i+1}$ and $A>D_{i-1}$; - $\hat A>\hat C$ iff $A>D_1$ and $A>D_2$ and $A>D_3$; - $\hat A>\hat A'$ iff $A>A'$. We also say that $L^$ is obtained by the $\nabla$Y[-transform]{} of $K^$ at $(D_1^,D_2^,D_3^)$. A [pseudo-[($\nabla$,Y)]{}-transform]{} of a dichotomial poset $K$ along $(A_1,A_2,A_3;\,\bar A_1,\bar A_2,\bar A_3)$ is now defined similarly to a ($\nabla$,Y)-transform. \[4.10\] It is easy to see that the dangerous $\nabla$Y-exchange $\Gamma_7\rightsquigarrow K_{4,4}\but$(edge) lifts to the pseudo-($\nabla$,Y)-transform along $(A_1,A_2,A_3;\,\bar A_1,\bar A_2,\bar A_3)$, where $A_i$ are the edges of the $\nabla$ and so $\bar A_i$ are their complementary $3$-cells. The resulting dichotomial poset $Q$ has $K_{4,4}\but$(edge) as its $1$-skeleton, and $\|Q\|$ is homeomorphic to the double mapping cone of the map $\|\nabla\nabla\|\to \|$Y$$Y$\|$. In particular, shrinking the pair of joins of two triods to points, we obtain a collapsible $\Z/2$-map $\|Q\|\to S^4$. Alternatively, it suffices to shrink $\|$Y$$Y$\|\cong I\|K_{3,3}\|$ to $pt\|K_{3,3}\|$. Proofs for §\[intro\] ===================== Collapsible and cell-like maps {#collapsing} ------------------------------ The following result is due to T. Homma (see [@Bry] for references and for corrections of Homma’s other proofs in there) and M. M. Cohen [@Co]. \[Cohen-Homma\] If $M$ is a closed manifold, $X$ is a polyhedron, and $f{\colon}M\to X$ is a collapsible map, then $X$ is homeomorphic to $M$. We include a proof modulo Cohen’s simplicial transversality lemma (see [@Co], [@M3]) Let us triangulate $f$ by a simplicial map $F{\colon}L\to K$. Write $n=\dim M$. Given a simplex $\sigma$ of $K$, let $\sigma^$ denote its dual cone, which is the join of the barycenter $\hat\sigma$ with the derived link $\partial\sigma^$ (see e.g. [@RS 2.27(6)]). By Cohen’s simplicial transversality lemma, if $\sigma$ is a simplex of $K$ of dimension $n-i$, then $\sigma^_f\bydef f^{-1}(\sigma^)$ is an $i$-manifold with boundary $\partial\sigma^_f\bydef f^{-1}(\partial\sigma^)$, and this manifold collapses onto the point-inverse $f^{-1}(\hat\sigma)$. The latter is collapsible by our hypothesis, so $\sigma^_f$ is an $i$-ball. Let $\sigma$ be a maximal simplex of $K$. Then $\partial\sigma^=\emptyset$ and so $\sigma^_f$ is a closed manifold. Since it also must be a ball of some dimension, this dimension is zero. Thus all maximal simplices of $K$ have dimension $n$; and if $\sigma$ is such a simplex, then $f$ restricts to a homeomorphism $\sigma^_f\to\sigma^$ between a $0$-ball and a point. Let $M_k$, resp. $X_k$ be the union of the manifolds $\sigma^_f$, resp. of the cones $\sigma^$, for all simplices $\sigma$ of $K$ of dimension $\ge n-k$. Assume inductively that there is a homeomorphism $g{\colon}M_k\to X_k$ that sends each $\sigma^_f$ into $\sigma^$. Given a simplex $\tau^{n-k-1}$ of $K$, by the assumption $g$ restricts to a homeomorphism $h_\tau{\colon}\partial\tau^_f\to\partial\tau^$. Since $\tau^_f$ is a ball, it is homeomorphic to the cone over $\partial\tau^_f$, so we can extend $h_\tau$ to a homeomorphism $\tau^_f\to\tau^$. At the end of this inductive construction lies a homeomorphism $M=M_n\to X_n=X$. If $f{\colon}P\to Q$ is a collapsible map between polyhedra, and $P$ embeds in a manifold $M$, then $Q$ embeds in $M$. Let us identify $P$ with a subpolyhedron of $M$. Then the adjunction space $M\cup_{f}Q$ is a polyhedron, and the quotient map $F{\colon}M\to M\cup_{f}Q$ is collapsible. Its target contains $Q$ and is homeomorphic to $M$ by the preceding theorem. If $\phi{\colon}P\to Q$ is a cell-like map between $n$-polyhedra, and $P$ embeds in an $m$-manifold $M$, where $m\ge n+3$, then $Q$ embeds in $M$. This can be deduced from known results, albeit in an awkward way. Using the theory of decomposition spaces [@Dav 23.2, 5.2], the quotient map $M\to M\cup_\phi Q$ can be approximated by topological homeomorphisms, and therefore $Q$ [topologically]{} embeds in $M$. Once again using the codimension three hypothesis, we can approximate the topological embedding by a PL one (see [@DV 5.8.1]). Below we give a proof avoiding topological embeddings; but we shall also see that they arose not accidentally, for we barely avoid using the $4$-dimensional topological Poincaré conjecture (=Freedman’s theorem). We use the notation in the proof of the Cohen–Homma theorem. We may assume that $\phi$ is triangulated by a simplicial map $\Phi{\colon}B\to A$, where $A$ and $B$ are subcomplexes of $K$ and $L$ and $\Phi$ is the restriction of $F$. Then the $\sigma^_f$ are no longer balls but contractible manifolds with spines of codimension $\ge 3$. Because of the latter, their boundaries are simply connected and hence homotopy spheres. By the Poincaré conjecture those of dimensions $\ge 5$ are genuine spheres and then what they bound are genuine balls of dimensions $\ge 6$. The $3$-dimensional and $4$-dimensional contractible manifolds are also genuine balls since their codimension $\ge 3$ spines must be collapsible. Of the $5$-dimensional contractible manifolds with $2$-dimensional spines we only note that they would be genuine balls if either the Andrews–Curtis conjecture or the $4$-dimensional PL Poincaré conjecture were known to hold. Write $Q_k=X_k\cap Q$, and for a simplex $\sigma$ in $A$, let $\sigma^_A=\sigma^\cap A$ be the dual cone of $\sigma$ in $A$, which is the join of the barycenter $\hat\sigma$ with the derived link $\partial\sigma^_A$. We claim that for each $k$ there is an embedding $g{\colon}Q_k\to M_k$ that sends each $\sigma^_A$ into $\sigma^_f$. There is nothing to prove for $k\le 2$. For $k=3$, we may have an $(n-3)$-simplex $\sigma$ in $A$, and then we need to embed its barycenter $\sigma^_A$ into the $3$-ball $\sigma^_f$; this is not hard. For $k=4$ and an $(n-4)$-simplex $\sigma$ in $A$, we have the finite set $\partial\sigma^_A$ embedded in the $3$-sphere $\partial\sigma^_f$, and we need to extend this embedding to an embedding of the $1$-polyhedron $\sigma^_A$ into the $4$-ball $\sigma^_f$; this is also not hard. For $k=5$ and an $(n-5)$-simplex $\sigma$ in $A$, we have the $1$-polyhedron $\partial\sigma^_A$ embedded in the homotopy $4$-sphere $\partial\sigma^_f$, and we need to extend this embedding to an embedding of the $2$-polyhedron $\sigma^_A$ into the homotopy $5$-ball $\sigma^_f$. This can be done: the boundary embedding extends to a map $\sigma^_A\to\sigma^_f$ since $\sigma^_f$ is contractible, and then this map of a $2$-polyhedron in a $5$-manifold can be approximated by an embedding by general position. For $k\ge 6$ we simply use conewise extension just like we did for $k=1$ and in the proof of the Cohen–Homma lemma. Eventually we obtain an embedding $Q=Q_n\emb M_n=M$. Let $f{\colon}X\to Y$ be a map between $n$-polyhedra, where $X$ embeds in an $m$-manifold $M$. Then $Y$ embeds in $M$ if either \(a) the point-inverse of the barycenter of every $k$-simplex is collapsible for $k\ge m-n-1$ and collapses onto an $(m-n-2-k)$-polyhedron for $k\le m-n-2$; or \(b) $m-n\ge 3$, and $f$ is fiberwise homotopy equivalent to a $g{\colon}Z\to Y$ whose nondegenerate point-inverses lie in a subpolyhedron of dimension $\le m-n-2$. Let us triangulate $\phi$ by a simplicial map $\phi{\colon}K\to L$. Since a collapse may be viewed as a map with collapsible point-inverses (see [@Co2 §8]), $f$ is the composition of a collapsible map $g{\colon}X\to Z$ and a map $h{\colon}Z\to Y$ whose non-degenerate point-inverses lie in the subpolyhedron $Q\bydef h^{-1}(\|L^{(m-n-2)}\|)$ of dimension $\le m-n-2$. By Theorem \[minors embed\](a), $Z$ embeds in $M$. Since the mapping cylinder $MC(h\|_Q)$ is of dimension $\le m-n-1$, by general position, this embedding extends to an embedding of $Z\cup MC(h\|_Q)$ in $M$. The point-inverses of the projection $Z\cup MC(h\|_Q)\to Y$ are cones, so applying theorem \[minors embed\](a) once again, we obtain that $Y$ embeds in $M$. Let $\phi{\colon}Z\to X$ be the given fiberwise homotopy equivalence over $Y$ and let $Q$ be the given subpolyhedron. Since $MC(g\|_Q)$ is of dimension $\le m-n-1$, the original embedding of $X$ in $M$ extends to an embedding of $X\cup_\phi MC(g\|_Q)$ in $M$. On the other hand, $X\cup_\phi MC(g\|_Q)$ is a fiberwise deformation retract of $X\cup_\phi MC(g)$, which in turn fiberwise deformation retracts onto $Y$. Hence every point-inverse of the projection $X\cup_\phi MC(g\|_Q)\to Y$ is contractible. Thus $Y$ embeds in $M$ by Theorem \[minors embed\](b). Edge-minors {#edge-minors2} ----------- Let $K'$ be a subdivision of the given $2$-complex $K$. We call a simplex $\sigma$ of $K'$ “old” if $\|\sigma\|=\|\tau\|$ for some simplex $\tau$ of $K$, and “new” otherwise. A subcomplex of $K'$ is said to be “old” if it consists entirely of old simplices, and “new” otherwise. Let $\partial\Delta^3$ be a missing tetrahedron in $K'$. Then $\|\partial\Delta^3\|$ has to be triangulated by a subcomplex of $K$, and therefore $\partial\Delta^3$ is old. Let $\partial\Delta^2$ be a missing triangle in $K'$. If $\|\partial\Delta^2\|$ lies in $\|K^{(1)}\|$, then it has to be triangulated by a subcomplex of $K^{(1)}$, and therefore $\partial\Delta^2$ is old. Thus every new missing triangle $\partial\Delta^2$ in $K'$ has a vertex in the interior of the combinatorial ball $\sigma'$ for some $2$-simplex $\sigma$ of $K$, and therefore $\partial\Delta^2$ is itself contained in $\sigma'$. Given a $2$-simplex $\sigma$ of $K$, every missing triangle $\partial\Delta^2$ of $K'$ contained in $\sigma'$ bounds a combinatorial disk in $\sigma'$. If two such disks intersect in at least one $2$-simplex, then one is contained in the other. Let $D_0$ be an innermost such disk in $\sigma'$. Since $\partial D_0$ is a missing triangle in $K'$, $D_0$ is not a $2$-simplex, and so contains at least one edge $\tau$ in its interior. By the minimality of $D_0$, $\tau$ is not contained in any missing triangle in $K'$. Since $\partial D_0$ is a complete graph, at least one vertex of $\tau$ lies in the interior of $D_0$, and hence in the interior of $\sigma'$. Then we may contract $e$. It remains to consider the case where $K'$ contains no new missing triangle. If $\tau$ is a new edge with at least one vertex in the interior of $\sigma'$ for some $2$-simplex $\sigma$ of $K$, we may contract $\tau$. If $\tau$ is a new edge such that $\|\tau\|$ lies in $\|K^{(1)}\|$, we may contract $\tau$. If there are no new edges of these two types, $K'=K$. By Theorem \[self-dual\] and assertion (2) above we may assume that $L$ is obtained from $K$ by a single edge contraction. Let $\sigma=\rho_1\rho_2$ be the contracted edge. Let us first consider the case where $r=1$. Then the opposite $(m-2)$-simplex $\tau$ to $\sigma$ in $\Delta^m$ is not contained in $K$; so $K$ lies in $\sigma\partial\tau$. The simplicial map $K\to L$ extends to an edge contraction $f{\colon}\sigma\tau\to\rho\tau$ of the entire $\Delta^m$, where $\rho$ is the $0$-simplex. We have $L=f(K)\subset\rho\partial\tau$. This is a combinatorial $(m-2)$-ball, and $\|\rho\partial\tau\|$ lies in $S^{m-2}\bydef\|\tau\cup\rho\partial\tau\|$, which proves the assertion of (a). Moreover, it is not hard to see that the composition $g$ of the inclusion $\|L\|\subset S^{m-2}$ and the embedding $S^{m-2}\emb S^{m-1}$, $\rho\mapsto\rho_1$, is equivalent to the embedding $\|L\|\emb S^{m-1}$ induced by $j$. Choosing $h$ to be the reflection $S^{m-1}\to S^{m-1}$ in $S^{m-2}$, we have $hg=g$, which proves the assertion of (b). The case where $\sigma$ lies in a single factor of the join $K_1\dotsK_r$, say in $K_1$, reduces to the case just considered, by observing that $K_2\dotsK_r$ lies in the combinatorial sphere $\partial\Delta^{m_2}\dots\partial\Delta^{m_r}$ of dimension $m-1-m_1$. The remaining cases similarly reduce to the case where $r=2$ and $\sigma=\sigma_1\sigma_2$, where $\sigma_i\in K_i$. Let $\tau_i$ be the opposite $(m_i-1)$-simplex to $\sigma_i$ in $\Delta^{m_i}$; then $K_i$ lies in $\sigma_i\partial\tau_i$. Similarly to the above, we have $L\subset\rho\partial\tau_1\partial\tau_2$. This is a combinatorial $(m-2)$-ball, which lies in the combinatorial $(m-2)$-sphere $\tau_1\partial\tau_2\cup\rho\partial\tau_1\partial\tau_2$, etc. Embeddability is commensurable with linkless embeddability {#commensurability} ========================================================== This section is concerned with relations between embeddings and linkless embeddings. It somewhat diverges from the combinatorial spirit of this paper, and instead contributes to a central theme of [@M2]; thus it is best viewed as an addendum to [@M2]. This said, the main result of this section also gives a geometric view of some examples and constructions mentioned in the introduction, and might contribute to an initial groundwork for a proof of a higher-dimensional Kuratowski(–Wagner) theorem. An embedding $g$ of a graph $\|G\|$ in $S^3$ is called [panelled]{} if for every circuit $Z$ in the graph, $g$ extends to an embedding of $\|G\cup CZ\|$. \[panels\] (a) [(Robertson–Seymour–Thomas [@RST])]{} A graph $G$ admits a panelled embedding in $S^3$ iff $\|G\|$ admits an embedding $g$ in $S^3$ such that for every two disjoint circuits $C$, $C'$ in the graph, $g$ links $\|C\|$ and $\|C'\|$ with an even linking number. \(b) [@M2 Lemma 4.1] An embedding of a graph in $S^3$ is panelled iff it is linkless and knotless. \[erratum\] The proof of (b) in [@M2] contains a minor inaccuracy: in showing that the embedding is linkless it explicitly treats the splitting of two disjoint subgraphs only in the case where one of them is connected; however, the argument works in the general case without any modifications. We also need a higher-dimensional analogue of Lemma \[panels\]. To this end, we recall from §\[embeddings\] that we call an $n$-polyhedron $M$ an [$n$-circuit]{}, if $H^n(M\but\{x\})=0$ for every $x\in M$. This implies that $H^n(M)$ is cyclic (since it is an epimorphic image of $H^n(M,M\but\{x\})$, where $x$ lies in the interior of an $n$-simplex of some triangulation of $M$) and that $H^n(P)=0$ for every proper subpolyhedron $P$ of $M$. An [oriented]{} $n$-circuit $M$ is endowed with a generator $\xi_M$ of $H^n(M)$. \[cohomology\] Let $P$ be a polyhedron. For every nonzero class $x\in H^n(P)$ there exists a singular $n$-circuit $f{\colon}M\to P$ such that $f^(x)\ne 0$. Moreover, $f^(x)$ is of the same order as $x$. We note that a more convenient and far-reaching geometric view of cohomology exists (see [@M2 §2], [@Fe], [@BRS]), but that is not what we need here. By the universal coefficient formula, $x$ maps to some $h{\colon}H_n(P)\to\Z$. If $x$ is of infinite order, then $h$ is nontrivial. Let us pick a $y\in H_n(P)$ with $h(y)\ne 0$. Then $y$ is representable by a singular oriented $\Z$-pseudo-manifold $f{\colon}M\to P$ such that $y=f_([M])$ (see [@Fe Theorem 1.3.7]). Then $hf_([M])\ne 0$, so $f^(h){\colon}H_n(M)\to\Z$ is nontrivial. Hence by the naturality in the UCF, $f^(x)\ne 0$. If $x$ is of a finite order, $m$ say, then $h$ is trivial. Hence $x$ comes from some extension $\Z\mono G\epi H_{n-1}(P)$ of order $m$ in $\operatorname{Ext}(H_{n-1}(P),\Z)$. Then there exists a $z\in H_{n-1}(P)$ of order $m$ that is covered by an element $\hat z\in G$ of infinite order. In particular, $z$ is the Bockstein image of some $y\in H_n(P;\,\Z/m)$. This $y$ is representable by a singular oriented $\Z/m$-pseudo-manifold $f{\colon}M\to P$ such that $y=f_([M])$ (see [@BRS Chapter III], [@Do]). Then by the naturality of the Bockstein homomorphism, $z=f_(\beta[M])$. Hence the induced extension $\Z\mono f^G\epi H_{n-1}(M)$ is such that $\beta[M]$ is covered by an element of $f^G$ of infinite order, which maps onto $\hat x$. Since $\beta[M]$ is of order $m$, the induced extension is itself of order $m$ in $\operatorname{Ext}(H_{n-1}(M),\Z)$. Hence by the naturality in the UCF, $f^(x)$ is of order $m$. The [linking number]{} of an oriented singular $m$-circuit $f{\colon}M\to\R^{m+n+1}$ and an oriented singular $n$-circuit $g{\colon}N\to\R^{m+n+1}$ with disjoint images is the degree of the composition $M\x N\xr{f\x g}\R^{m+n+1}\x\R^{m+n+1}\but\Delta_{\R^{m+n+1}}\simeq S^{m+n}$, which is given by the formula $(m,n)\mapsto\frac{m-n}{\|\|m-n\|\|}$. This degree $\operatorname{lk}(f,g)$ lives in the cyclic group $H^{m+n}(M\x N)\simeq H^m(M)\otimes H^n(N)$. The linking number of an unoriented $m$-circuit and an unoriented $n$-circuit in $S^{m+n+1}$ is well-defined up to a sign. By an [$n$-circuit with boundary]{} we mean any $n$-polyhedron $M$ along with an $(n-1)$-dimensional subpolyhedron $\partial M$ such that $M/\partial M$ is a genuine $n$-circuit. If additionally $\partial M$ is an $(n-1)$-circuit and the coboundary map $H^{n-1}(\partial M)\to H^n(M)$ is an isomorphism, then we say that $\partial M$ [bounds]{} $M$. \[circuits\] Let $P$ be an $n$-polyhedron, $n\ge 2$, and $g{\colon}P\emb S^{2n+1}$ an embedding. \(a) $g$ is linkless iff every pair of singular $n$-circuits in $P$ with disjoint images have zero linking number under $g$. \(b) $g$ is linkless iff for every $(n+1)$-circuit $Z$ with boundary, every $f{\colon}\partial Z\to P$ and every function $\phi{\colon}\partial Z\to I$, the embedding $g\x\operatorname{id}_I{\colon}P\x I\emb S^{2n+1}\x I$ extends to an embedding of $P\x I\cup_{f\x\phi}Z$ in $S^{2n+1}\x I$. Let $Q$ and $R$ be disjoint subpolyhedra of $g(P)$. Since $Q$ is of codimension $\ge 3$ in the sphere, $M\bydef S^{2n+1}\but Q$ is simply-connected. Hence by the Alexander duality and the Hurewicz theorem $M$ is $(n-1)$-connected, and $\pi_n(M)\simeq H_n(M)\simeq H^n(Q)$. Therefore $$H^n(R;\,\pi_n(M))\simeq H^n(R;\,H^n(Q))\simeq H^n(R)\otimes H^n(Q)\simeq H^n(R\x Q).$$ The first obstruction to null-homotopy of the inclusion $R\subset M$ can be identified under this string of isomorphisms with the image of the generator of $H^{2n}(S^{2n})$ in $H^{2n}(R\x Q)$. If this image is nonzero, it is of the form $\sum r_i\otimes q_i$, where each $r_i\in H^n(R)$ and each $q_i\in H^n(Q)$, and each $r_i\otimes q_i$ is nonzero. Then by Lemma \[cohomology\] there are singular $n$-circuits $f{\colon}V\to Q$ and $g{\colon}W\to R$ such that $f^(r_1)$ has the same order as $r_1$, and $g^(q_1)$ has the same order as $q_1$. Then $f^(r_1)\otimes g^(q_1)$ is nonzero, and also it equals $\operatorname{lk}(f,g)$, contradicting the hypothesis. Hence by obstruction theory $R$ is null-homotopic in $M$. Then by engulfing (see e.g. [@Ze1 Lemma 2], [@Hu Chapter VII]), $M$ contains a ball that contains $R$. The if direction follows from (a), since the projection of the image of $Z$ onto $S^{2n+1}$ is disjoint from $g(P)$, except at $gf(\partial Z)$. Conversely, let $N$ be the second derived neighborhood of $f(\partial Z)$ in some triangulation $K$ of $P$. Given a linkless embedding $P\subset S^{2n+1}$, let $B$ be a codimension zero ball containing $f(\partial Z)$ and such that $B\cap P$ is contained in $N$. [Step 1.]{} By a simple engulfing argument, we may assume that the intersection of each simplex $\sigma$ of $K$ with the interior of $B$ is connected. In more detail, if $C$ and $D$ are two components of this intersection, pick some $c\in C$ and $d\in D$. Since the intersection of $\sigma$ with the interior of $N_i$ is connected, we can join $c$ and $d$ by an arc $J$ in that intersection. We may assume that $J$ meets $\partial B$ in finitely many points; arguing by induction, we may further assume that there are just two of them, $c'$ and $d'$. Let $J'$ be the segment of $J$ spanned by these points. Let us also join $c'$ and $d'$ by an arc $J''$ in $\partial B$ that meets $P$ only in its endpoints. The $1$-sphere $J'\cup J''$ bounds a $2$-disk $D$ in the closure of the complement to $B$ in $S^{2n+1}$ that meets $B\cup P$ only in $\partial D$. Then a small regular neighborhood $\beta$ of $D$ in the closure of the complement of $B$ is such that the ball $B\cup\beta$ still meets $P$ along a subpolyhedron of $N$. Moreover, replacing $B$ with $B\cup\beta$ decreases the number of components in the intersection of a simplex $\tau$ of $K$ with the interior of $B\cup\beta$ when $\tau=\sigma$, and keeps it the same when $\tau\ne\sigma$. [Step 2.]{} Let us write $Z'=Z\cup_{f\x\phi}(f\x\phi)(\partial Z)$. Pick a generic map $F{\colon}Z'\to B\x I$ extending the embedding $g\|_{\partial Z'}$. Since $F$ is a codimension three map, and $Z'$ is a circuit, by the Penrose–Whitehead–Zeeman trick it can be replaced by an embedding $G$ that agrees with $F$ on $\partial Z'$ (compare [@Sa-1] and [@M2 §8]). In more detail, given a self-intersection $F(p)=F(q)$ of $F$, since $Z$ is a circuit, $p$ and $q$ can be joined by an arc $J$ in $Z'$ that contains only generic points. So a small regular neighborhood $R$ of $J$ in $Z'$ is a $2$-disk. Now $F(J)$ bounds a $2$-disk $D$ in $S^{2n+1}\x I$ that meets $F(Z')$ only in $\partial D$ and is disjoint from $g(P\x I)$. A small regular neighborhood $S$ of $D$ in $S^{2n+1}\x I$ is a ball disjoint from $g(P\x I)$ and we may assume that $F^{-1}(S)=R$. Then we redefine $F$ on $S$ by the conewise extension $R\to S$ of the boundary restriction $F\|_{\partial R}{\colon}\partial R\to\partial S$. [Step 3.]{} By a further application of the same trick, using that the intersection of each $\sigma$ with the interior of $B$ is connected, we may further amend $G$ so that the image of the resulting embedding $G'$ meets $g(P\x I)$ only in $g(\partial Z')$. Indeed, given an intersection $F(p)=g(q)$ between $F$ and $g$, we may join $q$ to some point $r\in\partial Z'$ by an arc $J$ in $P\x I$ going only through generic points of $P\x I$ (except for $r$ itself) and such that $g(J)$ lies in the interior of $B$. We may then join $p$ and $r$ by an arc $J'$ in $Z'$ going only through generic points of $Z'$ (except for $r$ itself). Then a regular neighborhood of $J\cup J'$ is a cone, and the preceding construction works. We write $CP$ to denote the cone $ptP$ over the polyhedron $P$. \[commensuration\] Let $P$ be an $n$-polyhedron, and let $Q$ be an $(n-1)$-dimensional subpolyhedron of $P$ such that the closure of every component of $P\but Q$ is an $n$-circuit with boundary. In part (a), assume further that every pair of disjoint singular $(n-1)$-circuits in $Q$ bounds disjoint singular $n$-circuits in $P$. \(a) $Q$ linklessly embeds in $S^{2n-1}$ iff $P\cup CQ$ embeds in $S^{2n}$. \(b) $P$ embeds in $S^{2n}$ iff $P\cup CQ$ linklessly embeds in $S^{2n+1}$. The case $n=1$ of (b) and much of the case $n=2$ of (a) were proved by van der Holst [@Ho], which the author discovered after writing up the proof below. The case $n=1$ in the “only if” assertion in (b) was also proved earlier in [@RST']. Given an embedding $P\cup CQ\subset S^{2n}$, let $B$ be a regular neighborhood of $CQ$ relative to $P$. Since $CQ$ link-collapses onto $Q$, this $B$ is a manifold [@HZ] (cf.[@Hus]), and therefore a ball (see [@HZ] or [@Co2]). Then $Q\subset\partial B$ is an embedding that is linkless (and knotless, if $n=2$) by Lemma \[circuits\](a) and Lemma \[panels\](a). Suppose we are given a linkless embedding $Q\subset S^{2n-1}$; if $n=2$, we may further assume that it is panelled by Lemma \[panels\](a). Let us extend it to the conical embedding of $CQ$ in $B^{2n}$ and to the vertical embedding of $Q\x I$ into a collar $S^{2n-1}\x I$ of $B^{2n}$ in $S^{2n}$. Let $M_1,\dots,M_r$ be the closures of the components of $P\but Q$. If $n=2$, each $\partial M_i$ bounds an embedded disk $D$ in $S^3$ that meets $Q$ only in $\partial D$. Then $Q\x\{\frac ir\}$ can be easily approximated by an embedded copy of $M_i$ lying in $S^3\x [\frac{i-1}r,\frac ir]$ and meeting $Q\x I$ only in $\partial M_i$. If $n\ge 3$, then Lemma \[circuits\](b) yields an embedding $g_i$ of each $M_i$ in $S^{2n-1}\x [\frac{i-1}r,\frac ir]$ extending the inclusion of $\partial M_i$ onto $\partial M_i\x\{\frac ir\}$ and disjoint from $Q\x I$ elsewhere. In either case, different $M_i$’s will be disjoint because of their heights in $S^{2n+1}\x I$. Let $\hat P=CQ\cup Q\x I\cup M_1\cup\dots\cup M_r$. The projection $\pi{\colon}Q\x I\to Q$ yields a collapsible map $S^4\to S^4\cup_\pi Q$. By the Cohen–Homma Theorem \[Cohen-Homma\], $S^4\cup_\pi Q$ is homeomorphic to $S^4$, and therefore $P=\hat P\cup_\pi Q$ embeds in $S^4$. Let us write $S^{2n+1}=\{\nu,\sigma\}S^{2n}$. Given an embedding $P\subset S^{2n}$, it extends to the conical embedding $P\cup\nuQ\subset \nuP\subset\nuS^{2n}\subset S^{2n+1}$. If $n=1$, then the latter is panelled, since every circuit $Z$ of $P\cup\nuQ$ either lies in $P$ (and so bounds the disk $\sigmaZ$) or is of the form $\nu(\partial J)\cup J$, where $J$ is an arc in $P$ (and so bounds the disk $\nuJ$). Now suppose that $n\ge 2$ and let $N$ and $S$ be disjoint subpolyhedra of $P\cup\nuQ$. Without loss of generality $\nu\in N$. Then $H^n(S,\,S\cap P)\simeq H^n(S\cup P,\,P)=0$ due to $H^n(P\cup\nuQ\but\nu\emptyset,\,P)=0$. Let $\Sigma=\sigma(S\cap P)$; then $H^n(S\cup\Sigma)\simeq H^n(S\cup\Sigma,\Sigma)=0$. By the Alexander duality, the open manifold $M\bydef S^{2n+1}\but (S\cup\Sigma)$ is homologically $n$-connected. But also it is simply-connected as the complement to the codimension $\ge 3$ subset $S\but\Sigma$ in the Euclidean space $S^{2n+1}\but\Sigma$. Hence $M$ is $n$-connected, and so the $n$-polyhedron $N$, which has codimension $\ge 3$ in $M$, can be engulfed into a ball in $M$ (see e.g.[@Ze1] or [@Hu Chapter VII]). If $n=1$, then the proof of Lemma \[panels\](b) in [@M2] works to extend the given panelled embedding of $P\cup CQ$ to an embedding $CP\emb S^3$. By considering the link of the cone vertex, we obtain an embedding of $P$ in $S^2$. If $n\ge 2$, let $M_1,\dots,M_r$ be the closures of the components of $P\but Q$. Pick a map $f_i{\colon}M_i\to C(\partial M_i)$ that restricts to the identification of $\partial M_i$ with the base of the cone. The mapping cylinder $MC(f_i)$ contains $\mu_i\bydef M_i\cup MC(f_i\|_{\partial M_i})\cup C(\partial M_i)$, which is a copy of $M_i\cup C(\partial M_i)$. By Lemma \[circuits\](b), the natural embedding of $\mu_i$ in $MC(\operatorname{id}_B)$, which is a copy of $B\x I$, extends to an embedding $G_i{\colon}MC(f_i)\emb B\x I$ whose image meets $(P\cup CQ)\x I$ only in $\mu_i$. Combining the embeddings $G_i$ together, we obtain a map $F$ of $MC(f)$ into $S^{2n+1}\x I$, where $f{\colon}P\cup CQ\to CQ$ is obtained by combining the $f_i$. By construction, $F$ restricts to the natural embedding of $\mu\bydef P\cup MC(f\|_Q)\cup CQ$, which is a copy of $P\cup CQ$, in $MC(\operatorname{id}_{S^{2n+1}})$, which is a copy of $S^{2n+1}\x I$. The only double points of $F$ are isolated, and occur between $MC(f_i)$ and $MC(f_j)$ for $i\ne j$. Since they all share the cone vertex in $\mu$, yet another application of the Penrose–Whitehead–Zeeman trick (in addition to those in Lemma \[circuits\](b)) enables one to replace $F$ by an embedding $G$ that agrees with $F$ on $\mu$ and still meets $(P\cup CQ)\x I$ only in $\mu$. Viewed as an embedding of one mapping cylinder in another, $G$ may be assumed to be level-preserving near the target base — in other words, at some interval $[1-\eps,1]$ of the parameter values (cf. [@RS proof of 4.23]). Hence $G$ restricts to a concordance (with parameter values in $[0,1-\eps]$) keeping $Q$ fixed between the inclusion $P\subset S^{2n+1}$ and an embedding of $P$ in the boundary of the second derived neighborhood $B$ of $CQ$ modulo $Q$ in an appropriate triangulation of $S^{2n+1}$. Since $CQ$ link-collapses onto $Q$, this $B$ is a manifold [@HZ] (cf.[@Hus]), and therefore a ball (see [@HZ] or [@Co2]). Since the image of this concordance meets $(P\cup CQ)\x [0,1-\eps]$ only in $P\x\{0\}\cup CQ\x [0,1-\eps]$, it may be viewed as a concordance of the entire $P\cup CQ$ keeping $CQ$ fixed. Then by the Concordance Implies Isotopy theorem we get an isotopy of $S^{2n+1}$ keeping $CQ$ fixed and taking $P$ into the $2n$-sphere $\partial B$. Appendix: Embedding 2-polyhedra in 4-sphere {#appendix-embedding-2-polyhedra-in-4-sphere .unnumbered} ------------------------------------------- It is well-known that if $K$ is a $2$-dimensional cell complex such that $\|K^{(1)}\|$ embeds in $S^2$, then $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^4$ (cf. [@2DH p. 44]); see [@Cu Theorem 4] for a related result. The following is essentially proved in [@Ho] (see also [@Gi]). If $K$ is a $2$-dimensional cell complex such that $\|K^{(1)}\but\cel v\cer\|$ linklessly embeds in $S^3$ for some vertex $v$ of $K$, then $\|K\|$ embeds in $S^4$. Let $L=K\but\cel v\cer$. Then $\|K\|$ embeds in $\|L\cup L^{(1)}\{v\}\|$. By the hypothesis $\|L^{(1)}\|$ linklessly embeds in $S^3$, hence by Theorem \[commensuration\](a), $\|L\cup L^{(1)}\{v\}\|$ embeds in $S^4$. It is a well-known open problem whether every contractible $2$-polyhedron embeds (i.e., PL embeds) in $S^4$; an affirmative solution is well-known to be implied by the Andrews–Curtis conjecture, cf. Curtis [@Cu §2]. (Indeed, by general position every $2$-polyhedron $P$ immerses in $I^4$, and therefore embeds in a $4$-manifold $M$. Let $N$ be the regular neighborhood of $P$ in $M$. If $P$ $3$-deforms to a point, then the double of $N$ is the $4$-sphere, see [@2DH Assertion (59) in Ch. I].) The most nontrivial ingredient of the proof of Theorem \[commensuration\] is Lemma \[panels\](a) of Robertson–Seymour–Thomas. The dependence of part (b) on this lemma is only apparent: it can be eliminated altogether if we replace “linklessly” by “linklessly (and knotlessly, when $n=1$)”. Part (a) depends on the Robertson–Seymour–Thomas lemma in an essential way. However, it does not use full strength of the lemma. The remaining power of their lemma is captured by the following striking result, which can also be deduced from the results of [@Ho]. \[Whitney\] Let $P$ be a $2$-polyhedron and $Q$ a $1$-dimensional subpolyhedron of $P$ such that the closure of every component of $P\but Q$ is a disk, and every two disjoint circuits in $Q$ bound disjoint singular surfaces in $P$. Then $P\cup CQ$ embeds in $S^4$ iff the $\bmod 2$ van Kampen obstruction of $P\cup CQ$ vanishes. This is saying basically that in a certain situation, the Whitney trick works in dimension $4$ in the PL category. Let us pick an embedding of $Q$ in $S^3=\partial B^4$, extend it to the conical embedding $CQ\to B^4$ and also to a map of $P$ into the other hemisphere of $S^4$. This defines a map $f{\colon}P\cup CQ\to S^4$, and we may assume that it only has transverse double points. Let $\bar P$ be the quotient of $P\x P\but\Delta_P$ by the factor exchanging involution $T$. Let $G$ be a triangulation of $Q$, and let $K$ be the cell complex extending the triangulation $CG$ of $CQ$ by adding the closures of the components of $P\but Q$. Let $\bar K\subset\bar P$ be the quotient by $T$ of the union of all products $\sigma\x\tau$, where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are disjoint cells of $K$. Note that $H^4(\bar P;\,\Z/2)\simeq H^4(\bar K;\,\Z/2)$. For disjoint cells $\sigma,\tau$ of $K$, let $\sigma\boxtimes\tau$ denote the characteristic chain of the cell $(\sigma\x\tau\cup\tau\x\sigma)/T$ of $\bar K$. The van Kampen obstruction $\theta(P)\in H^4(\bar K;\,\Z/2)$ is represented by a cellular cocycle $c$ such that $c(\sigma\boxtimes\tau)$ is the parity of the number of intersections between $f(\sigma)$ and $f(\tau)$ (see [@M2]). By the hypothesis, $c$ is the coboundary of a cellular $1$-chain $b$. For each edge $\sigma$ of $K$ and each $2$-cell $\tau$ in $P$ disjoint from $\sigma$ and such that $b(\sigma\boxtimes\tau)\ne 0$, let us pick a copy of $S^2$ in a small neighborhood of $f(\sigma)$ in $S^4$, winding around $f(\sigma)$ with an odd linking number, and connect this sphere to $f(\tau)$ by a thin tube disjoint from the image of $f$. Next, for each edge $\sigma$ of $G$ and each $2$-simplex $C\tau$ of $CG$ disjoint from $\sigma$ let us do an equivalent, but fancier procedure. Let us pick a copy of $S^1$ in a small neighborhood of $f(\sigma)$ in $S^3$, winding around $f(\sigma)$ with and odd linking number (it might be easier to imagine the following steps if the linking number is $\pm 1$) and connect this loop to $f(\tau)$ within $S^3$ by a thin tube $S^0\x I$ disjoint from the image of $f$. We extend this modification of $f(\tau)$ conewise to $f(C\tau)$ and by a generic homotopy to a small neighborhood of $\tau$ mod $\partial\tau$ in $P$. Note that $f(CQ)$ stays within $B^4$ and remains embedded. The amended map $f'$ has the property that for every pair of disjoint cells $\sigma$, $\tau$ of $K$, the intersection number between $f'(\sigma)$ and $f'(\tau)$ is even. In addition, $f'$ still embeds $CQ$ in $B^4$, conically. Then all intersections between a $2$-cell $\sigma$ in $P$ and a $2$-simplex $C\tau$ can be pushed through the base of the cone; since their $\bmod 2$ algebraic number is zero, this will not change the $\bmod 2$ algebraic intersection numbers of $\sigma$ with other $2$-cells in $P$. Thus all the intersections of the resulting map $f''$ are between $2$-cells of $P$, which all lie in the upper hemisphere of $S^4$, and the intersection number between any pair of disjoint $2$-cells is even. Since $Q$ is still in $S^3$, we obtain that every two disjoint circuits in $Q$ have even linking number under $f''$. Now the assertion follows from Lemma \[panels\](a) and Theorem \[commensuration\](a). \[erratum2\] The above argument is parallel to a proof of the completeness of the van Kampen obstruction in higher dimensions, see e.g. [@M2 proof of 3.1]. We note some confusing typos in the final paragraph of that proof in [@M2]: “$f(p)=f(q)$” should read “$g(p)=g(q)$”, and more importantly “Then a small regular neighborhood of $f(J)$ ...” should read “Since $n>2$, the embedded $1$-sphere $g(J)$ bounds an embedded $2$-disk $D$ that meets $g(Y\cup\sigma_i)$ only in its boundary. Then a small regular neighborhood of $D$ ...” Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The author is grateful to A. N. Dranishnikov, I. Izmestiev, E. Nevo, E. V. Shchepin, A. Skopenkov, M. Skopenkov, M. Tancer, S. Tarasov and M. Vyalyj for useful discussions. [00]{} [^1]: Supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research Grant No. 11-01-00822 [^2]: Pontryagin’s autobiography dates it to the 1926/27 academic year, and mentions that it corrected a previous result by Kuratowski. Did Pontryagin hesitate to publish because he wanted to understand where $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$ come from?	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'While polarons — charges bound to a lattice deformation induced by electron-phonon coupling — are primary photoexcitations at room temperature in bulk metal-halide hybrid organic-inorganic perovskites (HOIP), excitons — Coulomb-bound electron-hole pairs — are the stable quasi-particles in their two-dimensional (2D) analogues. Here we address the fundamental question: are polaronic effects consequential for excitons in 2D-HIOPs? Based on our recent work, we argue that polaronic effects are manifested intrinsically in the exciton spectral structure, which is comprised of multiple non-degenerate resonances with constant inter-peak energy spacing. We highlight our own measurements of population and dephasing dynamics that point to the apparently deterministic role of polaronic effects in excitonic properties. We contend that an interplay of long-range and short-range exciton-lattice couplings give rise to exciton polarons, a character that fundamentally establishes their effective mass and radius, and consequently, their quantum dynamics. Finally, we highlight opportunities for the community to develop the rigorous description of exciton polarons in 2D-HIOPs to advance their fundamental understanding as model systems for condensed-phase materials in which lattice-mediated correlations are fundamental to their physical properties.' author: - Ajay Ram Srimath Kandada - Carlos Silva title: 'Perspective: Exciton polarons in two-dimensional hybrid metal-halide perovskites' --- ![image](tocentry.pdf){width="5cm"} Exciton polarons in 2D hybrid organic-inorganic metal-halide perovskites. Preamble ======== Metal-halide hybrid organic-inorganic perovskites (HOIPs) are direct bandgap semiconductors with rich, complex photophysics compared to established semiconductors such as III-V composite materials [@stranks2015metal; @srimath2016photophysics; @egger2018remains]. A deterministic element of these physics stems from the strong electron-phonon coupling arising from their ionic character, and also from the convoluted dynamics of the hybrid organic-inorganic lattice, which is soft and highly noisy [@bakulin2015real; @zhu2016screening; @zhu2017organic]. These effects have a substantial influence on electronic excitations and are at the core of investigations of photoexcitation dynamics in HOIPs. Key to this understanding is that polarons — charges dressed by specific phonons and bound to the lattice deformation induced by Coulomb forces — are the primary excitations in HOIPs. Polaronic effects have been suggested to play an important role in the excitation dyanamics and carrier transport in lead-halide HOIPs: the relatively long carrier lifetimes with small bimolecular recombination coefficient [@wehrenfennig2014high], slow thermalization dynamics [@niesner2016persistent; @zhu2017organic] of hot carriers and weak dephasing rates [@march2017four] are believed to originate from the protection offered to the charged excitations by the dressing of the lattice phonons [@miyata2017large]. The initial hypothesis of charge carriers as polarons in HOIPs was proposed based on transport measurements, which revealed modest carrier mobilities [@yi2016intrinsic]. Further experimental and theoretical verifications subsequently emerged. Vibrational spectra obtained via time-domain experiments involving impulsive excitations revealed a distinct lattice configuration in the presence of photo-excited species [@batignani2018probing]. Time-resolved optical Kerr effects suggested that polaron formation time is within a picosecond, with a non-trivial dependence on the nature of the structure of the coordinating cation [@zhu2016screening]. Correlated motion of charge excitations with the lattice motion is also demonstrated via optical pump, THz probe spectroscopy [@lan2018ultrafast]. The uniqueness of the carrier-lattice coupling is further attributed to the role of dielectric relaxation effects from the dynamic fluctuations and lattice anharmonic effects [@guo2019dynamic; @yaffe2017local; @bonn2017role]. These peculiar lattice interactions are thus considered to play a primary role in protecting the photo-excitations from non-linear scattering and recombination processes, driven by a dynamic screening of the Coulomb interactions between carriers by the ionic lattice fluctuations. A natural corollary to such a scenario is the screening of electron-hole binding interactions [@even2014analysis], and, in fact, the reported exciton binding energies are in the order of the lattice thermal energy $k_B T$ at ambient conditions in bulk HOIPs [@miyata2015direct], resulting in unstable excitons at room temperature. The effects of such an electronic-vibrational landscape undergo substantial transformation in two-dimensional (2D) HOIP derivatives, which are multiple-quantum-well-like derivatives of HOIPs [@saparov2016organic]. These are composed of quasi-2D layers of metal-halide lattice planes that are separated by long organic cationic spacers with an average inter-layer separation of $\sim 1$nm. Due to negligible contributions to the frontier orbitals from the organic cation and to the absence of orbital overlap between the metal-halide layers, electronic excitations are confined within the 2D inorganic sub-lattice [@even2014understanding; @gauthron2010optical; @diab2016narrow]. Due to the large dielectric contrast between the organic and inorganic layers, Coulomb correlations are enhanced dramatically as a result of image-charge effects, and the dynamic Coulomb screening effects are also mainly confined to the 2D lattice plane defined by the inorganic sub-lattice. This results in exciton binding energies $\sim 10\,k_B T$ at room temperature [@blancon2018scaling; @straus2016direct; @Straus2018a; @pedesseau2014electronic]. In this perspective, we focus on the consequences of the fluctuating lattice interactions on the excitonic characterstics, focusing on their linear and non-linear spectral structures and on population and dephasing dynamics. In particular, we argue that polaronic effects are not only active, but that they fundamentally define excitons in 2D-HIOPs. We will argue that the phonon coupling associated with polarons are in a unique intermediate regime between that of covalent crystals and molecular systems, giving rise to exciton polarons, which makes the formal description of these quasi-particles challenging, but which also makes such description of high fundamental importance for the development of the semiconductor understanding of hybrid metal-halide semiconductors. Our perspective is that the research highlighted in this article presents a substantial challenge for the electronic structure and quantum dynamics communities interested in the properties of hybrid, ionic semiconductor materials. Exciton spectral structure ========================== ![Crystal structure of a prototypical 2D perovskite: phenylethylammonium lead iodide (). (Bottom) Linear absorption spectrum of taken at $T= 5$K; $\Delta \sim 35\pm 5$meV represents the energy spacing within the excitonic finestructure and $E_B \sim 250$meV is the exciton binding energy associated with the main exciton peak. []{data-label="fig:linear"}](pervo_drawing.pdf){width="8.25cm"} The context of our perspective lies in the complex lineshape of 2D-HIOPs. The crystal structure of (PEA = phenylethylammonium), a prototypical 2D-HOIP, is shown in Fig. \[fig:linear\]. Exciton resonances can be observed in the optical absorption spectra well below the continuum edge, see Fig. \[fig:linear\]. The excitonic lineshape is composed of a peculiar finestructure with at least four distinguishable peaks that are equally separated by $\Delta \approx 35$–40meV, as shown in Fig. \[fig:linear\]. Such a spectral finestructure within the excitonic band has been reported for multiple 2D-HOIPs containing a variety of organic cations and halogens [@Ishihara1990; @Ishihara1992; @Goto2006; @Kitazawa2010; @Kitazawa2010a; @Kitazawa2011; @Kitazawa2012; @Kataoka1993; @Shimizu2005; @Shimizu2006] with various plausible explanations of its origin [@kataoka1993magneto; @Ema2006; @Straus2018a; @takagi2013influence; @mauck2019excitons], yet with no clear consensus. We have recently addressed the nature and origin of these distinct excitonic states over a series of publications (Refs. ) based on various linear and non-linear optical spectroscopies, where we have identified an unequivocal correlation with lattice interactions that led us to the hypothesis of exciton polarons as the primary photoexcitation in 2D-HOIPs. The starting point of our discussion is that we rule out a vibronic progression of a single exciton as the origin of this finestructure, and we instead claim that it arises from a family of co-existing, correlated excitons with distinct binding energy that are intrinsic to the electronic structure. The principal phenomenology stemming from our work that has led us to this view is the following: we established, by means of coherent two-dimensional excitation spectroscopy, that the exciton spectral structure in Fig. \[fig:linear\] reflects multiple correlated transitions involving a common ground state [@Thouin2018]; we also observed exciton coherences via transitions to biexciton states that oscillate in population-waiting time with period $\hbar/\Delta$ [@Neutzner2018], reinforcing that $\Delta$ is intrinsic to the excitonic structure; we measured, by means of resonant impulsive stimulated Raman scattering, the phonon spectrum associated with motion in the metal-halide sub-lattice that couples to the multiple excitons distinctly [@thouin2019phonon], and found that these dressing phonons play an active role in inter-exciton nonadiabatic conversion [@thouin2019polaron]; we quantified contrasting biexciton interactions for particular excitons within the finestructure, with the principal exciton showing weakly repulsive correlations, while its higher-energy counterpart displays a binding energy of $\sim 45$meV at room temperature [@Thouin2018]; we evaluated different multi-exciton Coulomb-mediated elastic scattering rates for distinct excitons within the spectral structure, with these dynamics activated by different phonons for different excitons [@thouin2019enhanced]. Therefore, while the spectral structure in Fig. \[fig:linear\] is intrinsic, the dynamical and multi-particle interaction properties of different excitons probed via distinct resonances within the finestructure, are unique, establishing that the spectral structure portrays a family of co-existing excitons with bidning energy offset by $\Delta$, each with distinct lattice dressing. We will outline these observations in what follows, and then we will turn to a discussion of polaronic effects by reviewing established formalisms for the description of polarons and exciton polarons in order to invoke these concepts in the rationalization of our reported phenomenology. Exciton coherent spectral signatures and dynamics ------------------------------------------------- We begin by considering the coherent two-dimensional excitation lineshape of a polycrystalline film in Fig. \[fig:dynamics\], reproduced from Ref. . An extensive assignment of the observed features in Fig. \[fig:dynamics\](a) can be found in Refs. and ; here we highlight the salient points for the purpose of laying out our perspective. We identify off-diagonal cross peaks between exciton diagonal peaks, indicating that the various excitons share a common ground state. In fact, in Ref. , we present data measured at substantially lower fluence than that extracted from Ref. in Fig. \[fig:dynamics\], and the 2D coherent excitation lineshape, including the cross-peak structure, is more clear at lower exciton density, in which exciton-exciton collisional contrbutions to line broadening are limited (discussed below) [@thouin2019enhanced]. Secondly, the oscillatory dynamics of off-diagonal features $\alpha$ and $\beta$, assigned to biexciton coherences [@Thouin2018], are evident in Fig. \[fig:linear\](b). A Fourier analysis of the dynamics revealed an energy of 35meV, the same as the inter-excitonic spacing $\Delta$, and thus interpreted as the signature of inter-excitonic coherence. Such an observation is an unambiguous demonstration for the existence of not only a common ground state but also of common higher-lying states. Strong exciton-lattice coupling ------------------------------- ![(a) Schematic of potential energy surfaces for exciton polarons along generic phonon direct-space coordinates. (b) Schematic of the amplitude spectrum of phonon coherences induced by resonant impulsive stimulated Raman scattering (RISRS) at the excitonic resonance. (c) and (d) RISRS energy versus probe photon energy map and probe-energy-integrated RISRS amplitude versus phonon energy, respectively, upon resonant pumping of $X_B$. (e) and (f) RISRS energy versus probe photon energy map and probe-energy-integrated RISRS amplitude versus phonon energy, respectively, upon resonant pumping of $X_A$. Data extracted from Ref. .[]{data-label="fig_natmater"}](Fig_Natmater_2.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Our analysis of the linear and nonlinear optical lineshapes of , prompted by the apparent independence of $\Delta$ with the number of lead iodide lattice layers, and on the identity of the organic cation [@Neutzner2018], and by the vicinity of $\Delta$ to polaron binding energies [@munson2019lattice; @mahata2019large], led us to hypothesize that polaronic effects could contribute to the exciton spectral finestructure. In order to probe exciton-phonon coupling details, we employed resonant impulsive stimulated Raman spectroscopy, which involves impulsive optical pumping of coherent lattice motion coupled to the electronic excitation. Such process produces a coherent vibrational wavepacket (a coherent sum of all the vibrational modes of the lattice) that oscillates within the potential energy surfaces of the ground and excited states along the coordinates defined by various Raman-active phonon modes, see Fig. \[fig\_natmater\](a). Subsequently, optical absorption around the exciton resonance is modulated at the frequency of the lattice motion, which can be perceived by the transmission of a time-delayed probe pulse. The Fourier transform of such time-oscillating dynamics produces the impulsive stimulated Raman spectrum. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_natmater\](b), the amplitude spectrum of the modulation along the probe energy exhibits a characteristic dip at the peak energy of the exciton resonance and is a direct consequence of the coupling of the impulsively excited lattice modes with that particular optical transition. We have performed such experiments on prototypical 2D-HIOPs and the details are reported in Ref. . The most surprising aspect of our work lies not in the observation of coherent phonons upon resonant excitation of photocarriers and excitons, but in the distinctness of the dynamics when exciting different excitons within the finestructure. Let us consider the two dominant excitonic lines in Fig. \[fig:linear\], which we label $X_A$ and $X_B$, peaked at 2.36 and 2.41eV, respectively. Fig. \[fig\_natmater\](c) shows beating maps plotted as a function of the probe energy and the phonon energy when $X_B$ is excited, and Fig. \[fig\_natmater\](d) is that when $X_A$ is resonantly pumped. Figs. \[fig\_natmater\](d) and (f) are spectrally integrated over probe photon energy. The differences in their respective behavior is striking. The coherent modes excited in both cases are vastly different and their motion either modulates $X_A$ or $X_B$ exclusively. These observations led us to two important inferences: a displaced oscillator model as sketched in Fig. \[fig\_natmater\](a) can be invoked in these systems despite the softness and substantial anharmonicity of the lattice, and there are energetically close and correlated (see preceding section [@Thouin2018; @Neutzner2018]) yet distinct exciton states that are dressed differently by lattice vibrations, and this phonon dressing is yet again different from that experienced by photocarriers. We interpreted these phenomena as indicative of co-existing exciton polarons. One immediate questions is: are the polaronic dressing phonons mere spectator modes or do they drive exciton dynamics? Emission from multiple excitons can be identified in the photoluminescence spectra with characteristic relaxation dynamics [@straus2016direct; @stranks2018influence]. Whilst the lowest lying state is dominant in the time-integrated spectrum, we observed population transfer dynamics from $X_B \rightarrow X_A$ in a few picoseconds [@thouin2019polaron]. More importantly, the transfer dynamics are strongly thermally activated, with shorter transfer times at higher temperatures. We estimated the activation energy for the transfer to be $\sim 4$meV, which is also the energy of the dominant optical phonon mode identified in Ref. (Fig. \[fig\_natmater\]). This important observation suggests that the lattice modes are not mere spectators in the exciton relaxation dynamics, but are active in driving them. To rationalize this observation, we employed a mode-projection analysis [@yang2014intramolecular], which is a search algorithm that ranks the contributions from each of the experimentally observed Raman modes (with associated Huang-Rhys factors) to the nonadiabatic mixing and subsequently to the inter-exciton conversion. Our analysis suggested that the dominant contribution is from the 4-meV intra-lead-iodide-plane phonon mode, in agreement with the temperature-dependent inter-exciton transfer rate measurements. Importantly, we concluded that polaron-derssing phonons are active in driving $X_B \rightarrow X_A$ nonadiabatic relaxation [@thouin2019polaron]. Multi-exciton correlations: exciton-exciton scattering and biexcitons --------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to extract further insight into the consequences of distinct lattice dressing of $X_A$ and $X_B$ on their many-body interactions, we extended the 2D coherent measurements described above to a large range of exciton densities and temperatures in order to quantify the role of multi-exciton elastic scattering in optical dephasing [@thouin2019enhanced]. Lineshape analysis of the zero-population-time rephasing coherent 2D excitation spectrum enables an unambiguous estimate of the homogenous linewidth [@siemens2010resonance], which is linked to the elastic scattering processes that lead to optical dephasing. We found that the temperature dependence of the dephasing rate of $X_A$ and $X_B$ is distinct, and reflects the role of different phonons in mediating exciton-exciton scattering. Perhaps more importantly, a simple Fröhlich like scattering involving LO phonons may not be sufficient to rationalize the observed trend. We also found that the density dependence of the dephasing rate is measurably different for $X_A$ and $X_B$, and both dependences are approximately three orders of magnitude lower than in analogous measurements on single-layer transition metal dichalchogenides with comparable exciton and biexciton binding energies [@moody2015intrinsic; @martin2018encapsulation]. We interpreted this as a consequence of the polaronic nature of excitons in 2D-HIOPs: polaronic protection mitigates the effect of exciton-exciton elastic scattering on the dephasing rate in analogy to carrier scattering processes in electric transport [@zhu2016screening; @march2017four; @zhu2015charge]. ![Real part of the two-quantum non-rephasing 2D coherent excitation spectrum of at 5K for a one-quantum waiting time of 20fs. The dashed black diagonal line follows two-quantum energies at twice the emission energy. The vertical dashed lines display the peak energy of the two principal excitons in Fig. \[fig:linear\]. Figure extracted and modified from ref. .[]{data-label="fig4c"}](Figure_bx.pdf){width="10cm"} Protection from the elastic scattering process intriguingly does not hinder biexciton binding. By spectrally resolving two-quantum coherences in the 2D spectroscopic measurements described above, we reported clear biexciton signatures in 2D-HOIPs [@Thouin2018], as have others [@elkins2017biexciton]. The intriguing observation was that the biexciton spectrum shows distinct binding interactions for $X_A$ and $X_B$. Shown in Fig. \[fig4c\](a) is a representation of the expected two-quantum 2D coherent excitation spectrum for an exciton hosting both exciton-exciton binding and repulsive interactions. A diagonal feature, over the $y=2x$ two-quantum diagonal axis is indicative of two excitons that experience no mutual interaction, leading to a two-quantum energy that is exactly twice the one-quantum energy. In the presence of attractive interactions (biexciton binding), a feature is observed below the diagonal along the two-quantum energy axis, shifted by the biexciton binding energy, while features observed above the diagonal reveal repulsive interactions (the energy of two excitons is higher than twice the energy of the single exciton). Shown in Fig. \[fig4c\](b) is the two-quantum correlation spectrum, reproduced from Ref. . The energies of $X_A$ and $X_B$ are indicated as dashed vertical lines. We observe a biexciton binding energy of $\sim 50$meV in the case of $X_B$, while it appears weaker for $X_A$, which is also subjected to substantial repulsive interactions revealed by resonances at two-quantum excitation energies of 4.86 and 4.95eV. We once again interpret this within the optic of distinct lattice dressing of both excitons: we envisage that certain dressing phonons could promote exciton-exciton scattering, while others multiexciton binding. An apparent contradiction might be perceived by our interpretations put forth in this section. On the one hand, we have claimed polaronic protection to exciton-exciton elastic scattering. On the other hand, we claim that biexciton binding is strong, at least for $X_B$. We consider that this reflects the spatial extent of the polaronic distortion around excitons. If the inter-exciton separation is sufficient compared to the polaron radius associated with the electron-hole pair, dynamic screening by the lattice mitigates Coulomb-mediated elastic scattering. On the other hand, if the two-electron, two-hole spatial distribution is within the polaronic radius associated with that system, then biexciton binding interactions can be strong in this 2D system. This consideration would set constraints for the relative radii of of exciton polarons and their corresponding biexcitons and on the relevant spatial range of exciton-lattice coupling. In order to discuss the exciton-polaron hypothesis in further detail, we first summarize established formalisms for polarons in crystalline solids. We particularly invoke three relevant concepts in this discussion — the role of short-range lattice interactions and dimensionality in determining the polaron size, the requirements for polaronic effects on excitons in the long-range interaction limit, and exciton self trapping in ionic lattices. Polarons ======== There are predominantly two kinds of polaronic effects in the context of semiconductors. The Fröhlich formalism for large polarons is invoked commonly for carriers in polar and ionic semiconductors [@frohlich1954electrons], while the Holstein formalism for small polarons is used predominantly for molecular semiconductor crystals [@holstein1959studies1; @holstein1959studies2]. The primary distinction between the two cases stems from the spatial range of the Coulomb potential felt by carriers relative to the lattice parameters. In the case of Fröhlich coupling, long-range interactions with lattice vibrations mediated by phonons modify the electronic structure in that the effective mass is increased while the Bloch-wave nature of the carrier is maintained. Further increase in the interaction strength can subsequenly lead to spatial localization of the carrier in the so-called small polaron limit. The essence of these two limits is quantitatively perceived via the polaron coupling constant $\alpha$ given in Eq. \[Eq:alpha\], which can be estimated using measurable material characteristics such as dielectric permittivities at static and optical frequencies ($\epsilon_s$ and $\epsilon_\infty$), carrier effective masses ($m^$), and the energy of the longitidinal optical phonon ($\hbar\omega_{LO}$) involved in the polaronic coupling [@emin2013polarons; @frohlich1954electrons]: $$\alpha = \frac{e^2}{\hbar}\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \sqrt{\frac{m^}{2\hbar\omega_{LO}}}\left[ \frac{1}{\epsilon_\infty} - \frac{1}{\epsilon_s}\right]. \label{Eq:alpha}$$ Covalent solids where $\epsilon_s$ and $\epsilon_\infty$ are not vastly different tend to have an $\alpha < 0.5$ and host weak electron-phonon coupling, while materials with $\alpha > 3$, mostly due to polar lattice vibrations, host small-polaron-like excitations. Examples of the latter include metal-halides such as ($\alpha = 3.44$), ($\alpha = 3.67$) and perovskite structures such as ($\alpha = 3.77$). In HOIPs, $\alpha$ can be estimated to be between 2 and 3 and thus the polaron coupling may be classified to be intermediate. While several experimental evidences exist that indirectly indicate the polaronic picture in these materials, there is still a need to develop direct probes that can unambiguously and quantitatively demonstrate polarons. Early theoretical works have demonstrated that optical absorption of polarons have characteristic lineshapes that can be analysed rigorously [@devreese1972optical]. The presence of zero-phonon lines and the phonon replicas in the experimental infrared absorption spectra of materials, especially in organic semiconductors [@voss1991substitution] and some superconductors [@ruani1988dependence], have enabled successful identification of small polarons. Magneto-absorption studies have revealed pertinent insights into the Fröhlich coupling mechanisms [@johnson1966polaron; @devreese1989polaron]. There are several excellent reviews on these aspects [@alexandrov2008polarons] and we do not intend to provide a exhaustive perspective on this topic here. We do note, however, that such characteristic signatures have not emerged yet in the case of metal-halide HOIP perovskites. Following Emin [@emin2013polarons], the total system energy of an electron in a deformable continuum under the adiabatic approximation can be written as $$E_{p} (L) = \frac{T_e}{L^2} - \frac{V_L}{L} - \frac{V_S}{L^D}, \label{Eq_pol1}$$ where $L$ is a dimensionless scaling factor that scales the position $\Vec{r}$ in the electronic wavefunction $\phi(\Vec{r})$ as $\Vec{r}/L$ and thus is related to the relative length-scale of the polaron. $T_e$ is the electronic kinetic energy, $V_L$ is the long-range interaction potential related to the Fröhlich polaron coupling constant $\alpha$. The expression in Eq. \[Eq\_pol1\] also considers the contributions from short-range interactions via the term $V_S$ and the effect on the dimensionality via the parameter $D$. In the presence of only long-range interactions, the minimum occurs at $L = 2T_e/V_L$ that describes the large polaron irrespective of the dimensionality. Inclusion of $V_S$ introduces the effect of dimensionality. With only short-range interactions, in the 3D case, one can obtain two minima at $L \rightarrow 0$ and at $L \rightarrow \infty$ that define the small-polaron and free-carrier limits, with an energetic barrier at $L = 3V_S/2T_e$ that is determined by the relative strengths of $V_S$ and $T_e$. In the presence of both short- and long-range interactions, the relative strength of $V_S$ and $V_L$ determines the polaron size. This is presumably the relevant regime for bulk HOIPs given the apparent range of $\alpha$ characterizing these materials. In the case of 2D, the contribution from $V_S$ acquires similar functional dependence on $L$ as the kinetic energy term and thus the sign of $T_e - V_S$ determines the polaron size. Unlike the 3D case, in 2D, increase in the short-range interactions enables the formation of large polarons by reducing the kinetic energy contributions, before reaching the small polaron limit at $V_S > T_e$. Thus, we can infer that short-range interactions will primarily determine the electron-phonon coupling strengths in 2D lattices both in the large- and small-polaron limits. Exciton-phonon scattering problem --------------------------------- Unlike uncorrelated electrons and holes, which carry a net charge, excitons are globally neutral quasi-particles. Thus, in principle, they may not necessarily be susceptible to the deformation potentials within the ionic lattices and may therefore be immune to polaronic effects. Exciton-phonon interactions can be represented as a total of the electron-phonon and hole-phonon interactions, represented as $\hat H_{QP-ph}$ in Eq. \[Eq\_phonon\], while the Coulomb interactions between electrons and holes is captured by $\hat H_{e-h}$ in Eq. \[Eq\_exc\]. $$\hat H_{e-h} = \frac{1}{N} \sum\limits_{pkk'} U (p,k,k') e_{p+k}^\dag h_{p-k}^\dag h_{p-k'}e_{p+k'}, \label{Eq_exc}$$ $$\hat H_{QP-ph} = \sum\limits_{k,q} \left( \gamma_e e_{k-q}^{\dag}e_k + \gamma_h h_{k-q}^\dag h_k \right) \left( b_q +b_{-q}\right), \label{Eq_phonon}$$ where $\gamma_e$ and $\gamma_h$ are the coupling constants and are determined by the polaron coupling scenarios briefly described in the previous paragraphs and are related to the polaron coupling parameter ($\alpha$). For the sake of simplicity, let us initially consider a scenario where only long-range phonon interactions are present. Given that the nature of the interactions are equivalent to both valence and conduction-band states, one can deduce $\gamma_{e,q}$ = $-\gamma_{h,q}$ = $\gamma_q$ (note that this is unlike potentials created via deformations or acoustic lattice modes). The effective phonon interaction parameter that leads to an elastic scattering event within the 1s exciton band is then given by [@ueta2012excitonic] $$\gamma_{1s\rightarrow 1s}(q) = \gamma_q\left(\left[1+(\xi_ea_Bq/2)^2 \right]^{-2} - \left[1+(\xi_ha_Bq/2)^2\right]^{-2} \right), \label{Eq_excph_scat}$$ where $\xi_{e/h} = m_{e/h}/(m_e+m_h)$, $m_e$ and $m_h$ are electron and hole effective masses, respectively, and $a_B$ is the exciton Bohr radius. By energy and momentum conservation, a 1s exciton at $\|\Vec{K}\|\sim 0$, where $\Vec{K} = \Vec{k_e} + \Vec{k_h}$ is the exciton wavevector, can be scattered only via absorption of an optical phonon at $q \sim \sqrt{2(m_e+m_h)\omega_{LO}/\hbar}$. It is then evident from Eq. \[Eq\_excph\_scat\] that exciton-phonon coupling is significant only if $\xi_ea_Bq_0 \gg 1 \gg \xi_ha_Bq_0$, which translates as the criterion for Fröhlich-like exciton-phonon scattering, $$\frac{m_h}{m_e} \gg \frac{E_B}{\hbar \omega_{L0}} \gg \frac{m_e}{m_h}.$$ Thus, materials with exciton binding energy $E_B \sim \hbar\omega_{LO}$ and with $m_e > m_h$ (or vice-versa) are subject to strong exciton-phonon scattering processes. Examples of such systems include silver-halides, thallous-halides and II-VI compounds [@ueta2012excitonic]. A consequence of such scattering process is the appearances of vibronic lineshapes and phonon replicas in optical absoprtion and luminescence spectra. Alkali halides and cuprous halides, on the contrary, have large exciton binding energy, $E_B \gg \hbar \omega_{LO}$ and thus the 1s excitons are protected from LO phonon scattering processes. This can also be reformulated by invoking relative exciton and polaron sizes [@ueta2012excitonic]. When the exciton size is large or comparable to the size of electron/hole-polarons, it will also be subjected to similar phonon interactions. On the contrary, if the exciton is much smaller than the polaron radius, it is unlikely to be scattered by the long range phonon interactions. Given the large exciton binding energies and equivalent electron and hole masses in 2D-HOIPs [@Silver2018], Fröhlich-like interactions and thus polaronic effects should not be relevant for excitons. However, given that our recent works demonstrate that lattice coupling effects are indeed active and important [@thouin2019phonon; @thouin2019polaron; @thouin2019enhanced], we consider that one should move beyond the Fröhlich picture to describe exciton polarons effectively in 2D-HOIPs. This highlights the need to consider an inter-play between short-range and long-range lattice coupling. Localization of excitons by phonon fields ----------------------------------------- ![Phase diagram showing stability of free (F) and self-trapped (S) carriers in the $g_l - g_s$, plane, where $g_l$ and $g_s$, are the long-range and short-range electron-phonon coupling constants defined in the text. Free and self-trapped carriers coexist in the F(S) and S(F) regions. The $(g_l,g_s)$ coordinates for electrons, holes, and excitons in several materials are noted. Reproduced with permission from ref. []{data-label="fig:phase2"}](Xpolaron.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Another perspective of the exciton-polaron problem has been proposed by Toyozawa [@Toyozawa1981; @ueta2012excitonic], primarily within the strong electron-phonon coupling limit, and thus strictly valid for the Frenkel exciton case. In such a limit, the coupling constant may be defined as a ratio of the lattice relaxation energy ($E_{LR}$), that is the energy spent in re-organizing the lattice to accommodate the excitation, and the inter-site transfer energy ($B$). The energy of an exciton at the state $\|\Vec{K}\| = 0$ can now be represented along the lattice co-ordinates $\Vec{Q}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:phase2\](b). The potential energy surface (PES), and thus the equilibrated lattice configuration of the lattice-dressed state $S$ (self-trapped exciton), is shifted in the co-ordinate space with respect to the free exciton. Physical chemists will recognize the situation in Fig. \[fig:phase2\](c) as analogous to that of molecular excitations, in which electron-vibrational coupling involving local nuclear modes modulates optical transition probabilities. The phonon coupling constant, an equivalent to the Huang-Rhys parameter, is written as $g = E_{LR}/B$. Photoexcitation can lead to lattice reorganization over relatively short lengthscales due to its localized nature via coupling to short-range lattice fluctuations, quantified by $g_s$ in Fig. \[fig:phase2\](d). In a crystalline lattice, long-range optical phonons also couple to excitations and can be quantified by $g_l$. The coordinates $(g_s,g_l)$ define the phase space for generic carrier-lattice interactions, where we can identify a quantifiable range for free and self-trapped excitations. As shown in Fig. \[fig:phase2\](d) and identified by Toyozawa [@Toyozawa1981], material systems can be marked over the phase diagram depending on the nature of lattice interactions. Conventional systems such as III-V and II-VI semiconductors have relatively weak lattice interactions, in the long and short range limits leading to free excitations. Organic systems such as pyrene or rare gas crystals have substantially strong short-range interactions and thus host self-trapped excitations. Most of the metal-halides have substantial long-range lattice contributions (Fröhlich-like) owing to their strongly ionic lattice, but they are also subjected to large short-range interactions due to the dynamic lattice fluctuations. This puts them at the conjunction of the free and self-trapped limits. 2D-HOIPs are no different in this context and a critical balance between the long- and short-range interactions plays a crucial role in determining the nature of photo-excitations. It is intriguing to note that octahedral distortions in 2D HOIPs, which enhance short-range interactions, have been correlated with broadband photo-luminescence characteristic of self-trapped states [@cortecchia2016broadband] and large polaron binding energies [@yin2017excitonic; @cortecchia2017polaron; @neukirch2018geometry]. Excitons in 2D-HIOPs: The nature of polaronic coupling ------------------------------------------------------ Based on this brief overview of some key concepts on polarons, in the context of 2D-HOIPs we can deduce that: short-range interactions will play an important role in determining the spatial extent of the polaronic wavefunction. Such short-range interactions may arise from the dynamic lattice fluctuations induced by the relative motion of the organic and inorganic sub-lattices [@Thouin2018; @dragomir2018lattice], as well as from the disorder intrinsic to the ionic lattice. While phonons within the lattice plane may interact via the long-range Fröhlich term, lattice motion across neighboring lattice planes will be perceived by the image charge as a short-range potential and thus contributes to the polaronic coupling. Fröhlich-like coupling may be irrelevant for excitons due to substantially large exciton binding energies in 2D-HOIPs. Given the clear experimental signatures of the polaronic effects on excitons, consideration of short-range interactions appears to be central to the exciton-polaron problem in 2D-HOIPs. Exciton localization may be invoked in 2D-HOIPs. However, given that a model derived from a 2D Wannier picture successfully accounts for the optical absorption lineshape of 2D-HOIPs, with the caveat that the oscillator strength due to exciton absorption must be redistributed in multiple resonances with binding energy offset by multiples of $\Delta$ [@Neutzner2018], we consider that the localization limit is unlikely to account quantitatively for exciton polarons in these materials because the assumptions of a Frenkel Hamiltonian are not satisfied. The hypothesis that we put forth in this perspective is that excitons in these materials are in an intermediate regime between the Fröhlich and self-trapping limits. This poses substantial challenges for a rigorous, complete theoretical description of excitons in 2D-HIOPs, but our perspective is that this is a fundamentally important endeavor. The origin of the exciton spectral structure ============================================ In Ref. we hypothesized that the spectral structure in Fig. \[fig:linear\] could reflect the importance of exciton polarons in 2D-HIOPs given that the difference in binding energy of multiple resonances is in the vicinity of the polaron binding energy, possibly reflecting distinct correlations of all possible binding combinations between electron- and hole-polarons and the unbound electrons and holes. Our report of distinct lattice dressing for $X_A$ and $X_B$ in Ref. was important in establishing that polaronic effects are indeed reflected in exciton spectral structure. But can we rigorously speak of exciton polarons in 2D-HIOPs? In other words, are polaronic effects the origin of the observed exciton lineshape? We consider that further work outlined in the next section will be necessary to answer this question rigorously. In this section, we review the models put forth in the literature to rationalize the lineshape. The first rationalization of the excitonic finestructure invoked large exchange interactions [@Chen1988] in the 2D perovskite lattice, primarily enhanced by the dielectric confinement effects [@Ema2006; @Kitazawa2010]. Ema and coworkers have shown the existence of three non-degenerate excitonic states in 2D bromide-based hybrid perovskites [@Ema2006; @takagi2013]. These early experimental works were based on the analysis of low-temperature photoluminescence spectra, and they suggested that the excitonic manifold is composed of a low-energy dark state and two higher-lying bright states [@Ema2006]. The molecular orbitals that contribute to the electronic bands are based within the octahedron. As discussed by Tanaka et al. [@Tanaka2005], the highest occupied orbitals (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied orbitals (LUMO) have $\Gamma_1^+$ and $\Gamma_4^-$ symmetries in the $O_h$ point group of the octahedron. The presence of crystal field effects, on top of spin-oribit interactions, splits the LUMO state into two bands with two $\Gamma_6^-$ symmetry and one band with $\Gamma_7^-$ symmetry. Based on a similar analysis, many early works suggested that the spin-oribit interactions that result in the LUMO splitting is thus responsible to the excitonic finestructure. These states have also been proposed to have their respective polarizations aligned parallel and perpendicular to the inorganic lattice planes. More intriguingly, Ema et al. [@Ema2006] estimated a spin-exchange energy of approximately 28–32meV, similar to $\Delta$ in Fig. \[fig:linear\]. We note, however, that we observe at least four equally spaced excitonic transition in the linear absorption spectra, [@Neutzner2018] contrary to the three transitions in the PL spectra, [@Kitazawa2010] which indicates that exchange interaction may not be the only viable origin for the finestructure. Moreover, Kataoka et al. [@Kataoka1993] did not observe any differences in the diamagnetic shifts of each of the excitons, further suggesting that spin exchange may not be the dominant origin of the finestructure. The excitonic finestructure may alternatively arise from a degeneracy-lifting mechanisms such as Rashba-Dresselhaus effects [@manchon2015new], which have been proposed in lead-iodide perovskites [@stranks2018influence]. Large spin-orbit coupling due to the presence of lead and the absence of a center of inversion will result in lifting of spin degeneracies and splitting of the carrier bands [@manchon2015new]. Todd et al. [@todd2018detection] have reported Rashba spin splitting energies that are 20 times larger than that of GaAs in 2D HOIPs. Consequently, excitonic states will also be split leading to a spectral finestructure. Zhai et al. [@zhai2017] have, in fact, reported a Rashba splitting of 40meV in based on transient and quasi-steady-state absorption experiments, which appears to be consistent with our observation. However, we observed a lack of sensitivity of the finestructure to the thickness of the inorganic layer [@Neutzner2018], which determines the strength of the crystal field, and to the identity of the metal ion (similar spectral structure are observed in tin based systems), suggesting that Rashbha effects may not be origin of the finestructure. A few recent works have suggested that the observed spectral structure is a vibronic progression and not a finestructure composed of distinct excitonic states [@straus2016direct; @Straus2018a; @giovanni2018coherent; @mauck2019excitons]. Straus et al. [@straus2016direct] reported transient dynamics similar to those reported by us [@thouin2019polaron], with a short-living emission band which was interpreted as non-Kasha emission from a vibrational manifold of a single exciton. While such an interpretation was certainly plausible given the data available, our observations in Refs. portrays that there is a more complex origin to the spectral lineshape with a non-negligible contribution from polaronic effects, and that the various resonances within the exciton lineshape have unique identity and do not arise from a single exciton. We underline that we find no reason to conclude that polaronic effects are the unique contribution to the exciton lineshape, but do conclude that they are an important component of the physical phenomena that are manifested in the optical spectrum. Exchange interactions and Rashba-Dresselhaus effects may indeed co-exist with the type of lattice-coupling effects that we invoke in this perspective, and furthermore, lattice coupling effects may be a common element linking all of these phenomena. We have outlined above why we consider that each of these is not a unique mechanism that defines the spectral lineshape. Conversely, we have no reason to exclude their contribution. Perspective =========== Given the discussion of exciton polarons presented above, our perspective is that the intricate details of the fine structure in 2D-HOIPs can only be rigorously established via a complete theoretical treatment that would predict the full excitonic dispersion and that includes spin-orbit coupling effects [@zhai2017], exchange interactions [@Ema2006; @Kitazawa2010a; @takagi2013influence], many-body correlations [@Thouin2018; @thouin2019enhanced] and non-negligible yet complex polaronic effects [@zheng1998; @thouin2019phonon]. If our interpretation of the relevance of polaronic effects in excitonic properties holds, the interplay between long-range and short-range couplings puts polaronic effects in an intermediate regime towards a localization limit, and microscopic detail will be crucial in this development. This is a non-trivial challenge in condensed-matter theory. Recently, Sio et al. have developed a rigorous Ab initio framework to study polarons in semiconductors [@Sio:2019aa; @Sio:2019ab]. That work uses density-functional perturbation theory to solve a secular equation involving phonons and electron-phonon coupling. This approach is analogous to that invoking the Bethe-Salpeter equation for excitons in the absence of electron-phonon coupling, and we therefore consider that it presents unprecedented opportunities for the most rigorous examination of the nature of exciton polarons in 2D-HOIPs. Nevertheless, we recognize that this approach is far from straightforward. From an experimental perspective, we consider that there is substantial scope to implement ultrafast structural probes in conjunction with electronic spectroscopies to examine in detail exciton-polaron dynamics. In particular, ultrafast electron diffraction and scattering techniques are rapidly developing towards implementable tools for materials science [@carbone2010real; @konstantinova2018nonequilibrium]. Specifically, the dynamics of electron phonon coupling can now be mapped in crystalline systems [@stern2018mapping], and we put forth that these techniques would provide unprecedented microscopic detail. We consider that there is substantial scope for advanced time-resolved vibrational spectroscopies performed in conjunction with electronic spectroscopies [@munson2019lattice]. Rigorous understanding of exciton polarons in 2D-HOIPs is fundamentally important not only in the context of the development of their semiconductor physics, but generally for a much broader class of materials in which multiparticle coupling and many-body effects are mediated by interactions with a highly dynamic lattice. In conventional superconductors, for example, Cooper pairs result from lattice-mediated binding of electrons that would otherwise experience net repulsion [@koschorreck2012attractive]. Another example of perhaps greater contemporary significance points to non-conventional quantum materials (many of them with perovskite crystal structures), in which, for instance, the lattice plays an important role in mediating correlated quantum phenomena involving spin-orbital entanglement when spin-orbit coupling is strong [@Witczak-Krempa:2014aa]. We consider that 2D-HOIPs are an ideal test bed for developments in condensed-matter theories that seek a rigorous description of multi-particle correlations, including all of the elements that are also important in quantum materials — polaronic effects and related Jahn-Teller-type lattice distortions, spin-orbit coupling, and multi-particle correlations. HOIPs permit a clear window into this broadly important materials science via their very clear optical properties, providing a simple experimental access to a multidimensional materials parameters space involving static and dynamic structure, dimensionality, chemical composition, and spin-orbit coupling strength, for example. Beyond a perceived relevance as semiconductors for optoelectronics, HOIPs are a fundamentally valuable model class of materials for substantial advances in the undersstanding of many-body effects that are critical in condensed-matter and materials physics, chemical physics, and materials chemistry. Author Information ================== Corresponding Authors --------------------- $^$E-mail: [email protected] (A.R.S.K.)\ $^$E-mail: [email protected] (C.S.) Notes ----- The authors declare no competing financial interest. Biographies ----------- Ajay Ram Srimath Kandada received a Ph.D. in Physics from Politecnico di Milano, Italy in 2013 and currently he is a Marie Sklodowska Curie fellow at the Italian Institute of Technology. Previously, he was a post-doctoral scholar at University of Montreal, Canada and Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. Starting January 2020, he will be an Assistant Professor in Physics at Wake Forest University, USA. His research interests include advanced optical spectroscopy of semiconductors and photo-excitation dynamics in hybrid lead-halide perovskites. Carlos Silva earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics from the the University of Minnesota in 1998, and was then Postdoctoral Associate in the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge. In 2001 he became EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow in the Cavendish Laboratory, and Research Fellow in Darwin College, Cambridge. In 2005, he joined the Université de Montréal as Assistant Professor, where he held the Canada Research Chair in Organic Semiconductor Materials from 2005 to 2015, and a Université de Montréal Research Chair from 2014 to 2017. He joined Georgia Tech in 2017, where he is currently Professor with joint appointment in the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the School of Physics, and Adjunct Professor in the School of Materials Science and Engineering. His group focuses on optical and electronic properties of organic and hybrid semiconductor materials, mainly probed by nonlinear ultrafast spectroscopies and quantum-optical methods. We are indebted to all of our collaborators and co-authors in the development of this work, but primarily Félix Thouin, Daniele Cortecchia, Stefanie Neutzner, Annamaria Petrozza, Claudio Quarti, David Beljonne, David Valverde Chávez, Ilaria Bargigia, and Eric Bittner. A.R.S.K. acknowledges funding from EU Horizon 2020 via Marie Sklodowska Curie Fellowship (Global) (Project No. 705874). C.S. acknowledges funding from the National Science Foundation, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research (Award number 1904293 and 1838276), and for support from the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the College of Science of Georgia Institute of Technology. @ifundefined [88]{} Stranks, S. D.; Snaith, H. J. Metal-halide perovskites for photovoltaic and light-emitting devices. Nat. Nanotech. 2015, 10, 391 Srimath Kandada, A. R.; Petrozza, A. Photophysics of hybrid lead halide perovskites: The role of microstructure. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 536–544 Egger, D. A.; Bera, A.; Cahen, D.; Hodes, G.; Kirchartz, T.; Kronik, L.; Lovrincic, R.; Rappe, A. M.; Reichman, D. R.; Yaffe, O. What remains unexplained about the properties of halide perovskites? Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1800691 Bakulin, A. A.; Selig, O.; Bakker, H. J.; Rezus, Y. L.; M[ü]{}ller, C.; Glaser, T.; Lovrincic, R.; Sun, Z.; Chen, Z.; Walsh, A. [et al.]{} Real-time observation of organic cation reorientation in methylammonium lead iodide perovskites. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 3663–3669 Zhu, H.; Miyata, K.; Fu, Y.; Wang, J.; Joshi, P. P.; Niesner, D.; Williams, K. W.; Jin, S.; Zhu, X.-Y. Screening in crystalline liquids protects energetic carriers in hybrid perovskites. Science 2016, 353, 1409–1413 Zhu, H.; Trinh, M. T.; Wang, J.; Fu, Y.; Joshi, P. P.; Miyata, K.; Jin, S.; Zhu, X.-Y. Organic cations might not be essential to the remarkable properties of band edge carriers in lead halide perovskites. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1603072 Wehrenfennig, C.; Eperon, G. E.; Johnston, M. B.; Snaith, H. J.; Herz, L. M. High charge carrier mobilities and lifetimes in organolead trihalide perovskites. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 1584–1589 Niesner, D.; Zhu, H.; Miyata, K.; Joshi, P. P.; Evans, T. J.; Kudisch, B. J.; Trinh, M. T.; Marks, M.; Zhu, X.-Y. Persistent energetic electrons in methylammonium lead iodide perovskite thin films. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 15717–15726 March, S. A.; Riley, D. B.; Clegg, C.; Webber, D.; Liu, X.; Dobrowolska, M.; Furdyna, J. K.; Hill, I. G.; Hall, K. C. Four-wave mixing in perovskite photovoltaic materials reveals long dephasing times and weaker many-body interactions than GaAs. ACS Photon. 2017, 4, 1515–1521 Miyata, K.; Meggiolaro, D.; Trinh, M. T.; Joshi, P. P.; Mosconi, E.; Jones, S. C.; De Angelis, F.; Zhu, X.-Y. Large polarons in lead halide perovskites. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1701217 Yi, H. T.; Wu, X.; Zhu, X.; Podzorov, V. Intrinsic Charge Transport across Phase Transitions in Hybrid Organo-Inorganic Perovskites. Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 6509–6514 Batignani, G.; Fumero, G.; Srimath Kandada, A. R.; Cerullo, G.; Gandini, M.; Ferrante, C.; Petrozza, A.; Scopigno, T. Probing femtosecond lattice displacement upon photo-carrier generation in lead halide perovskite. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1971 Lan, Y.; Dringoli, B. J.; Valverde-Chavez, D. A.; Ponseca Jr, C. S.; Sutton, M.; He, Y.; Kanatzidis, M. G.; Cooke, D. G. arXiv:1812.07752 \[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\] Guo, Y.; Yaffe, O.; Hull, T. D.; Owen, J. S.; Reichman, D. R.; Brus, L. E. Dynamic emission Stokes shift and liquid-like dielectric solvation of band edge carriers in lead-halide perovskites. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1175 Yaffe, O.; Guo, Y.; Tan, L. Z.; Egger, D. A.; Hull, T.; Stoumpos, C. C.; Zheng, F.; Heinz, T. F.; Kronik, L.; Kanatzidis, M. G. [et al.]{} Local polar fluctuations in lead halide perovskite crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 136001 Bonn, M.; Miyata, K.; Hendry, E.; Zhu, X.-Y. Role of dielectric drag in polaron mobility in lead halide perovskites. ACS Energy Lett. 2017, 2, 2555–2562 Even, J.; Pedesseau, L.; Katan, C. Analysis of multivalley and multibandgap absorption and enhancement of free carriers related to exciton screening in hybrid perovskites. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 11566–11572 Miyata, A.; Mitioglu, A.; Plochocka, P.; Portugall, O.; Wang, J. T.-W.; Stranks, S. D.; Snaith, H. J.; Nicholas, R. J. Direct measurement of the exciton binding energy and effective masses for charge carriers in organic–inorganic tri-halide perovskites. Nat. Phys. 2015, 11, 582 Saparov, B.; Mitzi, D. B. Organic–inorganic perovskites: structural versatility for functional materials design. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 4558–4596 Even, J.; Pedesseau, L.; Katan, C. Understanding quantum confinement of charge carriers in layered 2D hybrid perovskites. ChemPhysChem 2014, 15, 3733–3741 Gauthron, K.; Lauret, J.; Doyennette, L.; Lanty, G.; Al Choueiry, A.; Zhang, S.; Brehier, A.; Largeau, L.; Mauguin, O.; Bloch, J. [et al.]{} Optical spectroscopy of two-dimensional layered [(C$_6$H$_5$C$_2$H$_4$-NH$_3$)$_2$-PbI$_4$]{} perovskite. Optics Express 2010, 18, 5912–5919 Diab, H.; Trippe-Allard, G.; L[é]{}d[é]{}e, F.; Jemli, K.; Vilar, C.; Bouchez, G.; Jacques, V. L.; Tejeda, A.; Even, J.; Lauret, J.-S. [et al.]{} Narrow linewidth excitonic emission in organic–inorganic lead iodide perovskite single crystals. J. Phys. Chem. Lett 2016, 7, 5093–5100 Blancon, J.-C.; Stier, A. V.; Tsai, H.; Nie, W.; Stoumpos, C.; Traore, B.; Pedesseau, L.; Kepenekian, M.; Katsutani, F.; Noe, G. [et al.]{} Scaling law for excitons in 2D perovskite quantum wells. Nature Commun. 2018, 9, 2254 Straus, D. B.; Hurtado Parra, S.; Iotov, N.; Gebhardt, J.; Rappe, A. M.; Subotnik, J. E.; Kikkawa, J. M.; Kagan, C. R. Direct observation of electron–phonon coupling and slow vibrational relaxation in organic–inorganic hybrid perovskites. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 13798–13801 Straus, D. B.; Kagan, C. R. [Electrons, Excitons, and Phonons in Two-Dimensional Hybrid Perovskites: Connecting Structural, Optical, and Electronic Properties]{}. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 1434–1447 Pedesseau, L.; Jancu, J.-M.; Rolland, A.; Deleporte, E.; Katan, C.; Even, J. Electronic properties of 2D and 3D hybrid organic/inorganic perovskites for optoelectronic and photovoltaic applications. Optical and Quantum Electronics 2014, 46, 1225–1232 Ishihara, T.; Takahashi, J.; Goto, T. Optical properties due to electronic transitions in two-dimensional semiconductors [(C$_n$H$_{2n+1}$NH$_3$)$_2$PbI$_4$]{}. Phys. Rev. B 1990, 42, 11099–11107 Ishihara, T.; Hong, X.; Ding, J.; Nurmikko, A. V. [Dielectric confinement effect for exciton and biexciton states in -based two-dimensional semiconductor structures]{}. Surf. Sci. 1992, 267, 323–326 Goto, T.; Makino, H.; Yao, T.; Chia, C. H.; Makino, T.; Segawa, Y.; Mousdis, G. A.; Papavassiliou, G. C. [Localization of triplet excitons and biexcitons in the two-dimensional semiconductor ]{}. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 73, 115206 Kitazawa, N.; Aono, M.; Watanabe, Y. Excitons in organic-inorganic hybrid compounds [(C$_n$H$_{2n+1}$NH$_3$)$_2$PbBr$_4$ ($n = 4, 5, 7$ and 12)]{}. Thin Solid Films 2010, 518, 3199–3203 Kitazawa, N.; Watanabe, Y. Optical properties of natural quantum-well compounds [(C$_6$H$_5$C$_n$H$_{2n}$NH$_3$)$_2$PbBr$_4$ ($n=1-4$)]{}. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2010, 71, 797–802 Kitazawa, N.; Aono, M.; Watanabe, Y. Synthesis and luminescence properties of lead-halide based organicinorganic layered perovskite compounds [(C$_n$H$_{2n+1}$NH$_3$)$_2$PbI$_4$ ($n=4, 5, 7, 8$ and 9)]{}. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2011, 72, 1467–1471 Kitazawa, N.; Aono, M.; Watanabe, Y. Temperature-dependent time-resolved photoluminescence of [ (X = Br and I)]{}. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2012, 134, 875–880 Kataoka, T.; Kondo, T.; Ito, R.; Sasaki, S.; Uchida, K.; Miura, N. [Magneto-optical study on the excitonic spectrum of ]{}. Phys. B Phys. Condens. Matter 1993, 47, 2010–2018 Shimizu, M.; Fujisawa, J. I.; Ishi-Hayase, J. [Influence of dielectric confinement on excitonic nonlinearity in inorganic-organic layered semiconductors]{}. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 71, 205306 Shimizu, M.; Fujisawa, J.-i.; Ishihara, T. [Photoluminescence of the inorganic-organic layered semiconductor : Observation of triexciton formation]{}. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 74, 155206 Kataoka, T.; Kondo, T.; Ito, R.; Sasaki, S.; Uchida, K.; Miura, N. Magneto-optical study on excitonic spectra in . Phys. Rev. B. 1993, 47, 2010 Ema, K.; Umeda, K.; Toda, M.; Yajima, C.; Arai, Y.; Kunugita, H.; Wolverson, D.; Davies, J. J. [Huge exchange energy and fine structure of excitons in an organic-inorganic quantum well material]{}. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 73, 241310(R) Takagi, H.; Kunugita, H.; Ema, K. Influence of the image charge effect on excitonic energy structure in organic-inorganic multiple quantum well crystals. Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 125421 Mauck, C. M.; Tisdale, W. A. Excitons in 2D Organic–Inorganic Halide Perovskites. Trends in Chemistry 2019, Thouin, F.; Neutzner, S.; Cortecchia, D.; Dragomir, V. A.; Soci, C.; Salim, T.; Lam, Y. M.; Leonelli, R.; Petrozza, A.; Srimath Kandada, A. R. [et al.]{} [Stable biexcitons in two-dimensional metal-halide perovskites with strong dynamic lattice disorder]{}. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2018, 2, 034001 Neutzner, S.; Thouin, F.; Cortecchia, D.; Petrozza, A.; Silva, C.; Srimath Kandada, A. R. [Exciton-polaron spectral structures in two dimensional hybrid lead-halide perovskites]{}. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2018, 2, 064605 Thouin, F.; Valverde-Ch[á]{}vez, D. A.; Quarti, C.; Cortecchia, D.; Bargigia, I.; Beljonne, D.; Petrozza, A.; Silva, C.; Srimath Kandada, A. R. Phonon coherences reveal the polaronic character of excitons in two-dimensional lead halide perovskites. Nat. Mater. 2019, 18, 349–356 Thouin, F.; Srimath Kandada, A. R.; Valverde-Ch[á]{}vez, D. A.; Cortecchia, D.; Bargigia, I.; Petrozza, A.; Yang, X.; Bittner, E. R.; Silva, C. Electron-phonon couplings inherent in polarons drive exciton dynamics in two-dimensional metal-halide perovskites. Chem. Mater. 2019, in press Thouin, F.; Cortecchia, D.; Petrozza, A.; Srimath Kandada, A. R.; Silva, C. arXiv:1904.12402\[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\] Munson, K. T.; Swartzfager, J. R.; Asbury, J. B. Lattice Anharmonicity: A Double-Edged Sword for 3D Perovskite-Based Optoelectronics. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, Mahata, A.; Meggiolaro, D.; De Angelis, F. From Large to Small Polarons in Lead, Tin, and Mixed Lead–Tin Halide Perovskites. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 1790–1798 Stranks, S. D.; Plochocka, P. The influence of the Rashba effect. Nat. Mater. 2018, 17, 381 Yang, X.; Bittner, E. R. Intramolecular charge-and energy-transfer rates with reduced modes: Comparison to Marcus theory for donor–bridge–acceptor systems. J. Phys. Chem. A 2014, 118, 5196–5203 Siemens, M. E.; Moody, G.; Li, H.; Bristow, A. D.; Cundiff, S. T. Resonance lineshapes in two-dimensional Fourier transform spectroscopy. Optics Express 2010, 18, 17699–17708 Moody, G.; Dass, C. K.; Hao, K.; Chen, C.-H.; Li, L.-J.; Singh, A.; Tran, K.; Clark, G.; Xu, X.; Bergh[ä]{}user, G. [et al.]{} Intrinsic homogeneous linewidth and broadening mechanisms of excitons in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8315 Martin, E. W.; Horng, J.; Ruth, H. G.; Paik, E.; Wentzel, M.-H.; Deng, H.; Cundiff, S. T. arXiv:1810.09834 \[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\] Zhu, X.-Y.; Podzorov, V. Charge carriers in hybrid organic–inorganic lead halide perovskites might be protected as large polarons. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 4758–4761 Elkins, M. H.; Pensack, R.; Proppe, A. H.; Voznyy, O.; Quan, L. N.; Kelley, S. O.; Sargent, E. H.; Scholes, G. D. Biexciton Resonances Reveal Exciton Localization in Stacked Perovskite Quantum Wells. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 3895–3901 Fr[ö]{}hlich, H. Electrons in lattice fields. Advances in Physics 1954, 3, 325–361 Holstein, T. Studies of polaron motion: Part I. The molecular-crystal model. Annals of Physics 1959, 8, 325–342 Holstein, T. Studies of polaron motion: Part II. The “small” polaron. Annals of Physics 1959, 8, 343–389 Emin, D. Polarons; Cambridge University Press, 2013 Devreese, J.; De Sitter, J.; Goovaerts, M. Optical absorption of polarons in the Feynman-Hellwarth-Iddings-Platzman approximation. Phys. Rev. B 1972, 5, 2367 Voss, K.; Foster, C.; Smilowitz, L.; Mihailovi[ć]{}, D.; Askari, S.; Srdanov, G.; Ni, Z.; Shi, S.; Heeger, A.; Wudl, F. Substitution effects on bipolarons in alkoxy derivatives of poly (1, 4-phenylene-vinylene). Phys. Rev. B 1991, 43, 5109 Ruani, G.; Taliani, C.; Zamboni, R.; Cittone, D.; Matacotta, F. Dependence of ir absorption in YBa2Cu3O7- y on the oxygen content. Physica C: Superconductivity 1988, 153, 645–646 Johnson, E.; Larsen, D. Polaron induced anomalies in the interband magnetoabsorption of InSb. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1966, 16, 655 Devreese, J. Polaron physics in 2D and 3D. Physica Scripta 1989, 1989, 309 Alexandrov, A. S. Polarons in advanced materials; Springer Science & Business Media, 2008; Vol. 103 Ueta, M.; Kanzaki, H.; Kobayashi, K.; Toyozawa, Y.; Hanamura, E. Excitonic processes in solids; Springer Science & Business Media, 2012; Vol. 60 Silver, S.; Yin, J.; Li, H.; Br[é]{}das, J. L.; Kahn, A. Characterization of the Valence and Conduction Band Levels of $n = 1$ 2D Perovskites: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Investigation. Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703468 Toyozawa, Y. [Dynamics of excitons in deformable lattice]{}. J. Lumin. 1981, 24-25, 23–30 Cortecchia, D.; Neutzner, S.; Srimath Kandada, A. R.; Mosconi, E.; Meggiolaro, D.; De Angelis, F.; Soci, C.; Petrozza, A. Broadband emission in two-dimensional hybrid perovskites: The role of structural deformation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 139, 39–42 Yin, J.; Li, H.; Cortecchia, D.; Soci, C.; Br[é]{}das, J.-L. Excitonic and polaronic properties of 2D hybrid organic–inorganic perovskites. ACS Energy Lett. 2017, 2, 417–423 Cortecchia, D.; Yin, J.; Bruno, A.; Lo, S.-Z. A.; Gurzadyan, G. G.; Mhaisalkar, S.; Br[é]{}das, J.-L.; Soci, C. Polaron self-localization in white-light emitting hybrid perovskites. J. Mater. Chem. C 2017, 5, 2771–2780 Neukirch, A. J.; Abate, I. I.; Zhou, L.; Nie, W.; Tsai, H.; Pedesseau, L.; Even, J.; Crochet, J. J.; Mohite, A. D.; Katan, C. [et al.]{} Geometry Distortion and Small Polaron Binding Energy Changes with Ionic Substitution in Halide Perovskites. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 7130–7136 Dragomir, V. A.; Neutzner, S.; Quarti, C.; Cortecchia, D.; Petrozza, A.; Roorda, S.; Beljonne, D.; Leonelli, R.; Kandada, A. R. S.; Silva, C. arXiv:1812.05255 \[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\] Chen, Y.; Gil, B.; Lefebvre, P.; Mathieu, H. [Exchange effects on excitons in quantum wells]{}. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37, 6429–6432 Takagi, H.; Kunugita, H.; Ema, K. [Influence of the image charge effect on excitonic energy structure in organic-inorganic multiple quantum well crystals]{}. Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 125421 Tanaka, K.; Takahashi, T.; Kondo, T.; Umeda, K.; Ema, K.; Umebayashi, T.; Asai, K.; Uchida, K.; Miura, N. Electronic and excitonic structures of inorganic-organic perovskite-type quantum-well crystal . Japanese J. Appl. Physics, Part 1 Regul. Pap. Short Notes Rev. Pap. 2005, 44, 5923–5932 Manchon, A.; Koo, H. C.; Nitta, J.; Frolov, S.; Duine, R. New perspectives for Rashba spin–orbit coupling. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 871 Todd, S. B.; Riley, D. B.; Binai-Motlagh, A.; Clegg, C.; Ramachandran, A.; March, S. A.; Hill, I. G.; Stoumpos, C. C.; Kanatzidis, M. G.; Yu, Z.-G. [et al.]{} arXiv:1807.10803\[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\] Zhai, Y.; Baniya, S.; Zhang, C.; Li, J.; Haney, P.; Sheng, C.-X.; Ehrenfreund, E.; Vardeny, Z. V. Giant Rashba splitting in 2D organic-inorganic halide perovskites measured by transient spectroscopies. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700704 Giovanni, D.; Chong, W. K.; Liu, Y. Y. F.; Dewi, H. A.; Yin, T.; Lekina, Y.; Shen, Z. X.; Mathews, N.; Gan, C. K.; Sum, T. C. Coherent Spin and Quasiparticle Dynamics in Solution-Processed Layered 2D Lead Halide Perovskites. Adv. Sci. 2018, 5, 1800664 Zheng, R.; Matsuura, M. Polaronic effects on excitons in quantum wells. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 57, 1749 Sio, W. H.; Verdi, C.; Poncé, S.; Giustino, F. Polarons from First Principles, without Supercells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 246403 Sio, W. H.; Verdi, C.; Poncé, S.; Giustino, F. Ab initio theory of polarons: Formalism and applications. Phys. Rev. B 2019, 99, 235139 Carbone, F.; Gedik, N.; Lorenzana, J.; Zewail, A. Real-time observation of cuprates structural dynamics by ultrafast electron crystallography. Adv. Condens. Matt. Phys. 2010, 2010 Konstantinova, T.; Rameau, J. D.; Reid, A. H.; Abdurazakov, O.; Wu, L.; Li, R.; Shen, X.; Gu, G.; Huang, Y.; Rettig, L. [et al.]{} Nonequilibrium electron and lattice dynamics of strongly correlated $_{8+\delta}$ single crystals. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaap7427 Stern, M. J.; de Cotret, L. P. R.; Otto, M. R.; Chatelain, R. P.; Boisvert, J.-P.; Sutton, M.; Siwick, B. J. Mapping momentum-dependent electron-phonon coupling and nonequilibrium phonon dynamics with ultrafast electron diffuse scattering. Phys. Rev. B 2018, 97, 165416 Koschorreck, M.; Pertot, D.; Vogt, E.; Fr[ö]{}hlich, B.; Feld, M.; K[ö]{}hl, M. Attractive and repulsive Fermi polarons in two dimensions. Nature 2012, 485, 619 Witczak-Krempa, W.; Chen, G.; Kim, Y. B.; Balents, L. Correlated Quantum Phenomena in the Strong Spin-Orbit Regime. Ann. Rev. Conden. Mat. Phys. 2014, 5, 57–82	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In the quadratic family (the set of polynomials of degree $2$), Petersen and Zakeri [@PZ] proved the existence of Siegel disks whose boundaries are Jordan curves, but not quasicircles. In their examples, the critical point is contained in the curve. In the first part, as an illustration of the flexibility of the tools developped in [@BC1], we prove the existence of examples that do not contain the critical point. In the second part, using a more abstract point of view (suggested by Avila in [@A]), we show that we can control quite precisely the degree of regularity of the boundary of the Siegel disks we create by perturbations. address: - \| Université Paul Sabatier\ Laboratoire Emile Picard\ 118, route de Narbonne\ 31062 Toulouse Cedex\ France - \| Université Paul Sabatier\ Laboratoire Emile Picard\ 118, route de Narbonne\ 31062 Toulouse Cedex\ France title: 'Quadratic Siegel Disks with Rough Boundaries.' --- [Xavier Buff]{} [Arnaud Chéritat]{} Notations: $\U$ is the set of complex numbers with norm $=1$. Here, $r \U$ will be used as a shorthand for: the circle of center $0$ and radius $r$. Sometimes, we will note $(r,t)$ for $r \exp(i 2\pi t)$. The symbol $\T$ will denote the quotient $\R/\Z$. For $\theta \in \R$, $$P_\theta(z) = \exp(i2\pi \theta) z +z^2.$$ If the fixed point $z=0$ is linearizable, then $\Delta(\theta)$ is the Siegel disk of $P_\theta$ at $0$, and $r(\theta)$ its conformal radius. Otherwise $\Delta(\theta) = {\varnothing}$ and $r(\theta) = 0$. Reminder: $\forall \theta\in\R$, $r(\theta)<4$. Let $\cal D_2$ denote the set of bounded type irrational numbers. Let us recall the following \[lem\_Herman\] For all $\theta\in\cal D_2$, assume that $U$ is a connected open set containing $0$ and $f : U \to \C$ is a holomorphic function which fixes $0$ with derivative $e^{2\pi i \theta}$. Let $\Delta$ be the Siegel disk of $f$ at $0$ (which exists by a theorem of Siegel). If $U$ is simply connected and $f$ is univalent, then $\Delta$ cannot have compact closure in $U$. In fact, Herman’s theorem is stronger: $U$ needs not to be simply connected, and the condition on $\theta$ is weaker (it is called the Herman condition). See [@He] for a reference. An essential tool is the following (independently by A. Avila)\[lem\_abc\] For all $\theta$ Bruno and $r < r(\theta)$, there exists a sequence of $\cal D_2$ numbers $\theta_n \tend \theta$ such that $r(\theta_n) \tend r$. Both [@BC1] and [@A] have stronger statements. Note that we do not only require $\theta_n$ to be Bruno, but also to be a bounded type number (the bound varies with $n$). To the interested reader, we recommend [@A] for its simplicity (the fact that $\theta_n$ can be taken $\cal D_2$ is not explicitly stated, but it follows rather easily). However, [@BC1] also provides a small cycle. Let $L\subset \C$ be a Jordan curve. For any pair $x$,$y\in L$ of distinct points, let $U$ and $V$ be the connected components of $L-\{x,y\}$ and define the pinching by $$\on{pinch}(L,x,y) = \min\big(\on{diam}(U),\on{diam}(V)\big) / \on{dist}(x,y).$$ A quasicircle is a Jordan curve whose pinchings are bounded over all possible pairs $x,y$. If the bound is $K$, we will say that we have a $K$-quasicircle. For instance a round circle is a $1$-quasicircle. Note that a $1$-quasicicle is not necessarily a round circle. \[lem\_geom\_1\] Assume that $K>1$, and that $L_n$ are $K$-quasicircles. Let $U_n$ be the bounded component of $\C-L_n$. Assume that the limit of $U_n$ for the Carathéodory topology on domains containing $0$ is equal to $\D$. Then $L_n$ has Hausdorff limit equal to $\U$. We leave it as an exercise to the reader. The assumption just means that every compact subset of $\D$ is eventually contained in $U_n$, and that every point of $\U$ has distance to $\C-U_n$ tending to $0$. \[lem\_geom\_2\] Assume that $K>1$, and that $L_n$ are $K$-quasicircles. Let $U_n$ be the bounded component of $\C-L_n$. Assume that $0\in U_n$ and that $L_n$ has Hausdorff limit equal to $\U$. Then the conformal mapping $f_n$ from $\D$ to $U_n$ mapping $0$ to $0$ with real positive derivative tends uniformly on $\D$ to the identity. A well known property states that there exists $K'$ depending only on $K$ such that $f_n$ extends to a $K'$-quasiconformal homeomorphism of $\C$. The set of $K'$-quasiconformal homeomorphisms of $\C$ fixing $0$ and $1$ is compact. Since $f_n(1)$ tends to $\U$, $f_n$ lies in a compact set. Any limit value of the sequence $f_n$ must map $\D$ to itself, fixing $0$ with real positive derivative, and thus is the identity on $\overline{\D}$. \[lem\_C1\] Assume that $f,f_n : \T\to \C$ are $C^1$ functions, that the derivative of $f$ does not vanish, that $f$ is injective, and that $f(\T)$ is a $K$-quasicircle. Assume that the sequence $f_n-f$ and its derivative tend uniformly to $0$. Then $\forall K'>K$, $\exists N\in\N$ $\forall n \geq N$, $f_n(\T)$ is a Jordan curve and a $K'$-quasicircle. Let $m=\min \|f'\|$ and $m_n = \min \|f'_n\|$. Then $m>0$ and $m_n>0$. Let ${\varepsilon}'>0$ such that $d(t,t')<{\varepsilon}' \Longrightarrow \|f'(t)-f'(t')\|< m/8$. Let $N$ big enough so that $\forall n \geq N$, $\|f'_n - f'\| < m/8$, hence $\frac{7}{8} m < m_n < \frac{9}{8} m$. Then $\forall n \geq N$ and $d(t,t')<{\varepsilon}$, we have $\|f'_n(t)-f'_n(t')\| < m_n /2$. This implies $t,t'$ cannot parameterize a pinching of $f_n(\T)$ greater than $1$ if $d(t,t')<{\varepsilon}$. Now, if we let $\mu = \min\|f(t)-f(t')\|$ taken on all pairs $t,t' \in \T$ with $d(t,t') \geq {\varepsilon}$, we have $\|f_n -f\| < \eta < \mu/2 \Longrightarrow f_n(\T)$ is a $K'$-quasicircle with $$K' = K \frac{\mu+2\eta}{\mu-2\eta}.$$ The key lemma is the following. \[lem\_maillon\] For all $\theta$ Bruno, for all $r_1<r_2<r(\theta)$, for all $K>1$ and for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ and $r'>0$ such that 1. $\|\theta'-\theta\|<{\varepsilon}$ 2. $r_1<r'<r_2$ 3. $r(\theta') > r'$ 4. $\\| \phi_{\theta} - \phi_{\theta'} \\|_\infty < {\varepsilon}$ on the circle $r'\U$ \[item\_inf\] 5. the image of this circle by $\phi_{\theta'}$ has a pinching $>K$ Let $r_3 = \frac{r_1+r_2}{2}$. If $\phi_{\theta}(r' \U)$ has a pinching $> K$ for some $r'\in ]r_1,r_3[$, then we are done with $\theta'= \theta$. Otherwise, let $\theta_n \tend \theta$ provided by lemma \[lem\_abc\] such that $r(\theta_n) \tend r_3$. We claim that for all $n$ big enough, there exists an $r\in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $\phi_{\theta_n}(r\U)$ has a pinching $\geq K+1$. Otherwise, lemma \[lem\_geom\_1\] would imply that $\partial \Delta(\theta_n)$ tends to $\phi_\theta(r_3 \U)$ and thus is eventually contained in $\Delta(\theta)$, contradicting lemma \[lem\_Herman\] since $\theta_n \in \cal D_2$. Let then $r'_n$ be the infimum of the set of $r \in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $\phi_{\theta_n} (r\U)$ has a pinching $\geq K+1$. Then $\phi_{\theta_n}$ has a $(K+1)$-pinching, otherwise lemma \[lem\_C1\] would lead to contradiction. Let us prove that $r'_n \tend r_3$. Otherwise, for a subsequence, we would have $r'_n \tend r' \in [r_1,r_3[$. The sequence of holomorphic functions $z\mapsto \phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n z)$ would converge uniformly on compact sets of $\frac{r_3}{r'} \D$ to $\phi_\theta(r'z)$, which would imply uniform convergence on $\U$ of all the derivatives. According to lemma \[lem\_C1\], the curves $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n\U)$ would be $(K+\frac{1}{2})$-quasicircles for $n$ big enough, which leads to contradiction. As soon as $r'_n > r_1$, since for all $r\in [r_1,r'_n[$ the curve $\phi_{\theta_n}(r\U)$ is a $(K+1)$-quasicircle, by continuity the curve $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n\U)$ is a $(K+1)$-quasicircle. Lemma \[lem\_geom\_2\] then implies that $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n,t)-\phi_{\theta}(r_3,t)$ tends uniformly to $0$ when $n\tend +\infty$. Since $r'_n \tend r_3$, $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta}(r'_n,t)-\phi_{\theta}(r_3,t)$ also tends uniformly to $0$, which yields condition \[item\_inf\]. Having $r'=r_1=r_2$ would make the sequel simpler, and enable to fix any value $<r(\theta)$ for $r(\theta')$ in theorem \[thm\_main\], but it seems to require more than lemma \[lem\_abc\]. The following lemma recalls elementary properties of linearization of Siegel disks. \[lem\_limits\] Let us note $(r,t)$ for $r \exp(i 2\pi t)$. Assume $r_n>0$, $r_n \tend r$, $\theta \in \R$ and $\theta_n \tend \theta$ is a sequence of real numbers such that $r(\theta_n)>r_n$, and the maps $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta_n}(r_n,t)$ form a Cauchy sequence for $\\|\cdot\\|_\infty$. Let $\psi$ be the limit. Then $r(\theta) \geq r$, and $(r,t) \mapsto \psi(t)$ extends continuously $\phi_{\theta}$ to the closure of $B(0,r)$ (if $r(\theta) > r$, this just means $\phi_{\theta}(r,t) = \psi(t)$). Moreover, $\psi$ is injective. In the case $r(\theta) =r$, then $\partial \Delta(\theta) = \psi(\T)$. Let us now state the main result. \[thm\_main\] For all Bruno number $\theta$, for all $r<r(\theta)$ and all ${\varepsilon}>0$, there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ such that 1. $\|\theta'-\theta\| < {\varepsilon}$ 2. $r<r(\theta')<r+{\varepsilon}$ 3. $\phi_{\theta'}$ has a continuous extension $\psi$ to $r(\theta')\U$ 4. $\big\\|\psi - \phi_\theta\big\\|_\infty < {\varepsilon}$ on the circle $r(\theta')\U$ \[item\_norminf\] 5. the boundary $\psi(r(\theta')\U)$ of $\Delta(\theta')$ is a Jordan curve 6. it does not contain the critical point \[item\_nococri\] 7. it is not a quasicircle It is enough to prove the claim without point \[item\_nococri\], because it is implied by point \[item\_norminf\] for ${\varepsilon}$ small enough. We are going to define by induction a sequence $\theta_n$ of parameters, an increasing sequence $r'_n \geq r$, and angles $u_n$, $v_n$, coordinates of points on the circle $\U$ via the map $t \mapsto \exp(i2\pi t)$. The induction hypothesis will be $H_n$: - $r(\theta_n) >r'_n$ - for all $k\leq n$, $\on{pinch}(L, x_k, y_k) > k$ where $L = \phi_{\theta_{n}} (r'_n \U)$, $x_k = \phi_{\theta_{n}}(r'_n e^{i2\pi u_{k}})$ and $y_k=\phi_{\theta_{n}}(r'_n e^{i2\pi v_{k}})$ (the second condition is empty for $n=0$ and $1$). Let $\theta_0 = \theta$, $r'_0=r$ and $u_0$, $v_0$ be any distinct angles. For $n\geq 1$, assume that $\theta_k$, $r'_k$, $u_k$, $v_k$ are defined for $0\leq k < n$, and that $H_{n-1}$ holds. There exists a $\eta>0$ such that for all continuous injective $\psi : r'_{n-1}\U \to \C$, the condition $\\|\psi - \phi_{\theta_{n-1}}\\|_\infty < \eta$ on $r'_{n-1}\U$ implies that for all $k<n$, the pinching parameterized by angles $u_k$, $v_k$ remains $>k$ for the Jordan curve $\psi(r'_{n-1}\U)$. Let us note $(r,t)$ for $r \exp(i 2\pi t)$. Let $r_1=r'_{n-1}$ and $r_2$ such that $r_1<r_2<r(\theta_{n-1})$, close enough to $r_1$ so that $$\forall r'\in ]r_1,r_2[,\quad \sup_{t\in\R} \big\| \phi_{\theta_{n-1}}(r',t) - \phi_{\theta_{n-1}}(r_1,t) \big\| < \max(\eta,{\varepsilon}/2^n)/2.$$ Let $\theta_n$ and $r'_n$ be provided by lemma \[lem\_maillon\] such that - $\|\theta_n-\theta_{n-1}\|< {\varepsilon}/2^n$ - $r_1 < r'_n <r_2$ - $r(\theta_n) > r'_n $ - $\big\\|\phi_{\theta_n} - \phi_{\theta_{n-1}}\big\\|_\infty < \max(\eta, {\varepsilon}/2^n)/2$ on the circle $r'_n\U$ - the curve $\phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n\U)$ has a new pinching $>n$ We then define $u_n$ and $v_n$ as the angles parameterizing the new pinching. Now that the sequences have been defined, let $\theta'$ be the limit of the Cauchy sequence $\theta_n$, and $r'$ the limit of the increasing sequence $r'_n$ (which is bounded from above by $4$). Let us recall that for all $n$, $r(\theta_n)>r'_n$, and that the sequence of maps $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n,t)$ is a Cauchy sequence, whose limit we will call $\psi$. Thus we can apply lemma \[lem\_limits\]: $\psi(r',t)$ continuously extends $\phi_{\theta'}$ to the closed ball $\overline{B}(0,r')$. Moreover, $\psi$ is injective, thus for all $k \in \N$, the pair $(u_k,v_k)$ parameterizes a pinching of the Jordan curve $L = \psi(\T)$, with $\on{pinch} \geq k$ by continuity. Therefore $L$ is not a quasicircle, and $r(\theta')$ cannot be $>r'$ (otherwise, $L$ would be an analytic curve). Thus $L=\partial \Delta(\theta')$. Variation A variation yields the next stronger theorem. Let us call modulus of continuity any non decreasing positive function $h$ defined on $[0,+\infty[$ and such that $h(\eta) \tend 0$ when $\eta \tend 0$. A function $f$ between compact metric spaces is said to have $h$ as modulus of continuity if and only if $d\big(f(x),f(y)\big) < h\big(d(x,y)\big)$ for all pairs $(x,y)$ with $x\not=y$. We will say that $f$ is $h$-regular if there is $\lambda>0$ such that $f$ has $\lambda h$ as a modulus of continuity. For $g$, not being $h$-regular is equivalent to: there exists sequences $x_n\not=y_n$ with $d(x_n,y_n)\tend 0$ and $d\big(f(x),f(y)\big)/h\big(d(x,y)\big) \tend +\infty$. \[thm\_2\] Let us make the same assumptions as in theorem \[thm\_main\]. Let $h$ be any modulus of continuity. Then there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ such that the same conclusions as in theorem \[thm\_main\] hold, except for the following replacement: 1. the map $\psi$ is not $h$-regular If one takes (for instance) $h(\eta) = 1/\|\log \eta\|$, this implies $\partial \Delta(\theta)$ is not a quasicircle, because the conformal map of a quasidisk is always Hölder-continuous. To prove theorem \[thm\_2\], we need to adapt lemma \[lem\_geom\_2\]: \[lem\_geom\_3\] Let $L_n$ be Jordan curves, $U_n$ be the bounded component of $\C-L_n$. Assume that $0\in U_n$ and let $f_n : \D \to U_n$ be the conformal isomorphism mapping $0$ to $0$ with real positive derivative. Let $g_n$ be the continuation of $f_n$ to $\overline{\D}$ (exists since $L_n$ is locally connected). Assume the retrictions of $g_n$ to $\U$ have a common modulus of continuity, and that $U_n$ has Carathéodory limit equal to $\D$. Then the $g_n$ tend uniformly to identity. According to Ascoli’s theorem, the equicontinuous family $g_n\big\|_\U$ lies in a compact family of $C(\U)$ (the set of continuous functions on $\U$ with the supremum norm). By the maximum principle, for all $m,n\in\N$, the supremum of $\|g_n-g_m\|$ on $\overline{\D}$ is equal to its supremum on $\U$. So, $g_n$ lies in a compact family of $C(\overline{\D})$. The Carathéodory convergence of $U_n$ to $\D$ states that $g_n$ tends to $\on{id}_\D$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\D$. So $\on{id}_{\overline{\D}}$ is the only possible uniform limit on $\overline{\D}$ of subsequences of $g_n$. Lemma \[lem\_C1\] \[lem\_h\] If $h$ is the modulus of continuity of a non constant function $f : \T \to \C$, then $$\inf_{\eta\in ]0,1]} \frac{h(\eta)}{\eta} > 0$$ Therefore, if $f,f_n : \T \to \C$ are $C^1$ functions and such that $f_n-f$ and its derivative uniformly tend to $0$, and $f$ has modulus of continuity $h$, then, for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, $f_n$ has eventually modulus $(1+{\varepsilon}) h$. And lemma \[lem\_maillon\]: \[lem\_maillon\_2\] For all $\theta$ Bruno, for all $r_1<r_2<r(\theta)$, for all $K>1$ and for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ and $r'>0$ such that 1. $\|\theta'-\theta\|<{\varepsilon}$ 2. $r_1<r'<r_2$ 3. $r(\theta') > r'$ 4. \[item\_inf\_2\] $\\| \phi_{\theta} - \phi_{\theta'} \\|_\infty < {\varepsilon}$ on the circle $r'\U$ 5. the restriction of $\phi_{\theta'}$ to $r'\U$ has not $h$ as a modulus of continuity \[item\_mc\] The proof is a straightforward adaptation of that of lemma \[lem\_maillon\_2\]. However, we include it:\ Let $r_3 = \frac{r_1+r_2}{2}$. If, for some $r'\in ]r_1,r_3[$, $z\in \U \mapsto \phi_{\theta}(r' z)$ has not modulus of continuity $h$, then we are done with $\theta'= \theta$. Otherwise, let $\theta_n \tend \theta$ provided by lemma \[lem\_abc\] such that $r(\theta_n) \tend r_3$. We claim that for all $n$ big enough, there exists an $r\in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $z\in \U \mapsto \phi_{\theta_n}(r z)$ has not modulus of continuity $2h$. Otherwise, lemma \[lem\_geom\_3\] would imply that $\partial \Delta(\theta_n)$ tends to $\phi_\theta(r_3 \U)$ and thus is eventually contained in $\Delta(\theta)$, contradicting lemma \[lem\_Herman\] since $\theta_n \in \cal D_2$. Let then $r'_n$ be the infimum of the set of $r \in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $\phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n z)$ has not modulus $2h$ on $\U$. Then according to lemma \[lem\_h\], $\phi_{\theta_n} (r z)$ has not modulus $\frac{3}{2} h$ on $\U$. Let us prove that $r'_n \tend r_3$. Otherwise, for a subsequence, we would have $r'_n \tend r' \in [r_1,r_3[$. The sequence of holomorphic functions $z\mapsto \phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n z)$ would converge uniformly on compact sets of $\frac{r_3}{r'} \D$ to $\phi_\theta(r'z)$, which would imply uniform convergence on $\U$ of all the derivatives. Therefore, by lemma \[lem\_h\], $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)$ would eventually have modulus $\frac{3}{2} h$, leading to contradiction. As soon as $r'_n > r_1$, since for all $r\in [r_1,r'_n[$ the curve $\phi_{\theta_n}(r z)$ has modulus $2h$ on $\U$, so does the function $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)$. Lemma \[lem\_geom\_3\] then implies that $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n,t)-\phi_{\theta}(r_3,t)$ tends uniformly to $0$ when $n\tend +\infty$. Since $r'_n \tend r_3$, $t\in\T \mapsto \phi_{\theta}(r'_n,t)-\phi_{\theta}(r_3,t)$ also tends uniformly to $0$, which yields condition \[item\_inf\_2\]. We now inspire from the presentation in [@A] to give the following theorem. Let $C^0$ be the space of holomorphic functions from $\D$ to $\C$ having a continuous extension to $\overline{\D}$. This is a Banach space for the supremum norm. Let $C^\omega$ be the space of functions from $\D$ to $\C$ having a holomorphic extension to a neighborhood of $\D$. This is not a Fréchet space. This is the union of spaces $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}$ for ${\varepsilon}>0$, where $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}$ is the set of holomorphic functions on $(1+{\varepsilon})\D$. These spaces are endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets. We do not put a topology on $C^\omega$. \[thm\_control\] Let us make the same assumptions as in theorem \[thm\_main\]. Let $F$ be a Fréchet space such that $$C^\omega \subset F \subset_{\on{0}} C^0,$$ where $\subset_{\on{0}}$ means a continuous injection. Assume that $K_n$ are compact subsets of $F$. Then there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ such that the same conclusions as in theorem \[thm\_main\] hold, except for the following replacement: 1. the map $\psi$ belongs to $F$ but to no $K_n$ Note: a decreasing intersection of Fréchet spaces is a Fréchet space. That is why there is no $F_n$ in the statement. By the way, this proves that the set $\ds F - \bigcup K_n$ is not empty ! (This is of course very classical: Baire’s theorem implies it, since every compact subset of an infinite dimensional Fréchet space has empty interior.) Even better : it contains a univalent map. Let’s do the proof: \[lem\_geom\_4\] Let $F\subset_0 C^0$ be a Fréchet space and $K$ be a compact subset of $F$. Let $L_n$ be Jordan curves, $U_n$ be the bounded component of $\C-L_n$. Assume that $0\in U_n$ and let $f_n : \D \to U_n$ be the conformal isomorphism mapping $0$ to $0$ with real positive derivative. Let $g_n$ be the continuation of $f_n$ to $\overline{\D}$ (exists since $L_n$ is locally connected). Assume that $\forall n\in\N$, $g_n \in K$, and that $U_n$ has Carathéodory limit equal to $\D$. Then a\) $d_F(g_n,\on{id}_\D) \tend 0$ where $d_F$ is the distance function of the Fréchet space $F$, b\) $\\|g_n-\on{id}_\D \\|_\infty \tend 0$. Part b) is a corollary of part a) and of the continuity of the injection $F\subset C^0$. Since $g_n$ lies in a compact set, it is enough to prove that all convergent subsequences tend to $\on{id}_\D$. So we may assume $d_F(g_n,h) \tend 0$ for some $h\in K$. The injection $F \subset C^0$ being continuous, $\\|g_n-h\\|_\infty \tend 0$. Carathéodory convergence means that $g_n$ tends to $\on{id}_\D$ uniformly on compact sets. Thus $h=\on{id}_\D$. \[lem\_abs\] Assume $F$ is a Fréchet space such that $$C^\omega \subset F \subset_0 C^0$$ then, for all ${\varepsilon}$, the injection $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}\subset F$ is continuous. Corollary of the closed graph theorem, since the injection of $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}$ in $C^0$ is continuous. \[lem\_B\_n\] There exists subsets $B_n$ of $C^\omega$ such that $C^\omega = \bigcup B_n$ and for all Fréchet space $F$ with $C^\omega \subset F \subset_0 C^0$, $B_n$ is compact in $F$. Let $B_n$ be the set of holomorphic functions on $\D$ which have a holomorphic extension to $(1+\frac{1}{n+1}) \D$, that is bounded by $n$. Each $B_n$ is compact in $C^\omega_{\frac{1}{n+1}}$ (Montel’s theorem). According to lemma \[lem\_abs\], $B_n$ is also compact in $F$. We will consider the following property of a subset $A$ of $C^0$: $$(\cal H) \qquad \forall {\varepsilon}>0,\ A \text{ contains a neighborhood of } 0 \text{ in } C^\omega_{\varepsilon}.$$ \[lem\_L\] For all Fréchet space $F$ with $C^\omega \subset F \subset_0 C^0$, there exists a compact subset $L$ of $F$ with property $\cal H$. Take the same $B_n$ as in the proof of lemma \[lem\_B\_n\]. Since $B_n$ is compact in $F$, $\lambda B_n$ tends to $0$ when $\lambda \tend 0$. Choose $\lambda_n>0$ such that $\lambda_n B_n$ is included in the ball of $F$ of center $0$ and radius $1/(n+1)$. Then the set $L= \bigcup \lambda_n B_n$, which has obviously property $\cal H$, is compact. \[lem\_maillon\_3\] Assume that $F$ is a Fréchet space with $C^\omega \subset F \subset_0 C^0$, and that $K$ is a compact subset of $F$. For all $\theta$ Bruno, for all $r_1<r_2<r(\theta)$, and all ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a Bruno number $\theta'$ and $r'>0$ such that 1. $\|\theta'-\theta\|<{\varepsilon}$ 2. $r_1<r'<r_2$ 3. $r(\theta') > r'$ 4. $d_F((\phi_{\theta} - \phi_{\theta'}) (r'z)) < {\varepsilon}$\[item\_inf\_bis\] 5. $\phi_{\theta'} (r'z)$ does not belong to $K$\[item\_five\] Let $r_3 = \frac{r_1+r_2}{2}$. If, for some $r'\in ]r_1,r_3[$, $\phi_{\theta}(r'z)$ verifies (\[item\_five\]), then we are done with $\theta'= \theta$.\ Otherwise, let $\theta_n \tend \theta$ provided by lemma \[lem\_abc\] such that $r(\theta_n) \tend r_3$. We may assume that $K$ has property $\cal H$ by replacing $K$ by $K \cup L$ where $L$ is provided by lemma \[lem\_L\]. According to lemma \[lem\_abs\], the injection $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}\subset F$ is continuous for all ${\varepsilon}>0$. On the other hand, there is some ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that the function $[r_1,r_3] \to C^\omega_{\varepsilon}$ which maps $r$ to the function $\phi_\theta(r z)$, is continuous. Therefore, its image $K_0$ is compact in $C^\omega_{\varepsilon}$, thus compact in $F$. Let $K' = K + K_0$. We claim that for all $n$ big enough, there exists an $r\in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $\phi_{\theta_n}(r z)$ does not belong to $K'$. Otherwise, $\phi_{\theta_n}(r(\theta_n) z)$ would belong to $K'$ and lemma \[lem\_geom\_4\] b) would imply that $\\|\phi_{\theta_n}(r(\theta_n) z) - \phi_\theta(r_3 z) \\|_\infty \tend 0$ and thus eventually, $\partial \Delta(\theta_n)$ would be contained in $\Delta(\theta)$, contradicting lemma \[lem\_Herman\] since $\theta_n \in \cal D_2$. Let then $r'_n$ be the infimum of the set of $r \in [r_1,r(\theta_n)[$ such that $\phi_{\theta_n} (r z)$ does not belong to $K'$. Let us prove that $r'_n \tend r_3$. Otherwise, for a subsequence, we would have $r'_n \tend r' \in [r_1,r_3[$. With the definition of $r'_n$, this would yield a sequence $r''_n \tend r'$ with $r''_n>r'_n$ and $\phi_{\theta_n}(r''_n z)$ does not belong to $K'$. The sequence of holomorphic functions $z\mapsto \phi_{\theta_n} (r''_n z)$ would converge uniformly on compact sets of $\frac{r_3}{r'} \D$ to $\phi_\theta(r'z)$, which would imply uniform convergence on $\U$ of all the derivatives. Because of property $\cal H$, the function $(\phi_{\theta_n}-\phi_\theta)(r''_n z)$ would eventually belong to $K$, and $\phi_{\theta_n}(r''_n z)$ would belong to $K+K_0$, that is $K'$, which is a contradition. As soon as $r'_n > r_1$, since for all $r\in [r_1,r'_n[$, $\phi_{\theta_n}(r z)$ is in $K'$, by continuity so is $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)$. Lemma \[lem\_geom\_4\] a) then implies that $d_F(\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)-\phi_{\theta}(r_3 z)) \tend 0$ when $n\tend +\infty$. And $r'_n \tend r_3$ implies $d_F(\phi_{\theta}(r_3 z)-\phi_{\theta}(r'_n z)) \tend 0$. This gives (\[item\_inf\_bis\]). Proof of theorem \[thm\_control\]: Let $B_n$ be provided by lemma \[lem\_B\_n\], and $L$ by lemma \[lem\_L\]. We are going to define by induction a sequence $\theta_n$ of parameters, an increasing sequence $r'_n \geq r$, and reals ${\varepsilon}_n>0$. The induction hypothesis will be $H_n$: - $r(\theta_n) >r'_n$ - for all $k\leq n$, the $F$-distance between $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)$ and the set $K_k\cup B_k \cup L$ is $>{\varepsilon}_k$ Let $\theta_0 = \theta$, $r'_0=r$. For $n\geq 1$, assume that $\theta_k$, $r_k$, ${\varepsilon}_k$ are defined for $0\leq k < n$, and that $H_{n-1}$ holds. There exists a $\eta>0$ such that for all $f\in F$, the condition $d_f(f,\phi_{\theta_{n-1}}(r'_{n-1}) ) < \eta$ implies that for all $k<n$, the $F$-distance between $f$ and $K_k \cup B_k \cup L$ remains $>{\varepsilon}_k$. Let $r_1=r'_{n-1}$ and $r_2$ such that $r_1<r_2<r(\theta_{n-1})$, close enough to $r_1$ so that $$d_F(\phi_{\theta_n-1}(r' z), \phi_{\theta_n-1}(r_1 z)) < \max(\eta, {\varepsilon}/2^n)/2$$ (possible since the injection of $C^\omega_{{\varepsilon}'} \subset F$ is continuous for all ${\varepsilon}'>0$) Let $\theta_n$ and $r'_n$ be provided by lemma \[lem\_maillon\_3\] such that - $\|\theta_n-\theta_{n-1}\|< {\varepsilon}/2^n$ - $r_1 < r'_n <r_2$ - $r(\theta_n) > r'_n $ - $d_F((\phi_{\theta_n} - \phi_{\theta_{n-1}})(r'_n z)) < \max(\eta, {\varepsilon}/2^n)/2$ - $\phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n z)$ does not belong to $K_n \cup B_n \cup L$ We then define $\ds {\varepsilon}_n = \frac{1}{2}d_F(K_n \cup B_n \cup L,\phi_{\theta_n} (r'_n z))$. Now that the sequences have been defined, let $\theta'$ be the limit of the Cauchy sequence $\theta_n$, and $r'$ the limit of the increasing sequence $r'_n$ (which is bounded from above by $4$). Let us recall that for all $n$, $r(\theta_n)>r'_n$, and that the sequence of maps $\phi_{\theta_n}(r'_n z)$ (restricted to $\D$) is a Cauchy sequence for $d_F$, thus converges in $F$ (that is where the completeness of Fréchet spaces is used). Its limit is $\psi(z)=\phi_{\theta'}(r' z) \in F$ (a priori restricted to $\D$). Convergence in $F$ implies convergence in $C^0$, thus we can apply lemma \[lem\_limits\]. Also, $d_F( K_n \cup B_n \cup L , \psi ) \geq {\varepsilon}_n$, thus $\psi$ does not belong to any $K_n$ nor to any $B_n$. Since $\bigcup B_n = C^\omega$, this implies $\psi$ does not extend holomorphically to a neighborhood of $\D$, thus $r(\theta')=r'$. Examples: To obtain Siegel disks with smooth ($C^\infty$) boundaries, one takes $F=C^\infty$ and $K_n = {\varnothing}$. Let $B$ be a banach space (or a Fréchet space), and assume that $$C^\omega \subset B \subset_{\on{c}} F$$ where $\subset_{\on{c}}$ means a compact injection (the image of a bounded set has compact closure). If we take $K_n$ to be the closure in $F$ of the the ball in $B$ of center $0$ and radius $n+1$, we obtain Siegel disks whose conformal map $\phi_{\theta'} (r'z)$ belongs to $F$ but not to $B$. For instance - $F=C^0$, $B$ is the set of functions whose restriction to $\U$ is $h$-regular: this reproves theorem \[thm\_2\] - $F=C^n$, $B=C^{n+1}$ where $n\in\N$ - $\ds F=\bigcap_{\alpha \in [0,\beta[} C^\alpha$, $B=C^\beta$, where $\beta > 0$ is a real number - $\ds F=\bigcap_{\alpha \in [0,n[} C^\alpha$, $B=C^{(n-1)+\on{Lip}}$, where $n > 0$ is an integer In the first two examples, the Fréchet space $F$ happens to be a Banach space. Now we can take a countable collection of Banach spaces $B_n$ such that $C^\omega \subset B_n \subset_{\on{c}} F$. We obtain Siegel disks whose conformal map $\phi_{\theta'} (r'z)$ belongs to $F$ but to no $B_n$. For instance - $\ds F=C^\alpha$, $B_n=C^{\alpha+1/n}$, where $\alpha\geq 0$ Since the inclusion of $C^n$ in $C^{(n-1)+\on{Lip}}$ is not compact (it is an isometry), we may wonder if there exists Siegel disks whose boundaries are $C^{(n-1)+\on{Lip}}$ but not $C^n$. For $n=1$, the contrary would mean that if the boundary of a (fixed quadratic) Siegel disk is $\on{Lip}$, then it is $C^1$. [McM2]{} , [Smooth Siegel disks via semicontinuity: a remark on a proof of Buff and Cheritat]{}, `math.DS/0305272` , [Quadratic Siegel disks with smooth boundaries. Part I]{}, submited. , Are there critical points on the boundaries of singular domains ? Comm. Math. Phys. 99, 593–612 (1985). , [Boundary Behavior of Conformal Maps]{}, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 299, Springer-Verlag. $\&$ [S. Zakeri]{}, [On the Julia Set of a Typical Quadratic Polynomial with a Siegel disk]{}, Preprint, Institute for Mathematical sciences, SUNY at Stony Brook, (2000).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'There is a lack of simple and scalable algorithms for uncertainty quantification. Bayesian methods quantify uncertainty through posterior and predictive distributions, but it is difficult to rapidly estimate summaries of these distributions, such as quantiles and intervals. Variational Bayes approximations are widely used, but may badly underestimate posterior covariance. Typically, the focus of Bayesian inference is on point and interval estimates for one-dimensional functionals of interest. In small scale problems, Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms remain the gold standard, but such algorithms face major problems in scaling up to big data. Various modifications have been proposed based on parallelization and approximations based on subsamples, but such approaches are either highly complex or lack theoretical support and/or good performance outside of narrow settings. We propose a simple and general posterior interval estimation algorithm, which is based on running Markov chain Monte Carlo in parallel for subsets of the data and averaging quantiles estimated from each subset. We provide strong theoretical guarantees and illustrate performance in several applications.' author: - 'Cheng Li [^1]' - 'Sanvesh Srivastava [^2]' - 'David B. Dunson [^3]' title: 'Simple, Scalable and Accurate Posterior Interval Estimation' --- Key words: Bayesian; Big data; Credible interval; Embarrassingly parallel; Markov chain Monte Carlo; Quantile estimation; Wasserstein barycenter. Introduction ============ We propose a posterior interval estimation algorithm for uncertainty quantification in massive data settings in which usual Bayesian sampling algorithms are too slow. Bayesian models quantify uncertainty via the joint posterior distribution of the model parameters and predictive distributions of new observations. As joint posteriors and predictives are difficult to visualize and use in practice, the focus is almost always on posterior summaries of one-dimensional functionals. For example, it is typical to report 95% posterior credible intervals for a variety of one-dimensional functionals of interest. In practice, by far the most common approach to estimate credible intervals relies on running a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to obtain samples from the joint posterior, based on which estimating intervals for different one-dimensional functionals is trivial. Traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms are too slow to be practically useful in massive data applications. However, given their rich history and broad use, it would be appealing to be able to incorporate a simple fix-up, which would allow trivial modifications of existing code, solve the computational bottleneck, and enable provably accurate estimation of posterior quantiles for any one-dimensional functional of interest. Current classes of analytic approximations, such as Gaussian/Laplace, variational Bayes [@Hofetal13; @Broetal13; @TanNot14], and expectation propagation [@Xuetal14], clearly do not provide a generally useful alternative to sampling methods in terms of accurate estimation of posterior credible intervals. Hence, in comparing with the literature, we focus on scalable sampling algorithms. There has been a recent interest in scaling up Bayesian sampling in general and Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms in particular, with many different threads considered. Three of the most successful include (i) approximating expensive Markov chain Monte Carlo transition kernels with easier to sample surrogates; (ii) running Markov chain Monte Carlo on a single machine but with different subsets of the data used as sampling proceeds [@WelTeh11; @Macetal14]; and (iii) running Markov chain Monte Carlo in parallel for different data subsets and then combining [@Scoetal16; @NeiWanXin13; @Minetal14; @Srietal15; @Wangetal15]. Motivated by our goal of defining a very simple and theoretically supported algorithm, we focus on embarassingly parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo following strategy (iii). The key question in embarassingly parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo is how to combine samples from the different subset posteriors. If each subset posterior were approximately Gaussian, then weighted averaging is well justified, motivating the consensus Monte Carlo algorithm [@Scoetal16]. Outside of this restrictive setting, one can instead rely on the product equation representation to combine using kernel smoothing [@NeiWanXin13] or multi-scale histograms [@Wangetal15]. Such approaches have theory support in terms of accuracy as the number of samples increases, but rely heavily on the accuracy of density estimators for the subset posteriors, suffering badly when subset posteriors have even slightly non-overlapping supports. Moreover, the product equation representation obtained by splitting the prior is not invariant to model reparameterization. An alternative approach is to use data subsamples to define noisy approximations to the full data posterior, and then take an appropriate notion of geometric center, such as geometric median [@Minetal14] or mean [@Srietal15] of these approximations. These later approaches are invariant to model reparameterization, but they require a somewhat conceptually and computationally complex combining algorithm. In this article, we propose a new scalable algorithm for posterior interval estimation. Our algorithm first runs Markov chain Monte Carlo or any alternative posterior sampling algorithm in parallel for each subset posterior, with the subset posteriors proportional to the prior multiplied by the subset likelihood raised to the full data sample size divided by the subset sample size. To obtain an accurate estimate of a posterior quantile for any one-dimensional functional of interest, we simply calculate the quantile estimates in parallel for each subset posterior and then average these estimates. Hence, our combining step is completely trivial conceptually and computationally. We also provide theory justifying the performance of the quantile estimates. We emphasize that we are not proposing a new Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm, but we are instead developing a simple approach to scale up existing algorithms to datasets with large numbers of observations. Our approach is related to the frequentist Bag of Little Bootstraps [@Kleetal14] and provides a Bayesian interpretation. Bag of Little Bootstraps divides massive data into small subsets and obtains bootstrap confidence intervals for a one-dimensional parameter on every subset from weighted bootstrap samples. Then the confidence interval of the one-dimensional parameter based on the whole data is constructed by averaging lower and upper bounds of the bootstrap confidence intervals across all subsets. Similarly, our algorithm averages quantiles from all subset posteriors. Our theory leads to new insights into Bag of Little Bootstraps, showing that its confidence intervals correspond to the confidence intervals of the Wasserstein barycenter of bootstrap distributions across all subsets. Preliminaries ============= Wasserstein Distance and Barycenter ----------------------------------- Our algorithm is related to the concept of Wasserstein barycenter of subset posteriors [@Srietal15], which depends on the notions of Wasserstein distance and Wasserstein barycenter. Suppose $\Theta\in \mathcal{R}^d$ and $\\|\theta_1-\theta_2\\|$ is the Euclidean distance between any $\theta_1,\theta_2\in \Theta$. For any two measures $\nu_1,\nu_2$ on $\Theta$, their Wasserstein-2 distance is defined as $$\begin{aligned} W_2(\nu_1,\nu_2) = \left\{\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma(\nu_1,\nu_2)}\int_{\Theta\times \Theta} \\|\theta_1-\theta_2\\|^2 {\mathrm{d}}\gamma( \nu_1,\nu_2 ) \right\}^{1/2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ is the set of all probability measures on $\Theta\times \Theta$ with marginals $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, respectively. If we let $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)=\left\{\nu:\int_{\Theta} \\|\theta\\|^2{\mathrm{d}}\nu(\theta) <\infty\right\}$, then the $W_2$ distance is well defined for every pair of measures in $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$. The topological space $\{ \Theta,\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)\}$ is a Polish space, and the $W_2$ distance metricizes the weak convergence of measures on $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$. Convergence in $W_2$ distance on $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$ is equivalent to weak convergence plus convergence of the second moment; see for example, Lemma 8.3 in [@BikFre81]. Given $N$ different measures $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_N$ in $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$, their Wasserstein barycenter is defined as the solution to the following optimization problem [@AguCar11]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{wasp0} \overline \nu = \operatorname{arg\,min}_{\mu \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)} \sum_{j=1}^N W_2^2 \left(\mu, \nu_j \right),\end{aligned}$$ which can be viewed as the geometric center of the $N$ measures $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_N$. Wasserstein Posterior and Posterior Interval Estimation {#wasp-pie} ------------------------------------------------------- Consider $n$ observations that are conditionally independent given model parameters and can be partitioned into $K$ non-overlapping subsets. For ease of presentation, we assume that all subsets have the same sample size $m$, such that $n=Km$. The data in the $j$th subset are denoted $X_j=\{X_{1j},X_{2j},\ldots,X_{mj}\}$ for $j=1,\ldots,K$, and the whole dataset is denoted $X=\cup_{j=1}^K X_j$. The model $P(x\mid \theta)$, or for short $P_{\theta}$, describes the distribution of $X$, with parameter $\theta\in \Theta \subseteq \mathcal{R}^d$, where $d$ is the dimension of $\theta$. Suppose $P(x\mid \theta)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to dominating measure $\lambda$ such that ${\mathrm{d}}P(x\mid \theta) = p(x\mid \theta) {\mathrm{d}}\lambda(x)$. For theory development, we assume the existence of a true parameter $\theta_0\in \Theta$, such that the data $X$ are generated from $P_{\theta_0}$. Given a prior distribution $\Pi(\theta)$ over $\Theta$ with density $\pi(\theta)$, define the overall posterior density of $\theta$ given $X$ and the $j$th subset posterior density of $\theta$ given $X_j$, $j=1,\ldots,K$, as $$\begin{aligned} \label{subsetpost} \pi_n \left(\theta\mid X\right) &= \frac{ \prod_{j=1}^K\prod_{i=1}^m p(X_{ij}\mid \theta)\pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta} {\int_{\Theta} \prod_{j=1}^K\prod_{i=1}^m p(X_{ij}\mid \theta) \pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta} \nonumber \\ \pi_m \left(\theta\|X_j\right) &= \frac{\left\{\prod_{i=1}^m p(X_{ij}\mid \theta)\right\}^K \pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta} {\int_{\Theta} \left\{\prod_{i=1}^m p(X_{ij}\mid \theta)\right\}^K \pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta},\end{aligned}$$ and we denote their corresponding distribution functions as $\Pi_n(\theta\mid X)$ and $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$, respectively. In the definition of subset posterior density $\pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$, we have raised the subset likelihood function to the $K$th power. As a stochastic approximation to the overall posterior $\pi_n \left(\theta\mid X\right)$, this modification rescales the variance of each subset posterior given $X_j$ to be roughly of the same order as the variance of the overall posterior $\Pi_n(\theta\mid X)$, as in [@Minetal14] and [@Srietal15]. Based on , [@Srietal15] runs Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms on the $K$ subsets in parallel, producing draws from each $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$, $j=1,\ldots,K$. Empirical estimates of $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$ for all $K$ subsets are obtained from the Markov chain Monte Carlo draws, their Wasserstein barycenter is estimated via a linear program, and used as an approximation of the overall posterior $\Pi_n(\theta\mid X)$. Suppose we are interested in a scalar parameter $\xi=h(\theta) \in \Xi$ with $h:\Theta \mapsto \Xi\subseteq \mathcal{R}$. We denote the overall posterior for $\xi$ by $\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$ and the $j$th subset posterior for $\xi$ by $\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j)$. For theory development, we mainly focus on the linear functional $\xi=h(\theta)=a^{\top}\theta +b$ for some fixed $a\in \mathcal{R}^d$ and $b\in \mathcal{R}$, which includes the individual components in $\theta$ as special cases. We can define the $W_2$ distance and the set of measures $\mathcal{P}_2(\Xi)$ on the univariate space $\Xi$. If $\Pi_m \left(\xi \mid X_j \right) \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Xi)$ for all $j=1,\ldots,K$, then the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior $\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$ is defined as the Wasserstein barycenter of $\Pi_m \left(\xi \mid X_j \right)$ as in : $$\begin{aligned} \label{wasp} \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X) = \operatorname{arg\,min}_{\mu \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Xi)} \sum_{j=1}^K W_2^2 \left\{ \mu, \Pi_m \left(\xi \mid X_j \right) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ In the one-dimensional case, the Wasserstein posterior has an explicit relation with the $K$ subset posteriors. Let $F^{-1}(u)=\inf\{x:F(x)\geq u\}$ be the quantile function of a generic univariate distribution function $F(x)$. Let $F_1$ and $F_2$ be two univariate distributions in $\mathcal{P}_2(\Xi)$, with quantile functions $F_1^{-1}(u)$ and $F_2^{-1}(u)$, for any $u\in (0,1)$, respectively. Then the $W_2$ distance between $F_1$ and $F_2$ has an explicit expression by Lemma 8.2 of [@BikFre81]: $$W_2(F_1,F_2) = \left[ \int_0^1 \left\{ F_1^{-1}(u)-F_2^{-1}(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/2}.$$ Therefore, $\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$ in is explicitly related to the subset posteriors $\Pi_m \left(\xi \mid X_j \right) $ by $$\begin{aligned} \overline \Pi_n^{-1} (u\mid X) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right)$ and $\overline \Pi_n^{-1} (u\mid X)$ are the quantile functions of $\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j)$ and $\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$, respectively. This expression for the one-dimensional $W_2$ barycenter has been derived in [@AguCar11] from an optimal transport perspective. The relation indicates that for a scalar functional $\xi$, the average of subset posterior quantiles produces another quantile function that corresponds exactly to the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior. Therefore, in our algorithm, to evaluate the Wasserstein posterior of $\xi$, we simply take the empirical quantiles based on posterior draws from each $\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j)$ and then average them over $j=1,\ldots,K$. Our algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[pie-algo\]. : $K$ subsets of data $X_1,\ldots,X_K$, each with sample size $m$.\ : Posterior credible intervals $[\overline q_{\alpha/2},\overline q_{1-\alpha/2}]$, for $\alpha\in (0,1)$.\ For $j=1$ to $K$ \# Parallel in $K$ subsets\ For $t=1$ to $T$\ Draw $\theta_{tj}$ from $\Pi_m \left(\theta \mid X_j \right)$, using an appropriate posterior sampler.\ Calculate $\xi_{tj}=h(\theta_{tj})$.\ End for\ Sort $\left\{\xi_{1j},\ldots,\xi_{Tj}\right\}$ into $\left\{\xi_{(1)j}\leq \ldots \leq \xi_{(T)j}\right\}$;\ Obtain the empirical $\alpha/2$ and $1-\alpha/2$ quantiles $q_{\alpha/2,j}=\xi_{(\lfloor T\alpha/2\rfloor)j}$\ and $q_{1-\alpha/2,j}=\xi_{(\lfloor T(1-\alpha/2)\rfloor)j}$, where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $x$.\ End for\ Set $\overline q_{\alpha/2} = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K q_{\alpha/2,j}$ and $\overline q_{1-\alpha/2} = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K q_{1-\alpha/2,j}$.\ : $[\overline q_{\alpha/2},\overline q_{1-\alpha/2}]$. Main Results ============ In this section, we develop theory supporting our approach. Under mild regularity conditions, we show that the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior $\overline\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$ is an accurate approximation to the overall posterior $\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$. Essentially, as the subset sample size $m$ increases, the $W_2$ distance between them diminishes at a faster than parametric rate $o_p(m^{-1/2})$. Their biases, variances and quantiles are only different in high orders of $m$. This rate can be improved to $o_p(n^{-1/2})$ when the maximum likelihood estimator of $\xi$ is unbiased. Our results are improved relative to previous papers relying on combining subset posteriors, such as [@Minetal14] and [@Srietal15], with more detailed description of the limiting behavior of the estimated posterior and weaker restrictions on the growth rate of the number of subsets $K$. Our theory relies on the parametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem. The consensus Monte Carlo algorithm in [@Scoetal16] also leverages approximate normality in their asymptotic justification and can be viewed as a different way of averaging subset posteriors. They used weighted averages of subset posterior samples as an approximate sample from the true posterior, where the weights were taken as the inverse covariance matrices based on each subset posterior samples. Their weighting strategy relies more heavily on the normality assumption than our strategy of averaging quantiles. In contrast to the heuristic arguments in [@Scoetal16], we provide formal justification for using normal approximations on a large number of subsets, and quantify the asymptotic orders of the induced approximation errors. We first define some useful notation. Let $\ell_j(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^m \log p(X_{ij}\mid \theta)$ be the log-likelihood in the $j$ subset, and $\ell(\theta)=\sum_{j=1}^K \ell_j(\theta)$ be the overall log-likelihood. Let $\ell_j'(\theta) = \partial \ell_j(\theta)/\partial \theta $ and $\ell_j''(\theta) = -\partial^2 \ell_j(\theta)/\partial\theta\partial\theta^{\top}$ be the first and second derivatives of $\ell_j(\theta)$ with respect to $\theta$. Let $\hat \theta_j =\operatorname{arg\,max}_{\theta\in \Theta} \ell_j(\theta)$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$ based on the $j$th subset $X_j$, $j=1,\ldots,K$. Similarly let $\hat \theta =\operatorname{arg\,max}_{\theta\in \Theta} \ell(\theta)$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$ based on the full dataset $X$. Let $\overline \theta = \sum_{j=1}^K \hat \theta_j /K$ denote the average of maximum likelihood estimators across subsets. We make the following assumptions on the data generating process, the prior and the posterior. \[a1\] $\theta_0$ is an interior point of $\Theta \in \mathcal{R}^d$, where $d$ is a fixed positive integer and does not depend on $n$. $P_{\theta}=P_{\theta_0}$ almost everywhere if and only if $\theta=\theta_0$. $X$ contains independent and identically distributed observations generated from $P_{\theta_0}$. \[a2\] The support of $p(x\mid \theta)$ is the same for all $\theta\in \Theta$. \[a3\] $\log p(x\mid \theta)$ is three times differentiable with respect to $\theta$ in a neighborhood $B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)\equiv \{\theta\in \Theta:\\|\theta-\theta_0\\|\leq \delta_0\}$ of $\theta_0$, for some constant $\delta_0>0$. $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{p'(X\mid \theta_0)/p(X\mid \theta_0)\right\}=0$. Furthermore, there exists an envelope function $M(x)$ such that $\sup_{\theta\in B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)}\left\|\partial \log p(x\mid \theta) / \partial \theta_{l_1}\right\|\leq M(x)$, $\sup_{\theta\in B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)}\left\|\partial^2 \log p(x\mid \theta) / \partial \theta_{l_1}\partial \theta_{l_2}\right\|\leq M(x)$, $\sup_{\theta\in B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)}\left\|\partial^3 \log p(x\mid \theta) / \partial \theta_{l_1}\partial\theta_{l_2} \partial\theta_{l_3}\right\|\leq M(x)$ for all $l_1,l_2,l_3 = 1,\ldots,d$, for all values of $x$, and $E_{P_{\theta_0}} M(X)^4 <\infty$. \[a4\] $I(\theta)=E_{P_{\theta_0}}\{ -\partial^2 p(X\mid \theta)/\partial\theta\partial\theta^{\top}\} = E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left[ \{ \partial p(X\mid \theta)/\partial\theta\} \{ \partial p(X\mid \theta)/\partial\theta\}^{\top}\right]$. $-\ell_1''(\theta)/m$ is positive definite with eigenvalues bounded from below and above by constants, for all $\theta\in \Theta$, all values of $X_1$, and all sufficiently large $m$. \[a5\] For any $\delta>0$, there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that\ $\lim_{m\to\infty} P_{\theta_0}\left[ \sup_{\|\theta-\theta_0\|\geq \delta}\left\{ \ell_1(\theta)-\ell_1(\theta_0)\right\}/m\leq -\epsilon\right]=1$. \[a6\] The prior density $\pi(\theta)$ is continuous, bounded from above in $\Theta$ and bounded below at $\theta_0$. The prior has finite second moment $\int_{\Theta} \\|\theta\\|^2 \pi(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta < \infty$. \[a7\] Let $\psi(X_1) = E_{\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_1)} Km\\|\theta - \hat \theta_1 \\|^2 $, where $E_{\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_1)}$ is the expectation with respect to $\theta$ under the posterior $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_1)$. Then there exists an integer $m_0\geq 1$, such that $\left\{\psi(X_1):m\geq m_0, K\geq 1\right\}$ is uniformly integrable under $P_{\theta_0}$. In other words,\ $\lim_{C\to+\infty}\sup_{m\geq m_0,K\geq 1}E_{P_{\theta_0}}\psi(X_1)I\{ \psi(X_1)\geq C\} = 0$, where $I(\cdot)$ is the indicator function. Assumptions \[a1\]-\[a5\] are standard and mild regularity conditions on the model $P(x\mid \theta)$, which are similar to the assumptions of Theorem 8.2 in Chapter 6 of [@LehCas98] and Theorem 4.2 in [@Ghosh06] for showing the asymptotic normality of posteriors. Assumption \[a6\] requires the prior to have a finite second moment, such that with high probability all the posterior distributions are in the $\mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$ space and the $W_2$ distance is well defined. In models with heavy tailed priors, such as our example in Section D.1, one can replace Assumption \[a6\] by assuming that the posterior distribution conditional on a fixed number of initial observations has finite second moment; see Example 8.5 in Chapter 6 of [@LehCas98] and our Proposition 3 in the Appendix. The uniform integrability of subset posteriors in Assumption \[a7\] is an extra mild technical assumption that helps us to generalize the usual Bernstein-von Mises result on the subsets from the convergence in probability to the convergence in $L_1$ distance. We verify Assumption \[a7\] for normal linear models and some exponential family distributions in the Appendix. A stronger condition that can replace Assumption \[a7\] is $\sup_{m\geq m_0,K\geq 1}E_{X_1}E_{\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_1)} Km\\|\theta - \hat \theta_1 \\|^2<+\infty$. The following theorems hold for the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior defined in . \[w2main\] Suppose Assumptions \[a1\]–\[a7\] hold and $\xi=a^{\top}\theta+b$ for some fixed $a\in \mathcal{R}^d$ and $b\in \mathcal{R}$. Let $I_{\xi}(\theta_0) = \left\{ a^{\top}I^{-1}(\theta_0)a\right\}^{-1}$. Let $\overline \xi = a^{\top}\overline \theta + b$, $\hat \xi= a^{\top}\hat \theta+b$. Let $\Phi(\cdot;\mu,\Sigma)$ be the normal distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance $\Sigma$.\ (i) As $m\to \infty$, $$\begin{aligned} & n^{1/2}~W_2\left(\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi;\overline\xi,\left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \to 0,\\ &n^{1/2}~W_2\left(\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi;\hat \xi,\left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \to 0,\\ & m^{1/2}~W_2\left\{ \overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ where the convergence is in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability.\ (ii) If $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator for $\theta$, so $E_{P_{\theta_0}} \hat \theta_1 = \theta_0$, then as $m\to\infty$, $$\begin{aligned} &n^{1/2}~ W_2\left\{ \overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} \to 0 \qquad \text{in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability.}\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[w2main\] shows that both the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior of $\xi$ from combining $K$ subset posteriors and the overall posterior of $\xi$ based on the full dataset are asymptotically close in the $W_2$ distance to their respective limiting normal distributions, with slightly different means and the same variance. Such convergence in the $W_2$ distance implies weak convergence and convergence of the second moment. Furthermore, the $W_2$ distance between the Wasserstein and full posteriors converges to zero in probability with rates $m^{1/2}$ and $n^{1/2}$, depending on the behavior of the maximum likelihood estimator $\hat\theta_1$. Previous asymptotic justifications for embarrassingly parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches focus on consistency [@Srietal15] or convergence rates [@Minetal14], while the above theorem is stronger in providing a limiting distribution. In addition, our conditions are much weaker in only requiring the subset sample size $m$ to increase, while imposing no restrictions on the growth rates of $m$ and $K$. Hence, the number of subsets $K$ can grow polynomially in $n$, mimicking the case in which many computers are available but computational resources per computer are limited. For example, the theorem allows $K=O(n^c)$, $m=O(n^{1-c})$ for any $c\in (0,1)$. Under this setup, the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior, the overall posterior and their normal limits will all converge to $\theta_0$ at the same rate of $O_p(n^{-1/2})$, and their mutual difference is of order $o_p(m^{-1/2})$. When the maximum likelihood estimator $\hat\theta_1$ is unbiased, Part (ii) of the theorem provides a sharper convergence rate of $O_p(n^{-1/2})$ compared to the $O_p(m^{-1/2})$ rate in Part (i), still with no explicit restrictions on the growth rates of $m$ and $K$. When $K$ increases very fast, for example $K\approx n^{1/2}$ and $m\approx n^{1/2}$, the $O_p(n^{-1/2})$ rate in Part (ii) is much faster than the $O_p(n^{-1/4})$ rate from Part (i). Moreover, $O_p(m^{-1/2})$ is suboptimal since it is the parametric rate based on only the subset data with size $m$, while $O_p(n^{-1/2})$ is the optimal parametric rate based on the full data with size $n$. The reason for the improvement in Part (ii) lies in the high order difference between the two means $\overline \xi$ and $\hat\xi$ of the limiting normal distributions of the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior and the overall posterior. When the unbiasedness assumption does not hold and $K$ increases with $n$, the difference between the averaged maximum likelihood estimator $\overline \xi$ and the overall maximum likelihood estimator $\hat\xi$ is typically of order $o_p(m^{-1/2})$, which does not scale in the number of subsets $K$. However, when all subset maximum likelihood estimators are unbiased, this difference is reduced by a factor of $K^{1/2}$ due to the averaging effect over $K$ subset posteriors and decreases faster as $o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Hence, in models having unbiased maximum likelihood estimators, the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior achieves high order accuracy in approximating the overall posterior with a difference $o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Independently, [@ShaChe15] has considered a nonparametric generalized linear model and shown a related Bernstein-von Mises theorem. Besides the difference between the form of models, we emphasize that our result in Theorem \[w2main\] does not rely on the strong requirement of a uniform normal approximation for all subset posteriors, as used in Shang and Cheng’s paper. Instead, to show Theorem \[w2main\], it is only necessary for the normal approximation to work well on average among all subset posteriors. As a result, we have no explicit constraint on the growth rate on the number of subsets $K$, while their paper needs to control $K$ explicitly depending on the posterior convergence rate. \[biasvar\] Suppose Assumptions \[a1\]–\[a7\] hold. Let $\xi_0=a^{\top}\theta_0+b$ and $\hat\xi$ be the same as defined in Theorem \[w2main\]. For a generic distribution $F$ on $\Xi$, let $\operatorname{bias}(F) = E_F(\xi)-\xi_0$ and $\operatorname{var}(F)$ be the variance of $F$. Let $u_1$ and $u_2$ be two arbitrary fixed numbers such that $0<u_1<u_2<1$. Then the following relations hold: \(i) & {\_[n]{}(X)}= -\_0 + o\_p(n\^[-1/2]{}), {\_[n]{}(X)}= -\_0 + o\_p(n\^[-1/2]{});&&\ (ii) & {\_[n]{}(X)} = I\_\^[-1]{}(\_0) + o\_p(n\^[-1]{}), {\_[n]{}(X)}= I\_\^[-1]{}(\_0) + o\_p(n\^[-1]{}); &&\ (iii) & \_[u]{}\|\_n\^[-1]{}(uX) - \_n\^[-1]{}(uX)\| = o\_p(m\^[-1/2]{}),&& where $O_p$ and $o_p$ are in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Furthermore, if $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$, then $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{bias}\left\{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{bias}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right);\\ & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]}\left\|\overline \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right). $$ Theorem \[biasvar\] provides the order for the differences for the bias, the variance and the quantiles between the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior and the overall posterior. Essentially the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior has an asymptotic bias $\overline \xi-\hat \xi$ from the overall posterior, which is generally of order $o_p(m^{-1/2})$ and has higher order $o_p(n^{-1/2})$ when the subset maximum likelihood estimators are unbiased. The variances of the one-dimensional Wasserstein posterior and the overall posterior agree in the leading order. Similar to the biases, the difference between their quantiles has order $o_p(m^{-1/2})$ in the general case, and improves to a higher order $o_p(n^{-1/2})$ when the subset maximum likelihood estimators are unbiased. In our algorithm, when we take $K$ different subset posterior credible intervals and average them, the averages of the lower and upper quantiles are asymptotically close to the quantiles from the overall posterior in the leading order. Therefore, Theorem \[biasvar\] also validates our algorithm in the sense of posterior uncertainty quantification. We can also account for Monte Carlo errors in approximating subset posteriors using samples under mild mixing conditions on the subset Markov chains; see Theorem 3 in the Appendix. Experiments =========== We applied the proposed algorithm in a variety of cases, using consensus Monte Carlo [@Scoetal16], Wasserstein posterior [@Srietal15], semiparametric density product [@NeiWanXin13], and variational Bayes as our competitors. Posterior summaries from Markov chain Monte Carlo applied to the full data served as the benchmark for all the comparisons. As our theory guarantees good performance for very large samples, we focused on simulations with moderate sample sizes. All Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms were run for 10,000 iterations. After discarding the first 5000 samples as burn-in, we retained every fifth sample in all the chains; convergence diagnostics suggested that every chain had converged to its stationary distribution. We used the combination step implemented in R package parallelMCMCcombine [@MirCon14] for consensus Monte Carlo and semiparametric density product methods. We implemented the combination step of our algorithm in R and of Srivastava et al.’s algorithm in Matlab. All experiments were run on an Oracle Grid Engine cluster with 2.6GHz 16 core compute nodes. Memory resources were capped at 8GB for all the methods, except for Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data, which had a maximum memory limit of 16GB. The accuracy of a density $q (\theta \mid X)$ approximating $\pi_n(\theta \mid X)$ was evaluated using the metric $$\begin{aligned} \text{accuracy} \left\{ q (\theta\mid X)\right\} = 1 - \tfrac{1}{2} \int_{\Theta} \left\|q(\theta\mid X) - \pi_n(\theta \mid X)\right\| {\mathrm{d}}\theta. \label{acc}\end{aligned}$$ This accuracy metric lies in $[0,1]$, with larger values indicating better performance of $q$ in approximating $\pi_n$ [@Faeetal12]. In our experiments, we first estimated $q (\theta\mid X)$ and $\pi_n(\theta \mid X)$ based on the posterior samples using the bkde or bkde2D functions in R package [KernSmooth]{}, with automatic bandwidth selection via dpik [@Wan15]. The density estimates were used to compute a numerical approximation of the integral in . Linear model with varying dimension ----------------------------------- We first evaluated the performance of our proposed algorithm under varying sample size, dimension, and number of subsets in Bayesian linear models. Let the response, design matrix, regression coefficients, and random error be denoted as $y$, $X$, $\beta$, and $\epsilon$, where $y, \epsilon \in \mathcal{R}^n$, $\beta \in \mathcal{R}^{p \times 1}$, and $X \in \mathcal{R}^{n \times p}$. The model assumes that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:vs1} y = X \beta + \epsilon, \; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0_{n \times 1}, \sigma^2 I_n),\; \beta \sim \text{gdP}, \; \sigma \sim \text{Half-}t,\end{aligned}$$ where $\text{gdP}$ denotes the generalized double Pareto shrinkage prior of [@ArmDunLee13] and Half-$t$ is chosen to be weakly-informative [@Gel06]. See Section D.1 in the Appendix for detailed specifications. The priors on $\beta$ and $\sigma$ in are both heavy-tailed with infinite second moments, and therefore do not satisfy Assumption 6. However, one can verify that conditional on the initial $m_0$ observations with $m_0\geq p+4$, every subset posterior has finite second moments for both $\beta$ and $\sigma$. The result is summarized in Proposition 3 in the Appendix. We applied our approach for inference on $\beta$ in compared with an asymptotic normal approximation. We calculated the accuracy of approximations using a full data Gibbs sampler as the benchmark (Table \[tab:varsel\]). The first $10\%$ of entries of $\beta$ were set to $\pm 1$ with the remaining 0. The entries of $X$ were randomly set to $\pm 1$ and $\sigma^2$ was fixed at 1. We ran 10 replications for $n \in \{10^4, 10^5\}$ and $p \in \{10, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500\}$. We varied $K\in \{10, 20\}$ and applied Algorithm \[pie-algo\] after running a modification of the Gibbs sampler in for each subset. We considered two versions of normal approximations for the full posterior. The first version used $\mathcal N(\widehat m, \widehat V)$ to approximate the posterior of $\beta$, where $\widehat m$ and $ \widehat V$ are the maximum likelihood estimates of $\beta$ and its estimated asymptotic covariance matrix in . For the second version, we first obtained the asymptotic normal approximation of the $j$th subset posterior as $\mathcal N$($\widehat m_j$, $\widehat V_j$), where $\widehat m_j$ and $\widehat V_j$ ($j=1,\ldots,K$) are the maximum likelihood estimates of $\beta$ and its estimated asymptotic covariance matrix for the $j$th subset. Then we found the $W_2$ barycenter of the $K$ subset normal approximations, which is again a normal distribution $\mathcal N(m^, V^)$ [@AguCar11]. This provides an empirical verification of Theorem \[w2main\]. See Section D.1 in the Appendix for details of the Gibbs sampler and the form of $m^$ and $V^$. The performance of all the approaches was fairly similar across all simulations and agreed with our asymptotic theory (Table \[tab:varsel\]). The results in Table \[tab:varsel\] show that the proposed algorithm closely matched the Gibbs sampling results for the full data in terms of uncertainty quantification. It also performed better than the asymptotic normal approximations in some cases. When the subset sample size was too small compared to the dimension, such as when $n=10^4,p=400,K=20$ which has a subset size of only $m=500$, we observe poor performance for both the asymptotic approximations and the proposed approach. ------------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s Normal 0.95 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.96 0.95 NB (K=10) 0.94 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.89 0.87 0.95 0.94 0.84 0.83 0.94 0.94 PIE (K=10) 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 NB (K=20) 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.93 0.75 0.76 0.92 0.92 PIE (K=20) 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.77 0.78 0.93 0.93 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s 0s non-0s Normal 0.95 0.89 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.89 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.89 0.96 0.95 NB (K=10) 0.80 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.93 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.92 0.91 PIE (K=10) 0.82 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.73 0.74 0.93 0.93 NB (K=20) 0.65 0.67 0.91 0.91 0.51 0.52 0.90 0.90 - - 0.89 0.88 PIE (K=20) 0.67 0.68 0.92 0.91 0.52 0.53 0.91 0.91 0.31 0.31 0.90 0.89 ------------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for the non-zero and zero elements of $\beta$ in . The accuracies are averaged over 10 simulation replications. Normal, the asymptotic normal approximation based on the full data; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm; NB, the $W_2$ barycenter of $K$ asymptotic normal approximations of subset posteriors. \[tab:varsel\] Linear mixed effects model {#sim-lme} -------------------------- Linear mixed effects models are widely used to characterize dependence in longitudinal and nested data structures. Let $n_i$ be the number of observations associated with the $i$th individual, for $i=1,\ldots,s$. Let $y_i \in \mathcal{R}^{n_i}$ be the responses of the $i$th individual, $X_i \in \mathcal{R}^{n_i \times p}$ and $Z_i \in \mathcal{R}^{n_i \times q}$ be matrices including predictors having coefficients that are fixed across individuals and varying across individuals, respectively. Let $\beta \in \mathcal{R}^p$ and $u_i \in \mathcal{R}^q$, respectively, represent the fixed effects and $i$th random effect. The linear mixed effects model lets $$\begin{aligned} y_i \sim \mathcal{N}(X_i \beta + Z_i u_i, \sigma^2 I_{n_i}),\quad u_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0_q, \Sigma) ,\quad i = 1, \ldots, s. \label{lme}\end{aligned}$$ Many software packages are available for Markov chain Monte Carlo-based Bayesian inference in , but current implementations become intractable for data with large $s$ and $n = \sum_{i=1}^s n_i$. We applied our algorithm for inference on $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ in and compared its performance with maximum likelihood, consensus Monte Carlo, semiparametric density product, Wasserstein posterior, and variational Bayes. We set $s=5000$, $n_i=20$ for $i=1,\ldots,s$, $n=10^5$, $p=4$, $q=3$, $\beta = (-1, 1, -1, 1)^{\top}$, and $\sigma=1$. The random effects covariance $\Sigma$ had $\Sigma_{ii}= i, i=1, 2, 3$, $\Sigma_{12}=-$ 0.56, $\Sigma_{31} = $ 0.52, and $\Sigma_{23}=$ 0.0025. This matrix included negative, positive, and small to moderate strength correlations [@Kimetal13]. The simulation was replicated 10 times. The approximate posterior distributions were obtained using consensus Monte Carlo, semiparametric density product, Wasserstein posterior, and our algorithm in three steps. First, full data were randomly partitioned into 20 subsets such that data for each individual were in the same subset. Second, the Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler for $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ in was modified following and Equation (2) in [@Scoetal16] and implemented in Stan (Version 2.5.0). Finally, the posterior samples from all the subsets were combined. We used the streamlined algorithm for variational Bayes [@LeeWan16]. Maximum likelihood produced a point estimate and asymptotic covariance for $\beta$, and only a point estimate for $\Sigma$. We compared the performance of the seven methods for inference on the fixed effects $\beta$, the variances of random effects $\Sigma_{ii}$ ($i=1,2,3$), and the correlations of random effects $\rho_{ij}=\Sigma_{ij}/(\Sigma_{ii}\Sigma_{jj})^{1/2}$ ($1\leq i<j\leq 3$). The correlations are nonlinear functionals of the model parameters $\Sigma$. Maximum likelihood estimator, consensus Monte Carlo, semiparametric density product, Wasserstein posterior, and our algorithm had excellent performance in estimation of $\beta$ (Figure \[fig:simfixef\]), as well as the variances and correlations (Tables \[tab:sim-ran-ci\] and \[tab:sim-ran-acc\] and Figure \[fig:simranef\]). Uncertainty quantification using consensus Monte Carlo, semiparametric density product, Wasserstein posterior, and our algorithm closely agreed with Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data. As shown in Figure 1 of the Appendix, variational Bayes was computationally most efficient, but it showed poor accuracy in approximating the posterior of $\beta$ and the variances, with underestimation of posterior uncertainty. $\Sigma_{11}$ $\Sigma_{22}$ $\Sigma_{33}$ $\rho_{12}$ $\rho_{13}$ $\rho_{23}$ -- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------- 0.99 2.00 3.00 -0.40 0.30 0.00 (0.96, 1.03) (1.94, 2.07) (2.90, 3.10) (-0.42, -0.38) (0.28, 0.32) (-0.03, 0.02) (0.90, 0.96) (1.88, 2.01) (2.84, 3.04) (-0.44, -0.41) (0.29, 0.34) (-0.03, 0.02) (0.96, 1.03) (1.94, 2.08) (2.91, 3.13) (-0.42, -0.38) (0.28, 0.32) (-0.02, 0.02) (0.97, 1.03) (1.95, 2.09) (2.95, 3.14) (-0.42, -0.38) (0.28, 0.32) (-0.03, 0.02) (0.96, 1.03) (1.94, 2.07) (2.90, 3.10) (-0.42, -0.38) (0.28, 0.32) (-0.03, 0.02) (0.96, 1.03) (1.94, 2.07) (2.90, 3.10) (-0.42, -0.38) (0.28, 0.32) (-0.03, 0.02) : 90% credible intervals for variances and correlations of random effects in simulation for linear mixed effects model. The upper and lower bounds are averaged over 10 replications.MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:sim-ran-ci\] $\Sigma_{11}$ $\Sigma_{22}$ $\Sigma_{33}$ $\rho_{12}$ $\rho_{13}$ $\rho_{23}$ -- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- 0.11 (0.02) 0.38 (0.02) 0.59 (0.03) 0.45 (0.02) 0.96 (0.01) 0.61 (0.02) 0.92 (0.03) 0.95 (0.03) 0.93 (0.03) 0.92 (0.04) 0.96 (0.01) 0.90 (0.03) 0.90 (0.04) 0.92 (0.04) 0.89 (0.07) 0.85 (0.09) 0.95 (0.03) 0.74 (0.07) 0.95 (0.02) 0.94 (0.02) 0.95 (0.02) 0.94 (0.02) 0.96 (0.01) 0.95 (0.01) 0.95 (0.02) 0.95 (0.02) 0.96 (0.02) 0.96 (0.02) 0.97 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for variances and correlations of random effects in simulation for linear mixed effects model. The standard deviation of accuracy across 10 replications is in parentheses. VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SC, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:sim-ran-acc\] ![Boxplots of posterior samples for fixed effects in simulation for linear mixed effects model. MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; ML, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:simfixef"}](sim_fix_box){width="90.00000%"} ![Boxplots of posterior samples for variances and correlations of random effects in simulation for the linear mixed effects model. MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; ML, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:simranef"}](sim_ran_corr_box){width="\textwidth"} United States natality data --------------------------- We applied our algorithm to United States natality data on birth weight of infants and variables related to their mothers’ health [@Abe2006]. Linear mixed effects models were used for the covariance in birth weights among siblings. Following the example in [@LeeWan16], we selected the data for mothers who smoked, had two infants, and had some college education but not a college degree. Detailed information about the variables are in the Appendix. The data set contained $s=3809$ mothers and $n=7618$ births. There were 13 variables related to mother’s health. All these covariates and an intercept were used as fixed effects in , so $p = 14$. The random effects included mother’s age, gestation period, and number of living infants, so $q=3$. We performed 10 fold cross-validation and randomly split the data into 10 data sets such that data for siblings belonged to the same training data. We estimated fixed effects and covariance matrix for random effects as in Section \[sim-lme\] using $K=20$. The seven methods in the previous section generally agreed in the inference on fixed effects (Figure \[fig:abesimef\]), with variational Bayes deviating the furthest. Our algorithm and the algorithm of [@Srietal15] differed significantly from variational Bayes, consensus Monte Carlo, and semiparametric density product in the inference on variances and correlations of random effects (Tables \[tab:abe-cov-ci\] and \[tab:abe-cov-acc\] and Figure \[fig:aberanef\]). Our algorithm and the algorithm of [@Srietal15] showed better agreement with Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data in estimating the correlations. The 90% credible intervals from our algorithm included the maximum likelihood estimates of correlations. Variational Bayes posterior concentrated very close to 0 for every element of the covariance matrix and significantly underestimated posterior uncertainty. Consensus Monte Carlo and semiparametric density product methods performed poorly in the inference on random effects but were better than variational Bayes. Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data was extremely slow compared to the other methods (see Figure 1 in the Appendix). Taking into account both the approximation accuracy and the computational efficiency, we concluded that our proposed algorithm performs better than the competing algorithms in estimating the covariance matrix of random effects. Extension to multi-dimensional parameters ----------------------------------------- Although Algorithm \[pie-algo\] only applies to one-dimensional functionals, we provide a simple extension to the multi-dimensional case with a numerical illustration. Suppose our goal is to find the joint posterior of the $d$-dimensional parameter $\theta$. First, we center and scale the posterior samples of $\theta$ in every subset. Let $\widehat m_j$ and $\widehat V_j$ be the empirical mean and covariance matrix for the $j$th subset posterior samples $\{\theta_{1j},\ldots,\theta_{Tj}\}$. Let $\widehat m = K^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^K \widehat m_j$, $\widehat V^{-1} = K^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^K \widehat V_j^{-1}$. We transform every subset draw $\theta_{ij}$ to $\theta'_{ij}=\widehat V^{-1/2} (\theta_{ij} - \widehat m)$. If every subset posterior of $\theta$ is asymptotically normal, then the centered and rescaled version $\theta'$ will be asymptotically standard normal with approximately independent components, since $T$ is large in practice. For every component of $\theta'$, we apply Algorithm \[pie-algo\] to combine its $K$ subset posterior samples and obtain approximations of posterior quantiles for a fine grid of $[0,1]$. This leads to accurate approximations of the marginal posteriors of $\theta'$; we repeatedly draw samples from these marginals, and then transform back to the original parameter using $\theta= \widehat V^{1/2} \theta' + \widehat m$. This yields approximate samples from the full posterior of $\theta$, and credible regions can be estimated based on these samples. We implemented this generalized algorithm for combining subset posterior samples of all pairs of variances and covariances in the simulation from Section D.2, and compared the results with consensus Monte Carlo, semiparametric density product, Wasserstein posterior, and variational Bayes. The accuracies of our algorithm and the algorithm of [@Srietal15] were higher than the accuracies of the other three methods for all pairs of variances and covariances (Table \[tab:2d-cov-acc\]). Variational Bayes performed poorly in the estimation of posterior distributions for all the pairs of variances. We obtained kernel density estimates of the three pairs of covariances in using the combined posterior samples and the bkde2D function in the KernSmooth R package with a bandwidth of 0.01 (Figure \[fig:2d\]). The kernel density estimates centered very close to the true values of the covariance pairs. Compared to the algorithm of [@Srietal15], our algorithm was more efficient, easier to implement, and robust to the grid-size of quantiles, while having similar accuracy and stability across all simulation replications. -- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- 0.135 0.006 0.004 -0.628 -0.955 0.750 (0.086, 0.152) (0.003, 0.021) (0.002, 0.004) (-0.637, 0.283) (-0.959, -0.912) (-0.194, 0.728) (0.000, 0.000) (0.000, 0.000) (0.000, 0.000) (-0.027, 0.028) (-0.028, 0.028) (-0.027, 0.027) (0.010, 0.029) (0.019, 0.051) (0.000, 0.001) (-0.292, 0.043) (-0.574, -0.252) (-0.181, 0.159) (0.015, 0.032) (0.018, 0.049) (0.000, 0.001) (-0.298, -0.029) (-0.656, -0.372) (-0.054, 0.228) (0.100, 0.163) (0.042, 0.088) (0.002, 0.004) (-0.526, 0.066) (-0.928, -0.688) (-0.145, 0.464) (0.098, 0.163) (0.042, 0.088) (0.002, 0.004) (-0.526, 0.073) (-0.927, -0.691) (-0.145, 0.465) -- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- : 90% credible intervals for variances and correlations of random effects in United States natality data analysis. The upper and lower bounds are averaged over 10 folds of cross-validation. MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:abe-cov-ci\] -- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.15 (0.10) 0.00 (0.00) 0.42 (0.07) 0.05 (0.16) 0.33 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.16 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.39 (0.08) 0.06 (0.18) 0.33 (0.08) 0.72 (0.21) 0.03 (0.04) 0.78 (0.15) 0.72 (0.11) 0.22 (0.14) 0.63 (0.14) 0.73 (0.21) 0.03 (0.04) 0.78 (0.15) 0.73 (0.11) 0.22 (0.14) 0.63 (0.14) -- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for variances and correlations of random effects in United States natality data analysis. The standard deviation of accuracy across 10 folds of cross-validation is in parentheses. VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:abe-cov-acc\] ![Boxplots of posterior samples for six fixed effects in the United States natality data analysis. MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; ML, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:abesimef"}](abe_fix_box_2row){width="\textwidth"} ![Boxplots of posterior samples for variances and correlations of random effects in the United States natality data analysis. MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; ML, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:aberanef"}](abe_ran_corr_box){width="\textwidth"} ![[Kernel density estimates of the posterior densities for all the covariance pairs in and their true values (black triangle). var1, var2 represents the two-dimensional posterior density of (var1, var2). MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm.]{} []{data-label="fig:2d"}](2d_cov){width="\textwidth"} ($\Sigma_{11}$, $\Sigma_{22}$) ($\Sigma_{11}$, $\Sigma_{33}$) ($\Sigma_{22}$, $\Sigma_{33}$) ($\Sigma_{12}$, $\Sigma_{13}$) ($\Sigma_{12}$, $\Sigma_{23}$) ($\Sigma_{13}$, $\Sigma_{23}$) -- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- 0.09 (0.01) 0.10 (0.01) 0.36 (0.02) 0.89 (0.01) 0.90 (0.01) 0.90 (0.01) 0.86 (0.04) 0.84 (0.03) 0.84 (0.03) 0.83 (0.05) 0.84 (0.05) 0.88 (0.03) 0.82 (0.05) 0.73 (0.10) 0.74 (0.11) 0.82 (0.05) 0.85 (0.05) 0.83 (0.06) 0.92 (0.02) 0.90 (0.01) 0.88 (0.01) 0.93 (0.02) 0.94 (0.01) 0.93 (0.01) 0.91 (0.02) 0.91 (0.01) 0.92 (0.01) 0.91 (0.02) 0.92 (0.02) 0.91 (0.01) : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for all pairs of variances and covariances in . The standard deviation of accuracy across 10 folds of cross-validation is in parentheses. VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:2d-cov-acc\] Conclusion ========== We have proposed a simple posterior interval estimation algorithm to rapidly and accurately estimate quantiles of the posterior distributions for different one-dimensional functionals of interest. The algorithm is simple and efficient relative to existing competitors, just averaging quantile estimates for each subset posterior based on applying existing sampling algorithms in an embarrassingly parallel manner. There is a fascinating mathematical relationship with the Wasserstein barycenter of subset posteriors: our algorithm calculates quantiles of the Wasserstein posterior without the optimization step in [@Srietal15]. The credible intervals from our algorithm asymptotically approximate those from the full posterior in the leading parametric order. The quality of approximation is the same even if the subset sample size increases slowly and the number of subsets increases polynomially fast. Our experiments have demonstrated excellent performance for linear mixed effects models and linear models with varying dimension. Although our current theory focuses on parametric models and one-dimensional linear functionals, the proposed algorithm can be practically implemented for general one-dimensional functionals for semiparametric and nonparametric models. For example, in simulations not shown in the paper, we found that our algorithm shows excellent performance for Dirichlet process mixture models for multivariate categorical data [@DunXin09], and Gaussian process nonparametric regression. Furthermore, we have provided an extension to the multi-dimensional case. It would be appealing to develop theory justification in these more complex settings, and to develop guarantees on approximation accuracy for fixed subset sizes and growing numbers of subsets. Also of interest in future work is to consider algorithms that do not require non-overlapping subsets, potentially relying on subsampling. Although such modifications can be implemented trivially, our proof techniques for the combining step in Theorem \[w2main\] do not apply directly. Other important extensions include optimal design of subsampling algorithms and extensions beyond product likelihoods. [Appendix]{} In Section A we provide the detailed technical proofs of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 in the main paper. In Section B, we present a theorem that quantifies the Monte Carlo errors in subset posterior sampling. In Section C, we verify Assumption 7 in the main paper for the normal linear model and some exponential family distributions. Section D includes further details about the data analysis in the main paper. In particular, for the heavy tailed priors used in Example 1 in the main paper, we verify a relaxed version of Assumption 6 in Section D.1. Proofs of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 ================================= Technical Lemmas ---------------- \[vilthm\] (Villani [@Vil08] Theorem 6.15) For two measures $P_1,P_2\in \mathcal{P}_2(\Theta)$, or similarly $\mathcal{P}_2(\Xi)$, $$W_2^2(P_1,P_2) \leq 2~TV_2(P_1,P_2),$$ where the total variation of moments distance [@CheHon03; @Vil08] is defined as $$TV_2(P_1,P_2) = \int_{\Theta} (1+\\|\theta\\|^2){\mathrm{d}}\|P_1(\theta)-P_2(\theta)\|.$$ \[subsetbound\] Suppose that Assumptions 1–7 hold. Let $\hat\theta_j$ be a weakly consistent estimator of $\theta_0$ based on the subset $X_j$ such that it solves the score equation $\ell_j'(\hat\theta_j)=0$; $\hat\theta_j \to \theta_0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Let $\hat\theta$ be a weakly consistent estimator of $\theta_0$ based on the whole $X$ such that it solves the score equation $\ell'(\hat\theta)=0$; $\hat\theta \to \theta_0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Let $t=n^{1/2}(\theta-\hat \theta_j)$ be the local parameter for the $j$th subset, and $s=n^{1/2}(\theta-\hat \theta)$. Let $\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j)$ be the $j$th subset posterior induced by $\Pi_{m}(\theta\mid X_j)$ and $\Pi_{n,s}(s\mid X)$ be the posterior of $s$ induced by the overall posterior $\Pi_{n}(\theta\mid X)$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{tj} &\lim_{m\to \infty} E_{P_{\theta_0}} TV_2\left[ \Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{ t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\} \right] =0, \\ \label{tn} &\lim_{m\to \infty} E_{P_{\theta_0}} TV_2\left[ \Pi_{n,s}(s\mid X),\Phi\left\{ s; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\} \right] =0.\end{aligned}$$ In comparison, the usual parametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem on the subset $X_j$ without raising the likelihood to the $K$th power gives $$\lim_{m\to \infty} TV_2\left[ \Pi_{m}(z\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{z; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right] = 0,$$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, where $z=m^{1/2}(\theta-\hat\theta_j)$. See, for example, Theorem 8.2 in [@LehCas98] and Theorem 4.2 in [@Ghosh06]. [Proof of Lemma 2:]{}\ The relation in Lemma 2 is the usual Bernstein-von Mises theorem for the overall posterior $\Pi_n(\theta\mid X)$. The proof of follows a related line to the proof of Theorem 4.2 in [@Ghosh06], and can be treated as a special case of with $m=n$ and $K=1$. In the following we focus on the proof of in Lemma 2. Given the independent and identically distributed assumption, we only need to show the result for a fixed index $j$. To emphasize the different roles played by the subset sample size $m$ and the number of subsets $K$, in the following proofs we will write the total sample size $n$ as $Km$. We complete the proof in 3 steps. For a generic matrix $A$ or a 3-dimensional array $A$, we use $\\|A\\|$ to denote its Frobenius norm.\ [Step 1:]{} Show the existence of weakly consistent estimator $\hat\theta_j$ for $\theta_0$ that solves $\ell_j'(\hat\theta_j)=0$. Given Assumption 3, $\ell_j'(\theta)$ is continuously differentiable in an open neighborhood of $\theta_0$ and $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{p'(X \mid \theta_0)/p(X\mid \theta_0)\right\}=0$. Therefore, with large $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, there exists a root for the equation $\ell_j'(\theta)=0$ inside the neighborhood that attains the maximum of $\ell(\theta)$. Denote the root as $\hat\theta_j$ and then $\hat\theta_j\to \theta_0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability is a clear consequence of Assumption 5. [Step 2:]{} Show the following convergence as $m\to \infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability: $$\begin{aligned} \label{astv2} TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right] \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ We prove this result for a fixed subset $X_j$, since the data are independent and identically distributed, and the conclusion is identical for any $j=1,\ldots,K$. Define the following quantities $$\begin{aligned} w(t) &= \ell_j\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{t}{(Km)^{1/2}}\right\} - \ell_j(\hat \theta_j) \\ C_m & = \int e^{Kw(z)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z.\end{aligned}$$ Then based on the expression of $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$, with the likelihood raised to the $K$th power, $$\pi_m \left(\theta\mid X_j\right) = \frac{\exp\left\{K \ell_j(\theta)\right\} \pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta} {\int_{\Theta} \exp\left\{K \ell_j(\theta)\right\} \pi(\theta) {\mathrm{d}}\theta}.$$ The induced posterior density on $t=(K m)^{1/2}(\theta-\hat \theta_j)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \pi_m(t\mid X_j) & = \frac{\exp\{K w(t)\}\pi\left\{\hat \theta_j + \frac{t}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\}}{C_m}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal{T} = \{t=(K m)^{1/2}(\theta-\hat\theta_j):\theta\in\Theta\}$. Define $$\begin{aligned} g_m(t) &= \left(1+\\|t\\|^2\right) \left[ e^{K w(t)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{t}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} - \exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}t^{\top}I(\theta_0)t\right\}\pi(\theta_0) \right].\end{aligned}$$ If we can show that $\int_{\mathcal{T}} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z \xrightarrow{P_{\theta_0}} 0$ as $m\to \infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, then $$C_m \to \int_{\mathcal{R}^d}\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\}\pi(\theta_0){\mathrm{d}}z = (2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} \pi(\theta_0)$$ as $m\to \infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Hence, for the difference in , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{tv2exp} & TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right] \nonumber \\ ={}& \int_{\mathcal{T}} \left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right) \left\| \frac{ e^{K w(z)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\}}{C_m} - \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} }\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\}\right\| {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \frac{1}{C_m} \int_{\mathcal{T}} \|g_m(z)\| {\mathrm{d}}z + \left\|\frac{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} \pi(\theta_0)}{C_m}-1\right\|\times \nonumber\\ & \int_{\mathcal{R}^d} \frac{\left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right)}{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} }\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability and is proved. Therefore it suffices to show that $\int_{\mathcal{T}} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z \to 0$ as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability.\ Divide the domain of the integral into 3 parts: $A_1=\{z: \\|z\\|\geq \delta_1 (K m)^{1/2}\}$, $A_2=\{z:\delta_2\leq \\|z\\|< \delta_1(K m)^{1/2}\}$, $A_3=\{z:\\|z\\|<\delta_2\}$, where the constants $\delta_1,\delta_2$ will be chosen later. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{gm} \int_{\mathcal{T}} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z \leq \int_{A_1} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z + \int_{A_2} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z + \int_{A_3} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z.\end{aligned}$$ We have that $$\begin{aligned} \label{g1a1} & \int_{A_1} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber \\ &\leq \int_{A_1} \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right) e^{K w(z)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z + \int_{A_1} \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right)e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z}\pi(\theta_0) {\mathrm{d}}z,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\int_{A_1} \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right)e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z}\pi(\theta_0) {\mathrm{d}}z = \pi(\theta_0)\int_{\\|z\\|\geq \delta_1(K m)^{1/2}} \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right)e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z} {\mathrm{d}}z \to 0$$ as $m\to\infty$, because the integral on the whole $z\in \mathcal{R}^d$ is finite, $\pi(\theta_0)$ is bounded from above according to Assumption 6, and $K\geq 1$.\ Next we bound the first term in . By Assumption 5 and the weak consistency of $\hat \theta_j$, there exists a constant $\epsilon_1$ that depends on $\delta_1$, such that for any $z\in A_1$ and all sufficiently large $m$, with $P_{\theta_0}$-probability approaching 1, $$\ell_j\{\hat\theta_j+ z/(K m)^{1/2}\} - \ell_j(\hat\theta_j) \leq - m\epsilon_1.$$ Furthermore, the weak consistency of $\hat \theta_j$ implies that for all sufficiently large $m$, with $P_{\theta_0}$-probability approaching 1, $\\|\hat\theta_j\\|\leq \\|\hat\theta_j-\theta_0\\| +\\|\theta_0\\|\leq \delta_0+\\|\theta_0\\|$. Therefore, as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, $$\begin{aligned} \label{prior2moment} & \int_{A_1} \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right)e^{K w(z)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber \\ \leq {}& \exp(-K m\epsilon_1) \int \left( 1+\\|z\\|^2\right) \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber \\ \leq {}& \exp(-K m\epsilon_1) \left\{1+(Km)^{d/2}\int_{\Theta}2(\\|\theta\\|^2+\\|\hat\theta_j\\|^2)\pi(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq {}& \exp(-K m\epsilon_1) \left[1+2(Km)^{d/2}\left\{2\\|\theta_0\\|^2 + 2\delta_0^2+ \int_{\Theta}\\|\theta\\|^2\pi(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta \right\} \right]\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the finite second moment of $\pi(\theta)$ from Assumption 6 in the last step. Hence, we have proved that the first integral in goes to zero in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability.\ For the second integral in , by the Taylor series expansion and $\ell_j'(\hat\theta_j)=0$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{wA2} &w(z)=\ell_j\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} - \ell_j(\hat \theta_j) = -\frac{1}{2K } z^{\top}I(\hat\theta_j)z + R_m(z) \\ &R_m(z) \equiv \frac{1}{6} \frac{\partial^3 \ell_j(\tilde \theta)}{\partial \theta^3} \left\{\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}, \frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}},\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial^3 \ell_j(\tilde \theta)/\partial \theta^3$ is a 3-dimensional array and $\tilde\theta$ satisfies $\\|\tilde\theta - \hat\theta_j\\|\leq z/(K m)^{1/2}$. Since $\hat \theta_j\to \theta_0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, we have $\\|\hat \theta_j - \theta_0\\|<\delta_0/3$ for all large $m$ with $P_{\theta_0}$-probability approaching 1, and we choose $\delta_1\leq \delta_0/3$ such that $\\|\tilde \theta-\theta_0\\|<\delta_0$ for all large $m$ given $z\in A_2$. For every fixed $z\in A_2$, $R_m(z)$ in converges to zero as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, which implies that on $z\in A_2$, $g_m(z)\to 0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Moreover, by Assumption 3, $R_m(z)$ can be further bounded by $$\begin{aligned} \|R_m(z)\| & \leq \frac{d^3}{6} \left\\|\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\\|^3 \sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{ij}) \\ &\leq \frac{d^3\delta_1}{6K} \\|z\\|^2 \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{ij}) \to \frac{d^3\delta_1}{6K} \\|z\\|^2 E_{P_{\theta_0}} M(X_{11}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last convergence is almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$ by the strong law of large numbers. Therefore, we can choose $\delta_1$ as $$\delta_1 = \min\left[\frac{\delta_0}{3}, \frac{3 \min_{\theta\in B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)} \lambda_1\{I(\theta)\}}{4d^3E_{P_{\theta_0}} M(X_{11})}\right],$$ where $\lambda_1(A)$ denotes the smallest eigenvalue of a generic matrix $A$. Assumption 4 indicates that $\min_{\theta\in B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)} \lambda_1\{I(\theta)\}$ is bounded below by a constant. Thus, in , the choice of $\delta_1$ implies that for every $z\in A_2$, for all large $m$ with $P_{\theta_0}$-probability approaching 1, $$\begin{aligned} \|R_m(z)\|& \leq \frac{1}{4K} z^{\top}I(\hat\theta_j) z,\\ \exp\{K w(z)\} &\leq \exp \left[K\left\{-\frac{1}{2K} z^{\top}I(\hat\theta_j)z +\|R_m(z)\| \right\}\right]\\ \leq{}& \exp \left\{ - \frac{1}{4}z^{\top}I(\hat\theta_j)z \right\} \leq \exp \left\{ - \frac{1}{8}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for $z\in A_2$, for all large $m$ with $P_{\theta_0}$-probability approaching 1, $$\begin{aligned} \|g_m(z)\| & \leq \left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right) \left[ \exp \left\{- \frac{1}{8}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z \right\} \pi\left\{ \hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} + \exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\} \pi(\theta_0) \right] \\ \leq{}& \sup_{\theta\in \Theta} \pi(\theta) \times 2\left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right)\exp \left\{ - \frac{1}{8}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\int_{A_2} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z < +\infty$, since $\sup_{\theta\in \Theta} \pi(\theta) <\infty$ by Assumption 6. We can choose the constant $\delta_2$ sufficiently large, such that $\int_{A_2} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z$ is arbitrarily small in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability.\ For the third integral in , we fix a constant $\delta_2>0$ and can use the similar Taylor series expansion above, and notice that when $\\|z\\|<\delta_2$, as $m\to \infty$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{a3r} \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2}K\|R_m(z)\| & \leq \frac{Kd^3\delta_2^3}{6(Km)^{3/2}} \sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{ij}) \leq \frac{d^3\delta_2^3}{6(K m)^{1/2}} \times \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{ij}) \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ where the last convergence is almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. It follows from , , the weak consistency of $\tilde \theta_j$ and the continuity of $I(\theta)$ in $B_{\delta_0}(\theta_0)$ that as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, $$\begin{aligned} \label{a3w} & \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2} \left\|Kw(z) - \frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0) z \right\|\leq \frac{\delta_2^2}{2} \left\\|I(\hat \theta_j) - I(\theta_0)\right\\| + \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2}K\|R_m(z)\| \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ By the continuity of $\pi(\theta)$ in Assumption 6 and the weak consistency of $\tilde \theta_j$, we also have that $$\begin{aligned} \label{a3pi} & \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2} \left\|\pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{t}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} - \pi(\theta_0)\right\| \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Therefore, and together imply that as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2} \left\|e^{Kw(z)}\pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{t}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} - e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z}\pi(\theta_0)\right\| \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence by the definition of $g_m(z)$, as $m\to\infty$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{A_3} \|g_m(z)\|{\mathrm{d}}z \\ &\leq \int_{\\|z\\|\leq \delta_2}(1+\\|z\\|^2){\mathrm{d}}z \times \sup_{\\|z\\|<\delta_2} \left\|e^{Kw(z)}\pi\left\{ \hat \theta_j +\frac{t}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\} - e^{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z}\pi(\theta_0)\right\| \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ This has proved that the right-hand side of converges to zero in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability, and also completes the proof of . [Step 3:]{} Show the convergence in $L_1$ as $m\to \infty$. It is clear from the derivation of that $$\begin{aligned} & TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right] \nonumber \\ ={}& \int_{\mathcal{T}} \left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right) \left\| \frac{ e^{K w(z)} \pi\left\{\hat \theta_j +\frac{z}{(K m)^{1/2}}\right\}}{C_m} - \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} }\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\} \right\| {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \int_{\Theta} \left\{1+\left\\|n^{1/2}(\theta-\hat\theta_j)\right\\|^2\right\} \pi(\theta\|X_j) {\mathrm{d}}\theta + \int_{\mathcal{R}^d} \frac{\left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right)}{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} }\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber\\ = {} & 1 + E_{\Pi_m(\theta\|X_j)} Km\left\\|\theta-\hat\theta_j\right\\|^2 + \int_{\mathcal{R}^d} \frac{\left(1+\\|z\\|^2\right)}{(2\pi)^{d/2} \left\{\operatorname{det}{I(\theta_0)}\right\}^{-1/2} }\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}z^{\top}I(\theta_0)z\right\} {\mathrm{d}}z \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In this display, the last term is a finite constant. The middle term is $\psi(X_j)$ defined in Assumption 7. According to Assumption 7, for any fixed $j$, $\left\{\psi(X_j):m\geq m_0, K\geq 1\right\}$ is uniformly integrable under $P_{\theta_0}$. Now since $ TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right]$ is upper bounded by $\psi(X_j)+C$ for all $m,K$ and some constant $C>0$, we obtain that $\left\{TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right]: m\geq m_0, K\geq 1\right\}$ is also uniformly integrable. This uniform integrability together with the convergence in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability from Step 2 implies the $L_1$ convergence of $TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{t; 0,I^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\}\right]$ to zero. $\blacksquare$ Similar to the $W_2$ distance, for any $l \geq 1$, we can define the Wasserstein-$l$ ($W_l$) distance: for any two measures $\nu_1,\nu_2$ on $\Theta$, their $W_l$ distance is defined as $$\begin{aligned} W_l(\nu_1,\nu_2) = \left(\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma(\nu_1,\nu_2)}\int_{\Theta\times \Theta} \\|\theta_1-\theta_2\\|^l {\mathrm{d}}\gamma( \nu_1,\nu_2 )\right)^{1/l}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ is the set of all probability measures on $\Theta\times \Theta$ with marginals $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, respectively. The $W_l$ distance on the space $\Xi$ can be similarly defined. The $W_l$ distance between two univariate distributions $F_1$ and $F_2$ is the same as the $L_l$ distance between their quantile functions (see Lemma 8.2 of [@BikFre81]): $$\begin{aligned} W_l(F_1,F_2) = \left[ \int_0^1 \left\{ F_1^{-1}(u)-F_2^{-1}(u)\right\}^l {\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/l}.\end{aligned}$$ \[w2ineq\] Let $\hat \xi_j=a^{\top}\hat\theta_j + b$. Then for any $l\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} W_l\left(\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \leq \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K W_l\left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right).\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Lemma 3:]{}\ We use $\Phi(\cdot)$ and $\Phi^{-1}(\cdot)$ to denote the cumulative distribution function and the quantile function of standard normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. From [@AguCar11], the univariate Wasserstein-2 barycenter satisfies that for any $u\in (0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned} \overline \Pi_n^{-1} (u\mid X) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{w21} & W_l\left( \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi ; \overline \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \nonumber \\ ={}& \left(\int_0^1 \left\| \overline \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Phi^{-1}\left[u ; \overline \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right\|^l {\mathrm{d}}u \right)^{1/l} \nonumber \\ ={}& \left[\int_0^1 \left\| \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right) - \overline \xi - \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u) \right\|^l {\mathrm{d}}u \right]^{1/l} \nonumber \\ ={}& \left(\int_0^1 \left\| \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \left[\Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right) - \hat \xi_j - \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u) \right]\right\|^l {\mathrm{d}}u \right)^{1/l}.\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\begin{aligned} \label{rj} r_j(u) =\Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right) - \hat \xi_j - \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u).\end{aligned}$$ then $$W_l \left(\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) = \left\{\int_0^1 \left\|r_j(u)\right\|^l{\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^{1/l}.$$ Since $l\geq 1$, we apply Minkowski inequality to the right-hand side of and obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{w2rj} &W_l\left( \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi ; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) = \left\{\int_0^1 \left\|\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u) \right\|^l {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^{1/l} \\ &\leq \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \left\{\int_0^1 \left\| r_j(u) \right\|^l {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^{1/l} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K W_l \left(\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof. $\blacksquare$ \[mlediff\] Suppose Assumptions 1–7 hold. Then $$\left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi \right\|= o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right),$$ where $o_p$ is in $P_{\theta_0}$ probability. Furthermore, if $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$, then $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\overline\xi -\hat\xi\right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Lemma 4:]{}\ Because of the linearity $\xi=a^{\top}\theta+b$, it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned} \label{diff0}& \left\\|\hat\theta -\overline \theta\right\\| = o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ under Assumptions 1–7, and $$\begin{aligned} \label{diff} & \left\\|\hat\theta -\overline \theta\right\\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with the further assumption that $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$.\ We use the first order Taylor expansion of $\ell'_j(\hat \theta_j)$ ($j=1,\ldots,K$) and $\hat\theta$ around $\theta_0$: $$\begin{aligned} & 0=\ell_j'(\hat\theta_j) = \ell_j'(\theta_0) + \ell_j''(\tilde \theta_j)(\hat \theta_j -\theta_0), \nonumber \\ & 0=\ell'(\hat\theta) = \ell'(\theta_0) + \ell''(\tilde \theta)(\hat \theta -\theta_0),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde\theta_j$ is between $\hat\theta_j$ and $\theta_0$, $\tilde \theta$ is between $\hat\theta$ and $\theta_0$, and $\ell''(\theta) = \sum_{j=1}^K \ell_j''(\theta)$. These expansions lead to $$\begin{aligned} \label{tay1} \hat \theta_j & = \theta_0 + \frac{1}{m}I^{-1}(\theta_0)\ell_j'(\theta_0) + Z_j \frac{\ell_j'(\theta_0)}{m}, \\ Z_j &\equiv \left\{-\frac{1}{m}\ell_j''(\tilde \theta_j)\right\}^{-1} - I^{-1}(\theta_0), \nonumber \\ \hat \theta & = \theta_0 + \frac{1}{n}I^{-1}(\theta_0)\ell'(\theta_0) + Z \frac{\ell'(\theta_0)}{n},\nonumber \\ Z &\equiv \left\{-\frac{1}{n}\ell''(\tilde \theta_j)\right\}^{-1} - I^{-1}(\theta_0).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore by the equality $\ell'(\theta_0)=\sum_{j=1}^K \ell'_j(\theta_0)$, the difference between $\overline \theta$ and $\hat \theta$ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{oh1} \overline \theta - \hat \theta & = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K Z_j \frac{\ell_j'(\theta_0)}{m} - Z \frac{\ell'(\theta_0)}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term in , by the central limit theorem $n^{-1/2}\ell'(\theta_0)$ converges in distribution to $\mathcal{N}(0,I(\theta_0))$, so $\left\\|\ell'(\theta_0)/n\right\\|=O_p(n^{-1/2})$. $Z$ converges in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability to zero given the consistency of $\hat\theta$ to $\theta_0$ in Lemma 2, so $\\|Z\\|=o_p(1)$. Therefore by the Slutsky’s theorem, $$\begin{aligned} \label{z21} \left\\|Z \frac{\ell'(\theta_0)}{n} \right\\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Next we show the first term in is of order $o_p(m^{-1/2})$ under Assumptions 1–7, and is of order $o_p(n^{-1/2})$ if furthermore $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\hat\theta_1=\theta_0$. Let $W_j = Z_j \ell_j'(\theta_0)/m^{1/2}$. Then $\{W_j:j=1,\ldots,K\}$ are independent and identically distributed random vectors and the first term in is $\sum_{j=1}^K W_j/(Km^{1/2})$. Since $Z_j\to 0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability as $m\to\infty$, and $m^{-1/2}\ell_j'(\theta_0)=O_p(1)$ as $m\to \infty$, by the Slutsky’s theorem again, $W_j\to 0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Furthermore, we will show at the end of this proof that $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(\\|W_1\\|^2)\to 0$ as $m\to \infty$. Assuming this is true, by the Markov’s inequality, for any $c>0$, $$\begin{aligned} & P_{\theta_0}\left(\left\\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \frac{W_j}{m^{1/2}}\right\\|\geq cm^{-1/2}\right) \leq \frac{m E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \frac{W_j}{m^{1/2}}\right\\|^2} {c^2}\\ \leq {}&\frac{1}{c^2K} \sum_{j=1}^K E_{P_{\theta_0}} \\|W_j\\|^2 = \frac{E_{P_{\theta_0}} \\|W_1\\|^2}{c^2} \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\left\\|\sum_{j=1}^K W_j/(Km^{1/2})\right\\|=o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right)$. This together with and leads to .\ If we further assume unbiasedness $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\hat\theta_1=\theta_0$, then from we can obtain that $$\begin{aligned} E_{P_{\theta_0}}W_j& = m^{-1/2} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{Z_j \ell_j'(\theta_0)\right\} \\ & = m^{1/2} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{\hat\theta_j - \theta_0 -m^{-1}I^{-1}(\theta_0)\ell_j'(\theta_0) \right\} \\ & = m^{1/2} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(\hat\theta_j - \theta_0\right) - m^{-1/2} I^{-1}(\theta_0) E_{P_{\theta_0}} \ell_j'(\theta_0) \\ & =0,\end{aligned}$$ for all $j=1,\ldots,K$. In other words, $W_j$’s are centered at zero. Since $X_j$’s ($j=1,\ldots,K$) are all independent and $W_j$ only depends on $X_j$, we have $E_{P_{\theta_0}} W_{j_1}^{\top}W_{j_2}=0$ for any $j_1\neq j_2$. We can again apply Markov’s inequality to the first term in and obtain that for any constant $c>0$, $$\begin{aligned} & P_{\theta_0}\left( \left\\|\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{W_j}{m^{1/2}}\right\\| > cn^{-1/2}\right) = {} P_{\theta_0}\left( \left\\|\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K W_j\right\\| > cK^{-1/2} \right) \nonumber \\ \leq {}& \frac{K E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_j\right\\|^2 }{c^2} \nonumber\\ ={}& \frac{K }{K^2c^2}E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(\sum_{j=1}^K \\|W_j\\|^2 + \sum_{j_1\neq j_2} W_{j_1}^{\top}W_{j_2}\right) \nonumber\\ ={}& \frac{E_{P_{\theta_0}}(\\|W_1\\|^2)}{c^2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, assuming that $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\hat\theta_1=\theta_0$ and $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(\\|W_1\\|^2)\to 0$ as $m\to \infty$, which will be proven below, the display above implies that $\left\\|\sum_{j=1}^K W_j/(Km^{1/2})\right\\|=o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right)$. This together with and leads to .\ Proof of $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(\\|W_1\\|^2)\to 0$ as $m\to \infty$:\ By Assumption 4, we let $\underline \lambda>0$ be a constant lower bound of the eigenvalues of $-\ell_1''(\theta)/m$ for all $\theta\in \Theta$, all $X_1$ and all sufficiently large $m$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{z12} \left\\|\left\{-\frac{1}{m}\ell''_1(\tilde \theta_1)\right\}^{-1}\right\\| \leq d^{1/2}\underline\lambda ^{-1}, ~~ \left\\|I(\theta_0)^{-1}\right\\| \leq d^{1/2} \underline\lambda ^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is the dimension of $\theta$. We have used the property of the Frobenius norm: for a generic $d\times d$ symmetric positive definite matrix $A$, $\\|A^{-1}\\|\leq d^{1/2} \overline \lambda(A^{-1}) = d^{1/2} \left\{\underline \lambda(A)\right\}^{-1}$, where $\overline\lambda(A)$ and $\underline\lambda(A)$ denotes the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of the matrix $A$, respectively. Furthermore, the envelop function condition in Assumption 3 implies that $$\begin{aligned} \label{z13} \left\\|-\frac{1}{m}\ell''_1(\tilde \theta_1)\right\\|^2 \leq \frac{d^2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from and that for all large $m$, $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|Z_1\right\\|^2 & = \left\\|\left\{-\frac{1}{m}\frac{\partial^2 \ell_1(\tilde \theta_1)}{\partial \theta \partial\theta^{\top}}\right\}^{-1}\left\{-\frac{1}{m}\frac{\partial^2 \ell_1(\tilde \theta_1)}{\partial \theta \partial\theta^{\top}} -I(\theta_0)\right\}I^{-1}(\theta_0) \right\\|^2 \\ & \leq \frac{1}{2} d \underline\lambda ^{-2} \left\{\frac{d^2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2 +\\|I(\theta_0)\\|^2\right\} d \underline\lambda ^{-2}\\ &\leq c_1\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2 +c_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1,c_2$ are positive constants that only depend on $d,\underline\lambda,\\|I(\theta_0)\\|^2$. Now define $V_1 = \left\{c_1\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2/m+c_2\right\} \left\\|m^{-1/2}\ell_1'(\theta_0)\right\\|^2$. Then we have $\\|W_1\\|^2 \leq V_1 $. We are going to show that $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(V_1)<\infty$ and then apply the dominated convergence theorem to $\\|W_1\\|^2$ and conclude that $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\\|W_1\\|^2\to 0$ since we already have $W_1\to 0$ in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. To see why $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(V_1)<\infty$, we first apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to $V_1$ and obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{v1} E_{P_{\theta_0}}(V_1) & =E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{ c_1\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2+c_2\right\} \left\\|m^{-1/2}\ell_1'(\theta_0)\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \left[ E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{c_1\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2+c_2\right\}^2\right] ^{1/2} \left( E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|m^{-1/2}\ell_1'(\theta_0)\right\\|^4\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Due to Assumption 3, the first term in is bounded by $$\begin{aligned} & E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{ c_1\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^2+c_2\right\} ^2 \\ \leq{}& 2c_1^2 E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m M(X_{i1})^4\right\} +2c_2^2 = 2c_1^2 E\left\{M(X)^4\right\} +2c_2^2 <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Now recall that $\ell_1'(\theta_0) = \sum_{i=1}^m p'(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0)/p(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0)$. Denote the $l$th component in the random vector $p'(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0)/p(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0)$ as $U_{il}$, such that $p'(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0)/p(X_{i1}\mid \theta_0) =(U_{i1},...,U_{id})^{\top}$. Then $U_{i_1l}$ and $U_{i_2l}$ are independent if $i_1\neq i_2$, due to the independence between $X_{ij}$’s. By $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{p'(X\mid \theta_0)/p(X\mid \theta_0)\right\}=0$ in Assumption 3, we have $E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{il}=0$ for all $i=1,\ldots,m$ and $l=1,\ldots,d$. From Assumption 3 we have for all $l=1,\ldots,d$, $E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^4 \leq E_{P_{\theta_0}} M(X)^4<\infty $. Therefore, the second term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} & E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|m^{-1/2}\ell_1'(\theta_0)\right\\|^4 = \frac{1}{m^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{\sum_{l=1}^d \left( \sum_{i=1}^m U_{il}\right)^2\right\}^2 \leq \frac{d}{m^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \sum_{l=1}^d \left( \sum_{i=1}^m U_{il}\right)^4 \\ & = \frac{d}{m^2}\sum_{l=1}^d \left\{\sum_{i=1}^m E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{il}^4 + 3\sum_{i_1\neq i_2}\left(E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{i_1 l}^2\right)\left(E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{i_2 l}^2\right) \right\} \\ & = \frac{d}{m^2} \sum_{l=1}^d \left\{m E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^4 + 3m(m-1) \left(E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^2\right)^2 \right\}\\ & \leq \frac{d}{m^2} \sum_{l=1}^d \left\{m E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^4 + 3m(m-1) E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^4\right\} \leq 3d \sum_{l=1}^d E_{P_{\theta_0}} U_{1l}^4 <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have shown that both terms on the right-hand side of are finite. Therefore, $E_{P_{\theta_0}}(V_1)<\infty$ and by the dominated convergence theorem, $E_{P_{\theta_0}}\\|W_1\\|^2\to 0$. $\blacksquare$ Proof of Theorem 1 ------------------ [Proof of Theorem 1(i):]{}\ Since $\xi=a^{\top}\theta+b$, we can derive the following for subset posteriors in terms of $\xi$ using a change of variable from $\theta$ to $\xi$ in of Lemma 2: $$\begin{aligned} & \lim_{m\to\infty} E_{P_{\theta_0}} TV_2\left[\Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{ t; 0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\} \right] =0,\end{aligned}$$ where $t= n^{1/2} (\xi-\hat\xi_j)$ is now the local parameter for the $j$th subset. From the relation between norms $W_2$ and $TV_2$ in Lemma 1, this directly implies $$\lim_{m\to\infty} E_{P_{\theta_0}} W_2^2\left[ \Pi_{m,t}(t\mid X_j),\Phi\left\{ t; 0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\right\} \right] =0.$$ We further use the rescaling property of the $W_2$ distance and obtain the equivalent form in terms of the original parameter $\xi$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{rootn2} \lim_{m\to\infty} n E_{P_{\theta_0}} W_2^2\left(\Pi_{m}\left(\xi\mid X_j\right),\Phi\left[\xi; \hat\xi_j,\left\{ nI_{\xi}\right(\theta_0)\}^{-1}\right]\right) =0.\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma 3, we have that for any constant $c>0$, as $m\to \infty$, $$\begin{aligned} & P_{\theta_0}\left\{ W_2\left(\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \geq cn^{-1/2} \right\} \nonumber \\ \overset{(i)}{\leq}{}& P_{\theta_0}\left\{ \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K W_2\left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \geq cn^{-1/2} \right\} \nonumber \\ \overset{(ii)}{\leq}{}& \frac{n}{c^2} {E}_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_2 \left(\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right)\right\}^2 \nonumber \\ \overset{(iii)}{\leq}{}& \frac{n}{c^2 K} \sum_{j=1}^K {E}_{P_{\theta_0}} W_2^2 \left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \frac{n}{c^2 } E_{P_{\theta_0}}W_2^2\left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_1),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_1, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \overset{(iv)}{\to} 0, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where (i) follows from Lemma 3 with $l=2$, (ii) uses Markov’s inequality, (iii) comes from the relation between $l_1$ norm and $l_2$ norm, and (iv) follows from . This result indicates that $$\begin{aligned} \label{f11} & W_2\left(\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which shows the first relation in Part (i) of Theorem 1. The second relation in Theorem 1 (i) $$\begin{aligned} \label{f12} & W_2\left(\Pi_n\left(\xi \mid X\right), \Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ follows from a similar argument using in Lemma 2 for the overall posterior. From Lemma 4, we have $\left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi \right\|=o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right)$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{f13} & W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right], \Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \leq \left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi \right\|=o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows because of the definition of $W_2$ distance and the same variance shared by the two normal distributions. Finally, by , , and the triangular inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned} & W_2\left\{ \overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right), \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} \\ \leq {} & W_2\left(\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) + W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right], \Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \\ & + W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right],\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right) \\ \leq {}& o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) + o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right) + o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) =o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the third relation in Part (i). $\blacksquare$ [Proof of Theorem 1(ii):]{}\ If $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$, then by Lemma 4 and the definition of $W_2$ distance, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{f21} & W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right], \Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \leq \left\|\overline \xi-\hat \xi\right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Applying the triangular inequality to , and , we obtain that as $m\to\infty$, $$\begin{aligned} & W_2\left\{ \overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right), \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} \\ \leq {} & W_2\left(\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) + W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right], \Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) \\ & + W_2\left(\Phi\left[\xi; \hat \xi,\left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right],\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right) \\ ={}& o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right)+o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right)+o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) =o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus the conclusion of Part (ii) follows. $\blacksquare$ Proof of Theorem 2 ------------------ [Proof of Theorem 2(i):]{}\ [@AguCar11] have shown that the barycenter $\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)$ is related to the $K$ subset posteriors $\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j)$ ($j=1,\ldots,K$) through the quantile function: $$\begin{aligned} \overline \Pi_n^{-1} (u\mid X) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_m^{-1} \left(u\mid X_j \right),\end{aligned}$$ for any $u\in (0,1)$. Also the expectation of a generic univariate distribution $F$ can be calculated through its quantile functions: if a random variable $Y$ has the cumulative distribution function $F$, $E_F(Y)=\int_0^1 F^{-1}(u){\mathrm{d}}u$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{bias}\left\{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = E_{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)}(\xi)-\xi_0 \\ & = \int_0^1 \overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u -\xi_0 = \int_0^1 \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K\Pi_m^{-1}(u\mid X_j) - \xi_0 \\ & \overset{(i)}{=} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 \left[\hat\xi_j +\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u) +r_j(u)\right] {\mathrm{d}}u -\xi_0 \\ & \overset{(ii)}{=} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat\xi_j + \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u -\xi_0 = \overline \xi -\xi_0 + \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u,\end{aligned}$$ where (i) follows from the definition of $r_j(u)$ in , and (ii) makes use of the fact $\int_0^1\Phi^{-1}(u){\mathrm{d}}u=0$. $\|\hat\xi-\xi_0\|=O_p(n^{-1/2})$ from the central limit theorem. It remains to be shown that $$\begin{aligned} \label{rj1} \left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\| =o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ To see why this is true, we notice that we have derived the following relation in the proof of Theorem 1: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_2\left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ But according to the definition of $r_j(u)$ in , by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\| \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \left\{ \int_0^1 r_j^2(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^{1/2} \\ & = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_2\left (\Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which proves . On the other hand, for the bias of the overall posterior $\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)$, we follow a similar argument as above and obtain that $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{bias}\left\{ \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = E_{ \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)}(\xi)-\xi_0 = \int_0^1 \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u -\xi_0 \\ & = \int_0^1 \left[\hat\xi + \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\right] \Phi^{-1}(u) -\xi_0 + \int_0^1 r(u) {\mathrm{d}}u = \hat\xi - \xi_0 + \int_0^1 r(u) {\mathrm{d}}u,\end{aligned}$$ where $r(u) = \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\|X) - \hat\xi - \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u)$. Moreover we have $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\int_0^1 r(u) {\mathrm{d}}u\right\| \leq \left(\int_0^1 \left[\Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \hat\xi - \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u)\right]^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right)^{1/2} \\ & = W_2\left(\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X), \Phi\left[\xi;\hat\xi,\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}\right]\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ by Theorem 1. This completes the proof of Part (i). $\blacksquare$ [Proof of Theorem 2(ii):]{}\ Similar to the expectation, the variance of a generic univariate distribution $F$ can be calculated through its quantile functions: if $Y\sim F$, $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{var}}(Y)&=E(Y^2)-(E Y)^2 = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} y^2 {\mathrm{d}}F(y) - \left\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} y {\mathrm{d}}F(y)\right\}^2\\ & = \int_0^1 \left\{F^{-1}(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left\{\int_0^1F^{-1}(u) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{var}\left\{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \int_0^1 \left\{\overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left\{\int_0^1\overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2 \nonumber \\ & = \int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_{m}^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left\{\int_0^1\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \Pi_{m}^{-1}(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2 \nonumber \\ & = \int_0^1 \left[\overline \xi + \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) + \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right]^2 {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ & - \left(\int_0^1\left[\overline \xi + \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) + \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right]{\mathrm{d}}u \right)^2 \nonumber \\ & = \frac{1}{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)}\int_0^1 \left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u + \int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^2 \nonumber \\ & + 2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u) \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u) {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber $$ where we have used the fact $\int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u){\mathrm{d}}u=0$ and $\int_0^1 \left(\Phi^{-1}(u)\right)^2 {\mathrm{d}}u=1$. It remains to be shown that the other three terms in the display above are of order $o_p(n^{-1})$. From (with $l=2$) and the conclusion of Theorem 1, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u = W_2^2\left( \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi ; \overline \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^2 = \left\{ \int_0^1 \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u){\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^2 \leq \int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Again by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u)\times \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\| \\ &\leq 2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \left[\int_0^1 \left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/2} \left[\int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/2} \\ & = O\left(n^{-1/2}\right)\times o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have shown that $\operatorname{var}\left\{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1}+ o_p\left(n^{-1}\right)$. For the variance of $\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$, we use the same definition of $r(u)$ as in Part (i) and derive that $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{var}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \int_0^1 \left\{ \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left\{\int_0^1 \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2 \nonumber \\ & = \int_0^1 \left[\hat \xi + \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) + r(u)\right]^2 {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ & - \left(\int_0^1\left[\hat \xi + \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) +r(u)\right]{\mathrm{d}}u \right)^2 \nonumber \\ & = \frac{1}{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)} + \int_0^1 r(u)^2 {\mathrm{d}}u -\left\{\int_0^1 r(u) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2+ 2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u)r(u){\mathrm{d}}u. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Based on the conclusion of Theorem 1 and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \int_0^1 r(u)^2 {\mathrm{d}}u = W_2^2 \left(\Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right),\\ & \left\{\int_0^1 r(u) {\mathrm{d}}u \right\}^2 \leq \int_0^1 r(u)^2 {\mathrm{d}}u = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and also $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2}\int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u)r(u){\mathrm{d}}u \right\| \\ &\leq 2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \left[\int_0^1 \left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\right\}^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/2} \left\{\int_0^1 r(u)^2 {\mathrm{d}}u\right\}^{1/2} \\ & = O\left(n^{-1/2}\right) o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) = o_p\left(n^{-1}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which proves $\operatorname{var}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} + o_p\left(n^{-1}\right)$. $\blacksquare$ [Proof of Theorem 2(iii):]{}\ The convergence in $W_2$ distance implies weak convergence. Therefore, it follows from Theorem 1 that in $P_{\theta_0}$ probability, both $\overline \Pi_{n,s}(s\mid X)$ and $\Pi_{n,s}(s\mid X)$ converge in distribution to normal distributions as $m\to\infty$. The weak convergence also implies the convergence of quantile functions at any continuous point. Since both $\overline \Pi_{n}\left(\xi\mid X\right)$ and $\Pi_{n}\left(\xi\mid X\right)$ are continuous distributions with posterior densities, their quantiles also converge pointwise to the quantiles of their limiting normal distributions. For any fixed $u\in (0,1)$, as $m\to\infty$, Theorem 1 implies that for $s=n^{1/2}(\xi-\overline\xi)$, $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\}\right\| = o_p(1).\end{aligned}$$ We can make this convergence uniform over all quantiles $u\in [u_1,u_2]\subset (0,1)$. Divide $[u_1,u_2]$ into $L$ equally spaced subintervals $[u_{(j)},u_{(j+1)}]$ for $j=0,\ldots,L-1$ and $u_{(j)}=u_1+j(u_2-u_1)/L$. For any $\epsilon>0$, since $\Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\}$ is uniformly continuous on $[u_1,u_2]$, we can pick $L$ sufficiently large such that $$\Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j+1)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} < \epsilon/2,$$ for all $j=0,\ldots,L-1$. Furthermore, because $\Phi^{-1}(\cdot)$ is continuous everywhere, we can find a sufficiently large $n_0$, such that for all $n>n_0$, all $j=0,\ldots,L-1$ with the $L$ chosen above, $$\left\|\overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u_{(j)}\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\}\right\| < \epsilon/2.$$ For any $u\in [u_1,u_2]$, we can find a $j_0\in \{0,\ldots,L-1\}$ such that $u\in [u_{(j_0)},u_{(j_0+1)}]$. Therefore using the monotonicity of quantile functions, $$\begin{aligned} &\overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \leq \overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u_{(j_0+1)}\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0) \}\\ \leq{}& \overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u_{(j_0+1)}\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0+1)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \\ & + \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0+1)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \\ <{}& \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 < \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &\overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \geq \overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u_{(j_0)}\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0) \}\\ \geq{}& \overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u_{(j_0)}\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \\ & + \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} - \Phi^{-1} \{u_{(j_0+1)};0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\} \\ > {}& -\epsilon/2 - \epsilon/2 > -\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have shown that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\|\overline \Pi_{n,s}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Phi^{-1} \{u;0,I_{\xi}^{-1}(\theta_0)\}\right\| = o_p(1),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that for the quantiles in terms of $\xi$, $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\| \overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \overline \xi - \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\} ^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) \right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for the overall posterior $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\| \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \hat \xi - \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\} ^{-1/2}\Phi^{-1}(u) \right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by the triangular inequality, $$\begin{aligned} \label{q12comb} & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\| \overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) \right \| \leq \left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi\right\| + o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By plugging in the order $\left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi\right\|=o_p(m^{-1/2})$ from the proof of Theorem 1, we have $$\begin{aligned} &\sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\| \overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) \right\| = o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ If we further assume that $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$, then Lemma 4 says that $\left\|\overline\xi - \hat\xi \right\|=o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right)$. Therefore, using the results from Part (i), we have $$\operatorname{bias}\left\{\overline \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{bias}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \overline\xi - \hat\xi +o_p \left(n^{-1/2}\right) = o_p \left(n^{-1/2}\right).$$ Then leads to $$\sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]} \left\| \overline \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_{n}^{-1}(u\mid X) \right \| \leq o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) + o_p \left(n^{-1/2}\right)= o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right),$$ which completes the proof. $\blacksquare$ Theoretical Results for the Posterior Monte Carlo Errors ======================================================== In practice, the credible intervals are calculated from the averages of empirical quantiles from subset posterior samples. In Algorithm 1, suppose that for each $j=1,\ldots,K$, $\Pi^\circ_j(\theta)$ and $\kappa_j(\theta,\theta')$ for $\theta,\theta'\in \Theta$ are the initial distribution and the transition kernel for the Markov chain of the $j$th subset posterior. $\{\theta_{1j},\ldots,\theta_{Tj}\}$ with sample size $T$ are drawn sequentially with $\theta_{1j}\sim \Pi^\circ_j(\cdot)$ and $\theta_{l+1,j}\sim \kappa_j(\theta_{lj},\cdot)$ for $l=1,\ldots, T-1$. $\xi_{lj}=a^{\top}\theta_{lj}+b$ for $l=1,\ldots,T$ and $j=1,\ldots,K$. Let $\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)$ be the empirical distribution of $\{\xi_{1j},\ldots,\xi_{Tj}\}$ for $j=1,\ldots,K$. Let $\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$ be the Wasserstein barycenter of $\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_1),\ldots, \widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_K)$, which can be calculated through its quantile function $\widehat \Pi^{-1}_n(u \mid X) = \sum_{j=1}^K \widehat \Pi_m^{-1} (u \mid X_j)/K$ for all $u\in (0,1)$. Let $L_2\{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)\}$ for $j=1,\ldots,K$ be the $L_2$ space of functions on $\Theta$ such that for any $f\in L_2\{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)\}$, $\\|f(\theta)\\|^2_{L_2,j}=E_{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)}f^2(\theta) < \infty$ almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. We need three additional assumptions as follows. \[a8\] The $j$th subset posterior $\Pi_m(\theta \mid X_j)$ is the unique stationary distribution that satisfies the balance condition $\pi_m(\theta'\mid X_j) = \int_{\Theta} \pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)\kappa_j(\theta,\theta') {\mathrm{d}}\theta$ for any $\theta,\theta'\in \Theta$, where $\pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$ is the density of $\Pi_m(\theta \mid X_j)$. Furthermore, the Markov chain of each subset posterior is reversible with the detailed balance condition $\pi_m(\theta \mid X_j)\kappa_j(\theta,\theta') = \pi_m(\theta'\mid X_j) \kappa_j(\theta',\theta)$ for any $\theta,\theta'\in \Theta$ and all $j=1,\ldots,K$. \[a9\] $\max_{1\leq j\leq K}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)} \\|\theta\\|^7$ is upper bounded by a constant almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. $~\max_{1\leq j\leq K} E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\mid X_j)} \{\pi^\circ_j( \theta) / \pi_m( \theta\mid X_j)\}^3$ is upper bounded by a constant almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$, where $\pi^\circ_j(\theta)$ is the density of $\Pi^\circ_j(\theta)$ for $j=1,\ldots,K$. \[a10\] Every subset posterior $\Pi_m(\theta\mid X_j)$ ($j=1,\ldots,K$) is $\rho$-mixing: there exists a nonnegative constant sequence $\{\rho_{l}\}_{l\geq 1}$ decreasing to zero and $\sum_{l=1}^\infty \rho_{l}<\infty$, such that almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$, for any integer $l\geq 1$, any $f\in L_2\{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)\}$ and all $j=1,\ldots,K$, $$\left\\|E_{\kappa_j^l(\cdot\mid \theta_{1j}=\theta)} f(\theta_{l+1,j}) - E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\mid X_j)} f(\theta)\right\\|_{L_2,j} \leq \rho_l \left\\|f(\theta) -E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\mid X_j)} f(\theta)\right\\|_{L_2,j},$$ where $\theta_{l+1,j}$ is the $l$th draw in the Markov chain with initial draw $\theta_{1j}$, and $E_{\kappa_j^l(\cdot\mid \theta_{1j}=\theta)}$ is the conditional distribution of $\theta_{l+1,j}$ given $\theta_{1j}=\theta$. Then the following theorem accounts for the Monte Carlo error in the empirical version of Wasserstein posterior due to finite sample approximations. \[cormix\] Suppose Assumptions 1–10 hold. Then for two arbitrary fixed numbers $0<u_1<u_2<1$, $$\begin{aligned} & W_2\left\{ \widehat \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} = O_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/4}\right); \\ & \operatorname{bias}\left\{\widehat \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{bias}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right); \\ & \operatorname{var}\left\{\widehat \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{var}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} =o_p(n^{-1}) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right); \\ & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]}\left\|\widehat \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\| = o_p\left(m^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $O_p$ and $o_p$ are in $P_{\theta_0}$-probability. Furthermore, if $\hat\theta_1$ is an unbiased estimator of $\theta_0$, then $$\begin{aligned} & W_2\left\{ \widehat \Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right),\Pi_{n}\left(\xi \mid X\right)\right\} = O_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/4}\right); \\ & \operatorname{bias}\left\{\widehat \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{bias}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right); \\ & \sup_{u\in [u_1,u_2]}\left\|\widehat \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X) - \Pi_n^{-1}(u\mid X)\right\| = o_p\left(n^{-1/2}\right) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Theorem 3:]{}\ In this proof, we first establish the key relations between the empirical distribution $\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)$ and the exact continuous subset posterior $\Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)$, using the recent results from [@FouGui15]. Given the linear relation $\xi=a^{\top}\theta+b$ and all the assumptions in Theorem 3, $$\begin{aligned} \label{fgw2} & E_{\Pi^\circ_j} \left[W_{1+\delta} \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\}\right]^{1+\delta} \leq C_1 T^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$ for all $j=1,\ldots,K$, where $0\leq \delta\leq 1$, $C_1$ is a constant that only depends on the sequence $\{\rho_l\}_{\l\geq 1}$, the constant upper bound of $\max_{1\leq j\leq K}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot \mid X_j)} \\|\theta\\|^7$, and the constant upper bound of $\max_{1\leq j\leq K} E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\mid X_j)} \{\pi^\circ_j( \theta) / \pi_m( \theta\mid X_j)\}^3$ in Assumption 9. The expectation in is taken with respect to $\Pi^\circ_j$ because the first posterior sample $\theta_{1j}$ is drawn from the initial distribution $\Pi^\circ_j$. Given Assumptions 8-10, the inequality is the consequence of Theorem 15 of [@FouGui15] by setting their $d=1,~p=1+\delta,~r=3,~q=7$. For the empirical Wasserstein barycenter $\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$, we can establish a similar inequality to Lemma \[w2ineq\]: for any $l\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{w2hatineq} W_l\left(\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \leq \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K W_l\left (\widehat \Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat\xi$ is defined in Lemma \[w2ineq\]. Therefore, taking $l=2$ in , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} &E_{P_{\theta_0}} E_{\Pi^\circ_1,\ldots,\Pi^\circ_K}W^2_2\left(\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \\ \overset{(i)}{\leq}{}& \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi^\circ_j} W^2_2\left(\widehat \Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j),\Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \\ \overset{(ii)}{\leq}{}& \frac{2}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi^\circ_j} W^2_2\left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j)\right\} \\ & + \frac{2}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K E_{P_{\theta_0}} W^2_2\left( \Pi_m(\xi\mid X_j), \Phi\left[\xi ; \hat \xi_j, \left\{ n I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \\ \overset{(iii)}{=}{}& O(T^{-1/2}) + o(n^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where (i) is from the relation between $l_1$ and $l_2$ norms, (ii) is from the triangular inequality of the $W_2$ distance and $(x_1+x_2)^2\leq 2(x_1^2+x_2^2)$ for $x_1,x_2\in \mathcal{R}$, and (iii) follows from and with $\delta=1$. By Markov’s inequality, it is clear that $W_2\left(\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) = o_p(n^{-1/2})+O_p(T^{-1/4})$. We can also take $l=1$ in and obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{w1hat1} & W_1\left(\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi; \overline \xi, \left\{ nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \nonumber \\ ={}& \int_0^1 \left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \left[\widehat \Pi_m^{-1} (u\mid X_j) - \hat \xi_j - \{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\}^{-1/2} \Phi^{-1}(u)\right] \right\| {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ ={}& \int_0^1 \left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u) + r_j(u)\}\right\| {\mathrm{d}}u,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_j(u)$ is defined in and $\hat r_j(u) = \widehat \Pi_m^{-1} (u\mid X_j) - \Pi_m^{-1} (u\mid X_j)$. For the bias of $\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$, we have $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| = \left\|E_{\widehat \Pi_n(\cdot\mid X)}(\xi) - E_{\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)}(\xi)\right\| \nonumber \\ & = \left\|\int_0^1 \widehat \Pi^{-1}_n(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u - \int_0^1 \overline \Pi^{-1}_n(u\mid X) {\mathrm{d}}u\right\| \leq \int_0^1 \left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat r_j(u) \right\|{\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 \left\|\hat r_j(u)\right\|{\mathrm{d}}u = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_1 \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ By Markov’s inequality and with $\delta=0$, for any $c>0$, $$\begin{aligned} & P\left[\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K W_1 \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\} >c T^{-1/2} \right] \\ \leq {}& \frac{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K E_{P_{\theta_0}} E_{\Pi^\circ_j} W_1 \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\} }{cT^{-1/2}} \leq \frac{C_1}{c}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have shown that $$\begin{aligned} \label{rjhat1} &\left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| = O_p(T^{-1/2}), \nonumber \\ & \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 \left\|\hat r_j(u)\right\|{\mathrm{d}}u = O_p(T^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Together with Theorem 2, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| \\ \leq{} & \left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| + \left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| \\ ={}& O_p(m^{-1/2}) + O_p(T^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $\hat\theta_1$ is unbiased for $\theta$, then $$\begin{aligned} & \left\|\operatorname{bias}\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\} - \operatorname{bias}\{\Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\}\right\| = O_p(n^{-1/2}) + O_p(T^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ The results for quantiles can be derived similarly and therefore the proofs are omitted here. Next we derive the rate for the posterior variance of $\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)$. Similar to the derivation in the proof of Theorem 2(ii), we can obtain the following equality: $$\begin{aligned} \label{varhat1} &\operatorname{var}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} \nonumber \\ &= \frac{1}{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)} + \int_0^1 \left[\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\}\right]^2 {\mathrm{d}}u - \left[\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \int_0^1 \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\}{\mathrm{d}}u\right]^2 \nonumber \\ & + 2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u) \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\} {\mathrm{d}}u.\end{aligned}$$ We bound the last three terms in the display above. It is clear that by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the third term is upper bounded by the second term. For the second term, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{varhat2} & \int_0^1 \left[\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\}\right]^2 {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber\\ \leq{}& 2\int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat r_j(u)\right\}^2{\mathrm{d}}u +2\int_0^1 \left\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\}^2{\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber\\ \leq{}& 2W_2^2\left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \overline \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\} + 2W_2^2\left( \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X),\Phi\left[\xi ; \overline \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right] \right) \nonumber\\ ={}& O_p(T^{-1/2}) + o_p(n^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last relation follows from and applying Markov’s inequality to . For the last term in , we have the following bound: $$\begin{aligned} \label{varhat3} & \left\|2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u) \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\}{\mathrm{d}}u\right\| \nonumber \\ \leq{}& 2 \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \left\{\int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u)\left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat r_j(u)\right\|{\mathrm{d}}u + \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u)\left\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\right\|{\mathrm{d}}u \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq {}& 2 \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Bigg( \left[\int_0^1 \left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\right\}^{1+1/\delta}{\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{\delta/(1+\delta)} \Bigg\{\int_0^1 \Big\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat r_j(u)\Big\|^{1+\delta}{\mathrm{d}}u\Bigg\}^{1/(1+\delta)} \nonumber \\ & + \left[\int_0^1 \left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\right\}^2{\mathrm{d}}u\right]^{1/2} \Bigg\{\int_0^1 \Big\|\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K r_j(u)\Big\|^2{\mathrm{d}}u \Bigg\}^{1/2} \Bigg) \nonumber \\ \leq {}& 2 \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \Bigg\{ \frac{2^{(1+\delta)/2}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1+\delta}{2}\right) W_{1+\delta}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X), \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} \nonumber \\ & + W_2\left(\overline \Pi_n(\xi \mid X), \Phi\left[\xi ; \overline \xi, \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1} \right]\right) \Bigg\} \nonumber \\ = {}&\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} 2^{(1+\delta)/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\delta}{2}\right) W_{1+\delta}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X), \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} + o_p(n^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where in the second inequality we used the Hölder’s inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the last step is from Theorem 1. By , almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{varhat4} & E_{\Pi^\circ_1,\ldots,\Pi^\circ_K} W_{1+\delta}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X), \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K E_{\Pi^\circ_j} W_{1+\delta} \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\} \nonumber \\ &\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \left(E_{\Pi^\circ_j} \left[W_{1+\delta} \left\{\widehat \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j), \Pi_m(\xi \mid X_j)\right\}\right]^{1+\delta}\right)^{1/(1+\delta)} \leq C_1 T^{-1/\{2(1+\delta)\}},\end{aligned}$$ where (i) is from $0\leq \delta\leq 1$ and Jensen’s inequality. Now we set $\delta=\min\{1,\log n/(2\log T)\}$ and derive from that $$\begin{aligned} & E_{\Pi^\circ_1,\ldots,\Pi^\circ_K} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} 2^{(1+\delta)/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{1+\delta}{2}\right) W_{1+\delta}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X), \overline \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \times 2\Gamma(1) \times C_1 T^{-1/\{2(1+\delta)\}} \nonumber \\ \leq{}& 4C_1 \left\{I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \exp \left\{-\frac{1}{2}\log n - \frac{1}{2(1+\delta)} \log T\right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& 4C_1 \left\{I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{2}\log T -\frac{1}{2}\log n + \frac{\delta}{2(1+\delta)} \log T \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq&{} 4C_1 \left\{I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} T^{-1/2} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2}\log n + \frac{\delta}{2} \log T\right) \nonumber \\ \leq&{} 4C_1 \left\{I_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} T^{-1/2} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4}\log n \right) = o(T^{-1/2}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by Markov’s inequality, the right-hand side of can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned} \label{varhat4} & \left\|2\left\{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)\right\}^{-1/2} \int_0^1 \Phi^{-1}(u) \frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^K \{\hat r_j(u)+r_j(u)\}{\mathrm{d}}u\right\| = o_p(T^{-1/2}) + o_p(n^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Now we combine , and and conclude that $$\begin{aligned} &\operatorname{var}\left\{\widehat \Pi_n(\xi\mid X)\right\} = \frac{1}{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)} + O_p(T^{-1/2}) + o_p(n^{-1}) + o_p(T^{-1/2}) + o_p(n^{-1})\\ & = \frac{1}{nI_{\xi}(\theta_0)} + o_p(n^{-1}) + O_p(T^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ If we compare this with the results in Theorem 2, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} & \operatorname{var}\left\{\widehat \Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} - \operatorname{var}\left\{\Pi_{n}(\xi\mid X)\right\} = o_p(n^{-1}) + O_p\left(T^{-1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem 3. $\blacksquare$ Justification of Assumption 7 ============================= In this section, we verify Assumption 7 for two special examples: the normal linear model and some exponential family distributions. Without loss of generality, all the samples considered in this section refer to the first subset sample $X_1$ in Assumption 7.\ [1. Normal Linear Model]{}\ We consider the following normal linear model based on independent and identically distributed observations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{nlm} &y_i =Z_i^{\top}\beta+\varepsilon_i,~ \varepsilon_i \sim \mathcal{N}\left(0, \sigma^2\right),~ i=1,\ldots,m,\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{dim}(\beta)=p$ and $\varepsilon_i$’s are independent. We write $y=(y_1,\ldots,y_m)^{\top}$, $Z=(Z_1,\ldots,Z_m)^{\top}$, $\varepsilon=(\varepsilon_1,\ldots,\varepsilon_m)^{\top}$, and the true parameter is $\theta_0=(\beta_0^{\top},\sigma_0^2)^{\top}$. We impose the following conjugate prior on the parameter $\theta=(\beta^{\top},\sigma^2)^{\top}$: $$\begin{aligned} &\beta \Big\| \sigma^2,\mu^,\Omega \sim \mathcal{N} \left(\mu^, \sigma^2\Omega\right), \nonumber\\ &\sigma^2 \Big\| a,b \sim \text{Inverse-Gamma} \left(a/2,b/2\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $a>4,b>0$ is to guarantee a finite variance for the prior of $\sigma^2$, and $\Omega$ is a positive definite matrix. The subset posterior after the stochastic approximation is given by $$\begin{aligned} \pi_m\left(\beta,\sigma^2 \Big\| y,Z\right) \propto & ~(\sigma^2)^{-Km/2}\exp\left\{-\frac{K(y-Z\beta)^{\top}(y-Z\beta)}{2\sigma^2}\right\}\times\\ &~ \exp\left\{-\frac{(\beta-\mu^)^{\top}\Omega^{-1}(\beta-\mu^)}{2\sigma^2}\right\} \times (\sigma^2)^{-a/2-1}\exp\left\{-\frac{b}{2\sigma^2}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ We have the following proposition, which shows that the $\psi(\cdot)$ function in Assumption 7 is $L_1$-integrable uniformly for all $m$ and $K$, which implies the uniform integrability condition.\ \[nlma7\] In the normal linear model , assume that $\\|\mu^\\|$ is upper bounded by a constant. Assume that the eigenvalues of $\Omega$ and $Z^{{\top}} Z/m$ are lower and upper bounded by constants for all $m\geq 2$. Assume that the error $\varepsilon_i$ in has finite 4th moment. Let $\widehat\beta$ and $\widehat{\sigma^2} $ be the maximum likelihood estimators of $\beta$ and $\sigma^2$ respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{betabound} & \sup_{m\geq 2,K\geq 1 }E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}Km\\|\beta-\widehat\beta\\|^2 <+\infty,\\ \label{sigmabound} & \sup_{m\geq 2,K\geq 1 }E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}Km\\|\sigma^2-\widehat{\sigma^2}\\|^2<+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Proposition \[nlma7\]:]{}\ Let $\\|\beta_0\\|,\\|\mu^\\|\leq c_1<+\infty$. Let the eigenvalues of $\Omega$ and $Z^{\top}Z/m$ be lower bounded by $c_2>0$ and upper bounded by $c_3>0$. Let $E(\varepsilon_i^4)=c_4<+\infty$. The subset posterior distributions of $\beta$ and $\sigma^2$ are given by $$\begin{aligned} &\beta\Big \| y,Z, \mu^, \Omega,a,b~ \sim ~ \text{Multi-}t_{a+Km+p}\left\{\beta^, \frac{b^}{a+Km}\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\right\},\\ &\sigma^2 \Big\| y,Z, \mu^, \Omega,a,b ~\sim ~ \text{Inverse-Gamma} \left(\frac{a+Km}{2},\frac{b^}{2}\right),\\ & \beta^* = \left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\left( KZ^{\top}y+\Omega^{-1}\mu^\right),\\ & b^= b+ \mu^{{\top}}\Omega^{-1}\mu^+ Ky^{\top}\left\{I_m-KZ\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y,\end{aligned}$$ where $\text{Multi-}t_{\nu}(\mu,\Sigma)$ denotes the multivariate-t distribution with mean $\mu$, variance matrix $\Sigma$, and $\nu$ degrees of freedom. The maximum likelihood estimators of $\beta$ and $\sigma^2$ are given by $$\begin{aligned} \widehat\beta &= (Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}y, \\ \widehat{\sigma^2} &= m^{-1}\\|y-Z^{\top}\beta\\|^2 = m^{-1}y^{\top}\left\{I_m-Z(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y.\end{aligned}$$ We first prove . It is clear that $$\begin{aligned} \label{betab0} E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}Km\\|\beta-\widehat{\beta}\\|^2 = KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}\operatorname{tr}\left\{{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}(\beta)\right\} + KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}\\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}\beta - \widehat{\beta}\\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{tr}(A)$ denotes the trace of a generic square matrix $A$. The posterior variance of $\beta$ can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} \label{betab1} & Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\operatorname{tr}\left\{{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}(\beta)\right\} \nonumber \\ &= Km \frac{a+Km+p}{a+Km+p-2} \times\operatorname{tr}\left\{ E_{P_{\theta_0}}\frac{b^}{a+Km} \left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\right\} \nonumber \\ &\leq 2\operatorname{tr}\left\{ E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(b+c_1^2c_2^{-1} + Ky^{\top}y \right) \left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\right\} \nonumber\\ &\leq 2 \operatorname{tr}\left\{ E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(b+c_1^2c_2^{-1} + Kmc_1^2 c_2 + Km \sigma_0^2\right) \left(Kmc_2I_p+c_3^{-1}I_p\right)^{-1}\right\} \nonumber \\ &= 2p\frac{Km(c_1^2 c_2 + \sigma_0^2)+b+c_1^2c_2^{-1}}{Kmc_2+c_3^{-1}} \to \frac{2p(c_1^2 c_2 + \sigma_0^2)}{c_2} ~\text{ as } m\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ The second term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} \label{betab2} &KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}\\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}\beta - \widehat{\beta}\\|^2 \nonumber \\ &= KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|\left\{\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}-\left(KZ^{\top}Z\right)^{-1}\right\} (KZ^{\top}y) + \left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\Omega^{-1}\mu^{}\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ &\leq 2Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|\left\{\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}-\left(KZ^{\top}Z\right)^{-1}\right\} (KZ^{\top}y)\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ & ~~ + 2Km \left\\|\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\Omega^{-1}\mu^{}\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ &\leq 2Km E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\\|\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}\Omega^{-1}(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}(Z^{\top}y)\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ & ~~ + 2Km \left\\|\left(Kmc_2I_p+c_3^{-1}I_p\right)^{-1}c_2^{-1}c_1\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ &\leq 2Km E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\\|\left(Kmc_2+c_3^{-1}\right)^{-1}c_2^{-1}(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}(Z^{\top}y)\right\\|^2 + \frac{2c_1^2}{Kmc_2^4} \nonumber \\ &\leq \frac{2Km}{(Kmc_2+c_3^{-1})^2c_2^2} \left\{\left\\|\beta_0\right\\|^2 + E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}(Z^{\top}\varepsilon)\right\\|^2 \right\} + \frac{2c_1^2}{Kmc_2^4} \nonumber \\ &\leq \frac{2Km}{(Kmc_2+c_3^{-1})^2c_2^2} \left(c_1^2 + c_2^{-2}c_3 \sigma_0^2 \right) + \frac{2c_1^2}{Kmc_2^4} \to 0 ~\text{ as } m\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since and have finite limits as $m\to\infty$, they are both bounded by constants, regardless of the value of $K$. They together with lead to . Next we prove . We have the similar decomposition $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigma0} E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}Km\\|\sigma^2-\widehat{\sigma^2}\\|^2 =~& KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}(\sigma^2) \nonumber \\ &+ KmE_{P_{\theta_0}}\\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}\sigma^2 - \widehat{\sigma^2}\\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ We show an useful bound for the square of $y^{\top}y$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{yb2} &E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(y^{\top}y\right)^2 = E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(\left\\|Z\beta_0+\varepsilon\right\\|^2\right)^2 \nonumber\\ &\leq 4E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(\left\\|Z\beta_0\right\\|^2+\left\\|\varepsilon\right\\|^2\right)^2 \leq 4E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left\{\beta_0^{\top}(Z^{\top}Z)\beta_0 + \left\\|\varepsilon\right\\|^2 \right\}^2 \nonumber\\ &\leq 4E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(mc_1^2c_3 + \left\\|\varepsilon\right\\|^2 \right)^2 \leq 8m^2c_1^4c_3^2 + 8E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(\sum_{i=1}^m\varepsilon_i^2\right)^2 \nonumber \\ &\leq 8m^2c_1^4c_3^2 + 8m E_{P_{\theta_0}} \sum_{i=1}^m\varepsilon_i^4 \leq 8m^2(c_1^4c_3^2 +c_4).\end{aligned}$$ By using , the first term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigma1} &Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}(\sigma^2) \leq Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\frac{ b^{2}/4}{\left\{(Km+a)/2-2\right\}^3} \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{2}{(Km)^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left[b+ \mu^{{\top}}\Omega^{-1}\mu^+ Ky^{\top}\left\{I_m-KZ\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y\right]^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{2}{(Km)^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(b+ c_1^2 c_2^{-1} + K y^{\top}y \right)^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{4(b+ c_1^2 c_2^{-1})^2}{(Km)^2} + \frac{4}{m^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(y^{\top}y\right)^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{4(b+ c_1^2 c_2^{-1})^2}{(Km)^2} + 32(c_1^4c_3^2 +c_4) \to 32(c_1^4c_3^2 +c_4) ~\text{ as } m\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ And the second term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigma2} &Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y,Z)}\sigma^2 - \widehat{\sigma^2}\right\\|^2 = Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\\|\frac{b^/2}{(a+Km)/2-1} - \widehat{\sigma^2}\right\\|^2 \nonumber \\ & = Km E_{P_{\theta_0}}\Bigg\\| \frac{b+\mu^{{\top}}\Omega^{-1}\mu^}{Km+a-2} - \frac{(a-2)y^{\top}\left\{I_m-Z(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y}{(Km+a-2)m} \nonumber \\ & + \frac{Ky^{\top}\left\{Z(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}-KZ\left(KZ^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}\right)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y}{Km+a-2} \Bigg\\|^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{3Km\left(b+\mu^{{\top}}\Omega^{-1}\mu^\right)^2}{(Km+a-2)^2} + \frac{3(a-2)}{(Km+a-2)^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left[m^{-1}y^{\top}\left\{I_m-Z(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}\right\}y\right]^2 \nonumber \\ & + \frac{3Km}{(Km+a-2)^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ y^{\top}Z (Z^{\top}Z+\Omega^{-1}/K)^{-1}\Omega^{-1}(Z^{\top}Z)^{-1}Z^{\top}y\right\}^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{3(b+c_1^2c_2^{-1})^2}{Km} + \frac{3(a-2)}{(Km+a-2)^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}} \left(m^{-1}y^{\top}y\right)^2 \nonumber \\ & + \frac{3}{Km (mc_2+c_3^{-1}/K)^2 c_2^2 mc_2^2} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(y^{\top}Z Z^{\top}y\right)^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{3(b+c_1^2c_2^{-1})^2}{Km} + \frac{24(a-2)(c_1^4c_3^2 + c_4)}{(Km+a-2)^2} + \frac{3pmc_3}{Km^4c_2^6} E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left(y^{\top}y\right)^2 \nonumber \\ & \leq \frac{3(b+c_1^2c_2^{-1})^2}{Km} + \frac{24(a-2)(c_1^4c_3^2 + c_4)}{(Km+a-2)^2} + \frac{24p c_3(c_1^4c_3^2 + c_4)}{Kmc_2^6} \to 0 ~\text{ as } m\to \infty,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation $\overline \lambda(ZZ^{\top}) \leq \operatorname{tr}(ZZ^{\top}) = \operatorname{tr}(Z^{\top}Z)\leq p\overline\lambda(Z^{\top}Z) \leq pmc_3$, and $\overline\lambda(A)$ denotes the largest eigenvalue of a generic matrix $A$. Since and have finite limits as $m\to\infty$, they are both bounded by constants, regardless of the value of $K$. They together with lead to . $\blacksquare$ [2. Some Exponential Family Models]{}\ In this section, we verify Assumption 7 for the following three commonly used exponential family distributions: Poisson, exponential, and binomial. \[3expex\] (i) Suppose the data $y_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) are independent and identically distributed as $\text{Poisson}(\theta)$ with the probability mass function $p(y\|\theta) = \theta^y e^{-\theta}/y!$ and the true parameter $\theta_0$. Suppose the prior on $\theta$ is $\text{Gamma}(a,b)$ for some constants $a>0,b>0$. Let $\widehat \theta = \sum_{i=1}^my_i/m$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$. Then $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{m\geq 1,K\geq 1} E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 <+\infty;\end{aligned}$$ (ii) Suppose the data $y_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) are independent and identically distributed as $\text{Exp}(\theta)$ with the probability density function $p(y\|\theta) =\theta e^{-\theta y}$ and the true parameter $\theta_0$. Suppose the prior on $\theta$ is $\text{Gamma}(a,b)$ for some constants $a>0,b>0$. Let $\widehat \theta = m/\sum_{i=1}^my_i$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$. Then $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{m\geq 3,K\geq 1} E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 <+\infty;\end{aligned}$$ (iii) Suppose the data $y_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) are $\{0,1\}$ binary data independent and identically distributed as $\text{Bernoulli}(\theta)$ with the probability density function $p(y\|\theta) =\theta^{y}(1-\theta)^{1-y}$ and the true parameter $\theta_0 \in (0,1)$. Suppose the prior on $\theta$ is $\text{Beta}(a,b)$ for some constants $a>0,b>0$. Let $\widehat \theta = \sum_{i=1}^my_i/m$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$. Then $$\begin{aligned} & \sup_{m\geq 1,K\geq 1} E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 <+\infty;\end{aligned}$$ Proof of Proposition \[3expex\]:\ (i) The subset posterior distribution of $\theta$ is $\text{Gamma}(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+a,Km+b)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} & E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ Km\left\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta)-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 + Km{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta) \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ Km\left\|\frac{K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+a}{Km+b}-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^my_i}{m}\right\|^2 + \frac{Km\left(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+a\right)}{(Km+b)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ \frac{K(b\sum_{i=1}^m y_i - am)^2}{m(Km+b)^2} + \frac{Km\left(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+a\right)}{(Km+b)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq{}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ \frac{2Kb^2m\sum_{i=1}^m y_i^2+2Km^2a^2}{m(Km+b)^2} + \frac{Km\left(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+a\right)}{(Km+b)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& \frac{2Km^2b^2(\theta_0^2+\theta_0)+2Km^2a^2}{m(Km+b)^2} + \frac{Km\left(Km\theta_0+a\right)}{(Km+b)^2} \to \theta_0 \quad \text{ as } m\to \infty. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the conclusion holds.\ (ii) The subset posterior distribution of $\theta$ is $\text{Gamma}(Km+a,K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+b)$, and notice that $W\equiv 1/\sum_{i=1}^m y_i$ follows $\text{Inverse-Gamma}(m,\theta_0)$ with $E(W)=\theta_0/(m-1)$, $E(W^2)=\theta_0^2/\{(m-1)(m-2)\}$, $E(W^3)= \theta_0^3/\{(m-1)(m-2)(m-3)\}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} & E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ Km\left\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta)-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 + Km{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta) \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ Km\left\|\frac{Km+a}{K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+b}-\frac{m}{\sum_{i=1}^my_i}\right\|^2 + \frac{Km\left(Km+a\right)}{(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+b)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ \frac{K(a\sum_{i=1}^m y_i - bm)^2}{(\sum_{i=1}^m y_i)(K\sum_{i=1}^m y_i+b)^2} + \frac{Km\left(Km+a\right)}{(K\sum_{i=1}^my_i+b)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq{}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ \frac{2a^2(\sum_{i=1}^m y_i)^2+2b^2m^2}{K(\sum_{i=1}^m y_i)^3} + \frac{m\left(Km+a\right)}{K\left(\sum_{i=1}^my_i\right)^2} \right\} \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \frac{2a^2\theta_0}{K(m-1)} + \frac{2b^2m^2\theta_0^3}{K(m-1)(m-2)(m-3)} + \frac{m\left(Km+a\right)\theta_0^2}{K(m-1)(m-2)} \to \theta_0^2 \quad \text{ as } m\to \infty. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the conclusion holds.\ (iii) The subset posterior distribution of $\theta$ is $\text{Beta}\left\{K\sum_{i=1}^m y_i+a,K\sum_{i=1}^m(1-y_i)+b\right\}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} & E_{P_{\theta_0}}E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}Km\left\|\theta-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left\{ Km\left\|E_{\Pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta)-\widehat\theta\right\|^2 + Km{\operatorname{var}}_{\pi_m(\cdot\|y)}(\theta) \right\} \nonumber \\ ={}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\left[ Km\left\|\frac{K\sum_{i=1}^m y_i+a}{Km+a+b}-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^my_i}{m}\right\|^2 + \frac{Km\left(K\sum_{i=1}^m y_i+a\right)\left\{K\sum_{i=1}^m(1-y_i)+b\right\}}{(Km+a+b)^2(Km+a+b+1)} \right] \nonumber \\ \leq{}& E_{P_{\theta_0}}\Bigg[\frac{2Kma^2}{(Km+a+b)^2} + \frac{2Km(a+b)^2\left(\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\right)^2}{m^2(Km+a+b)^2}\nonumber\\ & + \frac{Km\left(K\sum_{i=1}^m y_i+a\right)\left\{K\sum_{i=1}^m(1-y_i)+b\right\}}{(Km+a+b)^2(Km+a+b+1)} \Bigg] \nonumber \\ ={}& \frac{2Kma^2}{(Km+a+b)^2} + \frac{2Km(a+b)^2\left\{ m^2\theta_0^2 + m\theta_0(1-\theta_0)\right\} }{m^2(Km+a+b)^2}\nonumber \\ &+ \frac{Km\left\{ K^2(m^2-m)\theta_0(1-\theta_0) + Kam(1-\theta_0) + Kbm\theta_0 + ab\right\} }{(Km+a+b)^2(Km+a+b+1)} \nonumber \\ & \to \theta_0(1-\theta_0) \quad \text{ as } m\to \infty.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the conclusion holds. $\blacksquare$ Data Analysis ============= Simulated data analysis: Linear model with varying dimension {#para-app} ------------------------------------------------------------ The prior distributions of $\beta$ and $\sigma$ are specified as follows: $$\beta \sim \text{generalized double Pareto}(\alpha, \eta), \; \sigma \sim \text{Half-}t(\nu, A).$$ The prior density of $\beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_p)^{\top}$ given $\alpha$ and $\eta$ is given by $$\pi(\beta\mid \alpha,\eta) = \prod_{j=1}^p \frac{\alpha}{2\eta}\left(1+\frac{\|\beta_j\|}{\eta}\right)^{-(\alpha+1)}.$$ The prior mean and variance of $\beta$ are set to be 0 and $2\eta^2 (\alpha-1)^{-1} (\alpha -2)^{-1}$. $\alpha$ and $\eta$ have independent hyperpriors with densities $\pi(\alpha)=1/(1+\alpha)^2$ and $\pi(\eta)=1/(1+\eta)^2$. The Half-$t$ prior has a convenient parameter expanded form in terms of Inverse-Gamma($a$, $b$) distribution, where $a$ and $b$ are shape and scale parameters: if $\sigma^2 \mid \rho \sim $ Inverse-Gamma($\nu/2$, $\nu/\rho$) and $\rho \sim $ Inverse-Gamma($1/2$, $1/A^2$), then $\sigma \sim $ Half-$t$($\nu$, $A$). We fixed the hyperparameters $\nu$ and $A$ at recommended default values 2 and $100$. We used griddy Gibbs for generating samples of $\alpha$ and $\eta$ from their posterior distribution; see Section 3 in [@ArmDunLee13] for details. The Gibbs sampler in [@ArmDunLee13] is modified by changing the sample size, $n$, in their sampler to $m K$, where $m$ is sample size for the subset and $K$ is the number of subsets. Let $\mathcal N(\hat m_1,\hat V_1), \ldots, \mathcal N(\hat m_K, \hat V_K)$ represent the asymptotic approximations of $K$ subset posteriors, then [@AguCar11] has shown that their barycenter in Wasserstein-2 space is also Gausssian with mean $m^$ and covariance matrix $V^$, where $$\begin{aligned} m^* = K^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^K \hat m_j \quad \text{and}\quad V^* \text{ satisfies } \sum_{j=1}^K \left( V^{^{1/2}} \hat V_j V^{^{1/2}} \right)^{1/2} = KV^.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we use the formula above to calculate the $W_2$ barycenter of $K$ normal approximations to the $K$ subset posteriors. Given $\hat V_1,\ldots,\hat V_K$, we can find $V^$ efficiently using fixed-point iteration. Although the priors of $\beta$ and $\sigma$ specified above are heavy-tailed with infinite second moments, in the following proposition and its proof, we verify that every subset posterior after conditioning on the first $m_0$ observations has finite second moment in both $\beta$ and $\sigma$, for some fixed integer $m_0$. \[2momentcheck\] Suppose the form of a linear model and its priors are specified in Section 4.1 of the main paper with fixed $\nu>0$ and $A>0$. Assume that in the model $X$ and $\epsilon$ are independent. Let $\tilde y$ and $\tilde X$ be the response vector and the design matrix of the first $m_0$ observations ($m_0\geq 1$). Suppose that the true parameters are $\theta_0=(\beta_0^{\top}, \sigma_0)^{\top}$ with $\sigma_0>0$. Assume that the eigenvalues of $\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X$ are bounded from above and below by positive constants almost surely. Then the posterior distribution of $\theta=(\beta^{\top},\sigma)^{\top}$ conditional on $\tilde y$ and $\tilde X$ has finite second moment almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$, if $m_0$ satisfies $m_0\geq p+4$. [Proof of Proposition \[2momentcheck\]:]{}\ For convenience we define the quadratic term $S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)=(\tilde y - \tilde X\beta)^{\top}(\tilde y - \tilde X\beta)$, which has the decomposition $S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)=\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + (\beta-\tilde \beta)^{\top}\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X (\beta-\tilde\beta)$ with $\tilde \epsilon=\tilde y-\tilde X\beta_0$, $\tilde H= \tilde X(\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X)^{-1} \tilde X^{\top}$, $I_{m_0}$ being the $m_0$-dimensional identity matrix, and $\tilde \beta=(\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X)^{-1}\tilde X^{\top}\tilde y$. Since $m_0\geq p+4$ and $\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X$ is nonsingular, $I_{m_0}-\tilde H$ is idempotent with rank $m_0-p>0$. Since $\sigma_0>0$, the residual sum of squares $\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon$ is then almost surely positive. Let the smallest eigenvalue of $\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X$ be lower bounded by $c_1>0$. Then $S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\geq \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + c_1\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2$. The subset posterior of the model parameter $\theta=(\beta^{\top},\sigma)^{\top}$ given only $\tilde y, \tilde X$ has the following expression $$\begin{aligned} \label{postbetasigma} &\pi_{m_0}(\beta,\sigma\mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A) \nonumber \\ = {}& \frac{(2\pi)^{-Km_0/2} \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \pi(\beta)\pi(\sigma\mid \nu, A)} {\iint (2\pi)^{-Km_0/2} \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \pi(\beta)\pi(\sigma\mid \nu, A) {\mathrm{d}}\beta {\mathrm{d}}\sigma} \nonumber \\ = {}& \frac{\sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} \pi(\beta)} {\int\left[ \int_0^\infty \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma \right]\pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta}\end{aligned}$$ where the likelihood has been raised to the power of $K$ according to our stochastic approximation. In the following, we bound $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2$ and $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}(\sigma^2)$ respectively. Step 1: Show that $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2$ is finite almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. In the following, we use to calculate $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2$ and bound its numerator and denominator respectively. For the numerator part, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{betanumeratorA11} & \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} \\|\beta\\|^2 \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} \pi(\beta) {\mathrm{d}}\beta {\mathrm{d}}\sigma \nonumber \\ \leq {}& (A\nu^{1/2})^{\nu+1} \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} \\|\beta\\|^2\pi(\beta)\left[ \int_0^\infty \sigma^{-(Km_0+\nu+1)} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2}S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X) \right\} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma\right] {\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq {}& 2^{(Km_0+\nu)/2-1} K^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2}(A\nu^{1/2})^{\nu+1}\Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0+\nu}{2}\right) \nonumber \\ &~~ \times \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} \frac{\\|\beta\\|^2\times \pi(\beta) }{\left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + c_1\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\}^{(Km_0+\nu)/2}} {\mathrm{d}}\beta.\end{aligned}$$ The last integral of can be further bounded by $$\begin{aligned} \label{betanumeratorA12} & \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} \frac{\\|\beta\\|^2\times \pi(\beta) }{\left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + c_1\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\}^{(Km_0+\nu)/2}} {\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} \frac{2\left(\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2+\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2\right)\times \pi(\beta) }{\left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + c_1\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\}^{(Km_0+\nu)/2}} {\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \int_{\mathcal{R}^p} 2c_1^{-1} \left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + c_1\\|\beta-\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2+1} \pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ &~~ + \int_{\mathcal{R}^p}2\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2\left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2} \pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& 2\left\{c_1^{-1}\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + \\|\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\} \left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Next we provide a lower bound for the denominator of . The integral of $\sigma$ can be lower bounded by using a change of variable $u=KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/(2\sigma^2)$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigmadenom} & \int_0^\infty \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma \nonumber \\ ={}& \frac{1}{2}\left\{KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/2\right\}^{-(Km_0-1)/2} \int_0^\infty \left\{1+KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/(2A^2\nu u)\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2}u^{(Km_0-3)/2} e^{-u} {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ \geq{}& \frac{1}{2}\left\{KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/2\right\}^{-(Km_0-1)/2} \left\{1+KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/(2A^2\nu)\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} \int_1^\infty u^{(Km_0-3)/2} e^{-u} {\mathrm{d}}u \nonumber \\ \geq{}& \frac{1}{2}\left\{KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/2\right\}^{-(Km_0-1)/2} \left\{1+KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/(2A^2\nu)\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2}\nonumber\\ &\times e^{-1}\Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0-1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{Km_0+1}{Km_0-1}\right)^{(Km_0-3)/2},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact $Km_0\geq 4$ and the lower bound for the incomplete gamma function $\int_1^\infty u^{s-1}e^{-u}{\mathrm{d}}u\geq e^{-1}\Gamma(s) (1+1/s)^{s-1}$ for $s\geq 1$. Now to evaluate the denominator of , we need to integrate the lower bound in with respect to $\beta$. Consider the set $A_3=\{\beta\in \mathcal{R}^p:~ \\|\beta\\|\leq 1\}$. Clearly the prior of $\beta$ has positive probability mass on $A_3$. Define the constant $c_3=\int_{A_3} \pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta = \int_{A_3} \iint \pi(\beta\mid \alpha,\eta) \pi(\alpha)\pi(\eta){\mathrm{d}}\alpha {\mathrm{d}}\eta {\mathrm{d}}\beta >0$ which only depends on the dimension $p$. Let the largest eigenvalue of $\tilde X^{\top}\tilde X$ be upper bounded by $c_2>0$. Then on $A_3$, $S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\leq c_2\\|\beta-\tilde \beta\\|^2 + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \leq 2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon$. This and imply that the denominator of can be lower bounded by $$\begin{aligned} \label{bsdenom} & \int\left[ \int_0^\infty \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma \right]\pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \geq{}& \frac{c_3}{2e}\Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0-1}{2}\right) \left[\left\{2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}K/2\right]^{-(Km_0-1)/2} \nonumber \\ & ~\times \left[1+\left\{2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}K/(2A^2\nu)\right]^{-(\nu+1)/2} \nonumber \\ \geq{}& 2^{(Km_0-3)/2}e^{-1}c_3(A\nu^{1/2})^{\nu+1}K^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0-1}{2}\right)\nonumber \\ & ~\times \left\{2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows if we choose $c_2>A\nu^2/K$.\ We can combine , , and obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{boundbeta2} &E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2 \nonumber \\ \leq{}& c_4 K^{(\nu+1)/2} \left\{c_1^{-1} \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon + \\|\tilde\beta\\|^2\right\} \left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2} \nonumber \\ & ~\times \left\{2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}^{(Km_0+\nu)/2}\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $c_4>0$ that only depends on $m_0,p,\nu,A,c_1,c_2,c_3$. Conditional on $\tilde y,\tilde X$, both $\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2$ and $\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon$ are almost surely positive constants. Therefore, we have proved that $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2 <\infty$ almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. Step 2: Show that $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}(\sigma^2)$ is finite almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. To calculate $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\sigma^2$, we integrate $\sigma^2$ with respect to the posterior density of . We start with upper bounding the numerator: $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigmanumerator} & \int \int_0^\infty \sigma^2\times \sigma^{-Km_0} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} \left\{1+\nu^{-1}\left(\sigma/A\right)^2\right\}^{-(\nu+1)/2} \pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\sigma {\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \int (A\nu^{1/2})^{(\nu+1)/2} \left[\int_0^\infty \sigma^{-(Km_0+\nu-1)} \exp\left\{-\frac{K}{2\sigma^2} S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\right\} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma\right] \pi(\beta) {\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& \int \frac{1}{2}(A\nu^{1/2})^{(\nu+1)/2} \left\{KS(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)/2\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2+1} \Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0+\nu}{2}-1\right) \pi(\beta){\mathrm{d}}\beta \nonumber \\ \leq{}& 2^{(Km_0+\nu)/2-2} (A\nu^{1/2})^{(\nu+1)/2} K^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2+1} \Gamma\left(\frac{Km_0+\nu}{2}-1\right) \nonumber \\ &\times \left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2+1},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $(Km_0+\nu)/2\geq 2$ and $S(\beta,\tilde y,\tilde X)\geq \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon$. If we combine and , then we can obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \label{boundsigma} E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}(\sigma^2) & \leq c_5 K^{(\nu+1)/2} \left\{\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon\right\}^{-(Km_0+\nu)/2+1} \nonumber \\ &\times \left\{2c_2(\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2+1) + \tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon \right\}^{(Km_0+\nu+1)/2},\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $c_5>0$ that only depends on $m_0,p,\nu,A,c_2,c_3$. Conditional on $\tilde y,\tilde X$, both $\\|\tilde\beta\\|^2$ and $\tilde \epsilon^{\top}(I_{m_0}-\tilde H) \tilde \epsilon$ are almost surely positive constants. Therefore, we have proved that $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}(\sigma^2) <\infty$ almost surely in $P_{\theta_0}$. $\blacksquare$ The second moment of the prior has only appeared in in the proof of Lemma \[subsetbound\]. We need the right-hand side of to go to zero as $n\to \infty$. Since the gdp prior and half-$t$ prior are both heavy tailed, Proposition \[2momentcheck\] proposes to replace the prior in by the posterior conditional on the first $m_0$ observations in the linear model example. It is straightforward to check that the finite upper bounds for $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}\\|\beta\\|^2$ and $E_{\Pi_{m_0}(\cdot \mid \tilde y,\tilde X, \nu, A)}(\sigma^2)$ in and increase at most exponentially fast in $K$. Even if $K\to\infty$, we can see that the exponential term $\exp(-Km\epsilon_1)$ in the right-hand side of decays faster than any exponential rate in $K$ since $m\to\infty$. Therefore, the conclusions of Lemma \[subsetbound\] and all subsequent theorems remain valid conditional on the first $m_0$ observations. Simulated data analysis: Linear mixed effects model {#stoc-lme} --------------------------------------------------- Stochastic approximation for subset posteriors can be easily implemented in Stan. The sampling model for linear mixed effects models implies that likelihood of $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ is $$\begin{aligned} L(\beta, \Sigma) = \prod_{i=1}^s \int_{\mathcal{R}^q} p(y_i \mid X_i,Z_i, \beta, u_i) p(u_i \mid \Sigma)~{\mathrm{d}}u_i = \prod_{i=1}^s \phi(y_i \mid X_i \beta, Z_i \Sigma Z_i^{\top}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi( \cdot \mid \mu, \Sigma)$ is the multivariate normal density with mean $\mu$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma$. The likelihood after stochastic approximation is $$\begin{aligned} L_{K}(\beta, \Sigma) = \left\{ L(\beta, \Sigma) \right\}^K = \prod_{i=1}^s \left\{ \phi(y_i \mid X_i \beta, Z_i \Sigma Z_i^{\top}) \right\}^K \label{llk}.\end{aligned}$$ The generative model is completed by imposing default priors for $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ in Stan. We take advantage of the `increment_log_prob` function in Stan to specify that $$\begin{aligned} y_i \mid \beta, \Sigma\sim f_K(y_i \mid \beta, \Sigma),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $f_K$ is the density that leads to the term for $y_i$ in the likelihood $L_{K}(\beta, \Sigma)$ in . In general $f_K$ would be analytically intractable, but in the present case it corresponds to $\{\phi( \cdot \mid \mu, \Sigma)\}^K$. The computation time of different methods is summarized in Figure \[fig:time1\]. $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $\beta_3$ $\beta_4$ ------ ---------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- MLE (-1.01, -1.00) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) MCMC (-1.01, -1.00) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) VB (-1.01, -1.00) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -1.00) (1.00, 1.01) CMC (-1.01, -0.99) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) SDP (-1.01, -0.99) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) WASP (-1.01, -0.99) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) PIE (-1.01, -0.99) (0.99, 1.01) (-1.01, -0.99) (1.00, 1.01) : 90% credible intervals for fixed effects in simulated data analysis. The upper and lower bounds are averaged over 10 replications. MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:sim-fix-ci\] $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $\beta_3$ $\beta_4$ ------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- MLE 0.96 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) VB 0.86 (0.11) 0.87 (0.10) 0.86 (0.10) 0.87 (0.10) CMC 0.96 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01) 0.95 (0.02) 0.96 (0.01) SDP 0.96 (0.01) 0.94 (0.02) 0.95 (0.03) 0.95 (0.02) WASP 0.95 (0.02) 0.95 (0.02) 0.96 (0.01) 0.94 (0.02) PIE 0.95 (0.01) 0.95 (0.01) 0.94 (0.01) 0.94 (0.02) : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for fixed effects in simulated data analysis. The standard deviation of accuracy across 10 replications is in parentheses. MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:sim-fix-acc\] Real data analysis: United States natality data {#sec:us-natality-data} ----------------------------------------------- We selected thirteen variables from the United States natality data summarized in Table \[tab:abe\] and analyzed in [@Abe2006] and [@LeeWan16]. These data are available at <http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/jae/datasets/abrevaya001>. The computation time of different methods is summarized in Figure \[fig:time3\]. Variable Description ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- `dmage` age of mother in years `nlbnl` number of live births now living `gestat` length of gestation in weeks `male` indicator variable for baby gender `married` indicator variable for marital status `hsgrad` high-school graduate indicator `agesq` age of mother squared `black` indicator variable for black race `novisit` indicator of no prenatal care visit `adeqcode2` indicator that Kessner index 2 `adeqcode3` indicator that Kessner index 3 `pretri2` indicator that first prenatal visit occurred in 2nd trimester `pretri3` indicator that first prenatal visit occurred in 3nd trimester : Variables used in the United States natality data \[tab:abe\] `Intercept` `dmage` `nlbnl` `gestat` `male` ------ ---------------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- ---------------- MLE (-1.31, -0.18) (0.09, 0.57) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.25) (0.25, 0.32) MCMC (-0.48, 0.11) (-0.04, 0.26) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.24) (0.24, 0.31) VB (-1.96, -0.94) (0.17, 0.56) (0.01, 0.06) (0.25, 0.27) (0.24, 0.31) CMC (-1.13, -0.04) (0.06, 0.51) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.24) (0.24, 0.32) SDP (-0.97, -0.10) (0.05, 0.42) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.24) (0.25, 0.32) WASP (-0.93, 0.03) (0.04, 0.45) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.24) (0.25, 0.31) PIE (-0.93, 0.04) (0.03, 0.45) (0.02, 0.08) (0.22, 0.24) (0.25, 0.31) `married` `hsgrad` `agesq` `black` `ageqcode2` MLE (-0.03, 0.06) (0.02, 0.12) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.46, -0.3) (-0.24, -0.11) MCMC (-0.03, 0.07) (0.03, 0.13) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.44, -0.28) (-0.22, -0.1) VB (-0.02, 0.06) (0.02, 0.11) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.43, -0.29) (-0.26, -0.13) CMC (-0.03, 0.07) (0.02, 0.12) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.45, -0.28) (-0.24, -0.11) SDP (-0.03, 0.07) (0.02, 0.12) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.45, -0.30) (-0.23, -0.11) WASP (-0.02, 0.07) (0.03, 0.13) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.45, -0.28) (-0.23, -0.11) PIE (-0.02, 0.07) (0.03, 0.13) (0.00, 0.00) (-0.44, -0.28) (-0.23, -0.11) `ageqcode3` `novisit` `petri2` `pertri3` MLE (-0.42, -0.22) (-0.12, 0.16) (0.03, 0.16) (0.1, 0.33) MCMC (-0.37, -0.18) (-0.14, 0.11) (0.01, 0.14) (0.06, 0.28) VB (-0.43, -0.22) (-0.12, 0.18) (0.04, 0.18) (0.09, 0.34) CMC (-0.39, -0.19) (-0.13, 0.17) (0.02, 0.16) (0.08, 0.32) SDP (-0.38, -0.20) (-0.13, 0.13) (0.02, 0.15) (0.09, 0.30) WASP (-0.39, -0.2) (-0.14, 0.15) (0.02, 0.15) (0.08, 0.31) PIE (-0.39, -0.2) (-0.14, 0.15) (0.02, 0.15) (0.08, 0.31) : 90% credible intervals for fixed effects in United States natality data analysis. The upper and lower bounds are averaged over 10 folds of cross-validation. MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; MCMC, Markov chain Monte Carlo based on the full data; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:abe-fix-ci\] `Intercept` `dmage` `nlbnl` `gestat` `male` ------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- MLE 0.28 (0.06) 0.35 (0.06) 0.93 (0.03) 0.77 (0.06) 0.93 (0.02) VB 0.02 (0.01) 0.22 (0.04) 0.77 (0.06) 0.03 (0.01) 0.91 (0.05) CMC 0.40 (0.10) 0.42 (0.09) 0.91 (0.02) 0.83 (0.11) 0.95 (0.03) SDP 0.39 (0.23) 0.47 (0.19) 0.91 (0.07) 0.79 (0.16) 0.91 (0.05) WASP 0.55 (0.12) 0.53 (0.10) 0.90 (0.04) 0.87 (0.11) 0.91 (0.06) PIE 0.55 (0.12) 0.52 (0.11) 0.91 (0.05) 0.87 (0.11) 0.92 (0.05) `married` `hsgrad` `agesq` `black` `ageqcode2` MLE 0.92 (0.02) 0.90 (0.02) 0.36 (0.05) 0.84 (0.01) 0.83 (0.03) VB 0.91 (0.03) 0.80 (0.03) 0.23 (0.04) 0.91 (0.02) 0.66 (0.06) CMC 0.90 (0.06) 0.82 (0.08) 0.44 (0.10) 0.88 (0.10) 0.85 (0.06) SDP 0.90 (0.06) 0.87 (0.08) 0.48 (0.19) 0.86 (0.08) 0.87 (0.10) WASP 0.92 (0.05) 0.92 (0.06) 0.54 (0.11) 0.87 (0.08) 0.88 (0.08) PIE 0.92 (0.06) 0.92 (0.06) 0.54 (0.11) 0.87 (0.08) 0.88 (0.08) `ageqcode3` `novisit` `petri2` `pertri3` MLE 0.74 (0.04) 0.81 (0.04) 0.82 (0.02) 0.73 (0.03) VB 0.67 (0.04) 0.77 (0.06) 0.67 (0.04) 0.72 (0.05) CMC 0.86 (0.08) 0.80 (0.08) 0.84 (0.10) 0.83 (0.08) SDP 0.87 (0.09) 0.89 (0.07) 0.88 (0.09) 0.84 (0.10) WASP 0.84 (0.11) 0.84 (0.09) 0.89 (0.11) 0.83 (0.06) PIE 0.84 (0.11) 0.84 (0.08) 0.89 (0.11) 0.82 (0.07) : Accuracy of approximate posteriors for fixed effects in US natality data analysis. The standard deviation of accuracy across 10 replications is in parentheses. MLE, maximum likelihood estimator; VB, variational Bayes; CMC, consensus Monte Carlo; SDP, semiparametric density product; WASP, the algorithm in @Srietal15; PIE, our posterior interval estimation algorithm. \[tab:abe-fix-acc\] [7]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abrevaya, J.</span> (2006). Estimating the effect of smoking on birth outcomes using a matched panel data approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics 21, 489–519. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Agueh, M.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Carlier, G.</span> (2011). Barycenters in the [W]{}asserstein space. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 43, 904–924. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Armagan, A.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dunson, D. B.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lee, J.</span> (2013). eneralized double [P]{}areto shrinkage. Statistica Sinica, 23, 119–143. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bickel, P. J.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Freedman, D. A.</span> (1981). Some asymptotic theory for the bootstrap. The Annals of Statistics 9, 1196–1217. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Broderick, T.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Boyd, N.</span>,<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wibisono, A.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wilson, A. C.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jordan, M. I.</span> (2013). Streaming variational [B]{}ayes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (NIPS), 1727–1735. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chernozhukov, V.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hong, H.</span> (2003). An [MCMC]{} approach to classical estimation. Journal of Econometrics 115, 293-346. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dunson, D. B.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xing, C.</span> (2009). Nonparametric [B]{}ayes modeling of multivariate categorical data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104, 1042–1051. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Faes, C.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ormerod, J. T</span>. & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wand, M. P.</span> (2012). Variational bayesian inference for parametric and nonparametric regression with missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 106, 959–971. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fournier, N.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Guillin, A.</span> (2015). On the rate of convergence in [W]{}asserstein distance of the empirical measure. Probability Theory and Related Fields 162, 707–738. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gelman, A.</span> (2006). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) Bayesian Analysis, 3, 515–534. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ghosh, J. K.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Delampady, M.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Samanta, T.</span> (2006). [An introduction to [B]{}ayesian analysis: theory and methods]{}. Springer-Verlag New York. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hoffman, M. D.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Blei, D. M.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wang, C.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Paisley, J.</span> (2013). Stochastic variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 14, 1303–1347. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kim, Y.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Choi, Y.-K.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Emery, S.</span> (2013). Logistic regression with multiple random effects: a simulation study of estimation methods and statistical packages. The American Statistician 67, 171–182. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kleiner, A.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Talwalkar, A.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sarkar, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jordan, M. I.</span> (2014). A scalable bootstrap for massive data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 76, 795–816. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lee, Y. Y. C.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wand, M. P.</span> (2016). Streamlined mean field variational [B]{}ayes for longitudinal and multilevel data analysis. Biometrical Journal 58, 868–895. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lehmann, E. L.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Casella, G.</span> (1998). [Theory of point estimation]{}. Springer-Verlag New York. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maclaurin, D.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adams, R. P.</span> (2014). Firefly [M]{}onte [C]{}arlo: Exact [MCMC]{} with subsets of data. Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 543–552. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Minsker, S.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Srivastava, S.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lin, L.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dunson, D. B.</span> (2014). Scalable and robust [B]{}ayesian inference via the median posterior. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 32, 1656–1664. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Miroshnikov, A.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Conlon, E. M.</span> (2014). parallelMCMCcombine: an R package for Bayesian methods for big data and analytics. PloS ONE 9, e108425. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Neiswanger, W.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wang, C.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xing, E.</span> (2014). Asymptotically exact, embarrassingly parallel [MCMC]{}. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 623–632. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Scott, S. L.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Blocker, A. W.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bonassi, F. V.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chipman, H. A.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">George, E. I.</span>, & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">McCulloch, R. E.</span> (2016). Bayes and big data: the consensus [M]{}onte [C]{}arlo algorithm. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, to appear. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shang, Z.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cheng, G.</span> (2015). A [B]{}ayesian splitotic theory for nonparametric models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04175. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Srivastava, S.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cevher, V.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dinh, Q.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dunson, D. B.</span> (2015). : [S]{}calable [B]{}ayes via barycenters of subset posteriors. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) 38, 912–920. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tan, L. S. L.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nott, D. J.</span> (2014). A stochastic variational framework for fitting and diagnosing generalized linear mixed models. Bayesian Analysis 9, 963–1004. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Villani, C.</span> (2008). [Optimal transport: old and new]{}. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wand, M.</span> (2015). KernSmooth: Functions for Kernel Smoothing. R package version 2.23-15. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wang, X.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Guo, F.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heller, K.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dunson, D. B.</span> (2015). Parallelizing [MCMC]{} with random partition trees. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (NIPS), arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03164. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Welling, M.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Teh, Y. W.</span> (2011). Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient [L]{}angevin dynamics. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 681–688. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xu, M.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lakshminarayanan, B.</span>,<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Teh, Y. W.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Zhu, J.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Zhang, B.</span> (2014). Distributed [B]{}ayesian posterior sampling via moment sharing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS), 1656–1664. [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In the context of nonparametric regression models with one-sided errors, we consider parametric transformations of the response variable in order to obtain independence between the errors and the covariates. In view of estimating the tranformation parameter, we use a minimum distance approach and show the uniform consistency of the estimator under mild conditions. The boundary curve, i.e. the regression function, is estimated applying a smoothed version of a local constant approximation for which we also prove the uniform consistency. We deal with both cases of random covariates and deterministic (fixed) design points. To highlight the applicability of the procedures and to demonstrate their performance, the small sample behavior is investigated in a simulation study using the so-called Yeo-Johnson transformations.' author: - \| [Natalie Neumeyer, Leonie Selk]{} and [Charles Tillier]{}\ Department of Mathematics, University of Hamburg title: 'Semi-parametric transformation boundary regression models[^1]' --- [Key words:]{} Box-Cox transformations, frontier estimation, minimum-distance estimation, local constant approximation, boundary models, nonparametric regression, Yeo-Johnson transformations Introduction ============ Before fitting a regression model it is very common in applications to transform the response variable. The aim of the transformation is to gain efficiency in the statistical inference, for instance, by reducing skewness or inducing a specific structure of the model, e.g. linearity of the regression function or homoscedasticity. In practice often a parametric class of transformations is considered from which an ‘optimal’ one should be selected data-dependently (with a specific purpose in mind). A classical example is the class of Box-Cox power transformations introduced for linear models by Box and Cox (1964). There is a vast literature on parametric transformation models in the context of mean regression and we refer to the monograph by Carroll and Ruppert (1988). Powell (1991) introduced Box-Cox transformations in the context of linear quantile regression; see also Mu and He (2007) who considered transformations to obtain a linear quantile regression function. Horowitz (2009) reviewed estimation in transformation models with parametric regression in the cases where either the transformation or the error distribution or both are modeled nonparametrically. Linton, Sperlich and Van Keilegom (2008) suggested parametric estimators for transformations, while the error distribution is estimated nonparametrically and the regression function is additive. In this paper, the aim of the transformation is to induce independence between the covariables and the errors. Linton et al. (2008) considered profile likelihood and minimum distance estimation for the transformation parameter. The results for the profile likelihood estimator were generalized for nonparametric regression models by Colling and Van Keilegom (2016). All literature cited above is about mean or quantile regression. In contrast in the paper at hand we consider boundary regression models. Such nonparametric regression models with one-sided errors have been considered, among others, by Hall and Van Keilegom (2009), Meister and Rei[ß]{} (2013), Jirak, Meister and Rei[ß]{} (2014) and Drees, Neumeyer and Selk (2018). Relatedly, estimation of support boundaries have been considered, for instance, by Härdle, Park and Tsybakov (1995), Hall, Park and Stern (1998), Girard and Jacob (2008) and Daouia, Noh and Park (2016). Such models naturally appear when analyzing auctions or records or production frontiers. Unlike conditional mean models, regression models with one-sided errors (as well as quantile regression models) have the attractive feature of equivariance under monotone transformations. Thus in such a model with monotone transformation of the response one can recover the original functional dependence in an easy manner. Similar to Linton et al. (2008) the aim of our transformation is to induce a model where the error distribution does not depend on the covariates. Independence of errors and covariates is a very typical assumption in regression models. For boundary models this assumption is met, e.g., by Müller and Wefelmeyer (2010), Meister and Rei[ß]{} (2013), and Drees et al. (2018). A transformation inducing (approximate) independence between the covariable and the error would allow for a global bandwidth selection in the adaptive regression estimator suggested by Jirak et al. (2014). Wilson (2003) pointed out that in production frontier models, independence assumptions are needed for validity of bootstrap procedures for nonparametric frontier models (see Simar and Wilson, 1998) and suggested some tests for independence of errors and covariates (see also Drees et al., 2018). While Linton et al. (2008) found advantages of the profile likelihood approach over minimum distance estimation of the transformation parameter in corresponding mean regression transformation models, this is at the cost of strong regularity conditions, among others a bounded error density with bounded derivative. In the context of boundary models with error distribution which is regularly varying at zero and irregular, one needs to avoid assumptions on bounded densities. Thus we investigate a minimum distance approach to estimate the transformation parameter and give mild model assumptions under which the estimator is consistent. We consider the cases of random covariates and deterministic (fixed) design points, which are both meaningful. The equidistant fixed design - as well as its natural generalization to deterministic covariates - is often used in real-life applications when time is involved in the data set. This is the case for instance in Jirak et al. (2014) where the authors studied the monthly sunspot observations and the annual best running times of 1500 meters. Besides, deterministic design is met accross a number of papers in regression models, see for instance Brown and Low (1996), Meister and Reiß (2013) and the references within. The case of random covariates is obviously the most relevant and appears in essence in many applications in boundary models, among other, in insurance and financial risk modelling when analyzing the optimality of portfolios (see Markowitz (1952) for the seminal contribution). The remaining part of the manuscript is organized as follows. In section 2 the model is explained, while in section 3 the estimation procedure is described. In section 4 we show consistency of the transformation parameter estimator. In section 5 we present simulation results. The proofs for the random covariate case are given in the appendix, while supplementary material contains proofs for the fixed design case and some additional figures and simulation results. Model ===== The random design case ---------------------- Consider independent and identically distributed observations $(X_i,Y_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, with the same distribution as $(X,Y)$, where $Y$ is univariate and $X$ is distributed on $[0,1]$. Further consider a family $\mathcal{L}=\{\Lt\|\vartheta\in\Theta\}$ of strictly increasing and continuous transformations. Throughout the paper we assume existence of a transformation $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}$ in the class $\mathcal{L}$ such that in the corresponding boundary regression model $$\label{model0-random} \Lambda_{\vartheta_0}(Y)=h_{\vartheta_0}(X)+\e$$ the errors and the covariates are stochastically independent. Note that for notational simplicity we set $\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}$ and $h_0=h_{\vartheta_0}$. Further denote by $F_0$ the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the independent and identically distributed (iid) $\e_i=\Lambda_0(Y_i)-h_0(X_i)$, $i=1,\dots,n$. Then we assume that $F_0(0)=1$ and $F_0(-\Delta)<1$ for all $\Delta>0$. This identifies the function $h_0$ as the upper boundary curve of the observations since $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}(\Lambda_0(Y_{i}) \leq h_0(X_i)\mid X_i=x)&=&1 \mbox{ for all } x\in[0,1]\\ \mathbb{P}(\Lambda_0(Y_{i}) -h_0(X_i)\leq -\Delta\mid X_i=x)&<&1 \mbox{ for all }x\in [0,1], \Delta>0. $$ The aim is to estimate $\vartheta_0$ from the observations. Note that even if the model does not hold exactly (i.e. there does not exist any $\vartheta_0\in \Theta$ that leads to exact independence of the errors and covariates) the transformation can be useful in applications because it will reduce the dependence. For each $\vartheta\in\Theta$ one can consider the transformed responses $\Lambda_\vartheta (Y_{i})$. Note that those form a boundary regression model with boundary curve $ h_{\vartheta}=\Lt\circ \Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$, because $$\mathbb{P}(\Lambda_\vartheta(Y_{i})\leq h_\vartheta(X_i)\mid X_i=x)=\mathbb{P}(\Lambda_0(Y_{i})\leq h_0(X_i)\mid X_i=x)=1$$ and for each $\delta>0$, $$\mathbb{P}\left(\Lambda_\vartheta(Y_{i})-h_\vartheta(X_i)\leq -\delta\mid X_i=x\right)=\mathbb{P}\left(\Lambda_0(Y_{i})\leq \Lambda_0(\Lambda_\vartheta^{-1}\left(h_\vartheta(x)-\delta)\right)\mid X_i=x\right)<1$$ since $\Delta=h_0(x)-\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\vartheta^{-1}(\Lt(\Lambda_0^{-1}(h_0(x))) -\delta))>0$ since each $\Lambda_\vartheta$ is strictly increasing. The conditional distribution of $\Lt(Y_{i})$ for some general $\vartheta\in\Theta$ reads as ((Y\_[i]{})yX\_i=x)&=& (\_0(Y\_[i]{})\_0(\^[-1]{}(y))X\_i=x) =F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y))-h\_0(x)). \[identifiability\] It is important to give conditions under which the unknown components $\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}$, $h_0=h_{\vartheta_0}$ and $F_0$ in model (\[model0-random\]) are identifiable. To this end we impose the following assumptions. - Assume that $Y$ has a continuous distribution and w.l.o.g. assume that 0 is in the data range (otherwise shift the data). - Assume that $X$ is continuously distributed with support $[0,1]$. - Assume $\Lambda_\vartheta(0)=0$ for all $\vartheta\in\Theta$, and $\Lambda_\vartheta$ is strictly increasing and continuous for each $\vartheta\in\Theta$. - Assume that if for some $\vartheta_0,\vartheta_1\in\Theta$ one has $$(\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}\circ\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}^{-1})(a-b)=(\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}\circ\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}^{-1})(a)-(\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}\circ\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}^{-1})(b)$$ for all $a,b\in J$, where $J$ is an interval of positive length, then it follows that $\vartheta_0=\vartheta_1$. - Assume that $F_0$ (the cdf of $\varepsilon=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}(Y)-h_{\vartheta_0}(X)$) is strictly increasing. - Assume that $h_{\vartheta_0}$ is not constant and is continuous. Now assume that the model $$\Lambda_\vartheta(Y)=h_\vartheta(X)+\varepsilon(\vartheta)\mbox{ with } X \mbox{ independent from }\varepsilon(\vartheta)$$ holds for $\vartheta=\vartheta_0$ (with our notations $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}=\Lambda_0$, $h_{\vartheta_0}=h_0$, $\varepsilon(\vartheta_0)=\varepsilon$) and for $\vartheta=\vartheta_1$. Note that from the assumption it follows that $\mathbb{P}(\varepsilon(\vartheta)\leq 0)=1$, $\mathbb{P}(\varepsilon(\vartheta)\leq -\Delta)<1$ for each $\Delta>0$, such that $h_\vartheta$ is the upper boundary curve in the model (for $\vartheta\in \{\vartheta_0,\vartheta_1\}$). We show in section \[ident-proof\] of the appendix that it follows that $\vartheta_0=\vartheta_1$. Thus the transformation is identifiable. Further $h_{\vartheta_0}(x)$ is then the right endpoint of the conditional distribution of $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}(Y)$, given $X=x$, and $F_0$ is identified as cdf of $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}(Y)-h_{\vartheta_0}(X)$. If the function class $\mathcal{L}$ contains the identity, then the assumptions rule out that it contains transformations which are linear on some interval with positive length. On the other hand it is clear that linear transformations can never reduce the dependence between the covariate and the error distribution. \[yeo-johnson\] In this example we give two classes of transformations that fulfill the identifiability assumptions. Yeo and Johnson (2000) generalized the Box-Cox transformations by suggesting $$\Lambda_\vartheta(y) = \begin{cases} \frac{(y+1)^\vartheta-1}{\vartheta}, &\text{if } y \ge 0,\vartheta\neq 0 \\ \log(y+1), &\text{if } y\ge 0,\vartheta=0\\ -\frac{(-y+1)^{2-\vartheta}-1}{2-\vartheta}, &\text{if } y<0,\vartheta\neq 2 \\ -\log(-y+1), &\text{if } y<0,\vartheta=2, \end{cases}$$ which are typically considered for $\t\in\Theta=[0,2]$ because then they are bijective maps $\Lambda_\t:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$. Note that $\Lambda_\vartheta(0)=0$ for all $\vartheta\in\Theta$. The class of sinh-arcsinh transformations, see Jones and Pewsey (2009), do shift the location, but they can be modified to fulfill $\Lambda_\vartheta(0)=0$ for all $\vartheta\in\Theta$, e.g. consider $$\Lambda_{(\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2)}(y)=\sinh (\vartheta_1 \sinh^{-1}(y)-\vartheta_2)-\sinh(-\vartheta_2).$$ Here $\vartheta_1>0$ is the tailweight parameter and $\vartheta_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ the skewness parameter. These transformations define also bijective maps $\Lambda_{(\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2)}:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$. The fixed design case --------------------- In the fixed design case we consider a triangular array of independent observations $Y_{i,n}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, and deterministic design points $0<x_{1,n}<\dots <x_{n,n}<1$. Once again we assume existence of a transformation $\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}$ in the class $\mathcal{L}$ such that setting $h_0=h_{\vartheta_0}$ in the corresponding regression model $$\label{model0} \Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})=h_0(\tin)+\e_{i,n}$$ the cdf of the errors does not depend on the design points, i.e. $\e_{i,n}\sim F_0$ $\forall i,n$. Note that, as in the random design case, we assume $F_0(0)=1$ and $F_0(-\Delta)<1$ for all $\Delta>0$ leading again to $ h_{\vartheta}=\Lt\circ \Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$. \[identifiability-fixed\] Identifiability can be shown under the same conditions as in Remark \[identifiability\] as long as $ \bar{\Delta}_n:=\max_{1 \leq i \leq n+1} \left(x_{i,n}-x_{i-1,n}\right)\to 0 $; see section \[ident-proof-fixed\] of the supplement. \[example1\]Figures \[graphic1\] and \[graphic2\] show realizations of the original data and the transformed data using a Yeo and Johnson transformation; see Example \[yeo-johnson\]. For each figure, in the upper left panel the original data $(x_{i,n},Y_{i,n})$, $i=1,\dots,n=100$, are depicted with their boundary curve, while the upper right panel shows the corresponding non-iid errors. The lower left panel shows the transformed data with the curve $h_0$, while the lower right panel shows the iid errors $\eps_{i,n}$, $i=1,\dots,n$. Estimating the transformation ============================= The random design case ---------------------- If $\vartheta_0$ were known we could estimate the regression function (upper boundary curve) $h_0$ by a local constant approximation, i.e. $$\label{h_0} \tilde h_0(x)=\max\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i})\|i=1,\ldots,n\text{ with }\|X_i-x\|\leq b_n\},$$ where $b_n\searrow 0$ is a sequence of bandwidths. For this estimator we will show uniform consistency under the following assumptions. 1. \[F1\] Model (\[model0-random\]) holds with iid $\eps_{1},\dots,\eps_{n}\sim F_0$ and $F_0(0)=1$, $F_0(-\Delta)<1$ for all $\Delta>0$, and $\eps_{1},\dots,\eps_{n}$ are independent of $X_{1},\dots,X_{n}$. 2. \[X1\] The covariates $X_1,\dots,X_n$ are iid with cdf $F_X$ and density $f_X$ that is continuous and bounded away from zero on its support $[0,1]$. 3. \[H1\] The regression function $h_0$ is continuous on $[0,1]$. 4. \[B1\] Let $(b_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of positive bandwidths that satisfies $\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n=0$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}(\log n)/(nb_n)=0$. Note that we do not require any assumption on the error distribution. In particular, in the setup of regularly varying distributed errors, all the results hold for regular as well as irregular distributions. In what follows, let $\\|\cdot\\|_{\infty}$ denote the supremum norm and $I\{\cdot\}$ the indicator function. \[consistency-random\] Under model (\[model0-random\]) with assumptions \[F1\]–\[B1\] we have $\\|\tilde h_0-h_0\\|_{\infty}=o_P(1)$. The proof of the lemma is given in section \[proof-consistency-random\] of the appendix. The result applies for a model without transformation. Thus, as a by-product, we show uniform consistency of a boundary curve estimator in models with random covariates (and non-equidistant fixed design, see Lemma \[consistency\]), while in contrast Drees et al. (2018) assumed equidistant design and obtained rates of convergence under stronger assumptions on the error distribution $F_0$ and on the boundary curve $h_0$. For general $\vartheta\in\Theta$ we define a simple boundary curve estimator accordingly as $$\tilde h_{\vartheta}(x)=\max\{\Lambda_{\vartheta}(Y_{i})\|i=1,\ldots,n\text{ with }\|X_i-x\|\leq b_n\}$$ and it holds that $\tilde h_{\vartheta}=\Lt\circ \Lambda_0^{-1}\circ \tilde h_0$. Thus $\tilde h_\t$ consistently estimates $h_\t$. The local constant estimator can be improved by introducing slight smoothing. To this end, let $K$ be a density with compact support and $a_n$ some sequence of bandwidths that decreases to zero such that $na_n\to \infty$. Define $$\label{hatK} \hat h_{\vartheta}(x)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \tilde h_{\vartheta}(X_i)K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{a_n}\right)}{\sum_{i=1}^n K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{a_n}\right)},$$ then $\hat h_{\vartheta}$ is also uniformly consistent for $h_\vartheta$; see Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\]. For data as in Example \[example1\], Figures \[graphic3\] and \[graphic4\] in the online supplementary material demonstrate the smoothing of the estimator. We use the Epanechnikov-kernel $K(x)=0.75(1-x^2)I_{[-1,1]}(x)$ and bandwidths $b_n=0.5n^{-1/3}$, $a_n=0.5b_n$ with $n=100$. Based on this estimator we define the joint empirical distribution function of residuals and covariates as $\hat F_{n,\vartheta}(y,s)=\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-\hat h_\t(X_i)\leq y\}I\{X_i\leq s\}$. For $\t=\t_0$, the covariate $X_i$ and the error $\Lt(Y_{i})- h_\t(X_i)$ are stochastically independent and thus, the joint empirical distribution function minus the product of the marginals, namely $\hat F_{n,\vartheta}(y,s)-\hat F_{n,\vartheta}(y,1)\hat F_{X,n}(s)$, estimates zero for $\t=\t_0$. Here $\hat F_{X,n}(\cdot)=\hat F_{n,\vartheta}(\infty,\cdot)$ denotes the empirical distribution function of $X_1,\dots,X_n$. We will use this idea to estimate the transformation parameter $\t_0$. To this end, for any function $h:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ define $$\begin{aligned} \label{G_n-random} G_n(\t, h)(y,s)&=& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h(X_i)\leq y\} \big( I\{X_i\leq s\}-\hat F_{X,n}(s)\big)\end{aligned}$$ and note that $G_n(\t,\hat h_\t)(y,s)=\hat F_{n,\t}(y,s)-\hat F_{n,\t}(y,1)\hat F_{X,n}(s)$. Our criterion function will be $$M_n(\t)= \\|G_n(\t,\hat h_\t)\\|$$ for some semi-norm $\\|\cdot\\|$ as described in the following assumption. 1. \[N1\] $\\|\cdot\\|$ is a semi-norm such that $\displaystyle\\|\Gamma\\|\leq c \sup_{y\in C\atop s\in[0,1]}\|\Gamma(y,s)\|$ for some constant $c>0$ and some compact set $C=[c_1,c_2]\subset\mathbb{R}$ with $c_1,c_2>0$ and $0\in C$, for all measurable functions $\Gamma:\mathbb{R}\times [0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$. For instance one can consider one of the following semi-norms, - $\displaystyle\\|\Gamma(y,s)\\|=\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C} \|\Gamma(y,s)\|$ - $\displaystyle\\|\Gamma(y,s)\\|=\left(\int \Gamma(y,s)^2w(y,s)\,d(y,s)\right)^{1/2}$ for some integrable weight function $w:\mathbb{R}\times [0,1]\to\mathbb{R}_0^+$ with support included in $C\times [0,1]$ - $\displaystyle\\|\Gamma(y,s)\\|=\sup_{s\in [0,1]}\left(\int \Gamma(y,s)^2w(y)\,dy\right)^{1/2}$ for some integrable weight function $w:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}_0^+$ with support included in $C$ - $\displaystyle\\|\Gamma(y,s)\\|=\sup_{y\in C}\left(\int \Gamma(y,s)^2w(s)\,ds\right)^{1/2}$ for some integrable weight function $w:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}_0^+$. The first two semi-norms correspond to Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramér-von Mises distances, respectively, while the last two are mixtures of both. Now we define the estimator $\hat \t$ of $\t_0$ as the minimizer of $M_n(\t)$ over $\Theta$, i.e.$$\label{deftheta} \hat\t=\arg\min_{\t\in\Theta}M_n(\t).$$ For the following theory also the weaker condition $M_n(\hat\vartheta)\leq \inf_{\theta\in\Theta}M_n(\vartheta)+o_P(1)$ is sufficient. Note that ((Y\_[i]{})-h(X\_i)yX\_i=x)&=&(\_0(Y\_[i]{})\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h(x)))X\_i=x)\ &=&F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h(x)))-h\_0(x)), which reduces to $F_0(y)$ for $\vartheta=\t_0$ and $h=h_0$. Now considering expectations we define $$\begin{aligned} \label{G-random} G(\t,h)(y,s)&=&\int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h(x)))-h_0(x)\right) I\{x\leq s\}f_X(x)\,dx\\ &&{}-\int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h(x)))-h_0(x)\right)f_X(x)\, dx \, F_X(s) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as deterministic counterpart of $G_n(\t,h)$. Further set $$M(\t)=\\|G(\t, h_\t)\\|$$ and note that $M(\t_0)=\\|G(\t_0,h_{0})\\|= 0$. In section 4 we formulate assumptions under which $\hat\vartheta$ consistently estimates $\vartheta_0$. The fixed design case --------------------- In the fixed design model (\[model0\]) we define the estimator for the boundary curve $h_0$ as $$\tilde h_0(x)=\max\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\|i=1,\ldots,n\text{ with }\|\tin-x\|\leq b_n\}$$ and obtain uniform consistency under the following modified assumptions. We set $x_{0,n}=0$ and $x_{n+1,n}=1$. 1. \[F1’\] Model (\[model0\]) holds with independent $\eps_{1,n},\dots,\eps_{n,n}$ with cdf $F_0$ ($\forall n$) such that $F_0(0)=1$, $F_0(-\Delta)<1$ for all $\Delta>0$. 2. \[X1’\] The design points $0<x_{1,n}<\dots <x_{n,n}<1$ are deterministic. 3. \[B1’\] Let $(b_n)_{n \geq 0}$ be a sequence of positive bandwidths that satisfies $\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n=0$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty}\bar{\Delta}_n\log(n)/b_n=0$ for $\bar{\Delta}_n:=\max_{1 \leq i \leq n+1} \left(x_{i,n}-x_{i-1,n}\right)$. \[consistency\] Under model (\[model0\]) with assumptions \[F1’\], \[X1’\], \[H1\] and \[B1’\] we have $\\|\tilde h_0-h_0\\|_{\infty}=o_P(1)$. The proof is given in section \[proof-consistency\] of the online supplementary material. For general $\vartheta\in\Theta$ we define a consistent boundary curve estimator as $$\tilde h_{\vartheta}(x)=\max\{\Lambda_{\vartheta}(Y_{i,n})\|i=1,\ldots,n\text{ with }\|\tin-x\|\leq b_n\} = \Lt(\Lambda_0^{-1}(\tilde h_0(x))).$$ In analogy to (\[G\_n-random\]) we define, for any function $h:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{G_n} G_n(\t, h)(y,s)&=& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h(\tin)\leq y\} \big( I\{\tin\leq s\}-\hat F_{X,n}(s)\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\hat F_{X,n}(s) = \frac 1n \sum_{i=1}^n I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}.$$ The criterion function is again $M_n(\vartheta)=\\|G_n(\vartheta,\hat h_\vartheta)\\|$ where the smooth estimator $\hat h_\vartheta$ is defined accordingly as in and with this the transformation parameter estimator is similar to (\[deftheta\]). In order to consider the same deterministic $G$ as in (\[G-random\]) an additional assumption is needed. 1. \[X1”\] The design points $0<x_{1,n}<\dots <x_{n,n}<1$ are deterministic. There exists a cdf $F_X$ with continuous density function $f_X:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ which is bounded away from zero such that $$\max_{i=1,\dots,n+1}\left\|\int_{x_{i-1,n}}^{x_{i,n}}f_X(x)\,dx-{\frac 1n}\right\|=o\left({\frac 1n}\right).$$ Assumption \[X1”\] is common in the literature on fixed design regression models. It allows the application of the mean value theorem for integrals to obtain, for some $\xi_{i,n}\in [x_{i-1,n},x_{i,n}]$, $$f_X(\xi_{i,n})(x_{i,n}-x_{i-1,n})=\int_{x_{i-1,n}}^{x_{i,n}}f_X(x)\,dx=\frac{1}{n}+o\left({\frac 1n}\right)$$ uniformly in $i=1,\dots,n$. Thus it follows from \[X1”\] that $\bar{\Delta}_n$ in assumption \[B1’\] has the exact rate $n^{-1}$ and therefore assumption \[B1’\] reduces to \[B1\]. Further the following Riemann sum approximations for bounded integrable functions $\varphi$ can be applied to get $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac 1n \sum_{i=1}^n \varphi(x_{i,n}) &=& \sum_{i=1}^n \varphi(x_{i,n}) (f_X(\xi_{i,n})(x_{i,n}-x_{i-1,n})+o({\textstyle{\frac 1n}})) \\ & =&\int \varphi(x)f_X(x)\,dx+o(1). \label{riemann}\end{aligned}$$ In the next section we state conditions under which $\hat\vartheta=\arg\min_{\vartheta\in\Theta}M_n(\vartheta)$ consistently estimates $\vartheta_0$. Main result =========== To prove consistency of the estimator for the transformation parameter we need the following additional assumptions. Please note that assumption \[M1\] implies identifiability of the transformation $\Lambda_0$ in the class $\mathcal{L}$. 1. \[M1\] For every $\delta>0$ there exists some $\epsilon>0$ such that $\inf_{\\|\t-\t_0\\|>\delta} M(\t)\geq\epsilon$. 2. \[L0\] $\mathcal{L}=\{\Lambda_\t\mid \t\in\Theta\}$ is a class of strictly increasing continuous functions $\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$. 3. \[L1\] Let $S=\{\Lambda_0^{-1}(h_0(x))\mid x\in[0,1]\}$. Then the class $\mathcal{L}_S=\{\Lambda_\t\|_S\mid \t\in\Theta\}$ is pointwise bounded and uniformly equicontinuous, i.e. $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|\Lambda_\t(y)\|<\infty$ for all $y\in S$, and for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists some $\delta>0$ such that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|\Lambda_\t(y)-\Lambda_\t (z)\|<\epsilon$ for all $y,z\in S$ with $\|y-z\|\leq\delta$. 4. \[L2\] The class $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde S}^1=\{\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\|_{\tilde S}\mid \t\in\Theta\}$ is pointwise bounded and uniformly equicontinuous for $\tilde S=\{z+h_\t(x)\mid z\in C_\tau, \t\in\Theta, x\in[0,1]\}$ with $C_\tau=[c_1-\tau,c_2+\tau]$ (for $C=[c_1,c_2]$ from \[N1\]) for some $\tau>0$, i.e. $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z))\|<\infty$ for all $z\in \tilde S$, and for every $\delta>0$ there exists some $\gamma>0$ such that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(x))-\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z))\|\leq\delta$ for all $x,z\in \tilde S$ with $\|x-z\|\leq\gamma$. 5. \[F2\] For some $\tau>0$, $F_0$ is uniformly continuous on the set $\tilde C=\{\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(y+a+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\mid y\in C, \t\in\Theta,x\in[0,1],\|a\|\leq \tau\}$ (with $C$ from \[N1\]), i.e. for every $\epsilon>0$ there is some $\delta>0$ such that $\|F_0(y)-F_0(z)\|<\epsilon$ if $\|y-z\|\leq\delta$, $y,z\in \tilde C$. 6. \[smoothing\] $K$ is a density with support $[-1,1]$ and $b_n\searrow 0$, $nb_n\to\infty$. Let us now make few comments regarding these assumptions. - \[M1\] is a common assumption in M-estimation and needed for uniqueness of the true parameter. - \[L0\] implies the existence of continuous inverse functions $\Lambda_\t^{-1}$. Further note that uniform equicontinuity and pointwise boundedness imply totally boundedness by the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem. Thus for each $\epsilon$ there is a finite covering of the classes $\mathcal{L}_S$ from \[L1\] and $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde S}^1$ from \[L2\] with balls of radius $\epsilon$ with respect to the sup norm. Thus also the sup norm bracketing numbers of those classes are finite, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \label{bracketing} N_{[\,]}(\epsilon,\mathcal{L}_S,\\|\cdot\\|_\infty)<\infty, \quad N_{[\,]}(\epsilon,\mathcal{L}^1_{\tilde S},\\|\cdot\\|_\infty)<\infty \mbox{ for all } \epsilon>0\end{aligned}$$ (see, e.g., Lemma 9.21 in Kosorok, 2008). - \[L1\]–\[F2\] can be seen as minimal assumptions on the class $\mathcal{L}=\{\Lambda_\vartheta\mid\vartheta\in\Theta\}$ and $F_0$. As typically the sets $S$, $\tilde S$ and $\tilde C$ are unknown, the assumptions can be replaced by stronger assumptions that hold on all compact sets. Besides, working on compact set transformation parameter, assumptions \[L1\]–\[L2\] hold for most of transformations used in practice such as the Box and Cox transformations (see Box and Cox, 1964) (suitably modified taking into account the data range), the exponential transformations (see Manly, 1976), the sinh-arcsinh transformations (see Jones and Pewsey, 2009). For instance, with regard to Yeo-Johnson transformations, when $\vartheta \in \Theta=[0,2]$, $\Lambda_{\vartheta}: \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ defines a bijective map (see Remark \[yeo-johnson\]) and both $\Lambda_\t$ and $\Lambda_\t^{-1}$ have uniform bounded derivatives on compact sets so that one may show that they fulfill assumptions \[L1\]–\[L2\] using the mean value theorem to $\Lambda_\t$ and $\Lambda_\t^{-1}$. Further under stronger assumptions on the smoothness of $F_0$, $\Lambda_\t$ and $\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}$, the theoretical results can be generalized to semi-norms that are not restricted to a compact $C\times[0,1]$ as in assumption \[N1\]. - \[smoothing\] is standard in kernel smoothing and is needed for the smoothed estimator $\hat h_\vartheta$ to be consistent. While we noticed in the simulations that slight smoothing improves the procedure, the following theorem still holds when $\hat h_\vartheta$ is replaced by the non-smooth estimator $\tilde h_\vartheta$. Assumption \[F2\] holds, e.g. for Hölder-continuous distribution functions $F_0$. The following theorem states consistency of the transformation parameter estimator. \[theo\] [(i).]{} (The random design case.) Assume model (\[model0-random\]) under assumptions \[F1\]–\[B1\], \[N1\], \[M1\]–\[smoothing\]. Then $\hat\t$ is a consistent estimator, i.e. $\hat\t-\t_0=o_P(1)$. [(ii).]{} (The fixed design case.) Assume model (\[model0\]) under assumptions \[F1’\], \[X1”\], \[H1\], \[B1\], \[N1\], \[M1\]–\[smoothing\]. Then $\hat\t$ is a consistent estimator, i.e. $\hat\t-\t_0=o_P(1)$. The proof for the random design case is given in section \[proof-theo-random\] of the appendix and the proof for the fixed design case in section \[proof-theo-fixed\] of the supplement. One basic ingredient is the following result, which is proven in section \[proof-lemma-smoothing\] of the appendix for the random design case. The proof for the fixed design case is analogous. \[lemma-smoothing\] [(i).]{} (The random design case.) Under model (\[model0-random\]) with assumptions \[F1\]–\[B1\], \[L0\], \[L1\], \[smoothing\], we have $\sup_{\vartheta\in\Theta}\\|\hat h_\vartheta-h_\vartheta\\|_\infty=o_P(1)$. [(ii).]{} (The fixed design case.) Under model (\[model0\]) with assumptions \[F1’\], \[X1’\], \[H1\], \[B1’\], \[L0\], \[L1\], \[smoothing\], we have $\sup_{\vartheta\in\Theta}\\|\hat h_\vartheta-h_\vartheta\\|_\infty=o_P(1)$. The consistency result in Theorem \[theo\] should be seen as a first step in the analysis of transformation boundary regression models. An interesting and challenging topic for future research is to derive an asymptotic distribution of $\hat\vartheta-\vartheta_0$ (properly scaled) and to investigate the asymptotic influence of the estimation on subsequent procedures based on the transformed data. This is beyond the scope of the paper as yet there are no results on the uniform asymptotic distribution of $\tilde h_0-h_0$ in the literature. We finally highlight that under the further condition \[X3bis\] defined below regarding the regularity of the boundary curve, we obtain as a corollary of Theorem \[theo\] the consistency of the estimator $\hat h_{\hat \vartheta}$ of the boundary curve. 1. \[X3bis\] $\vartheta_0$ is an inner point of a convex parameter space $\Theta$ and $h_\vartheta$ is continuously differentiable with respect to $\vartheta$. Besides, we assume that there exists some $\delta>0$ such that $$\sup_{x \in [0,1]} \sup_{\Vert \vartheta - \vartheta_0 \Vert<\delta} \left\\| \frac{\partial h_\vartheta (x)}{\partial \vartheta} \right\\|< \infty.$$ [(i).]{} (The random design case.) Assume model (\[model0-random\]) holds under assumptions \[F1\], \[X1\], \[X3bis\], \[B1\], \[N1\] and \[M1\]–\[smoothing\]. Then $\hat h_{\hat \vartheta}$ is a consistent estimator of $ h_{ \vartheta_0}$, i.e. $\Vert \hat h_{\hat \vartheta} - h_{ \vartheta_0} \Vert_{\infty} =o_P(1)$. [(ii).]{} (The fixed design case.) Assume model (\[model0\]) holds under assumptions \[F1’\], \[X1”\], \[X3bis\], \[B1\], \[N1\] and \[M1\]–\[smoothing\]. Then $\hat h_{\hat \vartheta}$ is a consistent estimator of $\ h_{ \vartheta_0}$, i.e. $\Vert \hat h_{\hat \vartheta} - h_{ \vartheta_0} \Vert_{\infty} =o_P(1)$. [Proof.]{} We only prove [(i)]{} since the proof of [(ii)]{} is identical. Observe first that $$\begin{aligned} \Vert \hat h_{\hat \vartheta} - h_{ \vartheta_0} \Vert_{\infty} \leq \Vert \hat h_{\hat \vartheta} - h_{ \hat \vartheta} \Vert_{\infty} + \Vert h_{ \hat \vartheta} - h_{ \vartheta_0} \Vert_{\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the right hand side of the above inequality goes to $0$ in probability from Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\] since the consistency holds uniformly over $\vartheta \in \Theta$. Regarding the second term, applying the mean value theorem, there exists some $\vartheta^(x)$ on the line between $\hat \vartheta$ and $\vartheta_0$ such that $$\Vert h_{\hat \vartheta} - h_{ \vartheta_0} \Vert_{\infty} = \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left\| \frac{\partial h_\vartheta (x)^T}{ \partial \vartheta} \|_{\vartheta=\vartheta^(x)} (\hat \vartheta-\vartheta_0) \right\|.$$ From Theorem \[theo\], $\hat \vartheta-\vartheta_0=o_P(1)$ which concludes the proof under the assumption \[X3bis\]. $\Box$ Simulations =========== To study the small sample behavior, we generate data as $Y=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0}^{-1}(h_0(x)+\varepsilon)$ using the Yeo-Johnson transformation for different values of $\vartheta_0$. We focus on the equidistant design framework and examine the two regression functions $h_0(x)= 10(x-\textstyle{\frac 12})^2$ and $h_0(x)= \textstyle{\frac 12}\sin(2\pi x)+4x$ for two different error distributions, namely the Weibull distribution with scale parameter $1$ and shape parameter $3$ and the exponential distribution with mean $1/3$. We consider samples of size $n=50$ and $n=100$. It means that we investigate the following four models $$\begin{aligned} h_0(x)= 10(x-\textstyle{\frac 12})^2 && \text{with} \ \ \ \varepsilon\sim \mbox{Weibull}(1,3) \label{simu1}\\ h_0(x)= 10(x-\textstyle{\frac 12})^2 && \text{with} \ \ \ \varepsilon\sim \mbox{Exp}(3)\label{simu2}\\ h_0(x)= \textstyle{\frac 12}\sin(2\pi x)+4x && \text{with} \ \ \ \varepsilon\sim \mbox{Weibull}(1,3) \label{simu3}\\ h_0(x)= \textstyle{\frac 12}\sin(2\pi x)+4x && \text{with} \ \ \ \varepsilon\sim \mbox{Exp}(3). \label{simu4}\end{aligned}$$ Figures \[graphic1\] and \[graphic2\] show realizations of models (\[simu1\]) and (\[simu3\]). The bandwidth $b_n=n^{-1/3}$ is chosen accordingly to Drees et al. (2018) and simulations are based on $1000$ iterations. We use the Epanechnikov kernel to smooth the boundary curve estimator and compare the results for two smoothing parameters $a_n=b_n/2$ and $a_n=b_n/20$. The transformation parameter estimator is as in (\[deftheta\]) on the interval $[-0.5,2.5]$, where the semi-norm in the criterion function $M_n(\vartheta)$ is chosen as in $(i)$, $(ii)$, $(iii),$ and $(iv)$ in the examples of Condition \[N1\]. In the following we denote the according estimators as TKS, TCM, TKSCM and TCMKS. Here, TKS and TCM refer to Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramér-von Mises distances respectively, while TKSCM and TCMKS are mixtures of both. For simplicity, the weight functions are chosen identically equal to $1$ in all the settings, i.e., $w(y,s) =1$ for all $ (y,s) \in \mathbb{R} \times [0,1] $, $w(y)=1$ for all $y \in \mathbb{R}$ and $w(s)=1$ for all $s \in [0,1]$ in $(ii)$, $(iii)$ and $(iv)$, respectively (although for the theory we assumed a compact support). We sum up the simulation results in the following 8 tables. Tables \[Table1\], \[Table7\] and Tables \[Table2\], \[Table8\] deal with Models and for $a_n=b_n/2$ and $a_n=b_n/20$, respectively, whereas Tables \[Table3\], \[Table5\] and Tables \[Table4\], \[Table6\] in the supplement show the results for Models and . In Figure \[est\], we have represented the density function of each estimator for the Model when $\t_0=0.5$ with $n=100$ and $a_n=b_n/20$, which corresponds to the settings of Table \[Table2\]. To assess the performance of our estimates, we provide for each estimator the mean, the median and the Mean Integrated Squared Error (MISE) in brackets for five values of the true parameter $\t_0=0,0.5,1,1.5,2$. The best-performing one regarding the mean (respectively the MISE) is highlighted in bold (respectively is underlined). Looking at the MISE, it turns out that the estimator using the Cramér-von Mises distance (TCM) out-performs in many cases even when it does not out-perform the mean; see Tables \[Table1\] and \[Table2\] when $n=100$ for instance. Besides, as it is intented, results are better in most of the cases when the sample size $n$ increases. However, this does not hold for every case. For instance, one may see in Table \[Table2\] that for the second estimator TCM, most of the results are better for $n=50$ than for $n=100$. This might relate to a sensitivity with respect to the choices of bandwidth and smoothing parameter. A lot of criteria may be used to judge the performance of the estimators. We deal here with the mean, the median and the MISE but we emphasize that using different criteria (e.g. median absolute deviation, mode or even graphical analysis) could give different results concerning the comparison of the methods. For instance, results in Table \[Table7\] for $n=100$, $a_n=b_n/2$ and $\t_0=1$ are quite not accurated regarding the mean (e.g. $0.845$ for the TCM). Nevertheless, looking at Figure \[est2\], it appears that the plots of the densities look satisfactory. It is clear that the TCM and the TKSCM out-perform in the Model and in the Model , respectively. Nonetheless, in a general setting, we are not able to state which estimator performs better since it depends first on the criterium selected to judge the performance but more importantly on the choice of the bandwidths and the smoothing parameter. Finally, we recall that the aim of this work is to reduce the dependence between the covariates and the errors. As one can see in Table \[TableCor2paper\], although the estimation of $\vartheta_0$ is less good than expected in the model , the correlations between the covariates and the errors (after transformation) are very small; see also Table \[TableCor1paper\] in the supplement for the correlations in the model . We obtain similar results for the random design case. Proofs of asymptotic results in the random covariate case ========================================================= For the proofs of the asymptotic results let us fix some notation: $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ and $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ are the floor and ceiling functions respectively; $\bar{F}=1-F$ denotes the survival function associated to a cdf $F$; $X_1 \overset{d}{=} X_2$ means that two random variables $X_1,X_2$ share the same distribution; $a_n \underset{n \to \infty}{\sim} b_n$ holds if there exists a constant $ c>0$ such that $\lim_{n \to \infty}a_n/b_n=c$ for two sequences $(a_n)_{n \geq 1}$ and $(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$ of nonnegative numbers; $A^c$ is the complement of a set $A$. In the following we give the proofs of our results in the random design case whereas the proofs for the fixed design case can be found in the online supplementary material. Proof of Lemma \[consistency-random\] {#proof-consistency-random} ------------------------------------- At first we need the following intermediary lemma. \[lem:model0-random\] Assume model (\[model0-random\]) holds with assumptions \[F1\], \[X1\] and \[B1\]. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{Lemma2dot2} \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }} \|\varepsilon_{i}\|=o_P(1). \end{aligned}$$ [Proof.]{} For $n \geq 1$ denote $X_{(1)}<X_{(2)} < \cdots < X_{(n)} $ the order statistics of the random design sample $X_1, X_2,\ldots, X_n$. Let $\pi$ be the random permutation of $\{ 1, \ldots, n\}$ such that $X_{(i)}=X_{\pi(i)}, i=1, \ldots,n$. Due to the independence between the errors and the covariates under \[F1\], $\eps_{\pi(1)},\dots,\eps_{\pi(n)}$ are iid with cdf $F_0$. Let $Z_i=-\eps_{\pi(i)}$, $i=1,\dots,n$, then $Z_1,\dots,Z_n$ are iid with cdf $U$ with $U(x)=1-F_0(-x)$ and we need to show that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq1_lem_RD} \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left( \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{(i)}-x\|\leq b_n }} Z_{i}> \epsilon \right)=0, \ \ \ \epsilon>0. \end{aligned}$$ Define for $n \geq 1$ the event $$\Omega_n=\left\{ \inf_{x\in [0,1]}\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\|X_i-x\|\leq b_n\}\geq C nb_n \right\}$$ for a suitable constant $C>0$ specified later. Note that on $\Omega_n$, there are at least $Cnb_n$ covariates in each of the intervals $[x-b_n,x+b_n]$. We will first show that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\Omega_n)=1$. To this end, for $n \geq 1$ let $f_{n,x}(z)=I\{\|x-z\|\leq b_n\}$ and note that $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \inf_{x\in [0,1]}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\|X_i-x\|\leq b_n\}&\geq& \inf_{x\in [0,1]} \mathbb{P}(\|X_1-x\|\leq b_n)\\ &&{}-\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\Big\|\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n (f_{n,x}(X_i)-\mathbb{E}[f_{n,x}(X_i)])\Big\|. \label{sternchen1}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the mean value theorem of integration, it follows that $$\label{milton} 2b_n\sup_{x\in[0,1]}f_X(x)\geq \mathbb{P}(\|X_1-x\|\leq b_n) = \int_{\max(0,x-b_n)}^{\min(1,x+b_n)}f_X(x)\,dx \geq b_n \inf_{x\in[0,1]} f_X(x) .$$ Then, there exists a constant $C_1>0$, which actually corresponds to the lower bound of the density function $f_X$ involved in Assumption \[X1\] such that $$\label{sternchen2} \mathbb{P}(\|X_1-x\|\leq b_n) \geq C_1b_n,$$ uniformly over $x \in [0,1].$ Fix $n \geq 1$ and denote $P_nf_{n,x}:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f_{n,x}(X_i)$ and $Pf_{n,x}:=\mathbb{E}[f_{n,x}(X_1) ]$ so that $P_n$ and $P$ refer to the empirical measure and the distribution of the random design sample $X_1, \ldots, X_n$, respectively. By (\[milton\]) $Pf^2_{n,x} = \mathbb{E}[I\{\|X-x\|\leq b_n \} ]\leq 2 C_2 b_n$, where $C_2:=\sup_{x \in [0,1]} f_X(x)$, which is finite under \[X1\]. Moreover, since $\|f_{n,x}(X)\|\leq 1$ and the assumption on the covering number is fulfilled (see Example 38 and Problem 28 to be convinced in Pollard (1984)), Theorem 37 in Pollard (1984, p. 34) holds and we have $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{x\in[0,1]}\Big\|\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n (f_{n,x}(X_i)-\mathbb{E}[f_{n,x}(X_i)])\Big\|=o(b_n).\end{aligned}$$ From this together with (\[sternchen1\]) and (\[sternchen2\]) it follows that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(\Omega_n)=1$. It means that for any sub-interval $I_n:=[x-b_n,x+b_n]$, there are at least $Cnb_n$ random design points with probability converging to $1$. Then, for all $y>0$, we have with $d_n:=\lceil Cnb_n \rceil $ $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left( \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{(i)}-x\|\leq b_n }} Z_{i}> y \right ) &\leq& \mathbb{P}\left( \left\lbrace \max_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n-d_n\}} \min_{i \in \{j,\ldots,j+d_n\}} Z_{i}> y \right\rbrace \cap \Omega_n \right) + \mathbb{P}\left( \Omega_n^c \right)\\ &\leq& \sum_{j=1}^{n-d_n}\mathbb{P}\left(\min_{i\in\{j,\ldots,j+d_n\}}Z_i>y\right)+ \mathbb{P}\left( \Omega_n^c \right)\\ &=& (n-d_n)\mathbb{P}\left(\min_{i\in\{1,\ldots,d_n+1\}}Z_i>y\right)+ \mathbb{P}\left( \Omega_n^c \right)\\ &=&(n-d_n)\overline{U}(y)^{d_n+1}+ \mathbb{P}\left( \Omega_n^c \right). \end{aligned}$$ Thus it remains to show that for all $\epsilon>0$ $$(n-d_n)\overline{U}(\epsilon)^{d_n+1}{\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}}0$$ which is true since $d_n \underset{n \to \infty}{\sim} nb_n$ and nb\_n(())+(n-d\_n)&&nb\_n(())+(n)\ &=&(n)((())+1)\ && -since $\overline{U}(\epsilon)<1$ under \[F1\] and $\frac{nb_n}{\log(n)} {\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}}\infty$ under \[B1\]. This concludes the proof. $\Box$ We are now ready to prove Lemma \[consistency-random\]. [Proof of Lemma \[consistency-random\].]{} On the one hand, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq1_th1} \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left(\tilde{h}_0(x)-h_0(x) \right) \nonumber & = & \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( \max_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }} \left\{ h_0(X_{i})+\varepsilon_{i} - h_0(x)\right\}\right)\\ & \leq & \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( \max_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }} \left\{ h_0(X_{i}) - h_0(x)\right\}\right)\\ \nonumber & \leq & \sup_{\|t-x\| \leq b_n} \|h_0(t)-h_0(x)\|\\ \nonumber & = &o(1), \end{aligned}$$ since the errors $(\varepsilon_{i})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$ are nonpositive and $h_0$ is continuous on the compact set $[0,1]$ and thereby uniformly continuous under \[H1\]. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq2_th1} \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left(h_0(x) -\tilde{h}_0(x)\right) \nonumber & =& \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( h_0(x) -\max_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }}\left\{ h_0(X_{i})+\varepsilon_{i,n}\right\}\right)\\ & = &\sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }} \left\{ h_0(x) - h_0(X_{i})-\varepsilon_{i,n}\right\}\right)\\ \nonumber & \leq & \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|X_{i}-x\|\leq b_n }} \left\{ -\varepsilon_{i} \right\}\right) + \sup_{\|t-x\| \leq b_n} \|h_0(t)-h_0(x)\|\\ \nonumber & = & o_P(1), \end{aligned}$$ with Lemma \[lem:model0-random\]. Finally, combining equations and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \Vert h_0-\tilde{h}_0\Vert_{\infty} &=& \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left\|\tilde{h}_0(x)-h_0(x) \right\|\\ & =& \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \left( \max \left\{ \tilde{h}_0(x)-h_0(x), h_0(x)-\tilde{h}_0(x) \right\} \right)\\ & \leq & \max \left\{ \sup_{x \in [0,1]} (\tilde{h}_0(x)-h_0(x)), \sup_{x \in [0,1]} (h_0(x)-\tilde{h}_0(x)) \right\}\;=\;o_P(1), \end{aligned}$$ which is the desired result. $\Box$ Proof of Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\] {#proof-lemma-smoothing} ---------------------------------- Let $\epsilon>0$. Note that $\Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$ is uniformly continuous due to assumptions \[H1\] and \[L0\]. Thus with $h_\vartheta=\Lambda_\vartheta\circ\Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$ and assumption \[L1\] it follows that there exists some $\delta>0$ such that $\sup_{\vartheta\in\Theta}\|h_\vartheta(x)-h_\vartheta(y)\|\leq\epsilon$ if $\|x-y\|\leq\delta$. Now let $n$ be large enough such that $b_n\leq\delta$. Then due to the definition of $\hat h_\vartheta$ and $\mbox{supp}(K)=[-1,1]$ one obtains $$\\|\hat h_\vartheta-h_\vartheta\\|_\infty\leq \\|\tilde h_\vartheta-h_\vartheta\\|_\infty+\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\Big\|\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n ( h_{\vartheta}(X_i)- h_{\vartheta}(x))K(\frac{x-X_i}{b_n})}{\sum_{i=1}^n K(\frac{x-X_i}{b_n})}\Big\|\leq \\|\tilde h_\vartheta-h_\vartheta\\|_\infty+\epsilon.$$ From Lemma \[consistency-random\] we have $\\|\tilde h_0-h_0\\|_{\infty}=o_P(1)$ and thus with assumption \[L1\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\| \tilde h_\t- h_\t\\|_\infty&=&\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\|\Lt( \Lambda_0^{-1}( \tilde h_0(x)))-\Lt( \Lambda_0^{-1}( h_0(x)))\| \;=\; o_P(1)\end{aligned}$$ and therefore the assertion of the lemma. $\Box$ Proof of Theorem \[theo\] {#proof-theo-random} ------------------------- By the argmax theorem applied to the criterion function $M_n(\vartheta)$ multiplied by $(-1)$ and using assumption \[M1\] it suffices to show that $$\sup_{\vartheta\in\Theta}\|M_n(\vartheta)-M(\vartheta)\|=o_P(1)$$ (see Kosorok, 2008, Theorem 2.12(i)). To obtain this, note that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|M_n( \t)-M(\t)\|&\leq & \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\| + \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})-G(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\|\\ &&{}+ \sup_{\t\in\Theta} \\|G(\t,\hat h_{\t})-G(\t, h_{\t})\\|, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{G_n-bar} \bar G_n(\t,h)(y,s) &=& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h(X_i)\leq y\} I\{X_i\leq s\}\\ &&{} -F_X(s)\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h(X_i)\leq y\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that for any deterministic function $h$ we have $\mathbb{E}[\bar G_n(\t,h)]=G(\t,h)$. The assertion of the theorem follows from $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\|\leq \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\|\hat F_{X,n}(s)-F_X(s)\|=o_P(1)$$ and Lemmas \[lem2-random\] and \[lem1-random\]. $\Box$ \[lem2-random\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo\] (i), $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})- G(\t,\hat h_{ \t})\\| =o_P(1).$$ [Proof.]{} From Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\] follows the existence of some deterministic sequence $a_n\searrow 0$ such that the probability of the event $$\label{E_n} \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\| h_\t-\hat h_\t\\|_\infty\leq a_n$$ converges to one. Thus we assume in what follows that (\[E\_n\]) holds. We only consider the difference between the first sum in the definition of $\bar G_n(\t, h)$ (see (\[G\_n-bar\])) and the first integral in the definition of $G(\t, h)$ (see (\[G-random\])). The difference between the second sum and the second integral can be treated similarly. Applying (\[E\_n\]) the first sum in $\bar G_n(\t, \hat h_\t)(y,s)$ can be nested as $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h_\t(X_i)\leq y-a_n\}I\{X_i\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-\hat h_\t(X_i)\leq y\}I\{X_i\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h_\t(X_i)\leq y+a_n\}I\{X_i\leq s\}\end{aligned}$$ while the first integral in $ G(\t, \hat h_\t)(y,s)$ can be nested as $$\begin{aligned} && \int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y-a_n+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)I\{x\leq s\} f_X(x)\,dx\\ &\leq& \int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+\hat h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)I\{x\leq s\} f_X(x)\,dx\\ &\leq& \int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)I\{x\leq s\} f_X(x)\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have to consider $$\begin{aligned} &&H_{n,\t}^{(1)}(y,s) \\ &=&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(I\{\Lt(Y_{i})-h_\t({X_i})\leq y+a_n\}I\{X_i\leq s\} \\ &&{}\qquad- \int F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)I\{x\leq s\} f_X(x)\,dx\Big)\\ \\ &&H_{n,\t}^{(2)}(y,s) \\ &=&\int \Big(F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)\\ &&{}\qquad- F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h_\t(x)))-h_0(x)\right)\Big)I\{x\leq s\} f_X(x)\,dx\Big)\end{aligned}$$ and the same terms with $y+a_n$ replaced by $y-a_n$, which can be treated completely analogously. We have to show that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|=o_P(1)$ and $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(2)}\\|=o(1)$. Recall condition \[N1\] and note that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C}\|H_{n,\t}^{(2)}(y,s)\|=o(1)$ follows from uniform continuity of $F_0$ and of $\Lambda_0\circ \Lt^{-1}$ uniformly in $\t$ (see \[F2\] and \[L2\]), from the representation $h_\t=\Lambda_\t\circ\Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$ and uniform continuity of $\Lambda_\t$ uniformly in $\t$ (see \[L1\]), and $a_n\to 0$. Let $n$ be large enough such that $\|a_n\|\leq \tau$ for $\tau$ both from \[F2\] and \[L2\]. Now to prove $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|=o_P(1)$ note that $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|\leq \sup_{f\in\mathcal F}\|P_nf-Pf\|,$$ where $P_n$ denotes the empirical measure of $(X_1,Y_1),\dots,(X_n,Y_n)$, and $P$ the measure of $(X_1,Y_1)$, and $$\mathcal F=\{ (x,y)\mapsto I\{\Lt(y)-h_\t(x)\leq z\}I\{x\leq s\} \mid \t\in\Theta, s\in[0,1], z\in C_\tau\}$$ with $C_\tau$ as in assumption \[L2\]. The assertion follows from the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem as stated in Theorem 2.4.1 in van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) if we show that the bracketing number $N_{[\,]}(\epsilon,\mathcal F, L_1(P))$ is finite for each $\epsilon>0$. To this end let $\epsilon>0$ and for the moment fix $s\in[0,1]$, $\t\in\Theta$ and $z\in C_\tau$. Choose $\delta>0$ corresponding to $\epsilon$ as in assumption \[F2\]. Partition $[0,1]$ into finitely many intervals $[s_{j},s_{j+1}]$ such that $F_X(s_{j+1})-F_X(s_{j})\leq \epsilon$ for all $j$. For the fixed $s$, denote the interval containing $s$ by $[s_{j},s_{j+1}]=[s^\ell,s^u]$. Now choose a finite sup-norm bracketing of length $\gamma$ for the class $\mathcal{L}_S=\{\Lambda_\t\|_S:\t\in\Theta\}$ according to (\[bracketing\]) with $\gamma$ as in assumption \[L2\] corresponding to the above chosen $\delta$. For the fixed $\t$ this gives a bracket $h^{\ell}\leq h_\t\leq h^u$ of sup-norm length $\gamma$. Choose a finite sup-norm bracketing of length $\delta$ for the class $\mathcal{L}^1_{\tilde S}=\{\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\|_{\tilde S}:\t\in\Theta\}$ according to (\[bracketing\]). For the fixed $\t$ this gives a bracket $V^{\ell}\leq \Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\leq V^u$. Then consider the bounded and increasing function $$D(z)=\int F_0(V^\ell(z+h^\ell(x))-h_0(x))f_X(x)\,dx$$ and choose a finite partition of the compact $C_\tau$ in intervals $[z_{k},z_{k+1}]$ such that $D(z_{k+1})-D(z_k)<\epsilon$. For the fixed $z$, denote the interval containing $z$ by $[z_{k},z_{k+1}]=[z^\ell,z^u]$. Now for the function $f\in \mathcal F$ that is determined by $\t$, $s$ and $z$, a bracket is given by $[f^\ell,f^u]$ with $$\begin{aligned} f^\ell(x,y) &=& I\{\Lambda_0(y)\leq V^\ell(z^\ell+h^\ell(x))\}I\{x\leq s^\ell\}\\ f^u(x,y) &=& I\{\Lambda_0(y)\leq V^u(z^u+h^u(x))\}I\{x\leq s^u\}\end{aligned}$$ with $L_1(P)$-norm $$\begin{aligned} && \mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i})\leq V^u(z^u+h^u(X_i))\}I\{X_i\leq s^u\}]- \mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i})\leq V^\ell(z^\ell+h^\ell(X_i))\}I\{X_i\leq s^\ell\}]\Big)\\ &\leq& F_X(s^u)-F_X(s^\ell)\\ &&{}+ \int \Big\| F_0\left(V^u(z^u+h^u(x))-h_0(x)\right)-F_0\left(V^\ell(z^\ell+h^\ell(x))-h_0(x)\right)\Big\|f_X(x)\,dx \\ &\leq& 2\epsilon +\int \Big\| F_0\left(V^u(z^u+h^u(x))-h_0(x)\right) -F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z^u+h^u(x)))-h_0(x)\right)\Big\|f_X(x)\,dx\\ &&{}+\int \Big\| F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z^u+h^\ell(x)))-h_0(x)\right) -F_0\left(V^\ell(z^u+h^\ell(x))-h_0(x)\right)\Big\|f_X(x)\,dx\\ &&{}+ \int \Big\| F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z^u+h^u(x)))-h_0(x)\right) -F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(z^u+h^\ell(x)))-h_0(x)\right)\Big\|f_X(x)\,dx\\ &\leq& 4\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ by the definition of $[s^\ell,s^u]$ and $[z^\ell,z^u]$ and using the construction of brackets above (note that $\\|V^u-\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\\|_\infty\leq \delta$, $\\|\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}-V^\ell\\|_\infty\leq \delta$, $\\|h^u-h^\ell\\|_\infty\leq\gamma$ and recall assumptions \[F2\] and \[L2\]). There are finitely many such brackets to cover $\mathcal F$ and thus the assertion follows. $\Box$ \[lem1-random\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo\] (i), $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta} \\|G(\t,h_{\t})-G(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\| =o_P(1).$$ [Proof.]{} According to assumption \[N1\] it suffices to show $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C} \|G(\t,h_{\t})(y,s)-G(\t,\hat h_{\t})(y,s)\| =o_P(1).$$ Recalling the definition of $G$ in (\[G-random\]) we see that the assertion follows from Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\] and uniform continuity of $F_0$ and of $\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}$ (uniformly in $\t$). $\Box$ Identifiability of the model in the random design case {#ident-proof} ====================================================== We prove the assertion of Remark \[identifiability\]. First note that $\varepsilon(\vartheta_1)$ is independent of $X$, and thus the conditional distribution of $\varepsilon(\vartheta_1)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}(\varepsilon(\vartheta_1)\leq y\mid X=x)&=& \mathbb{P}(Y\leq \Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}(y+h_{\vartheta_1}(x)))\mid X=x)\\ &=& F_0(\Lambda_{\vartheta_0} (\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}(y+ h_{\vartheta_1}(x)))-h_{\vartheta_0}(x)) \end{aligned}$$ does not depend on $x$. Further, $h_{\vartheta_0}=\Lambda_{\vartheta_0} \circ\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}\circ h_{\vartheta_1}$, and for $y\leq 0$ we have $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0} (\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}(y+h_{\vartheta_1}(x)))\leq \Lambda_{\vartheta_0} (\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}(h_{\vartheta_1}(x)))$ because $\Lambda_{\vartheta_0} \circ\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}^{-1}$ is strictly increasing. As $F_0$ is strictly increasing by assumption it follows that $$H^{-1}(y+H(h_{\vartheta_0}(x)))- h_{\vartheta_0}(x)$$ does not depend on $x$ for $y\in (-\infty,0]$ and $x\in [0,1]$, where for ease of presentation write $H:= \Lambda_{\vartheta_1}\circ \Lambda_{\vartheta_0}^{-1}$. Thus $$H^{-1}(y+H(a))-a=H^{-1}(y+H(b))-b$$ for all $y\leq 0$, $a,b\in h_{\vartheta_0}([0,1])$. Because $Y$ may take the value $0$ by assumption and $\varepsilon\leq 0$ one obtains $h_{\vartheta_0}([0,1])\cap \mathbb{R}_0^+\neq\emptyset$. To conclude the proof we distinguish two cases. \(1) Let $h_{\vartheta_0}([0,1])\cap \mathbb{R}_0^+=\{0\}$. Set $a=0$, since by assumption $\Lambda_{\vartheta}(0)=0$ for all $\vartheta \in \Theta$, then $$H^{-1}(y)=H^{-1}(y+H(b))-b$$ for all $y\leq 0$, $b\in h_{\vartheta_0}([0,1])\subset\mathbb{R}_0^-$. Set $c=H^{-1}(y+H(b))$, then it follows that $$H(c)-H(b)=H(c-b)$$ for all $b,c\in (-\delta,0]$ for some $\delta>0$ and from the assumptions it follows that $\vartheta_1=\vartheta_0$ with $H=\mbox{id}$. \(2) Let $h_{\vartheta_0} ([0,1])\cap \mathbb{R}_0^+=I$ be an interval of positive length. For $a\in I$ one has $y:=-H(a)\leq 0$, and $$0=H^{-1}(0)=a+H^{-1}(-H(a)+H(b))-b$$ and thus $$H(b-a)=H(b)-H(a)$$ for all $a,b\in I$. From the assumptions it follows that $\vartheta_1=\vartheta_0$ with $H=\mbox{id}$ and thus identifiability of the model. $\Box$ References {#references .unnumbered} ========== Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. [J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B]{} [26]{}, 211–252. Brown, L.D. and Low M.G. (1996). Asymptotic equivalenfce of nonparametric regression and white noise. The annals of statistics 24, 2384–2398. Carroll, R. J. and Ruppert, D. (1988). Transformation and weighting in regression. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall, New York. Colling, B. and Van Keilegom, I. (2016). Goodness-of-fit tests in semiparametric transformation models. TEST 25, 291–308. Daouia, A., Noh, H. and Park, B. U. (2016). Data envelope fitting with constrained polynomial splines. J. R. Stat. Soc. B. 78, 3–30. Drees, H., Neumeyer, N. and Selk, L. (2018). Estimation and hypotheses tests in boundary regression models. Bernoulli, to appear.\ http://www.bernoulli-society.org/index.php/publications/bernoulli-journal Girard, S. and Jacob, P. (2008). Frontier estimation via kernel regression on high power-transformed data. J. Multivariate Anal. 99, 403–420. Hall, P. and Van Keilegom, I. (2009). Nonparametric “regression” when errors are positioned at end-points. Bernoulli 15, 614–633. Hall, P., Park, B.U. and Stern, S.E. (1998). On polynomial estimators of frontiers and boundaries. J. Multivariate Anal. 66, 71–98. Härdle, W., Park, B.U. and Tsybakov, A.B. (1995). Estimation of a non sharp support boundaries. J. Multivariate Anal. 55, 205–218. Horowitz, J. L. (2009). Semiparametric and nonparametric methods in econometrics. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York. Jirak, M., Meister, A. and Rei[ß]{}, M. (2013). Asymptotic equivalence for nonparametric regression with non-regular errors. Probability theory and relative fields [155]{}, 201–229. Jirak, M., Meister, A. and Rei[ß]{}, M. (2014). Adaptive estimation in nonparametric regression with one-sided errors. Ann. Statist. [42]{}, 1970–2002. Jones, M.C. and Pewsey, A. (2009). Sinh-arcsinh distributions. Biometrika 96, 761–780. Kosorok, M. R. (2008). Introduction to empirical processes and semiparametric inference. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York. Linton, O., Sperlich, S. and Van Keilegom, I. (2008). Estimation on a semiparametric transformation model. [Ann. Statist.]{} [36]{}, 686–718. Manly, B.F.J (1976). Exponential data transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D 25, 37–42. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance 7, 77–91. Meister, A. and Rei[ß]{}, M. (2013). Asymptotic equivalence for nonparametric regression with non-regular errors. Probab. Th. Rel. Fields [155]{}, 201–229. Mu, Y. and He, X. (2007). Power transformation toward a linear regression quantile. [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.]{} [102]{}, 269–279. Müller, U.U. and Wefelmeyer W. (2010). Estimation in nonparametric regression with non-regular errors. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods [39]{}, 1619–1629. Pollard, D. (1984). Convergence of Stochastic Processes. Springer, New York. Powell, J. (1991). Estimation of monotonic regression models under quantile restrictions. In: Barnett, W., Powell, J., and Tauchen, G. (eds.), [Nonparametric and Semiparametric Methods in Econometrics]{}, 357–384. Cambridge University Press, New York. Simar, L. and Wilson, P.W. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. [Management Science]{} [44]{}, 49–61. van der Vaart, A.W. and Wellner, J.A. (1996). Weak convergence and empirical processes. Springer, New York. Wilson, P.W. (2003). Testing independence in models of productive efficiency. [Journal of Productivity Analysis]{} [20]{}, 361–390. Yeo, I-K. and Johnson, R. A. (2000). A new family of power transformations to improve normality or symmetry. [Biometrika]{} [87]{}, 954–959. \[graphic1\] \[graphic2\] \[est\] \[est2\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.162 0.162 (0.120) 0.095 0.122 () 0.216 0.241 (0.149) 0.196 0.183 (0.141) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.643 0.646 (0.142) 0.576 0.595 () 0.766 0.800 (0.250) 0.691 0.646 (0.204) $\t_0=1$ 1.120 1.190 (0.232) 1.100 1.090 () 1.340 1.380 (0.335) 1.200 1.310 (0.287) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.610 1.720 (0.228) 1.640 1.670 () 1.900 1.920 (0.336) 1.620 1.780 (0.282) $\t_0=2$ 1.810 2.020 (0.357) 2.110 2.130 () 2.310 2.460 (0.179) 1.860 2.060 (0.297) $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.014 -0.039 (0.055) -0.014 -0.029 () 0.098 0.092 (0.031) -0.006 -0.021 (0.026) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.483 0.496 (0.041) 0.461 0.451 () 0.625 0.618 (0.049) 0.503 0.523 (0.047) $\t_0=1$ 0.951 0.964 (0.062) 0.949 0.950 () 1.150 1.140 (0.059) 1.000 1.010 (0.071) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.500 1.490 (0.050) 1.470 1.450 () 1.670 1.660 (0.078) 1.520 1.520 (0.077) $\t_0=2$ 1.960 2.000 (0.071) 1.970 1.960 () 2.150 2.150 (0.065) 1.970 2.030 (0.074) \[Table1\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.154 0.146 (0.126) -0.059 -0.051 () 0.198 0.205 (0.114) 0.173 0.171 (0.128) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.613 0.635 (0.118) 0.511 0.513 () 0.717 0.735 (0.173) 0.658 0.646 (0.163) $\t_0=1$ 1.120 1.190 (0.182) 1.030 1.030 () 1.280 1.300 (0.230) 1.190 1.270 (0.221) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.630 1.690 (0.164) 1.560 1.540 () 1.830 1.810 (0.233) 1.620 1.740 (0.209) $\t_0=2$ 1.880 2.040 (0.272) 2.050 2.080 () 2.280 2.370 (0.149) 1.870 2.040 (0.272) $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- ---------------- --------------------- ------------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.003 0.046 (0.040) 0.045 0.057 () 0.078 0.067 (0.026) 0.005 0.022 (0.025) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.454 0.448 (0.037) 0.418 0.406 () 0.581 0.566 (0.033) 0.473 0.478 (0.046) $\t_0=1$ 0.938 0.950 (0.053) 0.913 0.918 () 1.100 1.080 (0.047) 0.984 0.986 (0.070) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.450 1.420 (0.052) 1.410 1.390 () 1.600 1.590 (0.050) 1.470 1.440 (0.062) $\t_0=2$ 1.950 1.960 (0.057) 1.930 1.910 () 2.100 2.100 (0.053) 1.940 1.980 (0.066) \[Table2\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.054 0.062 (0.218) -0.029 -0.029 (0.005) 0.000 0.000 () 0.050 0.046 (0.182) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.419 0.427 (0.038) 0.412 0.408 (0.027) 0.469 0.478 () 0.458 0.470 (0.030) $\t_0=1$ 0.887 0.881 (0.080) 0.791 0.770 (0.104) 0.942 0.971 (0.077) 0.934 0.933 () $\t_0=1.5$ 1.360 1.350 (0.130) 1.210 1.270 (0.214) 1.310 1.420 (0.319) 1.410 1.350 () $\t_0=2$ 1.800 1.790 (0.165) 1.560 1.690 (0.504) 1.249 1.769 (1.739) 1.810 1.790 () $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.025 0.043 (0.004) -0.037 -0.038 () 0.012 0.009 () -0.034 -0.054 (0.004) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.459 0.458 (0.017) 0.406 0.405 (0.016) 0.520 0.518 () 0.449 0.453 (0.017) $\t_0=1$ 0.922 0.945 (0.038) 0.845 0.856 (0.046) 1.030 1.040 () 0.907 0.909 (0.044) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.430 1.350 (0.056) 1.290 1.310 (0.080) 1.540 1.540 () 1.400 1.350 (0.063) $\t_0=2$ 1.930 1.970 () 1.740 1.770 (0.126) 1.880 2.010 (0.419) 1.850 1.790 (0.090) \[Table7\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.021 0.062 (0.177) 0.053 0.057 () 0.013 0.010 () 0.017 0.062 (0.141) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.404 0.415 (0.044) 0.375 0.380 (0.034) 0.449 0.461 () 0.434 0.445 (0.034) $\t_0=1$ 0.851 0.830 (0.086) 0.737 0.695 (0.119) 0.915 0.931 () 0.895 0.891 (0.076) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.330 1.350 (0.150) 1.130 1.200 (0.260) 1.310 1.410 (0.293) 1.380 1.350 () $\t_0=2$ 1.760 1.790 (0.176) 1.520 1.610 (0.435) 1.409 1.770 (1.250) 1.770 1.790 () $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.027 0.043 (0.004) -0.038 -0.040 () 0.011 0.008 () 0.037 0.062 (0.004) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.462 0.466 (0.018) 0.411 0.407 (0.015) 0.524 0.522 () 0.453 0.460 (0.019) $\t_0=1$ 0.930 0.950 (0.037) 0.849 0.856 (0.043) 1.040 1.030 () 0.917 0.915 (0.042) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.440 1.390 (0.058) 1.300 1.320 (0.078) 1.550 1.540 () 1.420 1.350 (0.065) $\t_0=2$ 1.930 1.960 () 1.730 1.760 (0.130) 1.830 2.010 (0.509) 1.840 1.790 (0.091) \[Table8\] Method Pearson Kendall Spearman ------------------------------ --------- --------- ---------- Original data -0.273 -0.165 -0.234 True parameter $\vartheta_0$ 0.005 0.003 0.004 TKS 0.008 0.004 0.007 TCM 0.024 0.014 0.021 TKSCM 0.011 0.007 0.009 TCMKS 0.003 0.001 0.002 \[TableCor2paper\] Supplementary material to “Semi-parametric transformation boundary regression models" Proofs of asymptotic results in the fixed design case ===================================================== Proof of Lemma \[consistency\] {#proof-consistency} ------------------------------ To prove Lemma \[consistency\], we first need the following technical lemma. \[lem:unif\_consist\] Assume model (\[model0\]) holds under assumptions \[F1’\], \[X1’\] and \[B1’\]. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{Lemma2dot2} \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|x_{i,n}-x\|\leq b_n }} \|\varepsilon_{i,n}\|=o_P(1). \end{aligned}$$ [Proof.]{} The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma A.2 in Drees et al. (2018) but some adaptations are needed to deal with non-equidistant fixed design points. Let $Z_1,Z_2,\dots$ be iid with the same distribution as $-\varepsilon_{i,n}$ with cumulative distribution function $U$. To prove the result, we shall show that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left( \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|x_{i,n}-x\|\leq b_n }} Z_i> \epsilon \right)=0, \ \ \ \epsilon>0.$$ For $n \geq 1$, let $0<k \leq n$, $x \in [0,1]$ and set $I_n=[x-b_n,x+b_n]$. Assume that exactly $k$ points lie in $I_n$, say $$\begin{aligned} x_{m+1,n} < \dots <x_{m+k,n} \in I_n \end{aligned}$$ for some $m < n+1-k$. We shall distinguish two cases. 1. \[1\] If $(x_{m,n},x_{m+k+1,n}) \in [0,1]^2$, it means that $$\begin{aligned} 2b_n=\|I_n\| < x_{m+k+1,n}-x_{m,n} = \sum_{j=m}^{m+k} \left(x_{j+1,n}-x_{j,n}\right) \leq (k+1)\bar{\Delta}_n, \end{aligned}$$ since $\bar{\Delta}_n \geq x_{j,n}-x_{j-1,n}$ for any $1 \leq j \leq n+1$. 2. \[2\] If $x_{m,n}$ or $x_{m+k+1,n} $ do not exist, which means that either $x_{m+1,n}=x_{0,n}=0$ or $x_{m+k+1,n}=x_{n+1,n}=1$. Consider the first case $x_{m+1,n}=x_{0,n}$ (the extremal case is $x=0$). Then we have $$\begin{aligned} b_n=\frac{\|I_n\|}{2} < x_{k,n}-x_{0,n} = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \left(x_{j+1,n}-x_{j,n}\right) \leq k\bar{\Delta}_n. \end{aligned}$$ A similar inequality holds for $x_{m+k+1,n}=x_{n+1,n}=1$ (with the extremal case $x=1$). In both cases, \[1\] and \[2\] yield to $$\begin{aligned} b_n< k\bar{\Delta}_n \Rightarrow k> \frac{b_n}{\bar{\Delta}_n}, \ \ \ n \geq 1. \end{aligned}$$ Then, for all $y>0$, we have with $d_n:=\lceil \frac{b_n}{ \bar \Delta_n} \rceil $ $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left( \sup_{x \in [0,1]} \min_{ \substack{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \\ \|x_{i,n}-x\|\leq b_n }} Z_{i}> y \right ) &\leq& \mathbb{P}\left( \left\lbrace \max_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n-d_n\}} \min_{i \in \{j,\ldots,j+d_n\}} Z_{i}> y \right\rbrace \right) \\ &\leq& \sum_{j=1}^{n-d_n}\mathbb{P}\left(\min_{i\in\{j,\ldots,j+d_n\}}Z_i>y\right)\\ &=& (n-d_n)\mathbb{P}\left(\min_{i\in\{1,\ldots,d_n+1\}}Z_i>y\right)\\ &=&(n-d_n)\overline{U}(y)^{d_n+1}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus it remains to show that for all $\epsilon>0$ $$(n-d_n)\overline{U}(\epsilon)^{d_n+1}{\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}}0$$ which is true since $d_n \underset{n \to \infty}{\sim} \frac{b_n}{ \bar \Delta_n}$ and (())+(n-d\_n)&& (())+(n)\ &=&(n)((())+1)\ && -since $\overline{U}(\epsilon)<1$ under \[F1’\] and $\frac{b_n}{\bar \Delta_n \log(n)} {\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}}\infty$ under \[B1’\]. This concludes the proof. $\Box$ The [proof of Lemma \[consistency\]]{} is analogous to the proof of Lemma \[consistency-random\]. Proof of Theorem \[theo\] in the fixed design case {#proof-theo-fixed} -------------------------------------------------- The first part of the proof is similar to the random design case. Here, we use $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\|M_n( \t)-M(\t)\|&\leq & \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\|+ \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\tilde G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\| \\ &&{}+ \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\tilde G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})-G(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\|+ \sup_{\t\in\Theta} \\|G(\t,\hat h_{\t})-G(\t, h_{\t})\\|, \end{aligned}$$ where the definition for $M$ and $G$ is as in the random case, and $$\begin{aligned} \bar G_n(\t, h)(y,s)&=& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h(\tin)\leq y\} \big( I\{\tin\leq s\}-F_{X}(s)\big).\\\end{aligned}$$ Further, $$\begin{aligned} \label{G_n-tilde} \tilde G_n(\t,h)(y,s) &=&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right) I\{\tin\leq s\}\\ &&{}-F_X(s)\sum_{i=1}^n F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is a Riemann-sum approximation of $G(\t,h)(y,s)$. Note that for any deterministic function $h$ we have $\tilde G_n(\t,h)=\mathbb{E}[\bar G_n(\t,h)]$. The assertion of the theorem follows from $$\begin{aligned} \label{glivenko-cantelli_2} \sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\|\leq \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\|\hat F_{X,n}(s)-F_X(s)\|=o(1)\end{aligned}$$ and from Lemmas \[lem2\]–\[lem3\] by an application of the arg-max theorem. For (\[glivenko-cantelli\_2\]) note that with assumption \[X1”\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{glivenko-cantelli} \sup_{s\in[0,1]}\|\hat F_{X,n}(s)-F_X(s)\| &=&\sup_{s\in[0,1]}\bigg\|\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}-\int_0^s f_X(x)\,dx\bigg\|\\ &\leq &\sup_{s\in[0,1]}\bigg\|\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{x_{i-1,n}}^{x_{i,n}}f_X(x)\,dxI\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}-\int_0^s f_X(x)\,dx\bigg\| +o(1)\nonumber\\ &=&\sup_{s\in[0,1]}\bigg\|\int_{\max\{x_{i,n}\| x_{i,n}\leq s\}}^sf_X(x)\,dx\bigg\|+o(1)\nonumber\\ &=&\bar\Delta_n\sup_{x\in[0,1]}f_X(x)+o(1) =o(1).\end{aligned}$$ $\Box$ \[lem2\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo\] (ii), $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\bar G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})-\tilde G_n(\t,\hat h_{ \t})\\| =o_P(1).$$ [Proof.]{} As in the proof of Lemma \[lem2-random\] we assume in what follows that (\[E\_n\]) holds. We only consider the difference between the first sum in the definitions of $G_n(\t, h)$ and the first sum in $\tilde G_n(\t, h)$ (see (\[G\_n\]) and (\[G\_n-tilde\]), respectively). The difference of the second sums can be treated similarly. Applying (\[E\_n\]) the first sum in $ G_n(\t, \hat h_\t)(y,s)$ can be nested as $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h_\t({\tin})\leq y-a_n\}I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-\hat h_\t({\tin})\leq y\}I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h_\t({\tin})\leq y+a_n\}I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\end{aligned}$$ while the first sum in $ \tilde G_n(\t, \hat h_\t)(y,s)$ can be nested as $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y-a_n+h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+\hat h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\\ &\leq& \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have to consider $$\begin{aligned} H_{n,\t}^{(1)}(y,s) &=&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h_\t({\tin})\leq y+a_n\} \\ &&\qquad{}- F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\Big)I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\\ H_{n,\t}^{(2)}(y,s) &=&\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\\ &&\qquad{}-F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lt^{-1}(y+h_\t(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\Big)I\{x_{i,n}\leq s\}\end{aligned}$$ and the same terms with $y+a_n$ replaced by $y-a_n$, which can be treated completely analogously. We have to show that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|=o_P(1)$ and $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(2)}\\|=o(1)$. Recall condition \[N1\] and note that $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C}\|H_{n,\t}^{(2)}(y,s)\|=o(1)$ follows from uniform continuity of $F_0$ and of $\Lambda_0\circ \Lt^{-1}$ uniformly in $\t$ (see \[F2\] and \[L2\]), from the representation $h_\t=\Lambda_\t\circ\Lambda_0^{-1}\circ h_0$ and uniform continuity of $\Lambda_\t$ uniformly in $\t$ (see \[L1\]), and $a_n\to 0$. Now to prove $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|=o_P(1)$, let $\epsilon>0$ and for the moment fix $s\in[0,1]$, $\t\in\Theta$ and $y\in C$. Choose $\delta>0$ corresponding to $\epsilon$ as in assumption \[F2\]. Let $n$ be large enough such that $\|a_n\|\leq \tau$ for $\tau$ both from \[F2\] and \[L2\]. Partition $[0,1]$ into finitely many intervals $[s_{j},s_{j+1}]$ such that $F_X(s_{j+1})-F_X(s_j)<\epsilon$ for all $j$. For the fixed $s$, denote the interval containing $s$ by $[s_{j},s_{j+1}]=[s^\ell,s^u]$. Now choose a finite sup-norm bracketing of length $\gamma$ for the class $\mathcal{L}_S=\{\Lambda_\t\|_S:\t\in\Theta\}$ according to (\[bracketing\]) with $\gamma$ as in assumption \[L2\] corresponding to the above chosen $\delta$. For the fixed $\t$ this gives a bracket $h^{\ell}\leq h_\t\leq h^u$ of sunorm length $\gamma$. Choose a finite sup-norm bracketing of length $\delta$ for the class $\mathcal{L}^1_{\tilde S}=\{\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\|_{\tilde S}:\t\in\Theta\}$ according to (\[bracketing\]). For the fixed $\t$ this gives a bracket $V^{\ell}\leq \Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\leq V^u$. Then consider the bounded and increasing function $$D_n(y)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n F_0(V^\ell(y+a_n+h^\ell(\tin))-h_0(\tin))$$ and choose a finite partition of the compact $C$ in intervals $[y_{k},y_{k+1}]$ such that $D_n(y_{k+1})-D_n(y_k)<\epsilon$. For the fixed $y$, denote the interval containing $y$ by $[y_{k},y_{k+1}]=[y^\ell,y^u]$. Note that the brackets depend on $n$. This is suppressed in the notation because it is not relevant for the remainder of the proof because the number of brackets is $O(\epsilon^{-1})$, uniformly in $n$. Now we can nest as follows $$\begin{aligned} &&I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^\ell(y^\ell+a_n+h^\ell({\tin}))\}I\{\tin\leq s^\ell\}\\ &\leq& I\{\Lt(Y_{i,n})-h_\t({\tin})\leq y+a_n\}I\{\tin\leq s\}\\ &=& I\{Y_{i,n}\leq \Lambda_\t^{-1}(y+a_n+h_\t({\tin}))\}I\{\tin\leq s\}\\ &\leq& I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u({\tin}))\}I\{\tin\leq s^u\},\end{aligned}$$ and have $$\begin{aligned} && \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(\mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u({\tin}))\}I\{\tin\leq s^u\}]\\ &&\qquad\qquad{}- \mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^\ell(y^\ell+a_n+h^\ell({\tin}))\}I\{\tin\leq s^\ell\}]\Big)\\ &\leq& \hat F_{X,n}(s^u)-\hat F_{X,n}(s^\ell)\\ &&{}+ \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\Big\| F_0\left(V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right)-F_0\left(V^\ell(y^\ell+a_n+h^\ell(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right) \Big\| \\ &\leq& 2\epsilon+o(1)\\ &&{}+ \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\Big\| F_0\left(V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right)-F_0\left(V^\ell(y^u+a_n+h^\ell(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right) \Big\|\end{aligned}$$ by (\[glivenko-cantelli\]) and the definitions of $[s^\ell,s^u]$ and $[y^\ell,y^u]$. Further, we can bound the last sum by $$\begin{aligned} &&{} \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\Big\| F_0\left(V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right)\\ &&{}\qquad-F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(y^u+a_n+h^u(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\Big\|\\ &&{}+ \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\Big\| F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(y^u+a_n+h^\ell(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\\ &&\qquad{}-F_0\left(V^\ell(y^u+a_n+h^\ell(\tin))-h_0(\tin)\right)\Big\|\\ &&{}+ \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\Big\| F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(y^u+a_n+h^u(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\\ &&\qquad{} -F_0\left(\Lambda_0(\Lambda_\t^{-1}(y^u+a_n+h^\ell(\tin)))-h_0(\tin)\right)\Big\|\\ &\leq& 3\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ using the construction of brackets above (note that $\\|V^u-\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}\\|_\infty\leq \delta$, $\\|\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}-V^\ell\\|_\infty\leq \delta$, $\\|h^u-h^\ell\\|_\infty\leq\gamma$ and recall assumptions \[F2\] and \[L2\]). Thus $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C}\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}(y,s)\|$ can be bounded by $O(\epsilon)+o(1)$ plus a finite maximum over the absolute value of terms $$\begin{aligned} \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u({\tin}))\} - \mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^u(y^u+a_n+h^u({\tin}))\}]\Big)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n \Big(I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^\ell(y^\ell+a_n+h^\ell({\tin}))\} - \mathbb{E}[I\{\Lambda_0(Y_{i,n})\leq V^\ell(y^\ell+a_n+h^\ell({\tin}))\}]\Big).\end{aligned}$$ However, those converge to zero in probability by a simple application of Chebychev’s inequality. This completes the proof of $\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|H_{n,\t}^{(1)}\\|=o_P(1)$ and thus of the lemma. $\Box$ \[lem1\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo\] (ii), $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta} \\|G(\t,h_{\t})-G(\t,\hat h_{\t})\\| =o_P(1).$$ [Proof.]{} The proof is analogous to the proof of Lemma \[lem1-random\]. $\Box$ \[lem3\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo\] (ii), $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\\|\tilde G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})-G(\t,\hat h_{ \t})\\| =o_P(1).$$ [Proof.]{} According to assumption \[N1\] it suffices to show $$\sup_{\t\in\Theta}\sup_{s\in [0,1]\atop y\in C} \|\tilde G_n(\t,\hat h_{\t})(y,s)-G(\t,\hat h_{ \t})(y,s)\| =o_P(1).$$ Recalling the definitions of $\tilde G_n$ in (\[G\_n-tilde\]) and $G$ in (\[G-random\]) we only consider the first sum and first integral, respectively. It holds by the mean value theorem for integration &&\|1n\_[i=1]{}\^n F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_()))-h\_0())I{x\_[i,n]{}s}\ &&-F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_(x)))-h\_0(x))I{xs} f\_X(x)dx\|\ &=&\|\_[i=1]{}\^n (1nF\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_()))-h\_0())\ &&-\_[x\_[i-1,n]{}]{}\^[x\_[i,n]{}]{}F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_(x)))-h\_0(x))f\_X(x)dx)I{x\_[i,n]{}s}\ &&-\_[{x\_[i,n]{}\| x\_[i,n]{}s}]{}\^sF\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_(x)))-h\_0(x))f\_X(x)dx\|\ && \_[i=1]{}\^n \| 1nF\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_()))-h\_0())\ &&-F\_0(\_0(\^[-1]{}(y+h\_(\_[i,n]{})))-h\_0(\_[i,n]{})) f\_X(\_[i,n]{})(x\_[i,n]{}-x\_[i-1,n]{})\|\ &&+O(\|\_n) for some $\xi_{i,n}\in[x_{i-1,n},x_{i,n}]$. Now the assertion follows from assumption \[X1”\], uniform continuity of $F_0$ and of $\Lambda_0\circ\Lambda_\t^{-1}$ (uniformly in $\t$) and from $$\|\hat h_\t(\tin)-\hat h_\t(\xi_{i,n})\|\leq \\|\hat h_\t-h_\t\\|_\infty+\|\Lt(\Lambda_0^{-1}( h_0(x_{i,n}))-\Lt(\Lambda_0^{-1}( h_0(\xi_{i,n})))\|$$ in connection with Lemma \[lemma-smoothing\] and assumptions \[H1\], \[L1\]. $\Box$ Identifiability of the model in the fixed design case {#ident-proof-fixed} ===================================================== To prove identifiability in the case of deterministic covariates as in Remark \[identifiability-fixed\] one starts similarly to the proof in section \[ident-proof\] of the appendix (main paper) with the cdf of $\varepsilon_{i,n}(\vartheta_1)=\Lambda_{\vartheta_1}(Y_{i,n})-h_{\vartheta_1}(x_{i,n})$ in $y$ to obtain that $H^{-1}(y+H(h_{\vartheta_0}(x_{i,n})))- h_{\vartheta_0}(x_{i,n})$ does not depend on $x_{i,n}$ for $y\in (-\infty,0]$. Due to continuity of the functions and $\bar{\Delta}_n\to 0$ one obtains that $H^{-1}(y+H(h_{\vartheta_0}(x)))- h_{\vartheta_0}(x)$ does not depend on $x\in[0,1]$ for $y\in (-\infty,0]$. The remainder of the proof is as in section \[ident-proof\]. References {#references-1 .unnumbered} ========== Drees, H., Neumeyer, N. and Selk, L. (2018). Estimation and hypotheses tests in boundary regression models. Bernoulli, to appear.\ http://www.bernoulli-society.org/index.php/publications/bernoulli-journal Figures and Tables ================== $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.192 0.197 (0.102) 0.001 0.009 () -0.038 -0.139 (0.118) 0.225 0.208 (0.118) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.778 0.691 (0.191) 0.378 0.402 () 0.239 0.302 (0.410) 0.858 0.798 (0.274) $\t_0=1$ 1.290 1.340 (0.233) 0.728 0.741 () 0.388 0.264 (1.000) 1.370 1.350 (0.308) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.750 1.790 () 1.160 1.290 (0.368) 0.507 0.292 (1.810) 1.790 1.790 (0.222) $\t_0=2$ 1.940 2.060 (0.201) 1.590 1.750 (0.478) 0.585 0.424 (2.880) 1.970 2.060 () $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.017 0.018 (0.037) 0.080 0.079 () 0.061 0.073 (0.022) -0.020 -0.004 (0.020) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.496 0.517 () 0.338 0.346 (0.042) 0.516 0.578 (0.080) 0.521 0.548 (0.032) $\t_0=1$ 0.973 0.979 () 0.745 0.745 (0.092) 0.906 1.050 (0.225) 1.030 1.020 (0.054) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.480 1.460 () 1.210 1.230 (0.123) 1.310 1.510 (0.412) 1.510 1.490 (0.060) $\t_0=2$ 1.960 2.000 (0.059) 1.690 1.740 (0.144) 1.550 1.860 (0.822) 1.920 1.940 () \[Table3\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.156 0.167 (0.076) -0.050 -0.062 () 0.022 0.103 (0.095) 0.191 0.198 (0.0,86) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.713 0.646 (0.130) 0.324 0.336 () 0.268 0.407 (0.348) 0.781 0.695 (0.197) $\t_0=1$ 1.260 1.310 () 0.655 0.646 (0.242) 0.447 0.511 (0.919) 1.330 1.350 (0.258) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.720 1.780 (0.188) 1.100 1.180 (0.365) 0.619 0.559 (1.660) 1.720 1.780 () $\t_0=2$ 1.970 2.060 (0.141) 1.550 1.660 (0.442) 0.726 0.619 (2.630) 1.960 2.060 () $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.001 0.050 (0.044) 0.129 0.128 (0.023) 0.028 0.037 () -0.014 -0.042 () $\t_0=0.5$ 0.467 0.474 () 0.282 0.287 (0.063) 0.497 0.533 (0.057) 0.481 0.486 () $\t_0=1$ 0.934 0.942 () 0.674 0.649 (0.130) 0.878 0.999 (0.190) 0.965 0.960 (0.049) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.420 1.390 (0.056) 1.120 1.130 (0.185) 1.320 1.500 (0.336) 1.440 1.400 () $\t_0=2$ 1.910 1.920 () 1.590 1.610 (0.228) 1.560 1.850 (0.790) 1.850 1.790 (0.079) \[Table4\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.141 0.010 (0.309) 0.020 0.012 () -0.056 -0.053 (0.016) 0.137 0.028 (0.260) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.519 0.549 (0.039) 0.518 0.506 () 0.521 0.532 (0.040) 0.546 0.574 (0.038) $\t_0=1$ 1.010 1.010 (0.085) 1.000 0.996 () 0.996 0.998 (0.071) 1.040 1.030 (0.077) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.530 1.530 (0.125) 1.500 1.490 () 1.500 1.510 (0.113) 1.550 1.570 (0.110) $\t_0=2$ 1.960 2.060 (0.118) 2.010 2.040 () 1.950 2.000 (0.156) 1.970 2.050 (0.093) $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.019 0.009 (0.022) 0.006 0.000 () 0.043 0.038 (0.007) -0.014 -0.007 (0.013) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.522 0.524 (0.023) 0.505 0.498 () 0.562 0.555 (0.020) 0.528 0.524 (0.022) $\t_0=1$ 1.030 1.030 (0.042) 1.010 1.000 () 1.080 1.080 (0.038) 1.030 1.020 (0.042) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.550 1.550 (0.061) 1.510 1.510 () 1.600 1.590 (0.055) 1.550 1.550 (0.061) $\t_0=2$ 2.040 2.060 (0.066) 2.000 2.000 () 2.070 2.070 (0.061) 2.020 2.050 (0.058) \[Table5\] $n=50$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.097 0.031 (0.223) 0.005 0.016 () -0.037 -0.030 (0.013) -0.087 -0.001 (0.174) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.487 0.506 (0.039) 0.479 0.462 () 0.506 0.508 (0.036) 0.514 0.522 (0.035) $\t_0=1$ 0.976 0.978 (0.092) 0.965 0.962 () 0.984 0.997 (0.074) 1.020 1.020 (0.078) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.499 1.469 (0.120) 1.440 1.430 () 1.450 1.470 (0.119) 1.530 1.500 (0105) $\t_0=2$ 1.920 1.990 (0.105) 1.960 1.960 () 1.940 1.940 (0.127) 1.930 1.970 (0.086) $n=100$ TKS TCM TKSCM TCMKS ------------ --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- $\t_0=0$ 0.017 0.004 (0.016) 0.004 0.000 () 0.042 0.039 (0.007) -0.010 -0.007 (0.007) $\t_0=0.5$ 0.530 0.537 (0.021) 0.507 0.497 () 0.563 0.554 (0.019) 0.534 0.539 (0.021) $\t_0=1$ 1.020 1.020 (0.042) 1.000 1.000 () 1.080 1.070 (0.035) 1.020 1.010 (0.039) $\t_0=1.5$ 1.550 1.560 (0.064) 1.510 1.510 () 1.600 1.600 (0.054) 1.560 1.550 (0.064) $\t_0=2$ 2.050 2.060 (0.069) 2.020 2.040 () 2.090 2.100 (0.064) 2.030 2.060 (0.059) \[Table6\] Method Pearson Kendall Spearman ------------------------------ --------- --------- ---------- Original data -0.634 -0.456 -0.612 True parameter $\vartheta_0$ 0.001 0.001 0.001 TKS 0.001 0.001 0.001 TCM 0.009 0.006 0.008 TKSCM 0.005 0.002 0.004 TCMKS 0.002 0.001 0.001 \[TableCor1paper\] [^1]: Financial support by the DFG (Research Unit FOR 1735 [Structural Inference in Statistics: Adaptation and Efficiency]{}) is gratefully acknowledged.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The evolution of stellar disks is of great importance for understanding many aspects of galaxy formation. In this work we perform stellar population synthesis on radially resolved photometry of 564 disk galaxies from the SDSS DR5, selected to have both spectra of the central regions and photometry. To explore fully the multi-dimensional likelihood space defined by the output parameters of the spectral synthesis, we use Markov Chain Monte Carlo to quantify the expectation values, the uncertainties and the degeneracies of the parameters. We find good agreement between the parameter values obtained using the SDSS broad-band colors and the spectra respectively. In general the derived mean stellar age and the best-fit stellar metallicity decline in value from the galaxy center to the outer regions (around 1.5 half-light radii), based on sub-samples defined by concentration index. We also find that the radial dependency of the stellar population parameters exhibits a significant variation, and this diversity is likely related to morphology and the physics of star formation.' date: '?? and in revised form ??' --- Introduction ============ The quantification of radial gradients of stellar population parameters provide a powerful constraint on galaxy formation models, as distributions of stellar metallicity and age are basic predictions (e.g. [@Larson76], [@Wyse89], [@Robertson04]). The completion of the SDSS$-$I [@SDSS] has allowed us to investigate this issue with an unprecedented large sample of nearby disk galaxies, with uniform photometric calibrations. Analysis and Main Results {#section:mainresults} ========================= Our sample is chosen from the SDSS DR5 disk galaxies with both spectroscopic (for the central 3 arcsec) and photometric observations. The availability of both types of data allow us to characterize the parameter uncertainties using only the photometry. They are low-inclination (isophotal minor axis/major axis = $0.25 - 1$) with distance ranging from $\sim 20 - 700$ Mpc. We adopt the PÉGASE [@pegase] stellar population synthesis models, with the ages of the oldest stars in the range from $12.5 - 13.7$ Gyr, the stellar metallicity from $0.0001 - 0.05$, an exponential star-formation law with the e-folding time from $0.2 - 12$ Gyr, and the reddening E(B-V) from $0.0 - 0.8$. We are thus solving simultaneously for several parameters. To obtain estimates and covariance matrices of these parameters from the SDSS radially resolved photometry ($u,g,r,i,z$), we developed a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) code to perform the minimization in N-dimension. Each annulus of each galaxy is treated independently in the minimization. ![Radial dependency of the mean stellar age.[]{data-label="fig:yip_2_fig2"}](yip_2_fig1.ps){width="6.8cm"} ![Radial dependency of the mean stellar age.[]{data-label="fig:yip_2_fig2"}](yip_2_fig2.ps){width="6.8cm"} The stellar metallicity and [$\langle\mbox{age}\rangle$]{} as a function of radius ($r/$[$r_{\mbox{eff}}$]{}, where [$r_{\mbox{eff}}$]{} is the half-light radius of the galaxy) are shown in Fig. \[fig:yip\_2\_fig1\] and \[fig:yip\_2\_fig2\] respectively. The error bar indicates one sigma of the mean value in each axis. Radial dependencies are found for these two parameters, in that they decrease toward larger radii (cf. similar results for 121 disk galaxies, from a combination of broad-band optical and near IR data from [@Bell00]). In addition, we find a clear separation between galaxies of different $r-$band concentration indices (CI’s)): the more concentrated are the galaxies, the higher the values in the stellar metallicity and [$\langle\mbox{age}\rangle$]{}. While the overall trends are compatible with ‘inside-out’ models of disk galaxy formation, there are interesting systematics in the gradients shown in the figures. Further, we see features in individual galaxies at intermediate radii that could be a manifestation of resonances associated with bars and we are embarking on a more detailed morphological characterization of the galaxies e.g. bulge to disk ratio, barred nature etc. In particular, some models predict that bars could lead to a localized old age within $r/$[$r_{\mbox{eff}}$]{} $\sim 0.7$ (V. Debattista, private communication). The details of our analysis and results will be presented in a separate paper. We acknowledge support from the W. M. Keck Foundation, through a grant given to establish a program of data intensive science at JHU. 2000, MNRAS 312, 497 1997, A&A, 326, 950 1976, MNRAS, 176, 31 2004, ApJ, 606, 32 1989, ApJ, 339, 700 2000, AJ, 120, 1579	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Many forms of locomotion, both natural and artificial, are dominated by viscous friction in the sense that without power expenditure they quickly come to a standstill. From geometric mechanics, it is known that for swimming at the “Stokesian” (viscous; zero Reynolds number) limit, the motion is governed by a reduced order “connection” model that describes how body shape change produces motion for the body frame with respect to the world. In the “perturbed Stokes regime” where inertial forces are still dominated by viscosity, but are not negligible (low Reynolds number), we show that motion is still governed by a functional relationship between shape velocity and body velocity, but this function is no longer linear in shape change rate. We derive this model using results from singular perturbation theory, and the theory of noncompact normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds (NHIMs). Using the theoretical properties of this reduced-order model, we develop an algorithm that estimates an approximation to the dynamics near a cyclic body shape change (a “gait”) directly from observational data of shape and body motion. This extends our previous work which assumed kinematic “connection” models. To compare the old and new algorithms, we analyze simulated swimmers over a range of inertia to damping ratios. Our new class of models performs well on the Stokesian regime, and over several orders of magnitude outside it into the perturbed Stokes regime, where it gives significantly improved prediction accuracy compared to previous work. In addition to algorithmic improvements, we thereby present a new class of models that is of independent interest. Their application to data-driven modeling improves our ability to study the optimality of animal gaits, and our ability to use hardware-in-the-loop optimization to produce gaits for robots. author: - 'Matthew D. Kvalheim[^1] Brian Bittner[^2] Shai Revzen[^3]' bibliography: - 'ref-final.bib' title: Gait modeling and optimization for the perturbed Stokes regime --- Introduction {#sec:pertS-intro} ============ In this paper, we study how animals and robots move through space by deforming the “shape” of their body — typically in a cyclic fashion — to propel that body. We call such motion-producing cyclic shape deformations [gaits]{}. We study a class of locomotion which includes swimming and crawling in viscous media, in which the viscous damping forces are large compared to the inertia of the body. A classic exposition of such locomotors “living life at low Reynolds number” is given in @purcell1977life. An important aspect of our work is that we consider the [perturbed Stokes regime]{} [@eldering2016role] in which the inertia-damping ratio (or Reynolds number) is small but nonzero, as opposed to previous geometric mechanics literature addressing only the viscous or [Stokesian limit]{} which formally assumes the inertia-damping ratio is zero [@kelly1996geometry; @kelly1995geometric; @hatton2011geometric; @hatton2013geometric; @bittner2018geom]. We note that our methods are related to the realization of nonholonomic constraints as a limit of friction forces [@brendelev1981realization; @karapetian1981realizing; @eldering2016realizing]. For both scientific and engineering purposes, it is often of interest to ask whether a particular gait is optimal with respect to a goal function. For animal locomotion, explicit equations of motion are nigh impossible to come by, and therefore directly testing animal gait optimality via analytical tools like the calculus of variations is not an option. However, if a model can be obtained from experimental data for the local dynamics on a tubular neighborhood of the gait cycle — i.e. a model valid for small variations in the gait cycle — then local optimality tests can be formulated and evaluated on these models. Such an approach was taken in @bittner2018geom, which introduced an algorithm informed by both geometric mechanics and data-driven techniques for studying oscillators [@RevGuk08; @RevzenPhD09; @revzen2015_SPIE]. One limitation of @bittner2018geom was the assumption that motion was entirely kinematic, effectively assuming that the inertia-damping ratio is zero by assuming a [viscous connection]{}-based model as introduced by @kelly1995geometric and to be discussed more below. The real-world systems we are interested in have small — but always nonzero — inertia-damping ratio, and therefore we are interested in the extent to which the algorithm of @bittner2018geom can be improved. By applying normally hyperbolic invariant manifold (NHIM) theory [@fenichel1971persistence; @fenichel1974asymptotic; @fenichel1977asymptotic; @hirsch1977; @fenichel1979geometric; @eldering2013normally] in a singular perturbation context, we show that an exponentially stable invariant [slow manifold]{} exists for small inertia-damping ratio (this was also shown in @eldering2016role). Furthermore, this slow manifold is close to the viscous connection (viewed geometrically as a subbundle — hence as a submanifold — of state space), and therefore the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold are close to those assumed in the purely viscous case [@kelly1996geometry; @kelly1995geometric; @hatton2011geometric; @bittner2018geom], and reduce to those in the zero inertia-damping ratio limit. Aside from its theoretical appeal, this result also has practical implications: it is possible to explicitly compute “correction terms” which, when added to the purely-viscous connection model, yield the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold. The slow-manifold dynamics are provably more accurate than those of the idealized viscous connection model. Additionally, they still enjoy the same useful properties of reduced dimension and symmetry under the group. The computation of such correction terms is a fundamental technique in geometric singular perturbation theory [@fenichel1979geometric; @jones1995geometric], and has been used, e.g., to compute reduced-order models of robots with flexible joints [@spong1987integral]. Given an algorithm that produces a data-driven local model of dynamics near a gait, we could conduct variational tests for local optimality of that gait with respect to any cost functional that the model allows us to evaluate. Thus we have in mind two classes of application for the approach we present below: a biological application — verification of whether a postulated goal function is optimized for an observed animal gait, and an engineering application — optimization of robot gaits with “hardware-in-the-loop” by iteratively modeling and improving the gait with respect to a goal functional without the need for precise models of the robot or its interactions with the environment. It is clear why our approach would be a boon to biology. In most cases we cannot cajole animals to vary their gaits and observe whether that improves them. Additionally, we rarely have detailed enough models of animal-environment interaction to allow gait optimality to be assessed from a model. The value to gait optimization of robots comes from the fact that a gait, being a periodic continuous function of shape, is an infinite-dimensional object. Thus, gait parameterizations are unavoidably of high dimension. Any gradient calculation for optimization of a gait thus requires many tests to identify the influence of these many parameters. Combined with the high practical cost of hardware experiments in terms of time and robot wear-and-tear, this renders hardware-in-the-loop optimization nigh infeasible. We propose that by producing a tractably computable local model, we can resolve this problem. The high-dimensional gradients can be computed by simulating the (local) model instead of directly using the hardware, decoupling the dimension of the gait parameterization from the number of experiments conducted on hardware. It is our hope that, through a combination of geometric mechanics and NHIM theory, we can develop an algorithm which can serve the purposes of both biologists and engineers. Acknowledgements ---------------- The authors were supported by NSF CMMI 1825918 and ARO grants W911NF-14-1-0573 and W911NF-17-1-0306 to Revzen. Kvalheim would like to thank Jaap Eldering for introducing him to the relevance of NHIM theory to locomotion, for helpful comments and suggestions regarding the global asymptotic stability of the slow manifold of [Thm. \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\]]{}, and for other useful suggestions. Background ========== In studying locomotion, we will consider dissipative Lagrangian mechanical systems on a product configuration space $Q = S \times G$ with coordinates $(r,g)$, and with a Lagrangian of the form kinetic minus potential energy. Here $S$ is the [shape space]{} of the locomoting body, and $G$ is a Lie group (typically a subgroup of the Euclidean group ${\mathsf{SE}}(3)$ of rigid motions) representing the body’s position and orientation in the world.[^4] We assume throughout this paper that $S$ is compact. We will also assume that this system is subjected to external viscous drag forces which are linear in velocity.[^5] If the physics of locomotion are independent of the body’s position and orientation, then the Lagrangian $L(r,g,\dot{r},\dot{g})$ is independent of $g,\dot{g}$ and the viscous drag force $F_R(r,g,\dot{r},\dot{g})$ is equivariant in $g$ (on the $g,\dot{g}$ components). Under this symmetry assumption, @kelly1996geometry derived general equations of motion satisfied by $g$ and by the [body momentum]{}[^6] $p\in {\mathfrak{g}}^$; these equations are essentially special cases of those derived in @bloch1996nonholonomic. For a detailed statement and derivations of these equations, see [§\[app:equations-derivation\]]{}. Let us suppose that the kinetic energy metric of the body is scaled by a dimensionless inertial parameter $m > 0$, that the viscous drag force $F_R$ is scaled by a dimensionless damping parameter $c > 0$, and define $\epsilon \coloneqq \frac{m}{c}$ the dimensionless ratio of the two which is (up to scale) the Reynolds number in the case of fluid dynamics. @kelly1996geometry showed that in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$, the equation of motion for $g$ becomes independent of $p$. Defining the [body velocity]{}[^7] ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} \coloneqq {\mathsf{D}}\mathrm{L}_{g^{-1}}\dot g$, they obtained $$\label{eq:visc-conn-model} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}=-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r) \cdot \dot{r},$$ where ${A_{\textnormal{visc}}}$ is called the [local viscous connection]{}. Away from the Stokes limit, @eldering2016role studied the [perturbed Stokes regime]{} in which $\epsilon$ is assumed to be small but nonzero. For $\epsilon$ sufficiently small they showed there is an exponentially stable invariant [slow manifold]{} $M_\epsilon$, to which the dynamics converge. We derive similar results tailored for our applications in [§\[app:reduction-pert-stokes\]]{}. Using an asymptotic series expansion for the slow manifold, in [§\[app:reduction-pert-stokes\]]{} we also prove that the equations of motion for trajectories within $M_\epsilon$ take the form given by [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{} below. Hence trajectories of the full dynamics converge to solutions of Eqn. below, after a transient duration that goes to zero with $\epsilon$. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\] Assume that the shape space $S$ is compact. For sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$, there exist smooth fields of linear maps $B(r)$ and bilinear maps $G(r)$ such that the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold $M_\epsilon$ satisfy $$\label{eq:pertS-dynamics-slow-mfld-solved-for-BV-simpler-0} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r) \cdot \dot{r} + \epsilon B(r)\cdot\ddot{r} +\epsilon G(r)\cdot(\dot{r},\dot{r}) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2).$$ The bilinear maps or $(1,2)$ tensors $G(r)$ are not, in general, symmetric: e.g., they are unlike Hessians. @bittner2018geom developed a data-driven algorithm for approximating the equations of motion of a locomotion system assuming the model of [Eqn. ]{}. Here we define and study an extension of their approach to models of the form of [Eqn. ]{}. We examine the efficacy of this extension in modeling motion in the perturbed Stokes regime, in which $\epsilon$ is allowed to be small but nonzero. Estimating Data-Driven Models in the Perturbed Stokes Regime {#sec:pertS-estimate-A} ============================================================ In this section, we develop a data-driven algorithm for estimating the dynamics [Eqn. ]{} in a neighborhood of an exponentially stable periodic orbit. We assume that the image of this periodic orbit is contained in the slow manifold $M_\epsilon$ of [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{}, and for simplicity we assume that — on the slow manifold — $\ddot{r}=f(r,\dot{r})$ can be written autonomously as a function of $r$ and $\dot{r}$. Letting $\gamma(t)$ denote the shape (or $r$) component of this periodic orbit, we refer to $\gamma$ as a [gait]{}. Determination of regressors for estimation of the dynamics {#sec:determine-regressors} ---------------------------------------------------------- In this section we closely follow the approach of @bittner2018geom to produce a data driven model of the dynamics from an ensemble of noisy trajectories near $\Gamma\coloneqq \text{Im } \gamma$. We extensively use the Einstein summation convention in the regression equations below. Let $T$ be the period of $\gamma$. Since we assume that that the exponentially stable periodic orbit is contained in the slow manifold on which $\ddot{r}$ is of the form $\ddot{r}=f(r,\dot{r})$, it follows that there is an [asymptotic phase]{} map $\phi\colon {\mathsf{T}}S \to [0,T)$ whose derivative along trajectories is equal to one [@isochrons]. Given trajectory data $(r(t),\dot{r}(t)),~t\in[t_0,t_1]$, we assign asymptotic phase values $\phi_t \coloneqq \phi(r(t),\dot{r}(t))$ to each data point using an algorithm such as that of @RevGuk08.[^8] After grouping data points according to their phase values, we construct Fourier series models of $\gamma,\dot{\gamma},\ddot{\gamma}$ as functions of phase.[^9] Next, we select $M$ evenly spaced values of phase, $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_M$, to obtain values $\gamma_{m} := \gamma(\phi_m), \dot{\gamma}_m := \dot{\gamma}(\phi_m),\ddot{\gamma}_m := \ddot{\gamma}(\phi_m)$ — the shapes, shape velocities, and shape accelerations of a system that is following the gait cycle precisely. For each $m$ we collect from our trajectory data all triples $(r_n,\dot{r}_n,\ddot{r}_n)\coloneqq (r(t_{n}),\dot{r}(t_{n}),\ddot{r}(t_{n}))$ that are sufficiently close to $(\gamma_m,\dot{\gamma}_m,\ddot{\gamma}_m)$, i.e., such that $\\|r_{n} - \gamma_m\\|,\\|\dot{r}_{n} - \dot{\gamma}_m\\|,\\|\ddot{r}_{n} - \ddot{\gamma}_m\\|<\kappa$ for all[^10] $n$, and we also collect the corresponding ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_n$ values. We define the offsets $\delta_n := r_n - \gamma_m$, $\dot{\delta}_n\coloneqq \dot{r}_n-\dot{\gamma}_m$, $\ddot{\delta}_n\coloneqq \ddot{r}_n-\ddot{\gamma}_m$. Note that the range of $n$ depends on $m$, but for notational simplicity we do not display this. Introducing coordinates and Taylor expanding, @bittner2018geom obtained from [Eqn. ]{} the following expression (no sum over $m$ or $n$): $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:pertS-bittner-regressors} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^k_n \approx - \underbrace{A^k_{m,i}\dot{\gamma}_m^i}_{C^k_{0,m}} - \underbrace{A^k_{m,i}}_{C^k_{1,m}}\dot{\delta}^i_n - \underbrace{\frac{\partial A^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}\dot{\gamma}_m^i}_{C^k_{2,m}}\delta^j_n - \underbrace{\frac{\partial A^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}}_{C^k_{3,m}}\delta^j_n \dot{\delta}^i_n.\end{aligned}$$ Omitted here are higher-order terms, the subscript of ${A_{\textnormal{visc}}}$, and the nonlinear $\gamma$ dependence of the local expression $A^k_i$. They then operationalized [Eqn. ]{} as a least-squares problem, written in matrix form as follows (for each $k$ and $m$; indices $k$ and $m$ elided below for clarity): $$\label{eq:advancedregression} \begin{bmatrix} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_1 \\ \vdots \\ {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_N \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1, & \delta_1, & \dot{\delta}_1, & \delta_{1}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 1, & \delta_{N}, & {\dot\delta}_{N}, & \delta_{N}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{N} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} \widehat{C}_0 \\ \widehat{C}_1 \\ \widehat{C}_2 \\ \widehat{C}_3 \end{bmatrix}$$ where $\widehat{~}$ indicates “estimated” and $\otimes$ is the outer product. For a $d$-dimensional shape space, the row of unknowns on the right consists of $1+d+d+d^2$ elements. Once they have computed a least squares model for every $m$, they construct Fourier series so that the $\widehat{C}_i$ may be smoothly interpolated at any phase value. The result is a local model of [Eqn. ]{}. In the perturbed Stokes regime which we seek to model, we follow a similar approach by expanding [Eqn. ]{} instead of [Eqn. ]{}. We obtain (no sum over $m$ or $n$): $$\begin{split}\label{eq:taylor-expanded-corrections} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^k_n &\approx - A^k_{m,i}\dot{\gamma}^i_m - A^k_{m,i}\dot{\delta}^i_n - \frac{\partial A^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}\delta^j_n \dot{\gamma}^i_m - \frac{\partial A^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}\delta^j_n \dot{\delta}^i_n + \epsilon \left( B^k_{m,i}\ddot{\gamma}^i_m + B^k_{m,i}\ddot{\delta}^i_n + \frac{\partial B^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}\delta^j_n \ddot{\gamma}^i_m \right. \\ \ldots & + \frac{\partial B^k_{m,i}}{\partial r^j}\delta^j_n \ddot{\delta}^i_n + G^k_{m,i,j}\dot{\gamma}^i_m \dot{\gamma}^j_m + G^k_{m,i,j}\dot{\gamma}^i_m \dot{\delta}^j_n + G^k_{m,i,j}\dot{\delta}^i_n \dot{\gamma}^j_m + G^k_{m,i,j}\dot{\delta}^i_n \dot{\delta}^j_n \\ \ldots & + \left. \frac{\partial G^k_{m,i,j}}{\partial r^{\ell}}\delta^\ell_n \dot{\gamma}^i_m \dot{\gamma}^j_m + \frac{\partial G^k_{m,i,j}}{\partial r^{\ell}}\delta^\ell_n \dot{\gamma}^i_m \dot{\delta}^j_n + \frac{\partial G^k_{m,i,j}}{\partial r^{\ell}}\delta^\ell_n \dot{\delta}^i_n \dot{\gamma}^j_m + \frac{\partial G^k_{m,i,j}}{\partial r^{\ell}}\delta^\ell_n \dot{\delta}^i_n \dot{\delta}^j_n \right). \end{split}$$ Partitioning these terms according to their dependence on the observations $\delta$, $\dot{\delta}$, and $\ddot{\delta}$, we obtained $$\begin{split} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^k_n &\approx \left(- A^k_{m,i}\dot{\gamma}^i_m + \epsilon B^k_{m,i}\ddot{\gamma}^i_m + \epsilon G^k_{m,i,j}\dot{\gamma}^i_m \dot{\gamma}^j_m\right) + \left(-\frac{\partial A^k_{m,j}}{\partial r^i} \dot{\gamma}^j_m + \epsilon \frac{\partial B^k_{m,j}}{\partial r^i}\ddot{\gamma}^j_m + \epsilon \frac{\partial G^k_{m,j,\ell}}{\partial r^{i}}\dot{\gamma}^j_m \dot{\gamma}^\ell_m \right)\delta^i_n \\ \ldots & + \left(- A^k_{m,i} + \epsilon G^k_{m,j,i}\dot{\gamma}^j_m + \epsilon G^k_{m,i,j} \dot{\gamma}^j_m\right)\dot{\delta}^i_n + \left(- \frac{\partial A^k_{m,j}}{\partial r^i} + \epsilon \frac{\partial G^k_{m,\ell, j}}{\partial r^{i}}\dot{\gamma}^\ell_m + \epsilon \frac{\partial G^k_{m,j,\ell}}{\partial r^{i}} \dot{\gamma}^\ell_m\right)\delta^i_n\dot{\delta}^j_n\\ \ldots & + \epsilon \left( B^k_{m,i}\,\ddot{\delta}^i_n + \frac{\partial B^k_{m,j}}{\partial r^i} \,\delta^i_n\ddot{\delta}^j_n+ G^k_{m,i,j}\,\dot{\delta}^i_n\dot{\delta}^j_n + \frac{\partial G^k_{m,j,\ell}}{\partial r^{i}} \,\delta^i_n \dot{\delta}^j_n \dot{\delta}^\ell_n\right), \end{split}$$ giving a similar least squares problem written in matrix form as follows (for each $k$ and $m$; indices $k$ and $m$ elided below for clarity): $$\label{eq:advancedregression2} \begin{bmatrix} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_1 \\ \vdots \\ {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_N \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1, & \delta_1, & \dot{\delta}_1, & \ddot{\delta}_1 & \delta_{1}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{1} & \delta_{1}\otimes\ddot{\delta}_{1} & \dot{\delta}_{1}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{1} & \delta_{1}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{1}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 1, & \delta_{N}, & {\dot\delta}_{N}, & \ddot{\delta}_N & \delta_{N}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{N} & \delta_{N}\otimes\ddot{\delta}_{N} & \dot{\delta}_{N}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{N} & \delta_{N}\otimes\dot{\delta}_{N} \otimes\dot{\delta}_{N} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} \widehat{C}_0 \\ \widehat{C}_1 \\ \widehat{C}_2 \\ \widehat{C}_3 \\ \widehat{C}_4 \\ \widehat{C}_5 \\ \widehat{C}_6 \\ \widehat{C}_7 \end{bmatrix}$$ For a $d$-dimensional shape space, the row of unknowns on the right consists of $1+d+d+d+d^2+d^2+d^2+d^3$ elements. Once we have computed a least squares model for every $m$, we similarly construct Fourier series so that the $\widehat{C}_i$ may be smoothly interpolated at any phase value. The result is a local model of [Eqn. ]{}. Because it is the only term of order $\kappa^3$, we find that in practice the 3-index regressor $\delta \otimes \dot{\delta} \otimes \dot{\delta}$ can often be omitted if $\kappa>0$ is sufficiently small. In the remainder of this paper, we refer to the regressors of [Eqn. ]{} (with the 3-index term excluded) as the “perturbed Stokes regressors”, and refer to those used in the @bittner2018geom algorithm as the “Stokes regressors.” All tensors appearing in [Eqn. ]{} and [Eqn. ]{} are not necessarily symmetric, and therefore the order of terms matters. Examining [Eqn. ]{}, we see that there are some constraints that the regression does not enforce. Namely, $C_0 = \left[C_1\right]_i \dot \gamma^i$ and $C_2 = \left[C_3\right]_i \dot \gamma^i$. When we performed regressions ignoring these implicit constraints, we found that the constraints are not respected in the results. However, an important consequence of [Eqn. ]{} is that, for systems operating in the perturbed Stokes regime, such a mismatch is actually to be expected — this is because some independent new terms appear in $C_1,\ldots,C_3$ which break the constraints. Local models enable optimality testing and optimization {#sec:utility-of-models} ------------------------------------------------------- The data-driven models computed by the process described above have predictive power locally, in a neighborhood of a gait cycle. For any shape trajectory inside this neighborhood, we can used the local model to predict the trajectory of the body in the world. We assume that we are interested in some ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued goal functional $\tilde{\phi}(\gamma,g_\gamma)$ defined on an appropriate space of trajectories. Here the group trajectory $g_\gamma(t)$ is determined by the gait $\gamma(t)$ via [Eqn. ]{}, and therefore we may consider the goal functional $\phi(\gamma) := \tilde{\phi}(\gamma,g_\gamma)$ to be a function of $\gamma$ alone. #### Testing for Optimality {#testing-for-optimality .unnumbered} — We can test the gait of an organism for optimality by checking that $0 = \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\phi(\gamma_s)\|_{s=0}$ for all smooth variations $\gamma_s$ of a gait $\gamma$ (where $\gamma_0 = \gamma$). This condition is necessary for local optimality, but depending on the choice of $\phi$ it is often possible to argue on physical grounds that its satisfaction is also sufficient for optimality. While this variational condition can be used to derive a PDE via the Euler-Lagrange approach, a more computationally straightforward approach is to consider a finite- (but often high-) dimensional family $\gamma_p$ with $p \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, and numerically computing the gradient $\nabla_p \phi(\gamma_p)$. When this gradient is sufficiently small at some parameter $p_$, then it might be possible to argue that the gait is nearly extremal (or possibly optimal) with respect to $\phi$.[^11] Since we can compute $\phi$ using a data-driven model around $\gamma_p$, we can compute $\nabla_p \phi(\gamma_p)$. We can do so directly from observation and without need for any general model of body-environment interactions, so long as use of [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{} can be justified. #### Optimizing Gaits {#optimizing-gaits .unnumbered} — We can use the gradient $\nabla_p \phi(\gamma_p)$ to iteratively improve the gait of a robot whose dynamics satisfy [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{} without requiring any further details of the physics. Taking parameter set $p$ we compute the next iterate $p' := p + \alpha \nabla_p \phi(\gamma_p)$, with the step-size scaling $\alpha>0$ chosen to ensure that $p'$ is within the domain for which our local model of $\phi$ is valid, using the approach of @bittner2018geom [Sec. 7.2]. For each gait $\gamma_p$, we only require enough experimental data for building a good local model of $\phi$ near $\gamma_p$ — a dataset whose size does not depend on the dimension of the representation $p$. We plan to use this decoupling to perform hardware-in-the-loop optimization to produce rapid adaptation of robot motions in the face of foreign environments, mechanical failures, and more. Performance Comparison of the Two Data-Driven Models {#sec:performance} ==================================================== One of the primary contributions of this paper is the introduction of new regressors based on [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{}, which we use to augment the regressors used in the algorithm of @bittner2018geom for estimating the dynamics near a gait. These allow us to extend the domain of validity of their algorithm from the Stokesian limit to include the perturbed Stokes regime. To demonstrate this, we constructed a swimming model which we simulated at various Reynolds numbers, and tested the ability of the two types of local models to predict the results of the fully nonlinear simulation.[^12] Modeling a swimmer ------------------ We tested the prediction quality of both models on a swimming model. The system shown in [Fig. \[fig:system\]]{} had uniformly distributed mass along a central body, with two paddles comprising chains of massless links extending from the center of the body. Each paddle could be broken up into an arbitrary number $\frac{n}{2}$ ($n$ even) of equally spaced links, which sum to a constant total length independent of $n$. This allowed us to vary the behavior of the system from one reminiscent of a boat with oars (for $n = 2$) to one more like a bacterial cell with flagella (for $n$ large). The system moves in a homogeneous and isotropic plane. Its configuration space is $S\times G = {\mathbb{T}}^{n} \times {\mathsf{SE}}(2)$: the $n$-torus and the special Euclidean group of planar rigid motions ${\mathsf{SE}}(2)$. We assume the dynamics are equivariant under ${\mathsf{SE}}(2)$. The group element $g \in {\mathsf{SE}}(2)$ provides the position and orientation of the central body in world coordinates with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame. Hereon we represent $g$ as a column vector $g = [x,y,\theta]^T$, and similarly represent $\dot{g}$ as a column vector. We define the body velocity $${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) & 0 \\ -\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \dot{g}.$$ We treat the link at the main body (length $L$) and the links comprising the paddles (length $d$) as slender members, and model their drag forces according to Cox theory [@cox1970motion] using the drag matrices $$C_{\frac{d}{n}} = c \begin{bmatrix} C_x \frac{d}{n} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & C_y \frac{d}{n}& 0\\0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} (\frac{d}{n})^3 C_y \end{bmatrix}, \quad C_{_L} = c \begin{bmatrix} C_x L & 0 & 0\\ 0 & C_y L& 0\\0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12}L^3 C_y \end{bmatrix},$$ where the factor $c > 0$ is explicitly written for later scaling purposes. The drag coefficient ratio $C_y/C_x$ has a maximum value of $2$ corresponding to the limit of infinitesimally thin segments, and we will assume this limiting ratio here (c.f. @hatton2013geometric [Sec. 2.B]). Given these drag matrices, the wrench on the central link can be written as $$F_{\textnormal{body}} = c \bar{F}_{\textnormal{body}} = -C_{_L} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}.$$ The wrench that the segments (denoted $i$) apply on the body can be written as $$F_{i} = c \bar{F}_i = -W_i C_{\frac{d}{n}} V_i \begin{bmatrix} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} \\ \dot{\alpha} \end{bmatrix},$$ where the linear map $W_i(g,\alpha)\colon {\mathfrak{se}}(2)^\to {\mathfrak{se}}(2)^$ maps a wrench on link $i$ to a wrench on the body and the linear map $V_i(g,\alpha)\colon {\mathfrak{se}}(2)\to{\mathfrak{se}}(2)$ maps a velocity in the body frame to a velocity in the link frame. Let $R_\beta$ denote the counterclockwise rotation of the plane by angle $\beta$, define $e_2\coloneqq [0,1]^T$, and write ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = [{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{x,y}^T,\dot{\theta}]^T$. Then, for the $n$-segment model (recall that $n$ must be even), for $i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$ the linear maps $V_i$ and $W_i$ are given by for $\ell\in\{1, \frac{n}{2}\}$ by $$\begin{split} V_\ell \cdot \begin{bmatrix}{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}\\\dot{\alpha}\end{bmatrix} &= \left[R_{\alpha_\ell}^{-1}{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{x,y} + \frac{d}{2n}(\dot{\theta}+\dot{\alpha}_\ell)e_2, \dot{\theta}+\dot{\alpha}_\ell\right]^T\\ W_\ell \cdot \begin{bmatrix}f\\\tau\end{bmatrix} &= \left[R_{\alpha_\ell}f, \tau + \frac{d}{2n}e_2^T f\right]^T, \end{split}$$ where ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = [{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{x,y}^T,\dot{\theta}]^T$ and $f = [f_1,f_2]^T$, and for $i \in \{2,\ldots,\frac{n}{2}\} \cup \{\frac{n}{2}+1,\ldots, n\}$ by $$\begin{split} V_i \cdot \begin{bmatrix}{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}\\\dot{\alpha}\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix}R_{\alpha_+\cdots+\alpha_i}^{-1}{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{x,y}+ \left(\frac{d}{2n}\left(\dot{\theta}+\sum_{k=}^i\dot{\alpha}_k\right)+\frac{d}{n}\sum_{k=}^{i-1}\left(\dot{\theta}+\sum_{j=}^k\dot{\alpha}_j\right)R^{-1}_{\alpha_{k+1}+\cdots+\alpha_i}\right) e_2 \\ \dot{\theta} + \sum_{k=}^i\dot{\alpha}_k\end{bmatrix}\\ W_i \cdot \begin{bmatrix}f\\\tau\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix}R_{\alpha_+\cdots+\alpha_i}f\\ \tau + e_2^T\left(\frac{d}{2n}I_{2\times 2} + \frac{d}{n}\sum_{k=+1}^{i}R_{\alpha_k+\alpha_{k+1}+\cdots + \alpha_i} \right)\cdot f\end{bmatrix}, \end{split}$$ where $ \coloneqq 1+ \llfloor i / \frac{n}{2}\rrfloor \cdot \frac{n}{2}\in \{1,\frac{n}{2}+1\}$, $f = [f_1,f_2]^T$, and where a summation is understood to be zero if the lower bound of its index set exceeds its upper bound. the matrices $$W_i = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\alpha_i) & -\sin(\alpha_i) & 0 \\ \sin(\alpha_i) & \cos(\alpha_i) & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{d}{4} & 1 \end{bmatrix}, V_1 = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\alpha_i) & \sin(\alpha_i) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\sin(\alpha_i) & \cos(\alpha_i) & \frac{d}{4} & \frac{d}{4} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}, V_2 = \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\alpha_i) & \sin(\alpha_i) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\sin(\alpha_i) & \cos(\alpha_i) & \frac{d}{4} & 0 & \frac{d}{4} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}.$$ For higher dimensional paddleboats (dimension must be even with paddles of the same number of segments), we can write: $$W_\gamma = \begin{bmatrix} \beta(\alpha_\gamma) & 0_{2x1} \\ 0\hspace{.5cm}\frac{d}{2n} & 1 \end{bmatrix}, W_i =\begin{bmatrix} \beta(\alpha_{\gamma:i}) & 0_{2x1} \\ W_{i,31}\hspace{.5cm} W_{i,32} & 1 \end{bmatrix}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} &W_{i,31} = W_{i-1,31} - \frac{d}{2n}(sin(\alpha_{\gamma:i-1}) + sin(\alpha_{\gamma:i}))) \\ &W_{i,32} = W_{i-1,32} + \frac{d}{2n}(cos(\alpha_{\gamma:i-1}) + cos(\alpha_{\gamma:i}))) \\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} V_\gamma(g^{-1}\dot{g},\dot{\alpha}) &= (\frac{d}{2n}(\dot{\theta}+\dot{\alpha}_\gamma)\beta(-\alpha_\gamma)\cdot(0,1)^T,\dot{\alpha}_\gamma)^T \\ V_i (g^{-1}\dot{g},\dot{\alpha}) &= (\frac{d}{2n}(\dot{\theta}+\dot{\alpha}_{\gamma:i})\beta(-\alpha_i)\cdot(0,1)^T,\dot{\alpha}_i)^T + (\beta(-\alpha_i)\cdot[V_{i-1}\cdot(g^{-1}\dot{g},\alpha)^T]_{x,y}, [V_{i-1}\cdot(g^{-1}\dot{g},\alpha)^T]_\theta)^T\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(\alpha) = \begin{bmatrix} cos(\alpha) & sin(\alpha) \\ -sin(\alpha) & cos(\alpha) \end{bmatrix}$, $\alpha_{a:b}=\sum_{k=a}^{b}\alpha_k$, and $\dot{\alpha}_{a:b} = \sum_{k=a}^{b}\dot{\alpha}_k$. For the first paddle, $\gamma=1$ and $(2 <= i <= \frac{n}{2})$. For the second paddle, $\gamma = \frac{n}{2}+1$ and $(\frac{n}{2}+2 <= i <= n)$. These wrenches act on the body (which has uniformly distributed mass $m$ and moment of inertia $I = m\bar{I}$ about its midpoint) yielding the following equations of motion in world coordinates: $$\label{eq:pbdyn} \ddot{g} = \begin{bmatrix} \ddot{x} \\ \ddot{y} \\ \ddot{\theta} \end{bmatrix} = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\bar{I}} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\theta) & -\sin(\theta) & 0 \\ \sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \Bigg( \bar{F}_{\textnormal{body}} + \sum_{i=1}^n\bar{F}_{i} \Bigg),$$ where $\epsilon \coloneqq \frac{m}{c}$ is the dimensionless inertia-damping ratio. In keeping with our earlier conventions that $m$, $c$, and $\epsilon$ are all dimensionless we think of the “$1$” terms on the diagonal in [Eqn. ]{} as having units of inverse time. Upon inspection of [Eqn. ]{}, we see that by modifying $\epsilon$ we can directly adjust the ratio of inertial to viscous forces in the swimming model. The Stokesian limit corresponds to $\epsilon\to 0$; on the other hand, the $\epsilon \to \infty$ limit corresponds to a fully “momentum-dominated” regime, wherein viscous effects are negligible and motion is governed by conservation of momentum via Noether’s theorem (see Corollary \[co:pertS-Noether\] [§\[sec:pertS-mech-visc-conn\]]{}). In the following [§\[sec:model-accuracy-testing\]]{} we simulate the swimming model at a variety of $\epsilon$ values, and compare the performance of the two algorithms for estimating the dynamics near a gait cycle. Comparison of the estimated models {#sec:model-accuracy-testing} ---------------------------------- In all simulations in this section, we used the parameter values $L = 1$, $d = 0.5$, $C_x = 1$, $C_y = 2$, and $\bar{I} = 1$. The only remaining free variable is $\epsilon$, which governs both the ratio of inertial to viscous forces and the rate of attraction to the slow manifold. The procedure we used for generating simulations for experiments in this section is identical to that described in @bittner2018geom. Briefly, an experiment consists of 30 cycles of a numerically integrated stochastic differential equation (SDE) representing shape space dynamics consisting of a deterministic oscillator perturbed by system noise (see @bittner2018geom [Sec. 6.2] for precise details on the SDE, parameter values used, etc.). We used these noisy shape dynamics to drive the body momentum and group dynamics via the full equations of motion [Eqn. ]{} derived in [§\[sec:pertS-reduction-Stokes-limit\]]{}. For each simulation we recorded a “ground truth” body velocity trajectory ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_G$. We used this record to evaluate the accuracy of the data-driven approximations. We denoted the body velocity computed with the perturbed Stokes regressors by ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{p}$, and those computed with the Stokes regressors by ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_{s}$. As a “zeroth-order” phase model of the dynamics, we constructed a Fourier series model of ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_G$ with respect to the estimated phase (see [§\[sec:determine-regressors\]]{}), which we denote by ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_a$. For any data point, the zeroth-order model prediction is ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_a(\varphi)$ for the phase $\varphi$ of that data point. We computed the RMS errors $e^k_$ for each component $k$ of the body velocity and each model $ = p,s,a$ by $e^k_* := \langle\|{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^k_-{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^k_G\|^2\rangle^{1/2}$. Since the numerical value of these errors means little, we defined the metric $\Gamma^k_ := 1 - e^k_* / e^k_a$ for $* = p,s$ to indicate how much better the regression models were performing compared to the zeroth-order phase model ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}_a$. A $\Gamma^k_$ of $0$ indicates doing no better than the zeroth order model whereas a $1$ indicates a perfect model. To further highlight the difference* in prediction quality, we also plot $\Delta^k := \Gamma^k_p-\Gamma^k_s$. ![ Comparison of model prediction quality when using the perturbed Stokes regressors versus the Stokes regressors on three gaits, in terms of the $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ quality metrics. We have plotted the components of $\Delta$, representing the relative advantage of perturbed Stokes regressors (top row; (A)), and $\Gamma$, representing model prediction quality (bottom row; (B)), against 6 orders of magnitude variation in the inertial to viscosity ratio $\epsilon$ (logarithmic scale; sampled at 25 values (vertical gray lines). We present three gaits, whose shape space loci are in-phase paddle angle (which leads to anti-phase paddle motions; “Twist in Place”; left column; blue line in shape-space plot), anti-phase paddle angle (bilaterally symmetric paddle motions; “Symmetric Flap”; middle column; green line in shape-space plot), and quarter-cycle out of phase paddle angles (“Circle Amp. 1”; right column; red line in shape-space plot). All three gaits have paddle angles ranging between $-1$ and $1$ radians. For each value of $\epsilon$ we performed 8 simulation trials each consisting of 30 (noisy) gait cycles, and plotted mean and standard deviation of $\Delta$ and $\Gamma$ for each component of the $\mathfrak{se}(2)$ body motion ($X$ blue; $Y$ orange; $\theta$ red; saturated for $\Delta$ and $\Gamma_p$, pale for $\Gamma_s$). Consistently for all components and gaits, the perturbed Stokes regressors provide a better model for an order of magnitude or wider range of $\epsilon$ around $\epsilon=1$. For Twist in Place and Symmetric Flap gaits, both models are accurate for large and small $\epsilon$ ($\Gamma$ close to 1); for the Circle Amplitude 1 gait, the prediction is only accurate for the Stokes regime (small $\epsilon$). []{data-label="fig:r1"}](f3_top.pdf){width="100.00000%"} ![ Comparison of model prediction quality when using the perturbed Stokes regressors versus the Stokes regressors on two extremal gaits, in terms of the $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ quality metrics. Plots consist of the same types as those in [Fig. \[fig:r1\]]{}. We only plot the $X$ (blue) and $Y$ (orange) components of $\Gamma$ (middle column; saturated color $\Gamma_p$; pale colors $\Gamma_s$) and $\Delta$ (right column). We selected the gait to maximize either the $X$ component of total body frame motion (top row) or the $Y$ component (bottom row). The gaits are extremal in the Stokes regime ($\epsilon=0$) and selected by taking the zero level set of the connection curvature (method from @hatton2011geometric [@hatton2013geometric]). Following their approach, we plot the connection of the coordinate being optimized as a vector field over the shape-space (black arrows; left column), with the shape-space gait locus plotted over it (diamond shapes in left column, colored by coordinate optimized). Results show that both models are most accurate for small $\epsilon$ (the Stokes regime; $\Gamma$ closer to $1$), with the perturbed Stokes regressors providing improvements across the entire range. Over the two order of magnitude range of $10^{-0.5}<\epsilon<10^{1.5}$ this advantage is noticeably more pronounced (the perturbed Stokes regime; bump in $\Delta$ plots). Also note that the $X$ extremal gait shows much greater $\Delta^x$; the $Y$ extremal gait shows much greater $\Delta^y$. []{data-label="fig:r2"}](f4_top.pdf){width="100.00000%"} ![Comparison of model prediction quality when using the perturbed Stokes regressors versus the Stokes regressors on paddles with different dimensions of the shape space, shown in terms of the $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ quality metrics. Plots consist of the same types as those in [Fig. \[fig:r1\]]{}. We plotted $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ of three swimmers with different numbers of paddle segments: one segment per paddle (light blue), two segments (blue), and three segments (purple); see [Fig. \[fig:system\]]{} for schematic. We used a symmetric flapping gait (see [Fig. \[fig:r1\]]{}; small cartoons above). The paddles moved symmetrically with total angles of all joints summing up to a sinusoid of amplitude $\pi$. We plot the $X$ components of $\Gamma$ (left column; one plot per model; saturated colors $\Gamma_p$; pale colors $\Gamma_s$) and $\Delta$ (right column). Results show that over the two order of magnitude range of $10^{-0.5}<\epsilon<10^{1.5}$, the perturbed Stokes regressors consistently provide improvements. The relative improvement $\Delta$ increased markedly with shape space dimension, by as much as $0.5$ in $\Delta$. []{data-label="fig:r3"}](f5_top.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ### Algorithm comparison using manually selected gaits {#sec:performance-manual-gaits} We chose to first test the modeling approaches on a collection of simple manually selected behaviors. These include behaviors we term “twist in place” and “symmetric flapping” gaits, both of which initialize with paddles aligned at a quarter turn away from the body (as depicted in the two-segment model in Figure \[fig:system\]), and respectively involve anti-symmetric and symmetric sinusoidal movement of the paddles with amplitude $1$. The “symmetric flapping gait” primarily moves in the direction of the $x$ body axis, while the “twist in place gait” primarily changes the $\theta$ body coordinate. Finally, we considered a “circle” gait which also initializes the paddles at a quarter turn away from the body and moves them sinusoidally with amplitude $1$, but has a quarter cycle phase offset between them. This gait tends to move the system in a way that changes all three body coordinates throughout its execution. We selected these three gaits because they are simple to describe and span a range of resultant body motions. For single link paddles, the body shape space is 2D, and these gaits are represented by loci that are diagonal lines with slopes $1$, $-1$, and a circle (see [Fig. \[fig:r1\]]{}). We simulated the gaits and plotted mean and variance of $\Gamma_s$, $\Gamma_p$ and $\Delta$ for each value of $\epsilon$ ([Fig. \[fig:r1\]]{}). The plot shows that for all three gaits tested and for all three body coordinates, over a range spanning an order of magnitude or more around $\epsilon=1$, the perturbed Stokes models are better by $\Delta>0.05$ or more. ### Algorithm comparison using extremal gaits {#sec:algo-compare-extremal-gaits} Arbitrarily selected gaits such as those examined in the previous section are not expected to exhibit any special properties with respect to our modeling approach. In particular, with respect to a goal function $\phi(\cdot)$, they are expected to be regular points of $\phi(\cdot)$. However, $\phi$-optimal gaits have $\nabla_p\phi = 0$ and thus have additional structure that might interact with the modeling approach. We chose goal functionals $\int {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^x(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$ and $\int {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}^y(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$ (where superscripts denote components) corresponding to displacement in the $x$ and $y$ coordinates as measured in the body frame of the paddleboat. This is not the same as actual $x$ or $y$ displacement in the world, since boat orientation changes over time. Using the methods of @hatton2013geometric, we determined the extremal gaits for these goal functionals in the Stokes regime with high accuracy. Plotted in the shape-space (and superimposed on the “connection vector fields” [@hatton2011geometric; @hatton2013geometric] of the appropriate goal functional) they are diamond shaped ([Fig. \[fig:r2\]]{}). We also plotted $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$, revealing that again, perturbed Stokes regressors improve performance ($\Delta>0.15$) over a range of two orders of magnitude in $\epsilon$. Unlike the arbitrary gaits of the previous section, the extremal gaits have $\Gamma>0.1$ for all $\epsilon>1$ for both model types. This suggests that even outside the perturbed Stokes regime the addition of regressors improves upon the zeroth order phase model. It is also notable that in the extremal $x$ gait, $\Delta^x$ is significantly better than $\Delta^y$, whereas in the extremal $y$ gait the converse is true. ### Performance gains grow with shape space dimension {#sec:complexity} Thus far we have only presented results for systems having 2D shape spaces. Because data-driven methods are often handicapped by their inability to scale with model dimensionality, we chose also to test our approach on systems of higher dimension by extending each paddle into a multi-segmented model. We selected a gait similar to that of the symmetric flapping gait, but with the additional feature that the bending angle of a paddle was uniformly distributed through the joints it contains. In particular, the relative angles between adjacent segments were equal and of amplitude $\pi/N$, where $N$ is the number of joints. We plotted $\Gamma^x_p$, $\Gamma^x_s$ and $\Delta^x$ for paddles with $1$, $2$ and $3$ segments ([Fig. \[fig:r3\]]{}). The $\Delta^x$ shows a marked improvement in the $4$D and $6$D models, suggesting that as shape-space complexity increased, the advantage of perturbed Stokes regressors became comparatively more significant. Discussion ---------- The results of [§\[sec:model-accuracy-testing\]]{} show that for all versions of the swimming model and all gaits that we tested there exists a sizable window of $\epsilon$ values wherein the perturbed Stokes regressors provide models of superior quality when compared to the Stokes regressors. In particular, the improvement is consistently present in the region $\log_{10} \epsilon \in [0,1]$, suggesting that this range of $\epsilon$ might be the range for which the predicted slow manifold is both present and sufficiently simple to be captured by the new regressors. As noted in [§\[sec:algo-compare-extremal-gaits\]]{}, the perturbed Stokes regressors seem to improve prediction performance more in the direction in which the gait was extremal. We hypothesize that this is because extremal gaits have already exhausted any first-order improvements available, i.e. gradients are zero. With the first-order terms close to zero, the presence of more high-order terms among the perturbed Stokes regressors may have a greater effect on the relative prediction error. It is interesting to note the large magnitude of improvement in $\Delta$ as the shape space dimension increased in [Fig. \[fig:r3\]]{}. Whether this is an artifact of the particular model and/or gait, or a more general feature, remains to be determined. At the lower end $\epsilon$ magnitudes studied here, the systems are near the Stokesian limit, and therefore we expect relatively little improvement from adding regressors designed for the perturbed Stokes regime. This is consistent with our experimental results in all figures which show for $\epsilon$ small both small values of $\Delta$ and large values of $\Gamma$ for both sets of regressors. For very large values of $\epsilon$, the predictive quality of both algorithms is hindered by at least three factors, although only the first two can be observed here. 1. The ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2)$ term in [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{} becomes more significant as $\epsilon$ increases. This issue is insurmountable if we restrict ourselves to Stokes regressors. If we do not, it is possible to compute correction terms which are higher order in $\epsilon$ and which can inform the selection of additional regressors for addition to our algorithm. It is one possible direction for future work. 2. For $\epsilon$ sufficiently large, we expect a bifurcation in which the slow manifold (whose existence is guaranteed by [Thm. \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\]]{} in [§\[sec:pertS-reduction-perturbed-Stokes-regime\]]{}) ceases to exist. For such values of $\epsilon$, the hypotheses of [Thm. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler\]]{} are not satisfied, and a reduced-order model may not exist. This is a mathematical expression of the physical reality of inertial effects playing a dominant role as $\epsilon$ increases, and eventually requiring momentum states to be added to the models. 3. For sufficiently large values of $\epsilon$ the full complications of fluid-fluid interactions to come into play, and the linear viscous friction model we used becomes less and less accurate. We conjecture that for many systems this effect will not have significant influence until after $\epsilon$ is already sufficiently large for the slow manifold to have disappeared. It would be interesting to explore this issue further. Conclusion ========== We have shown that the accuracy of data-driven models motivated from geometric mechanics can be improved by using a collection of regressors derived from an asymptotic series approximation of an attracting invariant manifold in the small parameter $\epsilon$ representing the ratio of inertial to viscous forces (a Reynolds-number-like parameter). The existence of such an invariant manifold was previously known in similar situations,[^13] as were the approximation techniques we employed, but the combination of these together for producing data-driven models of locomotion is a novel contribution. In simulations where we tested geometrically similar motions over $6$ orders of magnitude of $\epsilon$, we obtained improvements of $5$–$65\%$ (depending on the specific system and gait) compared to previous work, suggesting that these better-informed models can indeed capture the perturbed Stokes regime more accurately. Furthermore, the results of one of our experiments showed further improvements as the shape-space dimension of the locomoting system increased; this suggests that higher-dimensional systems might be modeled effectively using our approach. Future work will include application of our algorithm to questions of locomotion optimality in animals, and to hardware-in-the-loop optimization of robot motions. An additional direction for future work is the selection of regressors and regression techniques for hybrid dynamical systems, and for non-viscous dissipation models. Appendix A — Derivation of the Equations of Motion {#app:equations-derivation} ================================================== In this and the following section we consider systems more general than those considered earlier, and in so doing assume that the reader is familiar with some basic concepts in geometric mechanics and differential geometry: Lie groups, group actions, and principal bundles. We refer the reader to @kobayashi1963foundationsV1 [@marsden1994introduction; @lee2013smooth; @bloch2015nonholonomic] for the relevant standard definitions related to Lie groups and group actions, and we refer the reader to @kobayashi1963foundationsV1 [@marsden1991symmetry; @marsden2009lectures; @bloch2015nonholonomic] for material on bundles. We consider a mechanical system on a configuration space $Q$ whose Lagrangian is of the form kinetic minus potential energy. We will also consider this system to be subjected to external viscous forcing arising from a Rayleigh dissipation function, and also subjected to an external force exerted by the locomoting body. We are interested in the situation that we have a smooth action $\theta\colon G \times Q \to Q$ of a Lie group $G$ on $Q$, such that the Lagrangian, viscous forces, and external force are all symmetric under the action. In this case, we say that $G$ is a [symmetry group]{}. In §\[sec:pertS-mech-visc-conn\], we will define some geometric quantities on $Q$ which encode information about the symmetry and the dynamics. Working in coordinates induced by a local trivialization, in §\[sec:pertS-equations-local\] we derive the equations of motion in terms of these quantities. In §\[sec:pertS-reduction-Stokes-limit\], we recall how the equations become governed by the so-called viscous connection in the Stokesian limit [@kelly1996geometry; @eldering2016role], which will set the stage for our derivation in §\[sec:pertS-reduction-perturbed-Stokes-regime\] of a corrected reduced-order model for the perturbed Stokes regime. The mechanical and viscous connections {#sec:pertS-mech-visc-conn} -------------------------------------- In this section, we define the mechanical and viscous (or Stokes) connections, roughly following @kelly1996geometry. We consider a Lagrangian $L\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathbb{R}}$ which is invariant under the lifted action ${\mathsf{D}}\theta_g$ of $G$ on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ (here ${\mathsf{D}}$ denotes the derivative or pushforward). We assume the Lagrangian to be of the form kinetic minus potential energy, where kinetic energy is given by $\frac{m}{2}k$, where $m > 0$ is a dimensionless mass parameter, $k$ is a smooth symmetric bilinear form, and $m k$ is the [kinetic energy metric]{}. In what follows, we assume that $k$ is positive definite when restricted to tangent spaces to $G$ orbits, but not necessarily that $k$ is positive definite on all tangent vectors.[^14] Denoting by ${\mathfrak{g}}$ the Lie algebra of $G$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}^$ its dual, we define the (Lagrangian) [momentum map]{} $J\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathfrak{g}}^$ via $$\label{eq:pertS-J-def} \langle J(v_q), \xi \rangle = \langle {\mathbb{F}L}(v_q), \xi_Q(q) \rangle = mk_q(v_q, \xi_Q(q)),$$ where $v \in {\mathsf{T}}_q Q$ and $\xi \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. Here ${\mathbb{F}L}\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q\to {\mathsf{T}}^* Q$ is the [fiber derivative]{} of $L$ given by ${\mathbb{F}L}(v_q)(w_q)\coloneqq \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\|_{s=0} L(v_q + $s$ w_q)$, and the smooth vector field $\xi_Q$ on $Q$ is the [infinitesimal generator]{} defined by $\xi_Q(q)\coloneqq \frac{\partial}{\partial s}\|_{s=0}\theta_{\exp(s\xi)}(q)$. We define the [mechanical connection]{} ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathfrak{g}}$ via ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}(v_q)\coloneqq {\mathbb{I}}^{-1}(q)J(v_q)$, where ${\mathbb{I}}(q)\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}^$ is the [locked inertia tensor]{} defined via $$\label{eq:pertS-I-def} \langle {\mathbb{I}}(q) \xi, \eta \rangle \coloneqq \langle {\mathbb{F}L}(\xi_Q(q)),\eta_Q(q)\rangle = mk_q(\xi_Q(q),\eta_Q(q)),$$ where $\xi,\eta \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. We now follow an analogous procedure to define the viscous connection ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathbb{R}}$. We consider a Rayleigh dissipation function $R \colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined in terms of a $G$-invariant smooth symmetric bilinear form $\nu$ on $Q$: $R(v_q)\coloneqq \frac{c}{2}\nu_q(v_q,v_q)$, where $c>0$ is a dimensionless parameter representing the amount of damping or dissipation in the system due to viscous forces. As with $k$, we assume that $\nu$ is positive definite when restricted to tangent spaces to $G$ orbits, but not* necessarily that $\nu$ is positive definite on all tangent vectors.[^15] The corresponding force field $F_R\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathsf{T}}^* Q$ is given by minus the fiber derivative of $R$, $F_R\coloneqq {\mathbb{F}}(-R)$. We define a map $K\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathfrak{g}}^$, analogous to the momentum map $J$, via $$\label{eq:pertS-K-def} \langle K(v_q), \xi \rangle = \langle F_R(v_q), \xi_Q(q) \rangle = -c\nu_q(v_q, \xi_Q(q)),$$ where $v \in {\mathsf{T}}_q Q$ and $\xi \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. We define the [viscous connection]{} or [Stokes connection]{} ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to {\mathfrak{g}}$ via ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}(v_q)\coloneqq {\mathbb{V}}^{-1}(q)K(v_q)$, where ${\mathbb{V}}(q)\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}^$ is defined via $$\label{eq:pertS-V-def} \langle {\mathbb{V}}(q) \xi, \eta \rangle \coloneqq \langle F_R(\xi_Q(q)),\eta_Q(q)\rangle = -c\nu_q(\xi_Q(q),\eta_Q(q)),$$ where $\xi,\eta \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. Using the $G$-invariance of $L$ and $\nu$, a calculation shows that ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}$ are equivariant with respect to the adjoint action of $G$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$: $$\label{eq:connection_equivariance} \forall g \in G\colon {\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}\circ {\mathsf{D}}\theta_g = {\textnormal{Ad}}_g \circ {\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}, \quad {\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}\circ {\mathsf{D}}\theta_g = {\textnormal{Ad}}_g \circ {\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}$$ Hence if the natural projection $\pi_Q\colon Q \to Q/G$ from $Q$ to the space of orbits $Q/G$ of points in $Q$ is a principal $G$-bundle, then the mechanical and viscous connections ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}$ are indeed principal connections; this justifies their titles. Now in order for our system to move itself through space, we also allow there to be a $G$-equivariant external force $F_E\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathsf{T}}Q\to {\mathsf{T}}^Q$ exerted by the locomoting body, subject to the requirement that $F_E$ takes values in the annihilator of $\ker {\mathsf{D}}\pi_Q$, the distribution tangent to group orbits. This requirement reflects the physically reasonable assumption that the locomoting body can exert only “internal forces” which directly affect only its shape $r\in Q/G$ (c.f. @eldering2016role [Sec. 3.3] and @bloch1996nonholonomic [Sec. 4.2]). For future use, we now prove the following \[prop:pertS-J-deriv\] The derivative of $J$ along trajectories of the $G$-symmetric mechanical system is given by $$\dot{J} = K,$$ making the canonical identifications ${\mathsf{T}}_J {\mathfrak{g}}\cong {\mathfrak{g}}$. We compute in a local trivialization on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ induced by a chart for $Q$, so that we may write a trajectory as $(q,\dot{q})$. Note that in such local coordinates, ${\mathbb{F}L}(q,\dot{q})(v_q) = \frac{\partial L(q,\dot{q})}{\partial \dot{q}}v_q$. Hence $$\begin{split} \langle \dot{J}(q,\dot{q}), \xi\rangle &= \frac{d}{dt}\left (\frac{\partial L(q(t),\dot{q}(t))}{\partial \dot{q}}\xi_Q(q(t))\right)\\ &= \left(\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)\xi_Q(q) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}{\mathsf{D}}\xi_Q(q)\dot{q}\\ &= \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} + F_R + F_E \right)\xi_Q(q) + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}{\mathsf{D}}\xi_Q(q)\dot{q}, \end{split}$$ where we obtained the last line using $\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}} - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q}=F_R + F_E,$ which follows from the Lagrange-d’Alembert principle [@bloch2015nonholonomic p. 8]. Since $F_E$ annihilates tangent vectors to group orbits, $\langle F_E, \xi_Q(q)\rangle = 0$. Hence rearranging and letting $\Phi_\xi^s$ denote the flow of $\xi_Q$, we find $$\begin{split} \langle \dot{J}(q,\dot{q}), \xi \rangle&= \frac{\partial}{\partial s} L\left(\Phi_\xi^s(q(t)), {\mathsf{D}}\Phi_\xi^s(q(t))\dot{q}(t)\right) + \langle F_R(q,\dot{q}), \xi_Q(q)\rangle\\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial s} L\left(\Phi_\xi^s(q(t)), {\mathsf{D}}\Phi_\xi^s(q(t))\dot{q}(t)\right) + \langle K(q,\dot{q}), \xi \rangle. \end{split}$$ The derivative term is zero due to the invariance of $L$ under the action of $G$, so from the arbitrariness of $\xi \in {\mathfrak{g}}$ we obtain the desired result. As a corollary, we obtain a slight generalization of the classical Noether’s theorem. \[co:pertS-Noether\] Consider a mechanical system given by a $G$-invariant Lagrangian of the form kinetic minus potential energy. Assume that the only external forces take values in the annihilator of the distribution tangent to the $G$ orbits. Then the derivative of the momentum map $J$ along trajectories satisfies $$\dot{J}=0.$$ Set $K = 0$ in Proposition \[prop:pertS-J-deriv\]. Local form of the equations of motion {#sec:pertS-equations-local} ------------------------------------- Assuming that the action of $G$ on $Q$ is free and proper [@lee2013smooth Ch. 21] so that $\pi_Q\colon Q\to Q/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle, we now derive the equations in a local trivialization, following [@kelly1996geometry]. In a local trivialization $U \times G$, $\pi_Q$ simply becomes projection onto the first factor and the $G$ action is given by left multiplication on the second factor. We define $S \coloneqq Q/G$ to be the [shape space]{} representing all possible shapes of a locomoting body, and we write a point in the local trivialization as $(r,g)\in U\times G$ where $U\subset S$. We assume that $U$ is the domain of a chart for $S$, so that we have induced coordinates $(r,\dot{r})$ for ${\mathsf{T}}U$. Defining the [body velocity]{}[^16] ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} \coloneqq {\mathsf{D}}\mathrm{L}_{g^{-1}}\dot g$, the equivariance property of the connection forms ${\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}, {\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}$ imply that they may be written in the trivialization as $$\label{eq:pertS-local-conn-def} \begin{split} {\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r,g)\cdot(\dot{r},\dot{g}) &= {\textnormal{Ad}}_g\left({\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}+{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r)\cdot \dot{r}\right)\\ {\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r,g)\cdot(\dot{r},\dot{g}) &= {\textnormal{Ad}}_g\left({\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}+{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r)\cdot \dot{r}\right), \end{split}$$ where ${A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\colon {\mathsf{T}}U \to {\mathfrak{g}}$ and ${A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\colon {\mathsf{T}}U \to {\mathfrak{g}}$ are respectively the [local mechanical connection]{} and [local viscous connection]{}. We define a diffeomorphism $(r,\dot{r},g,\dot{g})\mapsto (r,\dot{r},g,p)$, with $p$ the [body momentum]{} defined by $$\label{eq:pertS-p-def} p\coloneqq {\textnormal{Ad}}_g^{J} \in {\mathfrak{g}}^.$$ Here ${\textnormal{Ad}}_g^$ is the dual of the adjoint action ${\textnormal{Ad}}_g$ of $G$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. We additionally define $$\label{eq:pertS-Iloc-Vloc-def} \begin{split} {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}&\coloneqq {\textnormal{Ad}}_g^* {\mathbb{I}}{\textnormal{Ad}}_g \colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}^\\ {\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}&\coloneqq {\textnormal{Ad}}_g^ {\mathbb{V}}{\textnormal{Ad}}_g \colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}^* \end{split}$$ to be the local forms of ${\mathbb{I}}$ and ${\mathbb{V}}$. We note that the invariance of the Lagrangian $L$ and Rayleigh dissipation function $R$ under $G$, together with the general identity ${\mathsf{D}}\theta_g \xi_{Q}(q) = ({\textnormal{Ad}}_g\xi)_{Q}(\theta_{g}(q))$, imply that ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r),{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r)$ depend on the shape variable $r$ only. Rearranging , using the expressions , , and using Proposition \[prop:pertS-J-deriv\], we obtain the equations of motion $$\label{eq:pertS-equations-motion-local} \begin{split} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} &= -{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r} + {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p\\ \dot{p} &= {\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot \dot{r} + {\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} p + {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p}p-{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r}}p, \end{split}$$ where we have suppressed the $r$-dependence of ${A_{\textnormal{mech}}},{A_{\textnormal{visc}}},{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}},{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ for readability. Notice that the $\dot{p}$ equation is completely decoupled from $g$. In this paper, we are interested in the effect of shape changes on body motion, and not on the generation of shape changes themselves. Hence we have suppressed the equations for $\dot{r},\ddot{r}$ from , simply viewing $r, \dot{r}$ as inputs in those equations, but see @bloch1996nonholonomic for more details on the specific form of the equations. We merely note that, if the kinetic energy metric is positive-definite, then the Lagrangian is hyperregular and our assumption of $G$-equivariance of the exerted force $F_E$ implies that $$\label{eq:r-dynamics-form} \ddot{r} = f(t,r,\dot{r},{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} p)$$ for some function $f$ which depends on the local trivialization. If the kinetic energy metric is not positive-definite (for use in toy examples like those in §\[sec:performance\]; see the precise assumptions in §\[sec:pertS-mech-visc-conn\], and the footnote there), then we assume that $\ddot{r}$ is given by . Reduction in the Stokesian limit {#sec:pertS-reduction-Stokes-limit} -------------------------------- From the definitions , of ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}, {\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$, we see that we may define ${\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}, {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ by $$ {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r) \eqqcolon m {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r) ~~~~ {\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r) \eqqcolon c {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r). $$ Defining the dimensionless parameter $\epsilon\coloneqq \frac{m}{c}$ and multiplying both sides of by ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}$, we obtain the rewritten equations of motion $$\label{eq:pertS-equations-motion-local-w-epsilon} \begin{split} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} &= -{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r} + \frac{1}{m}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p\\ \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}\dot{p} &= m{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot \dot{r} + p + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p}p- \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r}}p. \end{split}$$ In considering the limit in which viscous forces dominate the inertia of the locomoting body, @kelly1996geometry formally set $\epsilon =0$ in to obtain $p = m{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot \dot{r}$ from the second equation. Substituting this into the first equation of , they derive the following form of the equations of motion: $$\label{eq:pertS-visc-kelly-limit} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}=-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot \dot{r}.$$ In the language of differential geometry, states that in the Stokesian limit trajectories are [horizontal]{} with respect to the viscous connection. We will see in the next section that this reduction can be extended away from the $\epsilon \to 0$ limit. Appendix B — Reduction in the Perturbed Stokes Regime {#sec:pertS-reduction-perturbed-Stokes-regime} ===================================================== \[app:reduction-pert-stokes\] In @eldering2016role, the argument of @kelly1996geometry was explained in more detail using the theory of normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds (NHIMs) in the context of geometric singular perturbation theory [@fenichel1979geometric; @jones1995geometric; @kaper1999systems]. The idea is to show that for $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small, the dynamics possess an exponentially attractive invariant [slow manifold]{} $M_\epsilon$, such that the dynamics restricted to $M_\epsilon$ approach as $\epsilon \to 0$. We give an alternative argument which yields a result differing from that of @eldering2016role in two ways. 1. @eldering2016role give an argument for general mechanical systems without symmetry under the assumption that the configuration space $Q$ is compact, although they do indicate that compactness can be replaced with uniformity conditions using noncompact NHIM theory [@eldering2013normally]. Our argument assumes symmetry but allows $G$ to be noncompact, though we do require that $S\coloneqq Q/G$ be compact. This enables application of our result to locomotion systems with noncompact symmetry groups, such as the Euclidean group of planar rigid motions ${\mathsf{SE}}(2)$ as in the systems of §\[sec:performance\]. 2. @eldering2016role consider the limit $m\to 0$ while holding $c$ and the force exerted by the locomoting body fixed. This makes sense, because if the exerted force were held fixed while taking $c \to \infty$, then trivial dynamics would result in the singular limit: the system would not move at all. Rather than holding the exerted force fixed, we will consider the differential equation prescribing the dynamics of the shape variable to be fixed.[^17] Under this assumption, we show that the dynamics depend only on the ratio $\epsilon = \frac{m}{c}$, and in particular the dynamics obtained in the two singular limits $m \to 0$ and $c \to \infty$ are the same. Before stating Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\], we need the following definition. \[def:ckb-vector-fields\] Let $M$ be a compact manifold with boundary, and let $f\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times M \to {\mathsf{T}}M$ a $C^{k \geq 0}$ time-dependent vector field. Let $(U_i)_{i=1}^n$ be a finite open cover of $M$ and $(V_i, \psi_i)_{i=1}^n$ be a finite atlas for $M$ such that $\bar{U}_i \subset V_i$ for all $i$, and for each $i$ define $f_i \coloneqq ({\mathsf{D}}\psi_i \circ f\circ ({\textnormal{id}}_{\mathbb{R}}\times \psi_i^{-1}))$. We define an associated $C^k$ norm $\norm{f}_k$ of $f$ via $$\norm{f}_{ k}\coloneqq \max_{1\leq i\leq n}\max_{\substack{0 \leq j \leq k\\x\in \psi_i(\bar{U}_i)}}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^j f_i(x)},$$ where $\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^j f_i(x)}$ denotes the norm of a $j$-linear map; here ${\mathsf{D}}^j f$ includes partial derivatives with respect to time as well as the spatial variables. If $\norm{f}_k< \infty$, we say that $f$ is $C^k$-bounded and write $f\in C^k_b$. The norm $\norm{\cdot}_k$ makes the $C^k_b$ time-dependent vector fields into a Banach space. The norms induced by any two such finite covers of $M$ are equivalent, and thereby induce a canonical [$C^k_b$ topology]{} on the space of $C^k_b$ time-dependent vector fields. Definition \[def:ckb-vector-fields\] defines the $C^k_b$ topology on the space of $C^k_b$ time-dependent vector fields on a compact manifold. As discussed in @eldering2013normally [Sec. 1.7], this $C^k_b$ topology is finer than the $C^k$ weak Whitney topology and coarser than the $C^k$ strong Whitney topology [@hirsch1976differential Ch. 2], but all of these topologies induce the same topology on the subspace of time-independent vector fields due to compactness. Definition \[def:ckb-vector-fields\] is a special case of the definition in @eldering2013normally [Ch. 2] for the $C^k_b$ topology on $C^k_b$ vector fields on Riemannian manifolds of bounded geometry, and on $C^k_b$ maps between such manifolds. The following theorem concerns a $G$-symmetric dynamical system on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ whose equations of motion are consistent with our assumptions so far: i.e., they are given in local trivializations by and an equation of the form . \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\] Assume that $S=Q/G$ is compact. Let $2 \leq k < \infty$, and let $X^\epsilon$ be a $C^k$ family of $G$-symmetric time-dependent vector fields on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ with the following properties: 1. For every compact neighborhood with $C^k$ boundary $K_0 \subset {\mathsf{T}}Q$ and $\epsilon > 0$, $X^\epsilon\|_{{\mathbb{R}}\times K_0}\in C^k_b$ (Definition \[def:ckb-vector-fields\]). 2. There exists a compact connected neighborhood $K\subset {\mathsf{T}}S$ of the zero section of ${\mathsf{T}}S$ with $C^k$ boundary, such that $N\coloneqq {\mathsf{D}}\pi_Q^{-1}(K) \subset {\mathsf{T}}Q$ is positively invariant for $X^\epsilon$, for all sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$. 3. $X^\epsilon$ is given in each local trivialization ${\mathsf{T}}(U\times G)$, where $U$ is a chart for $S$, by and : $$\label{eq:reduced-system} \begin{split} \ddot{r} &= f\left(t,r,\dot{r},\frac{1}{m}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p\right)\\ \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}\dot{p} &= m{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot \dot{r} + p + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p}p- \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r}}p\\ {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} &= -{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r} + \frac{1}{m}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p \end{split}$$ for some function $f$ which depends on the local trivialization but is independent of $\epsilon$. Then for all sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a $C^k$ noncompact normally hyperbolic invariant manifold with boundary $M_\epsilon\subset {\mathbb{R}}\times N \subset {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathsf{T}}Q$ for the extended dynamics given by the extended vector field $(1,X_\epsilon)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathsf{T}}Q$. Additionally, $M_\epsilon$ is uniformly (in time and space) globally asymptotically stable and uniformly locally exponentially stable (with respect to the distance induced by any complete $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$) for the extended dynamics restricted to ${\mathbb{R}}\times N$. Finally, there exists $\epsilon_0 > 0$ such that, for each local trivialization $U\times G$, there exists a $C^k$ map $h_\epsilon\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times ({\mathsf{T}}U \cap K) \times (0,\epsilon_0)\to {\mathfrak{g}}^$ such that $M_\epsilon \cap {\mathsf{D}}\pi_Q^{-1}({\mathsf{T}}U \cap K)$ corresponds to $$\label{eq:pertS-Meps-graph-lagrangian} \{(t,r,\dot{r},p,g): p = h_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon)\},$$ $$h_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon) = {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\left[({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r)-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r))\cdot \dot{r} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)\right]$$ (with $p$ defined by ), and $h_\epsilon$ together with its partial derivatives of order $k$ or less are bounded uniformly in time. If $f(t,r,\dot{r},{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} p)$ is independent of $t$, then $h_\epsilon$ and $M_\epsilon$ are independent of $t$, and $M_\epsilon$ can be interpreted as a compact NHIM for the (non-extended) dynamics restricted to $N$. Note that even if we assume $f\in C^\infty$, we can generally only obtain $C^k$ NHIMs $M_\epsilon$ for $k$ finite. This is because we obtain $M_\epsilon$ as a perturbation of a NHIM $M_0$, and perturbations of $C^\infty$ NHIMs are generally only finitely smooth because the maximum perturbation size $\epsilon$ required to obtain degree of smoothness $k$ for $M_\epsilon$ generally depends on $k$ in such a way that $\epsilon\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$. See @eldering2013normally [Rem. 1.12] and @van1979center for more discussion. By replacing compactness of $Q/G$ with uniformity conditions, it should be possible to generalize Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\] to the situation of $Q$ noncompact where either $Q/G$ is noncompact, or where there is no symmetry at all. This was pointed out in @eldering2016role [App. 1]. This observation seems important for the consideration of dissipative mechanical systems which are only approximately* symmetric under a group $G$, which seems to be a more realistic assumption. \[rem:recover-kelly-eqn\] By taking $\epsilon \to 0$ in Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\], we find that $p = {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot \dot{r}$ in the limit. Substituting this into the first equation of , we obtain Equation as in @kelly1996geometry. \ Preparation of the equations of motion. Throughout the proof, we consider the dynamics in local trivializations of the form $U\times G$ for $Q$, where $U$ is the domain of a chart for $S$, so that we have induced coordinates $(r,\dot{r})$ for ${\mathsf{T}}U$. In such a local trivialization we would like to use to analyze the dynamics, but there are two (related) problems with this. First, the definition of $p$ depends on $m$, and this will cause difficulties in verifying Definition \[def:ckb-vector-fields\] to check that certain vector fields are close in the $C^k_b$ topology. Second, we would like to analyze in a singular perturbation framework, but this is difficult to do directly because $m$ explicitly appears, and the size of $m$ may or may not be commensurate with the size of $\epsilon$. To remedy this situation, we change variables via the diffeomorphism $(r,\dot{r},p,g)\mapsto (r,\dot{r},\Omega,g)$ of ${\mathsf{T}}U \times {\mathfrak{g}}^* \times G \to {\mathsf{T}}U \times {\mathfrak{g}}\times G$ where $\Omega\in {\mathfrak{g}}$ is defined by $$\label{eq:pertS-Omega-def} \Omega\coloneqq {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}p = {\textnormal{Ad}}_{g^{-1}}{\Gamma_{\textnormal{mech}}}(\dot{g},\dot{r})={\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} + {A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot\dot{r}.$$ Sometimes $\Omega$ is referred to as the [(body) locked angular velocity]{} [@bloch1996nonholonomic p. 61]. Differentiating ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega = p$, using , and rearranging yields $$\label{eq:pertS-equations-motion-local-lagrangian} \begin{split} \dot{t} &= 1\\ \dot{r} &= v\\ \dot{v} &= f(t,r,v,\Omega)\\ \epsilon \dot{\Omega} &= -\epsilon{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{d}{dt}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right)\Omega + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot v + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega, \end{split}$$ where we have introduced the variable $v\coloneqq \dot{r}$. We have written ${\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}$ for space reasons, but note that the $\dot{\Omega}$ equation is independent of $g$ since $$\label{eq:bv-in-terms-omega} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = -{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot r + \Omega,$$ and this implies that ${\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}} = {\textnormal{ad}}^_{\Omega}-{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{A_{\textnormal{mech}}}\cdot \dot{r}}$. We see that is split into slow $(t,r,v)$ and fast $(\Omega)$ variables, which is the appropriate setup for a singular perturbation analysis. The remainder of the proof consists of two parts: (i) proving that the NHIM $M_\epsilon$ exists, and (ii) establishing the stability properties of $M_\epsilon$. Proof that $M_\epsilon$ exists. Introducing the “fast time” $\tau \coloneqq \frac{1}{\epsilon} t$ and denoting a derivative with respect to $\tau$ by a prime, after the time-rescaling we obtain the regularized equations $$\label{eq:pertS-equations-motion-local-lagrangian-fast-time} \begin{split} t' &= \epsilon\\ r' &= \epsilon v\\ v' &= \epsilon f(t,r,v,\Omega)\\ \Omega' &= -\epsilon{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{d}{dt}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right)\Omega + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot v + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega. \end{split}$$ This rescaling of time is equivalent to replacing the vector field $(1,X_\epsilon)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathsf{T}}Q$ by $(\epsilon,\epsilon X_\epsilon)$. We see from and that there is a well-defined $C^k$ time-dependent vector field $\tilde{X}_0$ given by the pointwise limit $\tilde{X}_0\coloneqq \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \epsilon X_\epsilon$. Given any $G$-symmetric time-dependent vector field $Y$ on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$, we let $Y/G$ denote the corresponding reduced vector field on $({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$. Hence shows that the extended vector field $(1,\tilde{X}_0/G)$ has a smooth embedded submanifold $(M_0/G)$ of critical points whose intersection with a locally trivializable neighborhood is given by $$\label{eq:M_0/G-graph} \{(r,v,\Omega) \in {\mathsf{T}}U \times {\mathfrak{g}}: \Omega = ({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot v\},$$ and it is readily seen that $M_0/G$ is described globally as the quotient of the Ehresmann connection $M_0 \coloneqq \ker {\Gamma_{\textnormal{visc}}}$ by the lifted action of $G$ on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$. Furthermore, $M_0/G$ is a globally exponentially stable NHIM for the $\epsilon = 0$ system. To see this, first note that in any local trivialization $t, r, v$ are constants when $\epsilon = 0$, and hence $\Omega '$ is of the form $\Omega ' = {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\Omega + b$ for a constant $b$, and therefore has a globally exponentially stable equilibrium provided that all eigenvalues of ${\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ have negative real part. To see that this is the case, fix a basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and corresponding dual basis for ${\mathfrak{g}}^$, and first consider the product ${\mathbb{I}}^{-1} {\mathbb{V}}$. With respect to our chosen basis, ${\mathbb{I}}, {\mathbb{V}}$ and their inverses ${\mathbb{I}}^{-1}, {\mathbb{V}}^{-1}$ are respectively represented by $r$-dependent matrices $I_{ij}, V_{ij}$ and their inverses $I^{ij}, V^{ij}$. It is immediate from the definitions and that $I_{ij}$ and $V_{ij}$ are respectively positive definite and negative definite symmetric matrices (this is why we required the bilinear forms $k, \nu$ to be positive definite when restricted to vectors tangent to $G$ orbits). Since $I_{ij}$ is symmetric positive definite, we may let $(\sqrt{I})_{ij}$ be a matrix square root of $I_{ij}$ and let $(\sqrt{I})^{ij}$ be its inverse. But then the product $I^{ik}V_{kj}$ is similar to the symmetric negative definite matrix $(\sqrt{I})^{ik}V_{k\ell}(\sqrt{I})^{\ell j}$ (Einstein summation implied). Hence ${\mathbb{I}}^{-1} {\mathbb{V}}$ has only eigenvalues with negative real part, and the same is true of ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ because of the similarity ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}= {\textnormal{Ad}}_g^{-1} {\mathbb{I}}^{-1}{\mathbb{V}}{\textnormal{Ad}}_g$. Let $\tilde{\pi}\colon ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G \to {\mathsf{T}}S$ denote the projection induced by ${\mathsf{D}}\pi_Q$. Equation implies that $M_0/G$ is the image of a section $\sigma_0\colon {\mathsf{T}}S \to ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ of $\tilde{\pi}$. Hence $(M_0/G)\cap \tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K) = \sigma_0(K)$ is compact, and $M_0/G$ intersects $\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\partial K)$ transversely. Furthermore, the assumption that $X^\epsilon\|_{{\mathbb{R}}\times K_0} \in C^k_b$ for any compact neighborhood with $C^k$ boundary $K_0 \subset {\mathsf{T}}Q$ implies that all partial derivatives of $f$ are bounded on compact sets uniformly in time. This makes it clear that for any compact $K_1\subset ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$, $(\epsilon X_\epsilon/G)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}\times K_1}$ can be made arbitrarily close to $(\tilde{X}_0/G)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}\times K_1}$ in the $C^k_b$ topology (Definition \[def:ckb-vector-fields\]) by taking $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small. Hence by the noncompact NHIM results of @eldering2013normally [Sec. 4.1-4.2], it follows that $(M_0/G)\cap \tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K)$ persists in extended state space ${\mathbb{R}}\times N$ to a nearby attracting NHIM $M_\epsilon/G$ with boundary for $(\epsilon, \epsilon X_\epsilon/G)$.[^18] Furthermore, $M_\epsilon /G$ is the image of a section $\sigma_\epsilon\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times K \to ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ of $\tilde{\pi}$, and is given in each local trivialization of $({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ by the graph of a function $\Omega = \tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon)$ which is $C^k$ bounded uniformly in time. By symmetry, the preimage $M_\epsilon = \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}^{-1}(M_\epsilon/G)$ of $M_\epsilon/G$ via the quotient $\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}\colon {\mathsf{T}}Q \to ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ yields a NHIM $M_\epsilon$ for $(\epsilon, \epsilon X_\epsilon)$ (and hence also for $(1,X_\epsilon)$) on the subset ${\mathbb{R}}\times N$ of ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathsf{T}}Q$, and $M_\epsilon$ is given in each local trivialization by the graph of the same function $\Omega = \tilde{h}_\epsilon$ as $M_\epsilon/G$ but augmented with trivial dependence on $g$. The function $h_\epsilon$ from the theorem statement is given by $h_\epsilon = {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_\epsilon$. Proof of the stability properties of $M_\epsilon$. Fix any complete $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on[^19] ${\mathsf{T}}Q$, so that it descends to a metric on $({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ making $\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}\colon{\mathsf{T}}Q \to ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ into a Riemannian submersion [@docarmo1992riemannian p. 185]. We have distance functions $\tilde{d}$ and $d$ on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ and $({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ induced by these metrics. For $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, we let $M_\epsilon(t)\coloneqq M_\epsilon \cap (\{t\}\times N)$ and $M_\epsilon(t)/G\coloneqq \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(M_\epsilon(t))$. Given $w\in {\mathsf{T}}Q$ and its orbit $\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(w) \in ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$, it follows that for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\tilde{d}(w, M_\epsilon(t)) = d(\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(w), M_\epsilon(t)/G)$.[^20] Hence it suffices to prove that $M_\epsilon/G$ is uniformly globally asymptotically stable and locally exponentially stable for the vector field $(1, X_\epsilon/G)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times \tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K) = {\mathbb{R}}\times \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(N)$, and to do this it suffices to prove the same for $(\epsilon, \epsilon X_\epsilon/G)$. Fixing an inner product $\langle {\,\cdot\,}, {\,\cdot\,}\rangle$ and associated norm $\norm{{\,\cdot\,}}$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, we accomplish this in two steps. First, we show that there exists a compact neighborhood $K_0 \subset \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(N)$ of $M_\epsilon/G$ such that $K_0$ is positively invariant for the time-dependent flow of $X_\epsilon$, and such that any other compact neighborhood $K_1\subset \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(N)$ of $M_\epsilon/G$ flows into $K_0$ after some finite time depending on $K_1$ but independent of the initial time. Second, we show that all trajectories in $K_0$ converge to $M_\epsilon/G$ at a uniform exponential rate. To achieve this second step, we show that in the intersection of each local trivialization with $K_0$, $\norm{\Omega-\tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,v)}$ decreases at an exponential rate. Since $({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ is covered by finitely many local trivialization (by compactness of $S$), and since all Riemannian metrics are uniformly equivalent on compact sets[^21], this will establish uniform exponential convergence of points in $K_0$ with respect to the distance induced by any Riemannian metric, and in particular the distance $d$. Consider a local trivialization $U\times G$ of $Q$ and the associated form of the dynamics restricted to $\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K \cap {\mathsf{T}}U)$. Differentiating $\norm{\Omega}^2$ using the last equation of , it is easy to check that $\frac{d}{d\tau}\norm{\Omega}^2 \to -\infty$ as $\norm{\Omega}^2 \to \infty$, uniformly in $(t,r,v,\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon$ sufficiently small. (This follows from the negative definiteness of ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\mathbb{V}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ and the compactness of $K$.) Hence we see that there exists $k_0 > 0$ such that for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, $\frac{d}{d\tau}\norm{\Omega}^2 \leq -1$ when $\norm{\Omega}^2 \geq k_0^2$. Now $k_0$ might depend on the local trivialization, but we can replace $k_0$ with the largest such constant selected from finitely many fixed local trivializations covering $Q$. Hence there exists a compact subset $K_0 \subset \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(N)$ given by $\{\norm{\Omega} \leq k_0\}$ in each of these fixed local trivializations, such that $K_0$ is positively invariant for the time-dependent flow of $X_\epsilon$ and such that any other compact neighborhood $K_1 \subset \pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(N)$ of $M_\epsilon/G$ flows into $K_0$ after some finite time independent of the initial time. It remains only to establish the uniform exponential rate of convergence of trajectories in $K_0$ to $M_\epsilon$. For each local trivialization $U \times G$ of $Q$, we define the translated variable $\tilde{\Omega}\coloneqq \Omega - \tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,v,\epsilon)$. Since $M_\epsilon/G$ is invariant, we must have $\tilde{\Omega}' = 0$ whenever $\tilde{\Omega} = 0$. Differentiating $\tilde{\Omega}$ using , we therefore find that $$\label{eq:omega-tilde-equation} \begin{split} \tilde{\Omega}' &= \left[-\epsilon{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{d}{dt}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right) + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}+ \epsilon \zeta(t,r,v,\tilde{\Omega}) + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right]\tilde{\Omega}\\ &\eqqcolon \left[\epsilon A(t,r,v,\tilde{\Omega}) + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r) \right]\tilde{\Omega}, \end{split}$$ since all of the terms which do not vanish when $\tilde{\Omega} = 0$ must cancel. Here $\zeta$ is defined via Hadamard’s lemma [@nestruev2003smooth Lemma 2.8]: $$\zeta(t,r,v,\tilde{\Omega}) \coloneqq \frac{\partial}{\partial v}\tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,v) \int_{0}^{1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Omega}f(t,r,v,\tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,v) + s \tilde{\Omega})\,ds,$$ so that $\zeta(t,r,v,\tilde{\Omega})\tilde{\Omega} = \tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,v) f(t,r,v,\tilde{h}_\epsilon + \tilde \Omega)$. As previously mentioned, the $C^k$ boundedness of $X_\epsilon$ on compact subsets of ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ implies that $\tilde{h}_\epsilon$, $f$, and their first $k$ partial derivatives are uniformly bounded on sets of the form ${\mathbb{R}}\times K_2$ with $K_2$ compact. Hence whenever $\norm{\Omega}\leq k_0$ and $(r,v) \in U \cap K$, $\norm{A(t,r,v,\tilde{\Omega})} \leq L$ for some constant $L$ depending on the local trivialization; we replace $L$ with the largest such constant chosen from finitely many local trivializations covering $Q$. Integrating both sides of , taking norms using the triangle inequality, and applying Grönwall’s Lemma therefore yields $$\label{eq:gas-gronwall-estimate} \begin{split} \norm{\tilde{\Omega}(\tau)} &\leq e^{-\lambda (\tau-\tau_0)} e^{\int_{\tau_0}^{\tau}\epsilon\norm{A(t(s),r(s),v(s),\tilde{\Omega}(s)}\,ds }\norm{\tilde{\Omega}(\tau_0)}\\ & \leq e^{\left[-\lambda + \epsilon L \right](\tau-\tau_0)} \norm{\tilde{\Omega}(\tau_0)}. \end{split}$$ where $-\lambda < 0$ is defined via $-\lambda\coloneqq \sup_{r \in S} \max\, \textnormal{spec}({\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r))$, and is strictly negative since $S$ is compact. By the previous discussion, requiring $\epsilon > 0$ to be sufficiently small so that $-\lambda + \epsilon L < 0$ completes the proof. Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\] and Remark \[rem:recover-kelly-eqn\] show that, to zeroth order in $\epsilon$, the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold $M_\epsilon$ are given by the viscous connection model . The following theorem shows that the dynamics restricted to $M_\epsilon$ can be explicitly computed to higher order in $\epsilon$. We compute the restricted dynamics to first order in $\epsilon$. Higher order terms in $\epsilon$ can also be computed recursively, but we choose not to pursue this here. \[th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold\] Assume the same hypotheses as in Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\]. Then the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold $M_\epsilon$ are given in a local trivialization by $$\label{eq:pertS-corrected-eqn-first-order} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}= -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot \dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial_r} \bar{h}_0\right)\dot{r} + \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right) \ddot{r} - {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}(\bar{h}_0)\right) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2),$$ where $$\bar{h}_0(r,\dot{r}) \coloneqq \frac{1}{m}h_0(r,\dot{r}) = {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r)-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r))\cdot \dot{r},$$ where we are using the definition ${\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\coloneqq \frac{1}{m}{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$. Alternatively, we may write $$\label{eq:pertS-corrected-eqn-first-order-f} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}= -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot \dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \bar{h}_0\right)\dot{r} + \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right) f(t,r,\dot{r},{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}\bar{h}_0) - {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}(\bar{h}_0)\right) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2),$$ for a different ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2)$ term. Notice the presence, in the second term of , of $\bar{h}_0$ rather than $h_0$ of . This is important because the expression for $h_0$ contains an ${\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}= m {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}$ factor. Because of the possibility that the size of $m$ is commensurate with $\epsilon$, this means that $h_0$ could be ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$. However, $\bar{h}_0$ is ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$, ensuring that the second term is ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ but not ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2)$. Equations and can be viewed as adding ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ correction terms to the viscous connection model , valid in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$, to account for the more realistic situation that the inertia-damping ratio $\frac{m}{c} = \epsilon$ is small but nonzero. Consider the function $$\tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon) \coloneqq {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} h_\epsilon = ({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r)-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r))\cdot \dot{r} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$$ from the proof of Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\], and define $\bar{h}_\epsilon\coloneqq {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_\epsilon = \frac{1}{m}h_\epsilon$. Since $\bar{h}_\epsilon, \tilde{h}_\epsilon \in C^k$, we may expand them as asymptotic series $$\label{eq:asympt-series} \begin{split} \bar{h}_\epsilon &= \bar{h}_0 + \epsilon \bar{h}_1 + \ldots + \epsilon^{k} \bar{h}_{k} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^{k+1})\\ \tilde{h}_\epsilon &= \tilde{h}_0 + \epsilon \tilde{h}_1 + \ldots + \epsilon^{k} \tilde{h}_{k} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^{k+1}), \end{split}$$ where for all $i$, $\bar{h}_i = {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_i$. We also already know from Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\] that $\tilde{h}_0 =({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot\dot{r}$, and therefore $\tilde{h}_0(t,r,\dot{r}) \equiv \tilde{h}_0(r,\dot{r})$ has no explicit $t$-dependence. We now compute $\tilde{h}_1$ via a standard technique [@jones1995geometric]. Differentiating both sides of the equation $\Omega = \tilde{h}_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon)$ with respect to time (using to differentiate the left hand side), substituting the second equation of for $\Omega$ in the resulting expression, and retaining terms only up to ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} -\epsilon{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{d}{dt}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right)\tilde{h}_0 + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{visc}}}- {A_{\textnormal{mech}}})\cdot \dot{r} + {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\left(\tilde{h}_0+\epsilon \tilde{h}_1 \right) + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_0 = \epsilon \dot{\tilde{h}}_0 + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2). \end{aligned}$$ Equating the coefficients of $\epsilon$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{h}_1 &= {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{d}{dt}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\right)\tilde{h}_0+ {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\dot{\tilde{h}}_0 - {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_0\\ &= {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}\frac{d}{dt}\left({\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_0 \right) - {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}{\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_0. \end{aligned}$$ Since $h_1 = {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_1$ and $\bar{h}_0 = {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}\tilde{h}_0$, we find $$h_1 = {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\bar{h}_0 \right) - {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}{\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}\left(\bar{h}_0\right),$$ and therefore (substituting $\ddot{r} = f(t,r,\dot{r},{\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} p) = f(t,r,\dot{r},\tilde{h}_0) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ and differentiating $\bar{h}_0(r,\dot{r})$ via the chain rule), $$\label{eq:pertS-h-eps_first-two-terms} \begin{split} h_\epsilon(t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon) &= {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot\dot{r} \\ & + \epsilon {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \bar{h}_0\right)\dot{r} + \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right) f(t,r,\dot{r},\tilde{h}_0) - {\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}(\bar{h}_0)\right) + {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}{\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2). \end{split}$$ Notice that, since $\tilde{h}_0$ is a function of $r,\dot{r}$ only, the ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ portion of the right hand side of is a function of $t,r,\dot{r}$ alone and not $p$. This is required since $h_\epsilon$ is required to be a function of $t,r,\dot{r},\epsilon$ alone, and is the reason that we needed to replace $\ddot{r}$ by $f(t,r,\dot{r},\tilde{h}_0)$ in the ${\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ term. Substituting into the first equation of yields Equation . Finally, making the substitution $f(t,r,\dot{r},\tilde{h}_0) = \ddot{r} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon)$ in Equation yields Equation . The following theorem makes clearer the functional form of the dynamics , and it removes the ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}$ dependence of the right hand side of . [th:pertS-dynamics-on-slow-manifold-simpler]{} Assume the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\]. For sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$, then for each local trivialization there exist smooth fields of linear maps $B(r)$ and $(1,2)$ tensors $G(r)$ such that the dynamics restricted to the slow manifold $M_\epsilon$ in the local trivialization satisfy $$\label{eq:pertS-dynamics-slow-mfld-solved-for-BV-simpler} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r) \cdot \dot{r} + \epsilon B(r)\cdot\ddot{r} +\epsilon G(r)\cdot(\dot{r},\dot{r}) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2).$$ The (1,2) tensors $G(r)$ are not* generally symmetric, which is clear from Equation below. Using the properties of ${\textnormal{ad}}^$, we may write ${\textnormal{ad}}^_{{\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}}(\bar{h}_0) = (C\cdot \bar{h}_0)\cdot ({\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}})$ for an appropriate ($r$-independent) linear map $C\colon {\mathfrak{g}}^* \to \text{End}({\mathfrak{g}})$, and hence we may rewrite as $$({\textnormal{id}}_{\mathfrak{g}}+ \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} (C\cdot \bar{h}_0) )\cdot ({\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}) = -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot \dot{r} +\epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \bar{h}_0\right)\dot{r} + \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right)\ddot{r}\right) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2).$$ For sufficiently small $\epsilon$, we may use the identity $$({\textnormal{id}}_{\mathfrak{g}}+ \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} (C\cdot \bar{h}_0) )^{-1} = {\textnormal{id}}_{\mathfrak{g}}- \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} (C\cdot \bar{h}_0) + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2)$$ to obtain $$\label{eq:pertS-dynamics-slow-mfld-solved-for-BV} {\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}} = -{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot \dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}(C\cdot \bar{h}_0)\cdot {A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot\dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \bar{h}_0\right)\dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right)\ddot{r} + {\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^2).$$ Since $\bar{h}_0(r,\dot{r})= {\bar{\mathbb{I}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}(r)({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}(r)-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}}(r))\cdot\dot{r}$ is linear in $\dot{r}$, it follows that the second and third terms are bilinear in $\dot{r}$, and the fourth term is linear in $\ddot{r}$. Hence we may take $B(r)\coloneqq {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{r}}\bar{h}_0\right)$ and $$\label{eq:G-tensors-explicit} G(r)\cdot(\dot{r},\dot{r})\coloneqq {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1}(C\cdot {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot\dot{r})\cdot {A_{\textnormal{visc}}}\cdot\dot{r} + \epsilon {\bar{\mathbb{V}}_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( {\mathbb{I}_{\textnormal{loc}}}({A_{\textnormal{mech}}}-{A_{\textnormal{visc}}})\cdot\dot{r}\right)\cdot \dot{r}.$$ [^1]: Corresponding author; EECS Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (`[email protected]`) [^2]: Robotics Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (`[email protected]`) [^3]: Department of EECS, Department of EEB, Robotics Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (`[email protected]`) [^4]: In a formal sense, one may start with generalized coordinates $Q$ and the action of $G$, and define $S$ as a quotient manifold $Q/G$. The details of this construction are not germane to our argument. Instead, for simplicity we postulate the separation of configuration into “shape” and “body-frame” here, with the more general case treated in the appendices. [^5]: We make this assumption for simplicity. In principle, it should be possible to relax this assumption to derive modified but similar results for a force depending nonlinearly on velocities, as long as the linear approximation (with respect to velocities) of this force satisfies the same assumptions that we impose on our assumed linear force. [^6]: Here ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$ is the vector space dual of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of $G$. [^7]: The body velocity is often written $g^{-1}\dot{g}$ by an abuse of notation which is only defined on matrix Lie groups where the product of a tangent vector and a group element is naturally defined. For a general definition note that $\dot g \in {\mathsf{T}}_g G$, and the derivative of the left action ${\mathsf{D}}\mathrm{L}_{g^{-1}}$ restricts to a map ${\mathsf{T}}_g G \to {\mathsf{T}}_e G \cong {\mathfrak{g}}$. Hence the definition above. [^8]: In principle, any circle-valued “phase” function of state whose derivative along trajectories is positive could be used instead of asymptotic phase. We chose to use asymptotic phase because it is dynamically meaningful and there exist algorithms to compute it. [^9]: In practice the Fourier series models of $\gamma,\dot{\gamma},\ddot{\gamma}$ might be computed from their own noisy data sets, and in this case the resulting Fourier models need not be derivatives of one another. We find that the use of matched filters is helpful in mitigating this issue; see @bittner2018geom [@RevzenPhD09] for more details. [^10]: The astute experimentalist realizes that since the derivative terms contain $dt$ and $dt^2$ in their units, a certain degree of numerical conditioning can be obtained by judicious choice of units for time. [^11]: In some cases this procedure is provably correct. Furthermore, suitable finite-dimensional families that provide these guarantees always exist [@milnor1969morse Sec. 16]. We do not discuss these technicalities any further here. [^12]: All of these simulations did not account for fluid-fluid interactions; as such we make no claim that they are physically meaningful at the higher Reynolds number in the ranges shown. [^13]: But see the discussion preceding [Thm. \[th:pertS\_NAIM\_persists\]]{} in [§\[sec:pertS-reduction-perturbed-Stokes-regime\]]{}, which details how our result differs from that of @eldering2016role. [^14]: This does not affect any of the following derivations and results. However, this generality is merely a convenience ensuring that our results apply to certain idealized examples, e.g., linkages with some links having zero mass (c.f. §\[sec:performance\]). Of course such examples are not physical and, e.g., must be supplemented with assumptions to ensure that the massless links have well-defined dynamics. [^15]: This generality simply allows for, e.g., the situation of a linkage in which not all links are subject to viscous forces. [^16]: As mentioned in the main text, the body velocity is often written $g^{-1}\dot{g}$ by an abuse of notation which is only defined on matrix Lie groups where the product of a tangent vector and a group element is naturally defined. We use the alternative notation ${\accentset{\scriptstyle\circ}{g}}$ as a matter of personal preference. [^17]: This implicitly assumes that the locomoting body is capable of exerting ${\mathcal{O}}(c)$ forces. [^18]: $M_\epsilon/G$ is unique up to the choice of a cutoff function used to modify the dynamics near the boundary of a slightly enlarged neighborhood of $\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K)$, used in order to render a slightly enlarged version of $(M_0/G)\cap \tilde{\pi}^{-1}(K)$ overflowing invariant [@eldering2013normally Sec. 4.3]. See @kvalheim2018global [Sec. 5] and @josic2000synchronization [Sec. 2] for more details on such boundary modifications. [^19]: For example, take the Sasaki metric on ${\mathsf{T}}Q$ induced by any complete $G$-invariant metric on $Q$. [^20]: To prove this, first note that $d(\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(w), M_\epsilon(t)/G)\leq \tilde{d}(w, M_\epsilon(t))$ because the length $\ell(\tilde{\gamma})$ of any curve $\tilde{\gamma}\colon[0,1]\to {\mathsf{T}}Q$ satisfies $\ell(\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}\circ \tilde{\gamma})\leq \ell(\tilde{\gamma})$. But if $\gamma:[0,1]\to ({\mathsf{T}}Q)/G$ is any curve joining $\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(w)$ to $M_\epsilon/G$, then its horizontal lift $\tilde{\gamma}$ is a curve joining $w$ to $M_\epsilon$ such that $\ell(\tilde{\gamma})=\ell(\gamma)$. Taking the infimum over all such $\gamma$ shows that $\tilde{d}(w, M_\epsilon(t)) = d(\pi_{{\mathsf{T}}Q}(w), M_\epsilon(t)/G)$. [^21]: Let $\norm{{\,\cdot\,}}, \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}'$ denote the Finslers (norms) induced by two Riemannian metrics, and $K_0$ our compact set. Since all norms are equivalent on finite-dimensional vector spaces, we have that the restrictions of these norms to the tangent space of a single point $x$ satisfy $\frac{1}{c(x)}\norm{{\,\cdot\,}} \leq \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}' \leq c(x) \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}$. Defining $\bar{c}\coloneqq \sup_{x\in K_0}c(x)$, we obtain the uniform equivalence $\frac{1}{\bar{c}}\norm{{\,\cdot\,}} \leq \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}' \leq \bar{c} \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}$ on all of $K_0$. If $K_0$ is a connected submanifold and we give it the restricted metrics, then by considering the lengths of curves in $K_0$ this implies the uniform bound $\frac{1}{\bar{c}}d \leq d' \leq \bar{c}d$ on the Riemannian distances between points in $K_0$ with respect to the restricted metrics.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| The branching ratios of the $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l\gamma \hspace{2mm} (l = e, \mu)$ decays, and the $T$-odd triple momenta correlations $\xi=\vec{q}\cdot[\vec{p}_l \times \vec{p}_\pi]/M^3_K$, due to the electromagnetic final state interaction, in these processes are calculated. The contributions on the order of $\omega^{-1}$ and $\omega^0$ to the corresponding amplitudes are treated exactly. For the branching ratios and $T$-odd correlation in $K^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e\gamma$ decay, the corrections on the order of $\omega$ are estimated and demonstrated to be small. The results for the branching ratios are in good agreement with the previous ones. The $T$-odd triple momenta correlations in $K^0_{l3\gamma}$ decays are calculated for the first time. The values of the $\xi$-odd asymmetry are on the order of $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-2}$ in the $K^0 \to \pi^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu \gamma$ and $K^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e\gamma$ decays, respectively. --- [$K^0_{l3\gamma}$ decays:\ branching ratios and $T$-odd momenta correlations]{} A.S.Rudenko[^1] Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics,\ 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia [1.]{} The $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l\gamma \hspace{2mm} (l = e, \mu)$ decays were previously studied theoretically in Refs. [@ffs; @ffs1; @gas; @gkpv]. Therein the branching ratios of these decays were calculated. As for the $T$-odd triple momenta correlations $\xi=\vec{q}\cdot[\vec{p}_l \times \vec{p}_\pi]/M^3_K$, as induced by the electromagnetic final state interaction, they were considered only in the $K^+ \to \pi^0 l^+ \nu_l\gamma$ decays [@brag; @mkm; @khr]; here and below $M_K$ is the kaon mass and $\vec{q}$, $\vec{p}_l$, $\vec{p}_\pi$ are the momenta of $\gamma$, $l$, $\pi$, respectively. In principle, these triple correlations can be used to probe new $CP$-odd effects beyond the Standard Model, which could also contribute to them. In the theoretical analysis of radiative effects in the discussed processes, the treatment of the accompanying radiation, which gives the effects on the order of $\omega^{-1}$ and $\omega^0$ (the last ones originate from the radiation due to the lepton magnetic moment), is straightforward (here and below $\omega$ is the photon energy). As to the structure radiation contribution on the order of $\omega^0$, it is also under control, in fact due to the gauge invariance [@low]. The contributions on the order of $\omega$ (and higher) depend directly on the photon field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ (and its derivatives) and cannot be fixed in a model-independent way. We assume that the corrections on the order of $\omega$ and higher are relatively small. Indeed, more quantitative arguments presented below demonstrate that such contributions into the discussed branching ratios and into the $T$-odd momenta correlation in $K^0_{e3\gamma}$ decay do not exceed $10-15\%$. [2.]{} At the tree level, the $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l \gamma$ decays are described by the Feynman graphs in Fig. \[fig:1\]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![The tree diagrams of $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l\gamma $ decays[]{data-label="fig:1"}](1a.eps "fig:") ![The tree diagrams of $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l\gamma $ decays[]{data-label="fig:1"}](1b.eps "fig:") ![The tree diagrams of $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l\gamma $ decays[]{data-label="fig:1"}](1c.eps "fig:") a b c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The matrix elements for diagrams 1a and 1b look as follows: $$\begin{gathered} \label{M1a} M_{1a}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}e[f_+(t)(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha+f_-(t)(p_K-p_\pi)_\alpha] \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5) \left(\frac{p_le^}{p_lq}+\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_lq}\right)v_l,\end{gathered}$$ $$\label{M1b} M_{1b}=-\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}e[f_+(t')(p_K+p_\pi+q)_\alpha+f_-(t')(p_K-p_\pi-q)_\alpha] \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q};$$ here $G$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo angle, $e$ is the elementary charge ($e>0$), $t=(p_K-p_\pi)^2$, $t'=(p_K-p_\pi-q)^2$; here and below the lower indices attached to the matrix elements match the corresponding Feynman diagrams in the figures. Usually the dependence of the form factors $f_+$ and $f_-$ on the momentum transfer $t$ is described by formula $$\label{f-} f_\pm(t)=f_\pm(0)\left(1+\lambda_\pm\frac{t}{m^2_\pi}\right).$$ The experimental data are adequately described by Eq. (\[f-\]) with $\lambda_+\approx 0.03$ for $l=\mu$ and $l=e$; $\lambda_-=0$ for $l=\mu$ [@PDG10]; $\lambda_-$ for $l=e$ is unknown, but one may assume that it is also close to zero. In the $K^0_{l3\gamma}$ decays the ratio $\lambda_\pm t/m^2_\pi$ is small, $\lambda_\pm t/m^2_\pi \lesssim 0.1$, so one can put $f_\pm(t)=f_\pm(0)$. Since the ratio $\xi(0)=f_-(0)/f_+(0)\lesssim 0.1$ is also small [@PDG04], one can neglect $f_-(0)$ with the same accuracy. Thus, our expressions (\[M1a\]) and (\[M1b\]) simplify to $$M_{1a}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5) \left(\frac{p_le^}{p_lq}+\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_lq}\right)v_l,$$ $$M_{1b}=-\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)(p_K+p_\pi+q)_\alpha \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}.$$ However, the sum of diagrams 1a and 1b is not gauge invariant: it does not vanish under the substitution $e^\to q$. To restore the gauge invariance, one should add the third diagram where a photon is directly emitted from the vertex (see Fig. \[fig:1\]c). This contact amplitude has no single-particle intermediate states and therefore is on the order of $\omega^0$ and higher. The contribution $\sim\omega^0$, as derived with the Low technique [@low], is $$M_{1c}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) e^_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l.$$ Thus, the model-independent gauge invariant tree amplitude of $K^0_{l3\gamma}$ decays, including only terms on the order of $\omega^{-1}$ and $\omega^0$ (but all of them!), is $$\begin{gathered} \label{m1} M_{tree}=M_{1a}+M_{1b}+M_{1c}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\left\{(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l \left(\frac{p_le^}{p_lq}-\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}\right) \right. \\ \left. +(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_lq}v_l+ \left(e^_\alpha-\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}q_\alpha\right) \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ This expression agrees with the corresponding formulas in Ref. [@gas] (if our $f_+(0)$ is set to its $SU(3)$ value $f_+(0)=1$). It is convenient to present amplitude (\[m1\]) as a sum of gauge-invariant contributions. They are the infrared term $M_{IR}$ corresponding to the sum of the amplitudes of accompanying radiation by the pion and lepton (independent of the lepton magnetic moment), the magnetic term $M_{mag}$ which is the amplitude of spin-dependent accompanying radiation of the lepton magnetic moment, and the Low term $M_{Low}$: $$M_{IR}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l \left(\frac{p_le^}{p_lq}-\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}\right),$$ $$M_{mag}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_lq}v_l,$$ $$M_{Low}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \left(e^_\alpha-\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}q_\alpha\right) \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l.$$ The decay width $\Gamma(K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l \gamma)$ is equal to the sum $\Gamma(K^0_L \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l \gamma)+\Gamma(K^0_L \to \pi^+ l^- \bar{\nu}_l \gamma)$, which is measured experimentally (see also [@gkpv]). The results of calculation and experimental values for $K^0_L \to \pi^\pm l^\mp \nu_l \gamma$ branching ratios are presented in Table \[table:1\]; here the following cuts in the kaon rest frame are used: $\omega \geqslant 30$ MeV and $\theta_{l\gamma}\geqslant 20^\circ$ (except the experimental results for $l=\mu$, where only restriction $\omega \geqslant 30$ MeV is imposed). We use in calculation the particle masses $m_K=497.6$ MeV, $m_\pi=139.57$ MeV, $m_\mu=105.658$ MeV, and $m_e=0.511$ MeV, the Fermi coupling constant $G=1.1664\times 10^{-11}$ MeV$^{-2}$, the fine-structure constant $e^2/4\pi=\alpha=1/137$, the Planck constant $\hbar=6.582\times 10^{-22}$ MeV$\cdot$s, $K^0_L$ mean life $\tau=5.1\times 10^{-8}$ s, $\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)=0.217$. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $l=\mu$ $l=e$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ------- Bijnens [et al]{}. [[@gas]]{} & $5.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.6\times 10^{-3}$\ present work & $5.00\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.45\times 10^{-3}$\ experimental values [@PDG10] & $(5.65\pm0.23)\times 10^{-4}$ & $(3.79\pm0.06)\times 10^{-3}$\ & $\omega \geqslant 30$ MeV &\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The accuracy of our results can be estimated as follows. The leading corrections to them are due to the structure radiation from the hadronic vertex. They are proportional to the photon field strength, i.e. are on the order of $\omega$. There are good reasons to believe that these corrections are less than the Low structure amplitudes which are on the order of $\omega^0$. The Low contributions (including of course their interference with the accompanying radiation) to the discussed $K^0_L \to \pi^\pm \mu^\mp \nu_\mu \gamma$ and $K^0_L \to \pi^\pm e^\mp \nu_e \gamma$ branching ratios, according to our calculations, constitute $0.79 \times 10^{-4}$ and $0.27\times10^{-3}$, respectively. Let us note also that corrections to the quoted results derived in Ref. [@gas] in the chiral perturbation theory are of similar magnitude. As mentioned, additional corrections on the level of 10 – 15% to the branching ratios originate from our neglect of the form factor $f_-(t)$ and of the $t$-dependence of $f_+(t)$ (see also Table I in Ref. [@ffs1]). As to the relative accuracy of our numerical integration over phase space of final particles, it is about $10^{-3}$. To compare properly our results with those of Ref. [@gas] one should keep in mind that now the experimental values of some quantities are known with better accuracy. Indeed, we use $\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)=0.217$ in our calculation and, as far as we can see, in Ref. [@gas] the corresponding value is $0.22$. Substitution of one of these values for another alters the results by about $3\%$. Thus, our results for the branching ratios agree reasonably well with those of Ref. [@gas]. [3.]{} The $T$-odd triple momenta correlations $\xi=\vec{q}\cdot[\vec{p}_l \times \vec{p}_\pi]/M^3_K$ in the $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l \gamma$ decays arise from the interference term $2\mathrm{Re}(M^\dagger_{tree} A_{loop})$ in the decay rate; here $M_{tree}$ is the tree amplitude and $A_{loop}$ is the anti-Hermitian part of the loop diagrams presented below. As we are interested in the effect due to the electromagnetic final state interaction we consider only the one-loop diagrams generated from the tree ones by attaching the virtual photon. The on-mass-shell intermediate particles on the diagrams are marked by crosses. The anti-Hermitian part of the sum of one-loop diagrams is written as $$A_{loop}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{fn}M^_{in},$$ where the sum over $n$ includes the summation over the polarizations and the integration over the phase space of intermediate particles. It is natural to divide the loop diagrams into four groups according to the type of amplitudes $M_{fn}$ and $M^_{in}$. In the first group (see Fig. \[fig:2\]) the amplitude $M_{fn}$ depicts the Compton scattering off the intermediate lepton (see Fig. \[fig:3\]): $$M_{fn}=M_{3a}+M_{3b}=e^2\bar{v}_{k_l} \hat{e}_k \frac{\hat{P}-m_l}{2p_{l}q} \hat{e}^* v_l + e^2\bar{v}_{k_l} \hat{e}^* \frac{\hat{p}_l-\hat{k}-m_l}{-2p_{l}k} \hat{e}_k v_l.$$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2a.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2b.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2c.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2d.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2e.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group I – the Compton scattering off the lepton)[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2f.eps "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The Compton scattering off the lepton[]{data-label="fig:3"}](3a.eps "fig:") ![The Compton scattering off the lepton[]{data-label="fig:3"}](3b.eps "fig:") a b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to $M^_{in}$, it is the same tree amplitude (\[m1\]), up to the change of some notations: $$\begin{gathered} M^_{in}=M_{ni}=M_{tree}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}= \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\left\{(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_{k_l} \left(\frac{k_l e^_k}{p_l q}-\frac{p_\pi e^_k}{p_\pi k}\right) \right. \\ \left. +(p_K+p_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\hat{k}\hat{e}^_k}{2p_l q}v_{k_l}+ \left(e^_{k\alpha}-\frac{p_\pi e^_k}{p_\pi k}k_\alpha\right) \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_{k_l}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ The element of phase space is $$d\rho=\frac{d^3k}{2\omega_k}\frac{d^3k_l}{2\omega_l}\delta^{(4)}(k_l+k-P),$$ where $P=p_l+q$. In the second group of one-loop diagrams (see Fig. \[fig:4\]) the amplitude $M_{fn}$ corresponds to the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson (see Fig. \[fig:5\]): $$M_{fn}=M_{5a}+M_{5b}+M_{5c}=2e^2\left\{-\frac{(p_\pi e^)(k_\pi e_k)}{p_\pi q}+\frac{(p_\pi e_k)(k_\pi e^)}{p_\pi k}+(e_k e^)\right\}.$$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4a.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4b.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4c.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4d.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4e.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4f.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4g.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4h.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group II – the Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson)[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4i.eps "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![The Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson[]{data-label="fig:5"}](5a.eps "fig:") ![The Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson[]{data-label="fig:5"}](5b.eps "fig:") ![The Compton scattering off the $\pi$-meson[]{data-label="fig:5"}](5c.eps "fig:") a b c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The amplitude $M^_{in}$ is the tree amplitude (\[m1\]) up to the change of notations: $$\begin{gathered} M^_{in}=M_{ni}=M_{tree}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_{\pi}\to k_{\pi},\\ e\to e_k}}= \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\left\{(p_K+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l \left(\frac{p_l e^_k}{p_l k}-\frac{k_\pi e^_k}{p_\pi q}\right) \right. \\ \left. +(p_K+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\hat{k}\hat{e}^_k}{2p_l k}v_l+ \left(e^_{k\alpha}-\frac{k_\pi e^_k}{p_\pi q}k_\alpha\right) \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_l\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ The element of phase space is $$d\rho'=\frac{d^3k}{2\omega_k}\frac{d^3k_\pi}{2\omega_\pi}\delta^{(4)}(k_\pi+k-P'),$$ where $P'=p_\pi+q$. In the third group of one-loop diagrams (see Fig. \[fig:6\]) the amplitude $M_{fn}$ is $\pi$-$l$ scattering amplitude (see Fig. \[fig:7\]): $$M_{fn}=M_7=e^2\|F_\pi(k^2)\|\frac{1}{k^2}(p_\pi+k_\pi)_\alpha \bar{v}_{k_l}\gamma^\alpha v_l.$$ -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ![The one-loop diagrams (group III – $\pi$-$l$ scattering)[]{data-label="fig:6"}](6a.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group III – $\pi$-$l$ scattering)[]{data-label="fig:6"}](6b.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group III – $\pi$-$l$ scattering)[]{data-label="fig:6"}](6c.eps "fig:") -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The $\pi$-$l$ scattering diagram[]{data-label="fig:7"}](7.eps "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The amplitude $M^_{in}$ is also the tree amplitude (\[m1\]) up to the change of notations: $$\begin{gathered} M^_{in}=M_{ni}=M_{tree}\rvert_{\substack{p_l \to k_l,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi}}= \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\left\{(p_K+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_{k_l} \left(\frac{k_l e^}{k_lq}-\frac{k_\pi e^}{k_\pi q}\right) \right. \\ \left. +(p_K+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2k_l q}v_{k_l}+ \left(e^_{\alpha}-\frac{k_\pi e^}{k_\pi q}q_\alpha\right) \bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_{k_l}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ The element of phase space is $$d\rho''=\frac{d^3k_l}{2\omega_l}\frac{d^3k_\pi}{2\omega_\pi}\delta^{(4)}(k_l+k_\pi-P''),$$ where $P''=p_l+p_\pi$. And finally, in the fourth group of one-loop diagrams (see Fig. \[fig:8\]) the amplitude $M_{fn}$ is $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon (see Fig. \[fig:9\]): $$\begin{gathered} M_{fn}=M_{9a}+M_{9b}+M_{9c}+M_{9d}+M_{9e}=e^3\|F_\pi(k^2)\|\frac{1}{k^2}\left\{(p_\pi+k_\pi)_\alpha \bar{v}_{k_l}\gamma^\alpha\left(\frac{p_l e^}{p_l q}+\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_l q}\right) v_l \right.\\ -(p_\pi+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{v}_{k_l}\left(\frac{k_l e^}{k_l q}+\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2k_l q}\right)\gamma^\alpha v_l-(p_\pi+k_\pi+q)_\alpha \bar{v}_{k_l} \gamma^\alpha v_l \frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}\\ \left. +(p_\pi+k_\pi-q)_\alpha \bar{v}_{k_l} \gamma^\alpha v_l \frac{k_\pi e^}{k_\pi q}+2e^_\alpha\bar{v}_{k_l} \gamma^\alpha v_l \right\}.\end{gathered}$$ [c]{} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The one-loop diagrams (group IV – $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon)[]{data-label="fig:8"}](8a.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group IV – $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon)[]{data-label="fig:8"}](8b.eps "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![The one-loop diagrams (group IV – $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon)[]{data-label="fig:8"}](8c.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group IV – $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon)[]{data-label="fig:8"}](8d.eps "fig:") ![The one-loop diagrams (group IV – $\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon)[]{data-label="fig:8"}](8e.eps "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [c]{} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![$\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon[]{data-label="fig:9"}](9a.eps "fig:") ![$\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon[]{data-label="fig:9"}](9b.eps "fig:") a b ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![$\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon[]{data-label="fig:9"}](9c.eps "fig:") ![$\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon[]{data-label="fig:9"}](9d.eps "fig:") ![$\pi$-$l$ scattering with emission of a photon[]{data-label="fig:9"}](9e.eps "fig:") c d e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to $M^_{in}$, it is the amplitude of $K^0_{l3}$ decays (see Fig. \[fig:10\]): $$M^_{in}=M_{ni}=M_{10}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) (p_K+k_\pi)_\alpha\bar{u}_\nu\gamma^\alpha(1+\gamma_5)v_{k_l}.$$ ------------------------------------------------------------ ![$K^0_{l3}$ decays[]{data-label="fig:10"}](10.eps "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------ The element of phase space is $$d\rho'''=\frac{d^3k_l}{2\omega_l}\frac{d^3k_\pi}{2\omega_\pi}\delta^{(4)}(k_l+k_\pi-P'''),$$ where $P'''=p_l+p_\pi+q$. In the discussed decays $k^2<0$ and $\sqrt{-k^2}<m_K(1-m^2_\pi/m^2_K)\lesssim 450$ MeV. At these energies the pion electromagnetic form factor can be approximated as $$\|F_\pi(k^2)\|\approx 1+<r^2_\pi>k^2/6,$$ here $<r^2_\pi>$ is the pion mean square charge radius. According to our calculations (we use the PDG value $<r^2_\pi>=(0.67\,\mathrm{fm})^2$ [@PDG10]), the contribution of term $<r^2_\pi>k^2/6$ to the momenta correlation is small, namely, it does not exceed 5% relative to the contribution of 1. Therefore, we can put $\|F_\pi(k^2)\|=1$. Moreover, keeping $<r^2_\pi>$ term itself is beyond the accuracy of our calculation, because we have already neglected of the form factor $f_-(t)$ and of the $t$-dependence of $f_+(t)$. The one-loop diagrams from group III contain infrared divergent terms, which can be omitted because infrared corrections to the decay width are factorized and, therefore, do not contribute to the effect. The details of the calculation of the $T$-odd correlation $\xi=\vec{q}\cdot[\vec{p}_l \times \vec{p}_\pi]/M^3_K$ can be found in Appendices. In fact, what is really measured experimentally is not the $T$-odd triple momenta correlation $\xi$ by itself but the asymmetry $$\begin{split} A_\xi&=\frac{N_+-N_-}{N_++N_-}=\frac{\int \left(\|M_{tree}\|^2+\|M\|^2_{odd}\right) d\Phi_{\xi>0}-\int \left(\|M_{tree}\|^2+\|M\|^2_{odd}\right) d\Phi_{\xi<0}}{\int \left(\|M_{tree}\|^2+\|M\|^2_{odd}\right) d\Phi_{\xi>0}+\int \left(\|M_{tree}\|^2+\|M\|^2_{odd}\right) d\Phi_{\xi<0}} \\ &=\frac{\int \|M\|^2_{odd}d\Phi_{\xi>0}}{\int \|M_{tree}\|^2d\Phi_{\xi>0}} \end{split}$$ induced by this correlation; here $N_+$ and $N_-$ are the numbers of events with $\xi>0$ and $\xi<0$, $\|M\|^2_{odd}$ is the $\xi$-odd term in the interference $2\mathrm{Re}(M^\dagger_{tree} A_{loop})$, and integration is performed over the phase space of the final particles. The results for the asymmetry $A_\xi$ in $K^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l \gamma$ decays (here $K^0$ means both $K^0_L$ and $K^0_S$) are presented in Table \[table:2\]. [\|c\|@c@\|@c@\|@c@\|]{} & $l=\mu$ & $l=e$\ & $-0.54\times 10^{-4}$ & $-1.32\times 10^{-4}$\ & $-3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $-3.2\times 10^{-4}$\ ----------- group III ----------- & $\|F_\pi\|=1$ -------------------------- $<r^2_\pi>$ contribution & $2.7\times 10^{-3}$ ---------------------- $-0.1\times 10^{-4}$ & $-1.1\times 10^{-2}$ ---------------------- $0.1\times 10^{-4}$ \ ---------- group IV ---------- & $\|F_\pi\|=1$ -------------------------- $<r^2_\pi>$ contribution & $-1.4\times 10^{-3}$ ---------------------- $0.7\times 10^{-4}$ & $-8.5\times 10^{-4}$ ---------------------- $0.1\times 10^{-4}$ \ & $1\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.2\times 10^{-2}$\ The contributions of the Low term $M_{Low}$ to the asymmetry $A_\xi$ in $K^0 \to \pi^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu \gamma$ and $K^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e \gamma$ decays, according to our calculations, constitute $7\times 10^{-4}$ and $-4\times 10^{-4}$, respectively. Therefore, the contribution of $M_{Low}$ for $K^0_{e3\gamma}$ decay does not exceed a few percent. For $K^0_{\mu 3\gamma}$ decay, however, it is large, comparable to the contributions of the accompanying radiation which are on the order of $\omega^{-1}$ and $\omega^0$. So, it is difficult to estimate reliably the relative magnitude of the structure radiation contribution proportional to $\omega$, i.e. to estimate reliably the true accuracy of thus-derived result for $A_\xi$ in $K^0 \to \pi^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu \gamma$ decay. However, we note here that corrections to the discussed asymmetry in the $K^+ \to \pi^0 l^+ \nu_l\gamma$ decays, derived in Ref. [@mkm] within the chiral perturbation theory, are small, on the order of 1%. The asymmetry $A_\xi$ was measured only in the $K^+_{l3\gamma}$ decays [@akim; @tchik]. The experimental errors are on the level of $10^{-1}$ for $l=\mu$ and $10^{-2}$ for $l=e$. Therefore, at present it is impossible to test the discussed theoretical predictions that are on the order of $10^{-4}$ [@brag; @khr]. As distinct from the situation with the $K^+_{l3\gamma}$ decays, the asymmetry in the $K^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e \gamma$ decay, according to our calculations, is larger by 2 orders of magnitude. Thus the experimental measurement of $A_\xi$ in the $K^0_{e3\gamma}$ decay looks at present quite realistic. In any case experimental study of the $T$-odd asymmetry $A_\xi$ in the $K_{l3\gamma}$ decays would be very important. It would allow one either to test $CP$-odd effects beyond the Standard Model or to set limits on them. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- I am grateful to I.B.Khriplovich for his interest in the work and useful discussions as well as for critical reading of the text and to L.V.Kardapoltsev for his advice concerning numerical calculations. The work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through Grant No.11-02-00792-а, by the Federal Program Personnel of Innovational Russia through Grant No.14.740.11.0082, and by Dmitry Zimin’s Dynasty Foundation. Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered} ---------- In this Appendix the list of the integrals that contribute to $A_{loop}$ is given. In formulas below we use the following notations: $$I_{l\pi}=\sqrt{(p_lp_\pi)^2-m^2_lm^2_\pi},$$ $$I_{\pi P}=\sqrt{(p_\pi P)^2-m^2_\pi P^2},$$ $$I'_{lP}=\sqrt{(p_lP')^2-m^2_l{P'}^2},$$ $$I_{l\pi q}=\sqrt{(p_lp_\pi +p_lq+p_\pi q)^2-m^2_lm^2_\pi}.$$ We start with the integrals that contribute to group I of the one-loop diagrams: $$\int d\rho=a_0=\frac{\pi (p_lq)}{P^2};$$ $$\int k_\mu d\rho=a_P P_\mu, \mspace{5mu} \mathrm{where} \mspace{10mu} a_P=\frac{p_lq}{P^2}a_0;$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho}{p_lk}=b_0= \frac{\pi}{2p_lq}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{P^2}{m^2_l}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{p_lk} d\rho=B_{1\mu}=b_lp_{l\mu}+b_P P_\mu\,,$$ where $b_l$ and $b_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} b_lm^2_l+b_P(p_lP)&=a_0,\\ b_l(p_lP)+b_P P^2&=b_0(p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{p_lk} d\rho=B_{2\mu \nu}=b_2g_{\mu \nu}+b_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+b_{PP}P_\mu P_\nu+b_{lP}(p_{l\mu}P_\nu+P_\mu p_{l\nu}),$$ where $b_2$, $b_{ll}$, $b_{PP}$, and $b_{lP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4b_2+b_{ll}m^2_l+b_{PP}P^2+2b_{lP}(p_lP) &= 0,\\ b_2+b_{ll}m^2_l+b_{lP}(p_lP) &= 0,\\ b_{PP}(p_lP)+b_{lP}m^2_l &= a_P,\\ b_2+b_{PP}P^2+b_{lP}(p_lP) &= b_P(p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho}{p_\pi k}=c_0=\frac{\pi}{2I_{\pi P}}\;\mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_\pi P+I_{\pi P}}{p_\pi P-I_{\pi P}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{p_\pi k} d\rho=C_{1\mu}=c_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+c_P P_\mu,$$ where $c_\pi$ and $c_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} c_\pi m^2_\pi+c_P(p_\pi P)&=a_0,\\ c_\pi(p_\pi P)+c_P P^2&=c_0(p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)} =d_0=\frac{\pi}{2(p_lq)I_{l\pi}}\;\mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lp_\pi +I_{l\pi}}{p_lp_\pi -I_{l\pi}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)} d\rho=D_{1\mu}=d_lp_{l\mu}+d_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+d_PP_\mu,$$ where $d_l$, $d_\pi$, and $d_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} d_lm^2_l+d_\pi(p_lp_\pi)+d_P(p_lP)&=c_0,\\ d_l(p_lp_\pi)+d_\pi m^2_\pi+d_P(p_\pi P)&=b_0,\\ d_l(p_lP)+d_\pi(p_\pi P)+d_P P^2&=d_0(p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)} d\rho=D_{2\mu \nu}=d_2g_{\mu \nu}+d_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+d_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+d_{PP}P_\mu P_\nu\\+d_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+d_{lP}(p_{l\mu}P_\nu+P_\mu p_{l\nu})+d_{\pi P}(p_{\pi\mu}P_\nu+P_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $d_2$, $d_{ll}$, $d_{\pi\pi}$, $d_{PP}$, $d_{l\pi}$, $d_{lP}$, and $d_{\pi P}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4d_2+d_{ll}m^2_l+d_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+d_{PP}P^2+2d_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2d_{lP}(p_lP)+2d_{\pi P}(p_\pi P)&=0,\\ d_2+d_{ll}m^2_l+d_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+d_{lP}(p_lP)&=0,\\ d_{\pi\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+d_{l\pi}m^2_l+d_{\pi P}(p_lP)&=c_\pi,\\ d_{PP}(p_lP)+d_{lP}m^2_l+d_{\pi P}(p_lp_\pi)&=c_P,\\ d_2+d_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+d_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+d_{\pi P}(p_\pi P)&=0,\\ d_{PP}(p_\pi P)+d_{lP}(p_lp_\pi)+d_{\pi P}m^2_\pi&=b_P,\\ d_2+d_{PP}P^2+d_{lP}(p_lP)+d_{\pi P}(p_\pi P)&=d_P(p_lq).\end{aligned}$$ Note that if in these integrals and sets of equations one changes all indices $\pi$ (related to $\pi$-meson) to indices $K$ (related to $K$-meson), then one gets integrals and sets of equations arising in calculation of $T$-odd triple momenta correlations in $K^+_{l3\gamma}$ decays [@brag; @khr]. Most of the integrals that contribute to group II of the one-loop diagrams are those contributing to group I up to the change of some notations: indices $l$ related to lepton must be changed by indices $\pi$ related to $\pi$-meson and vice versa. $$\int d\rho'=a'_0=\frac{\pi (p_\pi q)}{{P'}^2};$$ $$\int k_\mu d\rho'=a'_P P'_\mu, \mspace{5mu} \mathrm{where} \mspace{10mu} a'_P=\frac{p_\pi q}{{P'}^2}a'_0;$$ $$\int k_\mu k_\nu d\rho'=A'_{2\mu\nu}=a'_2 g_{\mu\nu}+a'_{PP}P'_\mu P'_\nu\,,$$ where $a'_2$ and $a'_{PP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4a'_2+a'_{PP}{P'}^2&=0,\\ a'_2+a'_{PP}{P'}^2&=a'_P(p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'}{p_\pi k}=b'_0=\frac{\pi}{2p_\pi q}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{{P'}^2}{m^2_\pi}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{p_\pi k} d\rho'=B'_{1\mu}=b'_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+b'_P P'_\mu\,,$$ where $b'_\pi$ and $b'_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} b'_\pi m^2_\pi+b'_P(p_\pi P')&=a'_0,\\ b'_\pi(p_\pi P')+b'_P {P'}^2&=b'_0(p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{p_\pi k} d\rho'=B'_{2\mu\nu}=b'_2 g_{\mu\nu} +b'_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+b'_{PP}P'_\mu P'_\nu+b'_{\pi P}(p_{\pi\mu}P'_\nu+P'_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),$$ where $b'$, $b'_{\pi\pi}$, $b'_{PP}$, and $b'_{\pi P}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4b'_2+b'_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+b'_{PP}{P'}^2+2b'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=0,\\ b'_2+b'_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+b'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=0,\\ b'_{PP}(p_\pi P')+b'_{\pi P}m^2_\pi&=a'_P,\\ b'_2+b'_{PP}{P'}^2+b'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=b'_P(p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'}{p_l k} =c'_0=\frac{\pi}{2I'_{lP}}\;\mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lP'+I'_{lP}}{p_lP'-I'_{lP}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{p_l k} d\rho'=C'_{1\mu}=c'_l p_{l\mu}+c'_P P'_\mu,$$ where $c'_l$ and $c'_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} c'_l m^2_l+c'_P(p_l P')&=a'_0,\\ c'_l(p_l P')+c'_P {P'}^2&=c'_0(p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)}=d'_0=\frac{\pi}{2(p_\pi q)I_{l\pi}}\;\mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lp_\pi+I_{l\pi}}{p_lp_\pi-I_{l\pi}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_\mu}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)} d\rho'=D'_{1\mu}=d'_l p_{l\mu}+d'_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+d'_P P'_\mu,$$ where $d'_l$, $d'_\pi$, and $d'_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} d'_l m^2_l+d'_\pi(p_lp_\pi)+d'_P(p_l P')&=b'_0,\\ d'_l(p_lp_\pi)+d'_\pi m^2_\pi+d'_P(p_\pi P')&=c'_0,\\ d'_l (p_l P')+d'_\pi(p_\pi P')+d'_P {P'}^2&=d'_0(p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{(p_lk)(p_\pi k)} d\rho'=D'_{2\mu \nu}=d'_2 g_{\mu\nu}+d'_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+d'_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+d'_{PP}P'_\mu P'_\nu\\+d'_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+d'_{lP}(p_{l\mu}P'_\nu+P'_\mu p_{l\nu})+d'_{\pi P}(p_{\pi\mu}P'_\nu+P'_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $d'_2$, $d'_{ll}$, $d'_{\pi\pi}$, $d'_{PP}$, $d'_{l\pi}$, $d'_{lP}$, and $d'_{\pi P}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4d'_2+d'_{ll}m^2_l+d'_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+d'_{PP}{P'}^2+2d'_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2d'_{lP}(p_lP')+2d'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=0,\\ d'_2+d'_{ll}m^2_l+d'_{l\pi}(p_l p_\pi)+d'_{lP}(p_lP')&=0,\\ d'_{\pi\pi}(p_l p_\pi)+d'_{l\pi}m^2_l+d'_{\pi P}(p_lP')&=b'_\pi,\\ d'_{PP}(p_lP')+d'_{lP}m^2_l+d'_{\pi P}(p_lp_\pi)&=b'_P,\\ d'_2+d'_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+d'_{l\pi}(p_l p_\pi)+d'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=0,\\ d'_{PP}(p_\pi P')+d'_{lP}(p_lp_\pi)+d'_{\pi P}m^2_\pi &=c'_P,\\ d'_2+d'_{PP}{P'}^2+d'_{lP}(p_lP')+d'_{\pi P}(p_\pi P')&=d'_P(p_\pi q).\end{aligned}$$ The integrals arising in calculation of group III of the one-loop diagrams: $$\int d\rho''=a''_0=\frac{\pi I_{l\pi}}{{P''}^2};$$ $$\int k_{l\mu} d\rho''=a''_P P''_\mu, \mspace{5mu} \mathrm{where} \mspace{10mu} a''_P=\frac{(p_lP'')}{{P''}^2}a''_0;$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho''}{k_lq}=b''_0=\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lP''+I_{l\pi}}{p_lP''-I_{l\pi}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{k_lq} d\rho''=B''_{1\mu}=b''_q q_\mu+b''_P P''_\mu,$$ where $b''_q$ and $b''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} b''_P(P''q)&=a''_0,\\ b''_q(P''q)+b''_P {P''}^2&=b''_0(p_lP'');\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu} k_{l\nu}}{k_lq} d\rho''=B''_{2\mu \nu}=b''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+b''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu+b''_{PP}P''_\mu P''_\nu+b''_{qP}(q_\mu P''_\nu+P''_\mu q_\nu),$$ where $b''_2$, $b''_{qq}$, $b''_{PP}$, and $b''_{qP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4b''_2+b''_{PP}{P''}^2+2b''_{qP}(P''q)&=m^2_l b''_0,\\ b''_2+b''_{qP}(P''q)&=0,\\ b''_{qq}(P''q)+b''_{qP}{P''}^2&=b''_q(p_lP''),\\ b''_2+b''_{PP}{P''}^2+b''_{qP}(P''q)&=b''_P(p_lP'');\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho''}{k_\pi q}=c''_0=\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_\pi P''+I_{l\pi}}{p_\pi P''-I_{l\pi}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu}}{k_\pi q} d\rho''=C''_{1\mu}=c''_q q_\mu+c''_P P''_\mu,$$ where $c''_q$ and $c''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} c''_P(P''q)&=a''_0,\\ c''_q(P''q)+c''_P {P''}^2&=c''_0(p_\pi P'');\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu} k_{\pi\nu}}{k_\pi q} d\rho''=C''_{2\mu\nu}=c''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+c''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu+c''_{PP}P''_\mu P''_\nu+c''_{qP}(q_\mu P''_\nu+P''_\mu q_\nu),$$ where $c''_2$, $c''_{qq}$, $c''_{PP}$, and $c''_{qP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4c''_2+c''_{PP}{P''}^2+2c''_{qP}(P''q)&=m^2_\pi c''_0,\\ c''_2+c''_{qP}(P''q)&=0,\\ c''_{qq}(P''q)+c''_{qP}{P''}^2&=c''_q(p_\pi P''),\\ c''_2+c''_{PP}{P''}^2+c''_{qP}(P''q)&=c''_P(p_\pi P'');\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho''}{k^2} \to 0,$$ here and below the sign $\to$ means that infrared divergent terms are omitted; $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{k^2} d\rho'' \to D''_{1\mu}=\frac{\pi}{2I_{l\pi}}\left(\frac{p_\pi P''}{{P''}^2}p_{l\mu}-\frac{p_l P''}{{P''}^2}p_{\pi\mu}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho''}{k^2(k_lq)} \to 0;$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{k^2(k_lq)} d\rho'' \to E''_{1\mu}=e''_l p_{l\mu}+e''_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+e''_q q_\mu,$$ where $e''_l$, $e''_\pi$, and $e''_q$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} e''_l(p_l p_\pi)+e''_\pi m^2_\pi+e''_q(p_\pi q)&=\frac{1}{2}b''_0,\\ e''_l m^2_l+e''_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+e''_q(p_l q)&=-\frac{1}{2}b''_0,\\ e''_l(p_l q)+e''_\pi(p_\pi q)&=0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_{l\mu} k_{l\nu}}{k^2(k_l q)} d\rho'' \to E''_{2\mu\nu}=e''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+e''_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+e''_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+e''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu\\+e''_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+e''_{lq}(p_{l\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{l\nu})+e''_{\pi q}(p_{\pi\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $e''_2$, $e''_{ll}$, $e''_{\pi\pi}$, $e''_{qq}$, $e''_{l\pi}$, $e''_{lq}$, and $e''_{\pi q}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4e''_2+e''_{ll}m^2_l+e''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+2e''_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2e''_{lq}(p_lq)+2e''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=0,\\ e''_2 m^2_l+e''_{ll}m^4_l+e''_{\pi\pi}(p_l p_\pi)^2+e''_{qq}(p_l q)^2+2e''_{l\pi}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+2e''_{lq}m^2_l(p_lq)+2e''_{\pi q}(p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)\\=\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(p_l q)(p_l P'')}{P'' q}+m^2_l\right)b''_0,\\ e''_2 m^2_\pi+e''_{ll}(p_l p_\pi)^2+e''_{\pi\pi}m^4_\pi+e''_{qq}(p_\pi q)^2+2e''_{l\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+2e''_{lq}(p_l p_\pi) (p_\pi q)+2e''_{\pi q}m^2_\pi(p_\pi q) \\ =\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(p_\pi q)(p_l P'')}{P''q}+p_lp_\pi\right)b''_0,\\ e''_2(p_l p_\pi)+e''_{ll}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+e''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+e''_{qq}(p_l q)(p_\pi q)+e''_{l\pi}(m^2_l m^2_\pi+(p_l p_\pi)^2)\\ +e''_{lq}((p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)+m^2_l(p_\pi q))+e''_{\pi q}((p_l p_\pi)(p_\pi q)+m^2_\pi(p_l q))\\ =-\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(m^2_l-\frac{(p_\pi q)(p_l P'')}{P''q}\right)b''_0,\\ e''_2+e''_{lq}(p_lq)+e''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=0,\\ e''_{ll}(p_lq)+e''_{l\pi}(p_\pi q)=\frac{\pi}{2I_{l\pi}}\frac{p_\pi P''}{{P''}^2},\\ e''_{\pi \pi}(p_\pi q)+e''_{l\pi}(p_lq)=-\frac{\pi}{2I_{l\pi}}\frac{p_l P''}{{P''}^2};\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho''}{k^2(k_\pi q)} \to 0;$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu}}{k^2 (k_\pi q)} d\rho'' \to F''_{1\mu}=f''_l p_{l\mu}+f''_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+f''_q q_\mu,$$ where $f''_l$, $f''_\pi$, and $f''_q$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} f''_l m^2_l+f''_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+f''_q(p_l q)&=\frac{1}{2}c''_0,\\ f''_l(p_l p_\pi)+f''_\pi m^2_\pi+f''_q(p_\pi q)&=-\frac{1}{2}c''_0,\\ f''_l(p_l q)+f''_\pi(p_\pi q)&=0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_{\pi\mu} k_{\pi\nu}}{k^2(k_\pi q)} d\rho'' \to F''_{2\mu\nu}=f''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+f''_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+f''_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+f''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu\\+f''_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+f''_{lq}(p_{l\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{l\nu})+f''_{\pi q}(p_{\pi\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $f''_2$, $f''_{ll}$, $f''_{\pi\pi}$, $f''_{qq}$, $f''_{l\pi}$, $f''_{lq}$, and $f''_{\pi q}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4f''_2+f''_{ll}m^2_l+f''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+2f''_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2f''_{lq}(p_lq)+2f''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=0,\\ f''_2 m^2_l+f''_{ll}m^4_l+f''_{\pi\pi}(p_l p_\pi)^2+f''_{qq}(p_l q)^2+2f''_{l\pi}m^2_l(p_lp_\pi)+ 2f''_{lq}m^2_l(p_lq)+2f''_{\pi q}(p_lp_\pi)(p_lq)\\ =-\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(p_l q)(p_\pi P'')}{P''q}+p_lp_\pi\right)c''_0,\\ f''_2 m^2_\pi+f''_{ll}(p_lp_\pi)^2+f''_{\pi\pi}m^4_\pi+f''_{qq}(p_\pi q)^2+2f''_{l\pi}m^2_\pi(p_lp_\pi)+2f''_{lq}(p_lp_\pi)(p_\pi q)+2f''_{\pi q}m^2_\pi(p_\pi q)\\ =-\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(p_\pi q)(p_\pi P'')}{P''q}+m^2_\pi\right)c''_0,\\ f''_2(p_lp_\pi)+f''_{ll}m^2_l(p_lp_\pi)+f''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi(p_lp_\pi)+f''_{qq}(p_lq)(p_\pi q)+f''_{l\pi}(m^2_l m^2_\pi+(p_lp_\pi)^2)\\+f''_{lq}((p_lp_\pi)(p_lq)+m^2_l(p_\pi q))+f''_{\pi q}((p_lp_\pi)(p_\pi q)+m^2_\pi(p_lq))\\ =\frac{I^2_{l\pi}(D''_1q)}{(P''q)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(m^2_\pi-\frac{(p_l q)(p_\pi P'')}{P''q}\right)c''_0,\\ f''_2+f''_{lq}(p_lq)+f''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=0,\\ f''_{ll}(p_lq)+f''_{l\pi}(p_\pi q)=-\frac{\pi}{2I_{l\pi}}\frac{p_\pi P''}{{P''}^2},\\ f''_{\pi \pi}(p_\pi q)+f''_{l\pi}(p_lq)=\frac{\pi}{2I_{l\pi}}\frac{p_l P''}{{P''}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The integrals arising in calculation of group IV of the one-loop diagrams: $$\int d\rho'''=a'''_0=\frac{\pi I_{l\pi q}}{{P'''}^2};$$ $$\int k_{l\mu} d\rho'''=a'''_P P'''_\mu, \mspace{5mu} \mathrm{where} \mspace{10mu} a'''_P=\frac{p_l P'''+p_\pi q}{{P'''}^2}a'''_0;$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{k_lq}=b'''_0=\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lP'''+p_\pi q+I_{l\pi q}}{p_lP'''+p_\pi q-I_{l\pi q}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{k_lq} d\rho'''=B'''_{1\mu}=b'''_q q_\mu+b'''_P P'''_\mu,$$ where $b'''_q$ and $b'''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} b'''_P(P''q)&=a'''_0,\\ b'''_q(P''q)+b'''_P {P'''}^2&=b'''_0(p_lP'''+p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu} k_{l\nu}}{k_lq} d\rho'''=B'''_{2\mu \nu}=b'''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+b'''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu+b'''_{PP}P'''_\mu P'''_\nu+b'''_{qP}(q_\mu P'''_\nu+P'''_\mu q_\nu),$$ where $b'''_2$, $b'''_{qq}$, $b'''_{PP}$, and $b'''_{qP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4b'''_2+b'''_{PP}{P'''}^2+2b'''_{qP}(P''q)&=m^2_l b'''_0,\\ b'''_2+b'''_{qP}(P''q)&=0,\\ b'''_{qq}(P''q)+b'''_{qP}{P'''}^2&=b'''_q(p_lP'''+p_\pi q),\\ b'''_2+b'''_{PP}{P'''}^2+b'''_{qP}(P''q)&=b'''_P(p_lP'''+p_\pi q);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{k_\pi q}=c'''_0=\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_\pi P'''+p_lq+I_{l\pi q}}{p_\pi P'''+p_lq-I_{l\pi q}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu}}{k_\pi q} d\rho'''=C'''_{1\mu}=c'''_q q_\mu+c'''_P P'''_\mu,$$ where $c'''_q$ and $c'''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} c'''_P(P''q)&=a'''_0,\\ c'''_q(P''q)+c'''_P {P'''}^2&=c'''_0(p_\pi P'''+p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu} k_{\pi\nu}}{k_\pi q} d\rho'''=C'''_{2\mu\nu}=c'''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+c'''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu+c'''_{PP}P'''_\mu P'''_\nu+c'''_{qP}(q_\mu P'''_\nu+P'''_\mu q_\nu),$$ where $c'''_2$, $c'''_{qq}$, $c'''_{PP}$, and $c'''_{qP}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 4c'''_2+c'''_{PP}{P'''}^2+2c'''_{qP}(P''q)&=m^2_\pi c'''_0,\\ c'''_2+c'''_{qP}(P''q)&=0,\\ c'''_{qq}(P''q)+c'''_{qP}{P'''}^2&=c'''_q(p_\pi P'''+p_lq),\\ c'''_2+c'''_{PP}{P'''}^2+c'''_{qP}(P''q)&=c'''_P(p_\pi P'''+p_lq);\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{(p_\pi-k_\pi)^2}=d'''_0=\frac{\pi}{4I_{\pi P}}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{(p_\pi P)(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_\pi(p_lP)-I_{l\pi q}I_{\pi P}}{(p_\pi P)(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_\pi(p_lP)+I_{l\pi q}I_{\pi P}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{(p_\pi-k_\pi)^2} d\rho'''=D'''_{1\mu}=d'''_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+d'''_P P_\mu,$$ where $d'''_\pi$ and $d'''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} d'''_\pi m^2_\pi +d'''_P(p_\pi P)&=\frac{1}{2}a'''_0+(p_\pi P)d'''_0,\\ d'''_\pi (p_\pi P)+d'''_P P^2&=-\frac{1}{2}a'''_0+(p_l P)d'''_0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{(p_l-k_l)^2}=e'''_0=\frac{\pi}{4I'_{lP}}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{(p_lP')(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_l(p_\pi P')-I_{l\pi q}I'_{lP}}{(p_lP')(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_l(p_\pi P')+I_{l\pi q}I'_{lP}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu}}{(p_l-k_l)^2} d\rho'''=E'''_{1\mu}=e'''_l p_{l\mu}+e'''_P P'_\mu,$$ where $e'''_l$ and $e'''_P$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} e'''_l m^2_l +e'''_P(p_l P')&=\frac{1}{2}a'''_0+(p_l P')e'''_0,\\ e'''_l (p_l P')+e'''_P {P'}^2&=-\frac{1}{2}a'''_0+(p_\pi P')e'''_0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{(p_\pi-k_\pi)^2(k_lq)}=f'''_0=\frac{\pi}{4(p_lq)I_{l\pi}}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lp_\pi(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_lm^2_\pi-I_{l\pi}I_{l\pi q}}{p_lp_\pi(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_lm^2_\pi+I_{l\pi}I_{l\pi q}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{l\mu}}{(p_\pi-k_\pi)^2(k_lq)} d\rho'''=F'''_{1\mu}=f'''_l p_{l\mu}+f'''_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+f'''_q q_\mu,$$ where $f'''_l$, $f'''_\pi$, and $f'''_q$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} f'''_l m^2_l+f'''_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+f'''_q(p_l q)&=-\frac{1}{2}b'''_0-d'''_0+(p_lP)f'''_0,\\ f'''_l(p_l p_\pi)+f'''_\pi m^2_\pi+f'''_q(p_\pi q)&=\frac{1}{2}b'''_0+(p_\pi P)f'''_0,\\ f'''_l(p_l q)+f'''_\pi(p_\pi q)&=d'''_0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_{l\mu} k_{l\nu}}{(p_\pi-k_\pi)^2(k_l q)} d\rho'''=F'''_{2\mu\nu}=f'''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+f'''_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+f'''_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+ f'''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu\\ +f'''_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+f'''_{lq}(p_{l\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{l\nu})+f'''_{\pi q}(p_{\pi\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $f'''_2$, $f'''_{ll}$, $f'''_{\pi\pi}$, $f'''_{qq}$, $f'''_{l\pi}$, $f'''_{lq}$, and $f'''_{\pi q}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} 4f'''_2+f'''_{ll}m^2_l+f'''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+2f'''_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2f'''_{lq}(p_lq)+2f'''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=m^2_lf'''_0,\\ f'''_2 m^2_l+f'''_{ll}m^4_l+f'''_{\pi\pi}(p_l p_\pi)^2+f'''_{qq}(p_l q)^2+2f'''_{l\pi}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+2f'''_{lq}m^2_l(p_lq)+2f'''_{\pi q}(p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)\\=(p_lP)^2f'''_0-\frac{1}{2}\left(p_lP+\frac{p_lq}{P''q}(p_lP'''+p_\pi q)\right)b'''_0 -(p_lP)d'''_0\\+\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_\pi P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q} +\frac{1}{2}a'''_0-(D'''_1p_l),\\ f'''_2 m^2_\pi+f'''_{ll}(p_l p_\pi)^2+f'''_{\pi\pi}m^4_\pi+f'''_{qq}(p_\pi q)^2+2f'''_{l\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+2f'''_{lq}(p_l p_\pi) (p_\pi q)+2f'''_{\pi q}m^2_\pi(p_\pi q) \\ =(p_\pi P)^2f'''_0+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_\pi P+\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}(p_lP'''+p_\pi q)\right)b'''_0 +\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_\pi P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q},\\ f'''_2(p_l p_\pi)+f'''_{ll}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+f'''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+f'''_{qq}(p_l q)(p_\pi q)+f'''_{l\pi}(m^2_l m^2_\pi+(p_l p_\pi)^2)\\+ f'''_{lq}((p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)+m^2_l(p_\pi q))+f'''_{\pi q}((p_l p_\pi)(p_\pi q)+m^2_\pi(p_l q))\\ =(p_lP)(p_\pi P)f'''_0+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_lP-\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}(p_lP'''+p_\pi q)\right)b'''_0-(p_\pi P)d'''_0\\ -\frac{1}{2}a'''_0-\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_\pi P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q},\\ f'''_2+f'''_{lq}(p_lq)+f'''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=d'''_P,\\ f'''_{ll}(p_lq)+f'''_{l\pi}(p_\pi q)=d'''_P,\\ f'''_{\pi \pi}(p_\pi q)+f'''_{l\pi}(p_lq)=d'''_\pi; \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $$\int \frac{d\rho'''}{(p_l-k_l)^2(k_\pi q)}=g'''_0=\frac{\pi}{4(p_\pi q)I_{l\pi}}\; \mathrm{ln}\!\left(\frac{p_lp_\pi(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_lm^2_\pi-I_{l\pi}I_{l\pi q}}{p_lp_\pi(p_lp_\pi+p_lq+p_\pi q)-m^2_lm^2_\pi+I_{l\pi}I_{l\pi q}}\right);$$ $$\int \frac{k_{\pi\mu}}{(p_l-k_l)^2(k_\pi q)} d\rho'''=G'''_{1\mu}=g'''_l p_{l\mu}+g'''_\pi p_{\pi\mu}+g'''_q q_\mu,$$ where $g'''_l$, $g'''_\pi$, and $g'''_q$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} g'''_l m^2_l+g'''_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+g'''_q(p_l q)&=\frac{1}{2}c'''_0+(p_l P')g'''_0,\\ g'''_l(p_l p_\pi)+g'''_\pi m^2_\pi+g'''_q(p_\pi q)&=-\frac{1}{2}c'''_0-e'''_0+(p_\pi P')g'''_0,\\ g'''_l(p_l q)+g'''_\pi(p_\pi q)&=e'''_0;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered} \int \frac{k_{\pi\mu} k_{\pi\nu}}{(p_l-k_l)^2(k_\pi q)} d\rho'''=G'''_{2\mu\nu}=g'''_2 g_{\mu\nu}+g'''_{ll}p_{l\mu}p_{l\nu}+g'''_{\pi\pi}p_{\pi\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+ g'''_{qq}q_\mu q_\nu\\ +g'''_{l\pi}(p_{l\mu}p_{\pi\nu}+p_{\pi\mu}p_{l\nu})+g'''_{lq}(p_{l\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{l\nu})+g'''_{\pi q}(p_{\pi\mu}q_\nu+q_\mu p_{\pi\nu}),\end{gathered}$$ where $g'''_2$, $g'''_{ll}$, $g'''_{\pi\pi}$, $g'''_{qq}$, $g'''_{l\pi}$, $g'''_{lq}$, and $g'''_{\pi q}$ are the solutions of the set of equations $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} 4g'''_2+g'''_{ll}m^2_l+g'''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi+2g'''_{l\pi}(p_lp_\pi)+2g'''_{lq}(p_lq)+2g'''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=m^2_\pi g'''_0,\\ g'''_2 m^2_l+g'''_{ll}m^4_l+g'''_{\pi\pi}(p_l p_\pi)^2+g'''_{qq}(p_l q)^2+2g'''_{l\pi}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+2g'''_{lq}m^2_l(p_lq)+2g'''_{\pi q}(p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)\\=(p_l P')^2g'''_0+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_l P'+\frac{p_l q}{P''q}(p_\pi P'''+p_l q)\right)c'''_0 +\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_l P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_l q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q},\\ g'''_2 m^2_\pi+g'''_{ll}(p_l p_\pi)^2+g'''_{\pi\pi}m^4_\pi+g'''_{qq}(p_\pi q)^2+2g'''_{l\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+2g'''_{lq}(p_l p_\pi) (p_\pi q)+2g'''_{\pi q}m^2_\pi(p_\pi q) \\ =(p_\pi P')^2g'''_0-\frac{1}{2}\left(p_\pi P'+\frac{p_\pi q}{P''q}(p_\pi P'''+p_l q)\right)c'''_0 -(p_\pi P')e'''_0\\+\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_l P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_l q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q} +\frac{1}{2}a'''_0-(E'''_1p_\pi),\\ g'''_2(p_l p_\pi)+g'''_{ll}m^2_l(p_l p_\pi)+g'''_{\pi\pi}m^2_\pi(p_l p_\pi)+g'''_{qq}(p_l q)(p_\pi q)+g'''_{l\pi}(m^2_l m^2_\pi+(p_l p_\pi)^2)\\ +g'''_{lq}((p_l p_\pi)(p_l q)+m^2_l(p_\pi q))+g'''_{\pi q}((p_l p_\pi)(p_\pi q)+m^2_\pi(p_l q))\\ =(p_\pi P')(p_l P')g'''_0+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_\pi P'-\frac{p_l q}{P''q}(p_\pi P'''+p_l q)\right)c'''_0-(p_l P')e'''_0\\ -\frac{1}{2}a'''_0-\frac{\pi}{2P''q}\left(\frac{p_l P'''}{{P'''}^2}-\frac{p_l q}{P''q}\right)I_{l\pi q},\\ g'''_2+g'''_{lq}(p_lq)+g'''_{\pi q}(p_\pi q)=e'''_P,\\ g'''_{\pi \pi}(p_\pi q)+g'''_{l\pi}(p_lq)=e'''_P,\\ g'''_{ll}(p_lq)+g'''_{l\pi}(p_\pi q)=e'''_l. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Appendix B {#appendix-b .unnumbered} ---------- In this Appendix we give the formulas for the anti-Hermitian part $A_{loop}$ of the one-loop diagrams. It can be expressed as follows: $$\begin{gathered} A_{loop}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{fn}M^_{in}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n \left[(M_{3a}+M_{3b})(M_{IR}+M_{mag}+M_{Low})\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}\right.\\ \left.+(M_{5a}+M_{5b}+M_{5c})(M_{IR}+M_{mag}+M_{Low})\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}}\right.\\ \left. +M_7(M_{IR}+M_{mag}+M_{Low})\rvert_{\substack{p_l\to k_l,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi}}+(M_{9a}+M_{9b}+M_{9c}+M_{9d}+M_{9e})M_{10}\right]\\ =(A_{3a-IR}+A_{3a-mag}+A_{3a-Low}+A_{3b-IR}+A_{3b-mag}+A_{3b-Low})\\ +(A_{5a-IR}+A_{5a-mag}+A_{5a-Low}+A_{5b-IR}+A_{5b-mag}+A_{5b-Low}+A_{5c-IR}+A_{5c-mag}+A_{5c-Low})\\ +(A_{7-IR}+A_{7-mag}+A_{7-Low})+(A_{9a-10}+A_{9b-10}+A_{9c-10}+A_{9d-10}+A_{9e-10}),\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered} A_{3a-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3a}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{p}_\pi)(1+\gamma_5)\\ \times \left[c_0(\hat{P}-m_l)\hat{p}_\pi-\hat{C}_1\hat{p}_\pi+\frac{m_l}{p_lq}(a_0(\hat{P}-m_l)-a_P\hat{P})\right] \frac{\hat{P}-m_l}{2p_lq} \hat{e}^* v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{3a-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3a}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}=\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{p}_\pi)(1+\gamma_5)\\ \times \left[2a_P(P^2+2m_l\hat{P})\right]\frac{\hat{P}-m_l}{(2p_lq)^2} \hat{e}^v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{3a-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3a}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}=\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5)\\ \times \left[2a_0(\hat{P}+2m_l)-2a_P\hat{P}+\hat{C}_1(\hat{P}-m_l)\hat{p}_\pi\right]\frac{\hat{P}-m_l}{2p_lq} \hat{e}^ v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{3b-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3b}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}=\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{p}_\pi)(1+\gamma_5)\\ \times \frac{1}{2}\left[(\hat{P}-m_l)\hat{e}^\left(\frac{1}{p_lq}\left((\hat{p}_l-m_l)(b_0\hat{P}-\hat{B}_1)- \hat{B}_1\hat{P}\right)-d_0(\hat{p}_l-m_l)\hat{p}_\pi+ \hat{D}_1\hat{p}_\pi\right)\right.\\ \left.-\frac{1}{p_lq}\left(\hat{B}_1\hat{e}^(\hat{p}_l-m_l)\hat{P}- B_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu\hat{e}^(\hat{p}_l-m_l)\gamma^\nu-B_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu\hat{P}\right) \right.\\ \left.+\hat{D}_1\hat{e}^(\hat{p}_l-m_l)\hat{p}_\pi-D_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu\hat{p}_\pi\right]v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{3b-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3b}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}=\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{p}_\pi)(1+\gamma_5)\\ \times \frac{1}{2p_lq}\left[B_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu\hat{p}_l\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu+4m_lB_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-\hat{B}_1\hat{p}_l\hat{e}^\hat{P}-4m_l(p_le^)\hat{B}_1-m^2_l\hat{B}_1\hat{e}^\right]v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{3b-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{3b}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_l\to k_l,\\ e\to e_k}}=\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5)\\ \times \frac{1}{2}\left[D_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu(\hat{P}-m_l)\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu\hat{p}_\pi -\hat{D}_1(\hat{P}-m_l)\hat{e}^(\hat{p}_l-m_l)\hat{p}_\pi \right.\\ \left.-2B_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu+2\hat{B}_1\hat{e}^\hat{P}+2\hat{p}_l\hat{e}^\hat{B}_1 +8m_lB_{1\mu}e^{\mu} \right.\\ \left.-2b_0(\hat{p}_l\hat{e}^\hat{P}+4m_l(p_l e^)+m^2_l\hat{e}^)\right]v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5a-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5a}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu\left\{(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')\right.\\ \left.\times \left[c'_0(p_l P')-a'_0\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}\right]-\left[\hat{C}'_1(p_l P')-a'_P\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}\hat{P}'\right]\right\}(1+\gamma_5)v_l\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q};\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5a-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5a}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\\ \times\bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')(1+\gamma_5)\hat{C}'_1\hat{P}' v_l \frac{p_\pi e^}{2p_\pi q};\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5a-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5a}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu\hat{P}'(1+\gamma_5)v_l \frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}\\ \times \left[a'_0-a'_P\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}\right];\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5b-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5b}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu\left\{(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')\right.\\ \times \left[\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}(b'_0(p_\pi e^)-B'_{1\mu}e^{\mu})-\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}(a'_0-a'_P)-(p_l p_\pi)(d'_0(p_\pi e^)-D'_{1\mu}e^{\mu})\right]\\ -\left[\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}(\hat{B}'_1(p_\pi e^)-B'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu})-\frac{1}{p_\pi q}(a'_P(p_\pi e^)\hat{P}'-A'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu})\right.\\ \left.\left.-(p_l p_\pi)((p_\pi e^)\hat{D}'_1-D'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu})\right]\right\}(1+\gamma_5)v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5b-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5b}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')(1+\gamma_5)\\ \times \frac{1}{2}\left[D'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-(p_\pi e^)\hat{D}'_1\right]\hat{p}_\pi v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5b-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5b}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\\ \bar{u}_\nu\left[\frac{p_\pi P'}{p_\pi q}(\hat{B}'_1(p_\pi e^)-B'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu})-\frac{1}{p_\pi q}(a'_P(p_\pi e^)\hat{P}'-A'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu})\right.\\ \left.-\hat{p}_\pi((p_\pi e^)b'_0-B'_{1\mu}e^{\mu})\right](1+\gamma_5)v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5c-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5c}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \bar{u}_\nu\left\{(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')\right.\\ \left.\times \left[\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}(a'_0-a'_P)-(p_l e^)c'_0\right]-\left[\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}a'_P\hat{P}'-\frac{1}{p_\pi q}A'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-(p_l e^)\hat{C}'_1\right]\right\}(1+\gamma_5)v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5c-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5c}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0) \left[-\frac{1}{2}\bar{u}_\nu(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}')(1+\gamma_5)\hat{C}'_1\hat{e}^ v_l\right];\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{5c-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{5c}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{q\to k,\\ p_\pi\to k_\pi,\\ e\to e_k}} =\frac{ie^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\\ \times \bar{u}_\nu\left[\frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q}a'_P\hat{P}'-\frac{1}{p_\pi q}A'_{2\mu\nu}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-a'_0\hat{e}^\right](1+\gamma_5)v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{7-IR}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{7}M_{IR}\rvert_{\substack{p_l\to k_l,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi}} =\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5) (\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}''+m_l)\\ \times \left[\left(E''_{2\mu\nu}+F''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(B''_{2\mu\nu}+C''_{2\mu\nu})\right)\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-m_l\left(E''_{1\mu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}B''_{1\mu}\right) e^{\mu}\right.\\ \left. -(\hat{P}''-m_l)\left(F''_{1\mu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}C''_{1\mu}\right) e^{\mu}\right] (\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}''+m_l) v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{7-mag}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{7}M_{mag}\rvert_{\substack{p_l\to k_l,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi}} =\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5)\\ \times \frac{1}{2}\left[(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'')\hat{q}\hat{e}^* \left(\hat{E}''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(\hat{B}''_1-m_l b''_0)\right) +m_l\left(\hat{E}''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}\hat{B}''_1\right)\hat{q}\hat{e}^\right.\\ \left. -\left(E''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}B''_{2\mu\nu}\right)\gamma^\mu\hat{q}\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu\right] (\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}''+m_l) v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{7-Low}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{7}M_{Low}\rvert_{\substack{p_l\to k_l,\\ p_\pi \to k_\pi}} =\frac{ie^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}ef_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5)\\ \times \left[\left(F''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}C''_{2\mu\nu}\right)\hat{q}\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-\hat{q}(\hat{P}''-m_l)\left(F''_{1\mu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}C''_{1\mu}\right) e^{\mu}\right.\\ \left. +\hat{e}^\left(\hat{D}''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(a''_P \hat{P}''-m_la''_0)\right)\right] (\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}''+m_l) v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{9a-10}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{9a}M_{10} =\frac{ie^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5) (\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\\ \times \left(\hat{D}'''_1-m_ld'''_0+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(a'''_P \hat{P}'''-m_l a'''_0)\right)(\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}'''+m_l) \left(\frac{p_l e^}{p_l q}+\frac{\hat{q}\hat{e}^}{2p_l q}\right) v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{9b-10}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{9b}M_{10} =-\frac{ie^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5) (\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\\ \times \left[\left(\left(F'''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}B'''_{2\mu\nu}\right)\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}-m_l\left(F'''_{1\mu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}B'''_{1\mu}\right) e^{\mu}\right)(\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\right.\\ +\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{F}'''_1-m_lf'''_0+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(\hat{B}'''_1-m_lb'''_0)\right) \hat{q}\hat{e}^(\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{P}''') +\frac{1}{2}m_l\hat{q}\hat{e}^\left(\hat{F}'''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}\hat{B}'''_1\right)\\ \left. -\frac{1}{2}\left(F'''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}B'''_{2\mu\nu}\right)\gamma^\mu\hat{q}\hat{e}^\gamma^\nu\right] v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{9c-10}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{9c}M_{10} =-\frac{ie^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5) (\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\\ \times \left((\hat{P}'''-m_l)e'''_0-\hat{E}'''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(a'''_P \hat{P}'''-m_la'''_0)\right)(\hat{p}_\pi+\hat{q}+\hat{P}'''+m_l)v_l \frac{p_\pi e^}{p_\pi q};\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{9d-10}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{9d}M_{10} =\frac{ie^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5) (\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\\ \times \left[(\hat{P}'''-m_l)\left(G'''_{1\mu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}C'''_{1\mu}\right) e^{\mu}-\left(G'''_{2\mu\nu}+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}C'''_{2\mu\nu}\right)\gamma^\mu e^{\nu}\right](\hat{p}_\pi-\hat{q}+\hat{P}'''+m_l)v_l;\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered} A_{9e-10}=\frac{i}{8\pi^2}\sum_n M_{9e}M_{10} =\frac{ie^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\sin{\theta_c}f_+(0)\cdot 2\bar{u}_\nu(1-\gamma_5)(\hat{p}_K+\hat{P}'''+m_l)\\ \times \left((\hat{P}'''-m_l)e'''_0-\hat{E}'''_1+\frac{<r^2_\pi>}{6}(a'''_P \hat{P}'''-m_la'''_0)\right)\hat{e}^v_l.\end{gathered}$$ \ H.W.Fearing, E.Fischbach, and J.Smith, Phys. Rev. D 2, 542 (1970). H.W.Fearing, E.Fischbach, and J.Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 189 (1970). J.Bijnens, G.Ecker, and J.Gasser, Nucl. Phys. B 396, 81 (1993). J.Gasser, B.Kubis, N.Paver, and M.Verbeni, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 205 (2005). V.V.Braguta, A.A.Likhoded, and A.E.Chalov, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054038 (2002). E.H.Müller, B.Kubis, and U.-G.Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 427 (2006). I.B.Khriplovich and A.S.Rudenko, arXiv:1012.0147 \[hep-ph\], to be published in Phys. Atom. Nucl. F.E.Low, Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958). K.Nakamura [et al]{}. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010). S.Eidelman [et al]{}. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592, 634 (2004). S.A.Akimenko [et al]{}., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 70, 702 (2007). O.G.Tchikilev [et al]{}., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 70, 29 (2007). [^1]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The properties of quark and gluon jets, and the differences between them, are increasingly important at the LHC. However, Monte Carlo event generators are normally tuned to data from $e^+e^-$ collisions which are primarily sensitive to quark-initiated jets. In order to improve the description of gluon jets we make improvements to the perturbative and the non-perturbative modelling of gluon jets and include data with gluon-initiated jets in the tuning for the first time. The resultant tunes significantly improve the description of gluon jets and are now the default in 7.1.' author: - Daniel Reichelt - Peter Richardson - Andrzej Siodmok bibliography: - 'herwig.bib' date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date' title: Improving the Simulation of Quark and Gluon Jets with Herwig 7 --- Introduction {#intro} ============ Monte Carlo generators are essential tools, both for the design of future experiments and the analysis of data from the LHC, and previous collider experiments. Modern event generators [@Bellm:2015jjp; @Sjostrand:2014zea; @Gleisberg:2008ta] provide a simulation of exclusive eventsbased on the combination of fixed-order perturbative results, resummation of large logarithms of scales using the parton-shower approach and non-perturbative models of hadronization and multiple-parton scattering.[^1] These simulations rely on universality and factorization in order to construct a simulation of the complex final states observed in hadronic collisions. This allows the simulation of final-state radiation in the parton shower and the non-perturbative hadronization models to be first developed, and the parameters of the the model tuned, using the simpler and cleaner environment of $e^+e^-$ collisions, and then applied to more complicated hadronic collisions. These models are then combined with the parton-shower simulation of initial-state radiation, a multiple scattering model of the underlying event and a non-perturbative colour reconnection model in order to describe hadronic collisions. In principle universality requires that the colour reconnection model is also used to describe leptonic collisions. In practice however colour reconnection has little effect on the distributions which so far have been used to develop and tune the models. These models are therefore usually either not included at all for the simulation of leptonic collisions, or if they are, the parameters are determined by tuning to hadronic data sensitive to multiple partonic scattering. As the LHC accumulates data at an unprecedented rate there are a number of observables which are not well described by current Monte Carlo event generators, and where the limitations of this approach have started to become obvious, for example: - the difference in the properties of jets initiated by quarks and gluons is not well described with generators predicting either a larger or smaller difference between the jets than is observed by the LHC experiments [@Aad:2014gea]; - the transverse momentum spectra of identified baryons and strange hadrons which are not well described by current generators. [@Khachatryan:2011tm]; - long-range correlations in high multiplicity events[@Khachatryan:2010gv; @Aad:2015gqa]. In this paper we will focus on improvements to the perturbative and non-perturbative modelling to give a better description of both quark- and gluon-initiated jets, as well as the differences between them in . Beyond leading order there is no clear distinction between quark and gluon jets and the definition will depend on the analysis.[^2] As $e^+e^-$ annihilation to hadrons starts with an initial partonic quark-antiquark configuration the data used to develop the final-state parton-shower algorithm, tune its parameters and those of the hadronization model, are dominated by quark-initiated jets. However at the LHC jets initiated by gluons can often dominate, depending on the production process, rapidity and transverse momentum of the jets. Regrettably while there is great interest in the differences between quark and gluon jets at the LHC most of the experimental studies have concentrated on differentiating between quark and gluon jets using neural network, or similar, techniques which makes a direct comparison with simulated hadron-level events impossible. We will therefore use some recent data from the ATLAS experiment [@Aad:2016oit] which is sensitive to both quark and gluon jet properties, together with data on gluon jets in $e^+e^-$ collisions from the OPAL experiment [@Abbiendi:2003gh; @Abbiendi:2004pr] which has not previously been used in the development and tuning of the current generation of Monte Carlo event generators to study the properties of gluon jets. In the next section we will first recap the default parton-shower algorithm used in focusing on recent changes we have made to improve the simulation of both quark and gluon jets. In Section \[sec:hadron\] we will briefly review the important parameters in the cluster hadronization model used in and identify the issues which may lead to different treatments of quark and gluon jets. We will then discuss the tuning strategy used to produce the tunes presented in this paper. We present our results in Section \[sec:results\][^3] followed by our conclusions. Herwig 7 Parton-Shower Algorithm {#sec:shower} ================================ The default parton-shower algorithm [@Gieseke:2003rz] is an improved angular-ordered parton shower. In this approach the momenta of the partons produced in the parton shower are decomposed in terms of the 4-momentum of the parton initiating the jet, $p$ ($p^2=m^2$, the [on-shell]{} parton mass-squared), a light-like reference vector, $n$, in the direction of the colour partner of the parton initiating the jet and the momentum transverse to the direction of $p$ and $n$. The four momentum of any parton produced in the evolution of the jet can be decomposed as $$q_i = \alpha_i p + \beta_i n + q_{\perp i},$$ where $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are coefficients and $q_{\perp i}$ is the transverse four momentum of the parton ($q_{\perp i}\cdot p = q_{\perp i}\cdot n =0$). ![Branching of the parton $i$ to produce the partons $j,k$ which then undergo subsequent branching.[]{data-label="fig:splitting"}](splitting) If we consider the branching of a final-state parton $i$ to two partons $j$ and $k$, i.e. $i\to j k$ as shown in Fig.\[fig:splitting\], the branching is described by the evolution variable $$\tilde{q}^2_i = \frac{q^2_i-m^2_i}{z_i(1-z_i)},$$ where $q^2_i$ is the square of the virtual mass developed by the parton $i$ in the branching, $m_i$ is the physical mass of parton $i$, and $z_i$ is the momentum fraction of the parton $j$ defined such that $$\alpha_j = z_i \alpha_i, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \alpha_k = (1-z_i)\alpha_i.$$ The transverse momenta of the partons produced in the branching are $$q_{\perp j} = z_i q_{\perp i} + k_{\perp i}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ q_{\perp k} = (1-z_i)q_{\perp i} - k_{\perp i},$$ where $k_{\perp i}$ is the transverse momentum generated in the branching. In this case the virtuality of the parton $i$ is $$q_i^2 = \frac{p^2_{Ti}}{z(1-z)} + \frac{m_j^2}z+\frac{m_k^2}{1-z}, \label{eqn:mass}$$ where $p_T$ is the magnitude of the transverse momentum produced in the branching defined such that . In this case the probability for a single branching to happen is $${\rm d} \mathcal{P} = \frac{{\rm d}\tilde{q}^2_i}{\tilde{q}^2_i}\frac{\alpha_S}{2\pi} \frac{{\rm d} \phi_i}{2\pi} {\rm d} z_i P_{i\to jk}(z,\tilde{q}), \label{eqn:prob}$$ where $P_{i\to jk}(z,\tilde{q})$ is the quasi-collinear splitting function, and $\phi_i$ is the azimuthal angle of the transverse momentum $k_{\perp i}$ generated in the splitting. As the branching probability is singular for massless partons an infrared cut-off is required to regularise the singularity. In [@Corcella:2000bw] and early versions of [@Gieseke:2003hm] the cut-off was implemented by giving the partons an infrared mass. However while this remains an option in later versions of and [@Bellm:2015jjp] the default cut-off is now on the minimum transverse momentum of the branching [@Bahr:2008pv]. In order to resum the dominant subleadinglogarithms [@Catani:1990rr] the transverse momentum of the branching is used as the scale for the strong coupling constant. This also means that the strong coupling used in the parton shower is that defined in the Catani-Marchesini-Webber (CMW) scheme which includes the subleadingterms via a redefinition of QCD scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. While this specifies both the branching probability and kinematics of the partons for a single emission in the case of subsequent emission from the daughter partons $j$ and/or $k$ we must decide which properties of the originally generated kinematics to preserve once the masses of $j$ and/or $k$ in Eqn.\[eqn:mass\] are no longer the infrared cut-off masses but the virtualities generated by any subsequent emissions. While this choice is formally subleading it can have a large effect on physical observables. In the transverse momentum of the branching was calculated using Eqn.\[eqn:mass\] and the infrared cut-offmasses when the emission was generated and then preserved during the subsequent evolution of the daughter partons. In the default option was to instead preserve the virtuality of the branching and calculate the transverse momentum of the branching using the virtual masses the daughter partons develop due to subsequent emissions. This means that if the daughter partons develop large virtual masses the transverse momentum of the branching is reduced, and in some cases the branching has to be vetoed if there is no solution of Eqn.\[eqn:mass\]. However, this choice inhibits further soft emission and significantly changes the evolution by vetoing emissions and leads to incorrect evolution of observables. We therefore consider a further choice in which if it is possible to preserve the virtuality and still have a solution for $p_T^2>0$ we do so, however if this is not possible instead of vetoing the emission we set $p_T=0$ and allow the virtuality to increase. The most important parameters which affect thebehaviour of the parton shower and which we will tune in this paper are: - the choice of whether to preserve $p_T$ or $q^2$ during the subsequent evolution; - the value of the strong coupling constant AlphaMZ,taken to be $\alpha^{\rm CMW}_S(M_Z)$, value of the coupling constant in the CMW scheme at the mass of the $Z$ boson, $M_Z$; - the cut-off in the parton shower[^4]. For a cut-off in $p_T$ this is the minimum transverse momentum allowed for the branchings in the shower, $p_T^{\min}$. For a virtuality cut-off we parameterize the threshold for different flavours as $$Q_{g}=\max\left(\frac{\delta-am_{q}}{b},c\right),$$ where $a$ and $b$ are parameters chosen to give a threshold which is slightly reduced for heavier quarks. The parameter $c=0.3$ GeV is chosen to prevent the cutoff becoming too small, we also keep the default value of $b=2.3$. Only the parameters $\delta$ (cutoffKinScale) and $a$ (aParameter) are tuned to the data. ![Dalitz plot for $e^+e^-\to q \bar q g$ showing the region of phase space filled by one emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission. $x_i = 2 E_i/Q$ where $E_i$ is the energy of parton $i$ and $Q$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision.[]{data-label="fig:dalitzShower"}](dalitz/OneEmission){width="50.00000%"} ![Dalitz plot for $e^+e^-\to q \bar q g$ showing the emission from the hard matrix element correction into the [dead-zone]{} which is not populated by parton-shower emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission. $x_i = 2 E_i/Q$ where $E_i$ is the energy of parton $i$ and $Q$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision.[]{data-label="fig:dalitzHard"}](dalitz/HardOnly){width="50.00000%"} There is one other major feature of the angular-ordered parton shower which we need to consider. The angular ordering of the parton shower, which is used to implement the phenomenon of colour coherence, leads to regions of phase space in which there is no gluon emission. Consider for example the process $e^+e^-\to q \bar{q} g$. In this case there is a [dead-zone]{} which is not filled by one emission from the parton shower, as shown in Fig.\[fig:dalitzShower\]. Given this deficit of hard, wide-angle emission it is necessary to combine the parton-shower with the fixed-order calculation of $e^+e^-\to q\bar q g$. There are now a range of techniques which can achieve this including both the next-to-leading order normalization of the total cross section, or including the fixed-order results for multiple emissions. However, for our purposes it is sufficient to consider the simplest matrix-element correction approach where the [dead-zone]{} is filled using the leading-order matrix element for $e^+e^-\to q\bar q g$, as shown in Fig.\[fig:dalitzHard\], together with the reweighting of emission probability, Eqn.\[eqn:prob\], to the exact leading-order result, for any emission which could have the highest transverse momentum in the parton shower.[^5] ![Dalitz plot for $e^+e^-\to q \bar q$ showing the region of phase space filled after multiple emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The transverse momentum of the branchings was preserved in the case of multiple emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission for a single emission. $x_i = 2 E_i/Q$ where $E_i$ is the energy of parton $i$ and $Q$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision.[]{data-label="fig:dalitzCutOff"}](dalitz/CutOff){width="50.00000%"} ![Dalitz plot for $e^+e^-\to q \bar q$ showing the region of phase space filled after multiple emission from the quark and antiquark in the angular-ordered parton shower. The virtuality of the branchings was preserved in the case of multiple emission. The line shows the limits for the parton-shower emission for a single emission. $x_i = 2 E_i/Q$ where $E_i$ is the energy of parton $i$ and $Q$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the collision.[]{data-label="fig:dalitzOffShell"}](dalitz/OffShell){width="50.00000%"} The choice of whether to preserve the transverse momentum or virtuality of the branching affects the phase-space region which is filled by the shower in the case of multiple emission. In this case we cluster the partons using the Durham jet algorithm [@Catani:1991hj], using the p-scheme as implemented in FastJet [@Cacciari:2011ma], keeping track of the partons emitted by the quark and antiquark and then take the hardest additional jet to be the gluon. The resulting Dalitz plots of $e^+e^-\to q \bar{q}$ show that while the choice to preserve the transverse momentum of the branching leads to a significant number of events in the [dead-zone]{}, Fig.\[fig:dalitzCutOff\], if the virtuality of the branching is preserved, Fig.\[fig:dalitzOffShell\], there is little emission outside the original angular-ordered region. Hadronization and Colour Reconnection {#sec:hadron} ===================================== All the family of event generator generators use the cluster hadronization model [@Webber:1983if]. This model is based on the phenomena of colour pre-confinement, i.e. if we non-perturbatively split the gluons left at the end of the parton shower into quark-antiquark pairs and cluster quarks and antiquarks into colour-singlet clusters the mass spectrum of these clusters is peaked at masses close to the cut-off in the parton shower, falls rapidly as the cluster mass increases, and is universal, i.e. the mass distribution of these clusters is independent of the hard scattering process and its centre-of-mass energy. The cluster model assumes that these clusters are a superposition of heavy hadronic states and uses a simple phase-space model for their decay into two hadrons. The main parameters of the model are therefore: - the non-perturbative gluon mass, which is not very sensitive and we do not tune; - the parameters which control the probability of producing baryons and strange quarks during cluster decay; - the parameter which controls the Gaussian smearing of the direction of the hadrons produced which contain a parton from the perturbative evolution about the direction of that parton, with separate values for light, charm and bottom quarks. There are however a small fraction of large mass clusters for which the two hadron decay ansatz is not reasonable and these must first be fissioned into lighter clusters. While only a small fraction of clusters undergo fission due to the larger masses of these clusters they produce a significant fraction of the hadrons. A cluster is split into two clusters if the mass, $M$, is such that $$M^{\bf Cl_{pow}} \geq {\bf Cl_{max}}^{\bf Cl_{pow}}+(m_1+m_2)^{\bf Cl_{pow}}, \label{eqn:clustersplit}$$ where ${\bf Cl_{max}}$ and ${\bf Cl_{pow}}$ are parameters of the model, and $m_{1,2}$ are the masses of the constituent partons of the cluster. ![image](recona) For clusters that need to be split, a $q\bar{q}$ pair is selected to be popped from the vacuum. The mass distribution of the new clusters is given by $$\begin{aligned} M_1 &=& m_1+(M-m_1-m_q)\mathcal{R}_1^{1/P_{\rm split}},\\ M_2 &=& m_2+(M-m_2-m_q)\mathcal{R}_2^{1/P_{\rm split}},\end{aligned}$$ \[eqn:clusterspect\] where $m_q$ is the mass of the parton popped from the vacuum, $M_{1,2}$ are the masses of the clusters formed by the splitting and $\mathcal{R}_{1,2}$ are pseudo-random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1. The distribution of the masses of the clusters is controlled by the parameter $P_{\rm split}$. In order to improve the description of charm and bottom hadron production these parameters for cluster fission all depend on the flavour of the partons in the cluster so that there are separate parameters for light, charm and bottom quarks. In practice there is always a small fraction of clusters that are too light to decay into two hadrons. Before these clusters were decayed to the lightest hadron, with the appropriate flavours. However in some cases, for example for clusters containing a charm or bottom quark-antiquark pair, or a bottom quark and a light antiquark, there can be a number of hadrons of the appropriate flavour below the threshold. In these cases the lightest meson with the appropriate flavours is the pseudoscalar $\phantom{1}^1S_0$ state and the vector $\phantom{1}^3S_1$ state is also below the threshold[^6] which leads to a lower production rate for the vector state with respect to the pseudoscalar state than expected. For the mesons composed of a bottom quark and a light quark the rate is significantly less than that expected from the counting of spin states, or indeed observed experimentally [@Acciarri:1994qv; @Abreu:1995ky; @Buskulic:1995mt; @Ackerstaff:1996gz]. For charmonium and bottomonium states as this mechanism is the only way the vector states can be produced via hadronization it leads to a complete absence of direct $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ production. In we therefore include the possibility that instead of just producing the lightest state all states below the threshold are produced with a probability proportional to $2S+1$, where $S$ is the spin of the particle. In order to improve the behaviour at the threshold for charm and bottom clusters the option exists of allowing clusters above the threshold mass, $M_{\rm threshold}$, for the production of two hadrons to decay into a single hadron such that a single hadron can be formed for masses $$M<M_{\rm limit} = (1+{\bf SingleHadronLimit})M_{\rm threshold}, \label{eqn:singlehadron}$$ where [SingleHadronLimit]{} is a free parameter of the model. The probability of such a single-meson cluster decay is assumed to decrease linearly for $M_{\rm threshold}<M<M_{\rm limit}$ and there are separate parameters for charm and bottom clusters. In order to explain the rising trend of ${\ensuremath{\langle p_t\rangle \mathrm{\; vs\; } N_{ch}}}$ (average transverse momentum as a function of the number of charged particles in the event) observed already by UA1 [@Albajar:1989an] and describe Underlying Event [@Affolder:2001xt; @Aad:2010fh; @Chatrchyan:2011id; @Seymour:2013qka] and the Minimum Bias data[@Aad:2010ac; @Aad:2016mok; @Aad:2016xww; @Aaboud:2016itf], the hadronization model is supplemented with a model of colour reconnections (CR) [@Gieseke:2012ft]. The default version of the model implemented in is not very sophisticated. The colour reconnection model defines the distance between two partons based on their invariant mass, i.e. the distance is small when their invariant mass (cluster mass) is small. The aim of the CR model is to reduce the colour length $\lambda \equiv \sum_{i=1}^{N_{cl}}m_i^2$, where $N_{cl}$ is the number of clusters in an event and $m_i$ is the invariant mass of cluster $i$. The colour reconnection of the clusters leading to a reduction of $\lambda$ is accepted with a given probability which is a parameter of the model. Although the default model is quite simple it should be stressed that its results resemble the more sophisticated statistical colour reconection model [@Gieseke:2012ft] which implements the minimization of $\lambda$ as Metropolis-like algorithm and requires a quick “cooling“ of the random walk. In this model the only possible reconnections which are not allowed are connecting the quark and antiquark produced in the non-perturbative splitting of the gluon. It is therefore possible that the colour lines of a gluon produced at any other stage of the shower can be reconnected leading to the production of a colour-singlet object. While this is physically possible we would expect that it occurs at a rate which is suppressed in the number of colours, $N_C$, as $\sim\frac1{N_C^2}=\frac19$, not the much higher reconnection rate $\sim 2/3$ [^7] which is necessary to describe the underlying event data. This can lead to the production of a colour-singlet gluon jet at a much higher rate than expected. This is particularly problematic in the theoretically clean, but experimentally inaccessible, colour-singlet gluon pair production processes often used to study gluon jets [@Gras:2017jty]. Consider, for example, the simple process of colour-singlet gluon pair production followed by the branching of all the gluons via $g\to gg$, shown in Fig.\[fig:recon\]a. After the non-perturbative splitting of the gluons into quark-antiquark pairs, as shown in Fig.\[fig:recon\]b, without colour reconnection the quarks and antiquarks will be formed into colour-singlet clusters as $(q_1,\bar{q}_3)$, $(q_3,\bar{q}_4)$, $(q_4,\bar{q}_2)$ and $(q_2,\bar{q}_1)$. Given the configuration it is likely that the clusters containing partons from the parton shower of each of the original gluons, i.e. $(q_1,\bar{q}_3)$ and $(q_4,\bar{q}_2)$, will have large masses and the rearrangement to give the clusters $(q_1,\bar{q}_2)$ and $(q_4,\bar{q}_3)$ will be kinematically favoured, although it means the original gluons will effectively become colour singlets rather than octets. In we have therefore included the possibility to forbid the colour reconnection model making any reconnection which would lead to a gluon produced in any stage of the parton-shower evolution becoming a colour-singlet after hadronization. We will investigate the effect of this change on the simulation of quark and gluon jets. Tuning {#sec:tuning} ====== The [@Buckley:2010ar] program was used to analyse the simulated events and compare the results with the experimental measurements. The program [@Buckley:2009bj] was then used to interpolate the shower response and tune the parameters by minimising the chi-squared.[^8] In general we use a heuristic chi-squared function $$\chi^{\prime2}(\boldmath{p}) = \sum_{\mathcal{O}} w_{\mathcal{O}} \sum_{b\exists\mathcal{O}} \frac{\left(f_b(\boldmath{p})-\mathcal{R}_b\right)^2}{\Delta_b^2}$$ where $\boldmath{p}$ is the set of parameters being tuned, $\mathcal{O}$ are the observables used each with weight $w_{\mathcal{O}}$, $b$ are the different bins in each observable distribution with associated experimental measurement $\mathcal{R}_b$ , error $\Delta_b$ and Monte Carlo prediction $f_b(\boldmath{p})$. Weighting of those observables for which a good description of the experimental result is important is used in most cases. The parameterisation of the event generator response, $f(\boldmath{p})$, is used to minimize $\chi^{\prime2}$ and find the optimum parameter values. We take $w_{\mathcal{O}}=1$ in most cases except for the particle multiplicities where we use $w_{\mathcal{O}}=10$ and total charged particle multiplicities where we use $w_{\mathcal{O}}=50$. This ensures that particle multiplicities influence the result of the fit and are required due to the much higher quantity of event shape and spectrum data used in the tuning. Given the aim of this paper is to improve the description of gluon jets this data was also included with $w_{\mathcal{O}}=10$ in order to avoid the fit being dominated by the large quantity of data sensitive to quark jets. In addition as we do not except a Monte Carlo event generator to give a perfect description of all the data and in order to avoid the fit being dominated by a few observables with very small experimental errors we use $$\Delta^{\rm eff}_b = \max(0.05\times\mathcal{R}_b,\Delta_b),$$ rather than the true experimental error, $\Delta_b$, in the fit. The standard procedure which was adopted to tune the shower and hadronization parameters of the and event generators to data is - first the shower and those hadronization parameterswhich are primarily sensitive to light quark-initiated processes are tuned to LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes, the average charged multiplicity andcharged multiplicity distribution, and identified particle spectra and rates which only involve light quark mesons and baryons; - the hadronization parameters for bottom quarks aretuned to the bottom quark fragmentation function measured by LEP1 and SLD together with LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes and identified particlespectra from bottom events; - the hadronization parameters involving charm quarks are then tuned to identified particle spectra, from both the B-factories and LEP1, and LEP1 and SLD measurements of event shapes and identified particle spectra from charm events; - the light quark parameters are then retuned using the new values of the bottom and charm parameters together with different weights for the charged multiplicity distributions in $e^+e^-$ collisions at energies between 12GeV and 209GeV due to the difficulty in fitting the charged multiplicity. Only $e^+e^-$ annihilation data from the continuum region near the $\Upsilon(4s)$ meson, for charm meson spectra, and at the Z-pole from LEP1 and SLD were used in the tune. In this paper we have extended this approach in order to better constrain the energy evolution to include data from a wider range of centre-of-mass energies both below the Z-pole, from the JADE and TASSO experiments, and above the Z-pole, from LEP2. In order to tune the shower and light quark hadronization parameters we used data on jet rates and event shapes for centre-of-mass energies between 14 and 44GeV [@Braunschweig:1990yd; @MovillaFernandez:1997fr; @Pfeifenschneider:1999rz], at LEP1 and SLD [@Abreu:1996na; @Barate:1996fi; @Pfeifenschneider:1999rz; @Abbiendi:2004qz; @Heister:2003aj] and LEP2 [@Pfeifenschneider:1999rz; @Heister:2003aj; @Abbiendi:2004qz], particle multiplicities [@Abreu:1996na; @Barate:1996fi] and spectra [@Akers:1994ez; @Alexander:1995gq; @Alexander:1995qb; @Abreu:1995qx; @Alexander:1996qj; @Abreu:1996na; @Barate:1996fi; @Ackerstaff:1997kj; @Abreu:1998nn; @Ackerstaff:1998ap; @Ackerstaff:1998ue; @Abbiendi:2000cv; @Heister:2001kp] at LEP 1, identified particle spectra below the $\Upsilon(4S)$ from Babar [@Lees:2013rqd], the charged particle multiplicity [@Ackerstaff:1998hz; @Abe:1996zi] and particle spectra [@Ackerstaff:1998hz; @Abe:1998zs; @Abe:2003iy] in light quark events at LEP1 and SLD, the charged particle multiplicity in light quark events atLEP2 [@Abreu:2000nt; @Abbiendi:2002vn], the charged particle multiplicity distribution at LEP 1[@Decamp:1991uz], and hadron multiplicities at the Z-pole [@Amsler:2008zzb]. We also implemented in Rivet and made use of the data on the properties of gluon jets [@Abbiendi:2003gh; @Abbiendi:2004pr] for the first time. [\|c\|ccc\|ccc\|ccc\|ccc\|]{} Cut-Off & &\ Preserved & & & &\ Tune & A & B & C& A & B & C& A & B & C& A & B & C\ \ ClMaxBottom & & & &\ ClPowBottom & & & &\ PSplitBottom & & & &\ ClSmrBottom & & & &\ SingleHadronLimitBottom & & & &\ \ SingleHadronLimitCharm & & & &\ ClMaxCharm & & & &\ ClPowCharm & & & &\ PSplitCharm & & & &\ ClSmrCharm & & & &\ \ AlphaMZ ($\alpha^{\rm CMW}_S(M_Z)$) & 0.1094 & 0.1087 & 0.1126 & 0.1260 & 0.1262 & 0.1265 & 0.1221 & 0.1218 & 0.1184 & 0.1314 & 0.1317 & 0.1254\ pTmin & 1.037 & 0.933 & 0.809 & 1.301 & 1.223 & 0.992 & &\ aParameter & & & &\ cutoffKinScale & & & 2.939 & 2.910 & 2.294 & 3.277 & 3.279 & 1.938\ ClMaxLight & 3.504 & 3.639 & 4.349 & 3.058 & 3.003 & 3.197 & 3.328 & 3.377 & 3.846 & 3.414 & 3.427 & 3.477\ ClPowLight & 2.576 & 2.575 & 1.226 & 1.513 & 1.424 & 2.786 & 1.286 & 1.318 & 2.063 & 2.766 & 2.792 & 2.35\ PSplitLight & 1.003 & 1.016 & 0.855 & 0.885 & 0.848 & 0.648 & 1.198 & 1.185 & 1.277 & 1.346 & 1.333 & 2.015\ PwtSquark & 0.552 & 0.597 & 1.167 & 0.602 & 0.666 & 1.024 & 0.721 & 0.741 & 0.782 & 0.626 & 0.646 & 1.15\ PwtDIquark & 0.369 & 0.344 & 0.181 & 0.416 & 0.439 & 0.512 & 0.277 & 0.273 & 0.246 & 0.321 & 0.328 & 0.366\ --------------- ------------------------- ------ ----------- ------ ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------------- Cut-Off Number of Preserved degrees of Tune A B C A B C A B C A B C freedom (sum including weights) Light quarks 4.4 4.3 6.7 3.0 2.9 4.2 7.8 7.6 6.9 4.6 4.3 3.6 10122(14099) Charm quarks 3.2 2.8 5.8 3.6 3.5 3.9 4.5 4.6 6.4 3.9 3.9 7.4 549(891) Bottom quarks 4.0 3.4 3.6 5.4 4.9 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.9 346(1309) Gluons 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 188(1880) Gluon 14.2 18.6 22.6 26.9 37.1 60.0 3.4 3.7 8.1 10.0 11.0 22.8 26 All quarks 4.6 2.7 2.7 3.4 2.5 5.2 11.6 10.7 3.7 7.2 6.5 1.6 48 Light quarks 2.2 1.7 2.8 1.7 1.8 4.4 4.8 4.4 2.1 3.9 3.5 1.8 27 Charm quarks 2.8 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.6 1.0 2.8 2.6 1.2 2.2 2.2 0.9 17 Bottom quarks 20.4 18.1 15.8 24.1 21.3 15.7 33.4 33.1 34.7 22.0 21.5 46.2 27 ATLAS Jets 3.2 0.9 4.3 13.3 10.1 7.8 21.8 19.0 6.4 33.3 31.3 38.0 22 --------------- ------------------------- ------ ----------- ------ ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------------- The hadronization parameters for charm quarks weretuned using the charged multiplicity in charm events atSLD [@Abe:1996zi] and LEP2 [@Abreu:2000nt; @Abbiendi:2002vn], the light hadron spectra in charm events at LEP1 and SLD [@Ackerstaff:1998hz; @Abe:1998zs; @Abe:2003iy], the multiplicities of charm hadrons at the Z-pole [@Abreu:1996na; @Amsler:2008zzb], and charm hadron spectra below the $\Upsilon(4S)$ [@Seuster:2005tr; @Aubert:2006cp] and at LEP1 [@Barate:1999bg]. The hadronization parameters for bottom quarks were tuned using the charged multiplicity in bottom events atSLD [@Abe:1996zi] and LEP2 [@Abreu:2000nt; @Abbiendi:2002vn], the light hadron spectra in bottom events at LEP1 and SLD [@Ackerstaff:1998hz; @Abe:1998zs; @Abe:2003iy], the multiplicities of charm and bottom hadrons at the Z-pole [@Abreu:1996na; @Amsler:2008zzb], charm hadron spectra at LEP1 [@Barate:1999bg] and the bottom fragmentation function measured at LEP1 and SLD [@Abe:2002iq; @Heister:2001jg; @DELPHI:2011aa]. In order to tune the evolution of the total charged particle multiplicity in $e^+e^-$ collisions as a function of energy the results of Refs.[@Derrick:1986jx; @Aihara:1986mv; @Berger:1980zb; @Bartel:1983qp; @Braunschweig:1989bp; @Zheng:1990iq; @Acton:1991aa; @Abe:1996zi; @Abreu:1996na; @Abreu:2000nt; @Abbiendi:2002vn; @Heister:2003aj] spanning energies from 12 to 209 GeV were used. In order to study the various effects we have discussed we have produced tunes for the shower and hadronization parameters in the case that either the transverse momentum or virtuality in the shower is preserved. In each case we first tuned the shower and light quark parameters without the data on charged particle multiplicities as centre-of-mass energies below the mass of the $Z^0$ boson. In the final stage of the process where we retune these parameters three tunes were produced for each choice of cut-off and preserved quantity, one (labelled A) without the low-energy charged multiplicity data, one (labelled B) where all thecharged multiplicity data was included with in the tune with weight $w_{\mathcal{O}}=100$ and a final tune (labelled C) where this data had weight $w_{\mathcal{O}}=1000$. ![image](plots/OPAL_2004_I631361/d03-x01-y01.pdf){width="45.00000%"} ![image](plots/OPAL_2004_I631361/d03-x01-y02.pdf){width="45.00000%"} Unfortunately due to the CPU time required it is impossible to include the ATLAS data [@Aad:2016oit] directly in the tune, therefore we compare the results of the different tunes to this data. Results {#sec:results} ======= We have produced 12 tunes for different choices of the cut-off variable in the shower, the choice of which quantity to preserve in the parton shower, and different weightings of the charged particle multiplicities. The parameters obtained in the fits are given in Table.\[tab:parameters\] while the $\chi^2$ values are given in Table.\[tab:chisq\]. The effects of changing the colour reconnection model can be seen in Fig.\[fig:OPALgluonNcharged\]. In the results of or there is an unphysical tendency of the gluon jets to contain an even number of charged particles due to the production of colour-singlet gluons by the reconnection model, this feature is not present in any of the new tunes which provide a much better description of the distribution of charged particles in the gluon jets, see also the Appendix. The choice of which tune and choice of cut-off variable and preserved quantity has to be a balance between how well we wish to describe the various different data sets, as unfortunately no choice provides a good description of all the data sets. If we first consider the choice of cut-off it is clear that using a virtual mass provides a larger $\chi^{\prime2}$ for all sets of observables used in the tuning apart from those sensitive to bottom quarks. In addition it displays an unphysical energy dependence in the difference in charged particle multiplicities between bottom (or charm) quark and light quark events, as shown in Fig.\[fig:bottomdiff\] where the results which use a cut-off on the virtual mass, and the new tune$q^2$-$q^2$-B, show a strong dependence on the centre-of-mass energy while those which use a $p_\perp$ cut-off, and the new tune $p_\perp$-$q^2$-B, are relatively independent of energy. We therefore prefer a cut-off on the minimum transverse momentum of the branching. ![Difference between the charged multiplicity in bottom and light quark events in $e^+e^-$ collisions as a function of centre-of-mass energy. The data is from [@Rowson:1985xh; @Sakuda:1985jd; @Aihara:1986mv; @Braunschweig:1988gy; @Althoff:1983yv; @Nagai:1992yd; @Okabe:1997uf; @Schumm:1992pv; @Abreu:1995pk; @Akers:1995ww; @Abe:1996zi; @Abreu:2000nt; @Delphi:2002; @Abbiendi:2002vn; @Abe:2003iy] as compiled in [@Dokshitzer:2005ri][]{data-label="fig:bottomdiff"}](plots/bottomdiff){width="50.00000%"} In order to obtain a reasonable evolution of the number of charged particles with centre-of-mass energy in $e^+e^-$ collisions, see Fig.\[fig:allN\], without ruining the description of particle spectra and event shape observables we choose to use the B tune as our default. ![The evolution of the number of charged particles in as a function of the centre-of-mass energy.[]{data-label="fig:allN"}](all){width="50.00000%"} The choice of whether to preserve the $p_\perp$ or $q^2$ of the branching is more complicated. While the data on light quark jets, in particular event shapes measured at LEP (for example the thrust Fig.\[fig:thrust\]), favour preserving $q^2$ the data on the charged particle multiplicity in gluon jets at LEP Fig.\[fig:gluonN\], and in jets at the LHC Figs.\[fig:ATLASNCharged\],\[fig:ATLASNdiff\] favours preserving the $p_\perp$ of the branching. Our preferred choice, in particular in the presence of higher-order matching, is to preserve the $q^2$ of the branching in order to ensure that the parton shower does not overpopulate the dead-zone. This also ensures a more reasonable value of strong coupling, $\alpha^{\rm CMW}_S(M_Z)=0.126$ which gives $\alpha^{\rm \overline{MS}}_S(M_Z)=0.118$. However given the better description of gluon jets it is reasonable to also consider the alternative of preserving the $p_\perp$, see for example Fig. \[fig:summary\_hadron\_pp\_all\] from the Appendix. ![The thrust at the Z-pole compared to data from the DELPHI [@Abreu:1996na] experiment.[]{data-label="fig:thrust"}](plots/DELPHI_1996_S3430090/d11-x01-y01){width="50.00000%"} ![The evolution of the number of charged particles in gluon jets as a function of twice the energy of the gluon jet.[]{data-label="fig:gluonN"}](gluon){width="50.00000%"} ![The average number of charged particles in jets as a function of the jet transverse momentum compared to data from the ATLAS experiment [@Aad:2016oit].[]{data-label="fig:ATLASNCharged"}](plots/ATLAS_2016_I1419070/d10-x01-y01){width="50.00000%"} ![The difference between the average number of particles in central and forward jets compared to data from the ATLAS experiment [@Aad:2016oit].[]{data-label="fig:ATLASNdiff"}](plots/ATLAS_2016_I1419070/d07-x01-y01){width="50.00000%"} Conclusions =========== We have performed a tuning the the event generator using data on gluon jets from LEP for the first time. Together with changes to the non-perturbative modelling this gives a significantly better description of gluon jets, in particular their charge particle multiplicity. It is however impossible to get a good description of the LEP particle spectra and the charged particle multiplicities, particularly in gluon jets, at the same time. We therefore choose the tune $p_\perp$-$q^2$-B as the default for . However for jets at the LHC the tune $p_\perp$-$p_\perp$-B gives a better description of jet properties. While the tunes presented in this paper are an improvement on their predecessors there is a tension between the data on charged particle multiplicities, for both quark and gluon initiated jets, and the data on event shapes and particle spectra from LEP. The cluster hadronization model also continues to have problems describing final states in events with bottom quarks. Any further improvement in the description of this data will require improvements to the non-perturbative modelling. This work was supported in part by the European Union as part of the FP7 and H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Initial Training Networks MCnetITN and MCnetITN3 (PITN-GA-2012-315877 and 722104). Daniel Reichelt thanks CERN for the award of a summer studentship during which this work was initiated and acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant No. SI 2009/1-1. Andrzej Siodmok acknowledges support from the National Science Centre, Poland Grant No. 2016/23/D/ST2/02605. We thank our collaborators on for many useful discussions. The tuning of to experimental data would not have been possible without the use of GRIDPP computer resources. Generalized angularities and quark and gluon jet discrimination power {#appendix} ===================================================================== In this appendix we investigate how the improvements of the simulation of quark and gluon proposed in the manuscript affect the quark and gluon jet discrimination power recently studied in [@Gras:2017jty][^9]. For this purpose, we present results for five generalized angularities $\lambda^{\kappa}_{\beta}$ [@Larkoski:2014pca]: $$\arraycolsep=5pt \begin{array}{cccccc} \label{eq:ang} (\kappa,\beta)&(0,0) & (2,0) & (1,0.5) & (1,1) & (1,2) \\ \lambda^{\kappa}_{\beta}: & \text{multiplicity} & p_T^D & \text{LHA} & \text{width} & \text{mass} \end{array}$$ where $\lambda^{\kappa}_{\beta} = \sum_{i \in \text{jet}} z_i^\kappa \theta_i^\beta,$ $i$ runs over the jet constituents, $z_i \in [0,1]$ is a momentum fraction, and $\theta_i \in [0,1]$ is an angle to the jet axis. To quantify discrimination performance, we use classifier separation: $$\Delta = \frac{1}{2} \int \text{d} \lambda \, \frac{\bigl(p_q(\lambda) - p_g(\lambda)\bigr)^2}{p_q(\lambda) + p_g(\lambda)},$$ where $p_q$ ($p_g$) is the probability distribution for $\lambda$ in a generated quark jet (gluon jet) sample. $\Delta = 0$ corresponds to no discrimination power and $\Delta = 1$ corresponds to perfect discrimination power. We start with an idealized case of $e^+ e^-$ collisions (see Section 5 of [@Gras:2017jty] for details). In Fig. \[fig:ee\] we show the discrimination power as a function of an angularity predicted by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 8.215</span> [@Sjostrand:2014zea], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig++ 2.7.1</span> [@Bahr:2008pv], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sherpa 2.2.1</span> [@Gleisberg:2008ta] , the NNL analytical calculation from [@Gras:2017jty] and the both $p_\perp$-$q^2$-B and $p_\perp$-$p_\perp$-B tunes of . Firstly, we see that the both tunes give significantly different results compared to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig++ 2.7.1</span>. In order to understand the source of the difference, in Fig \[fig:ee\_variation\_herwig\] we investigate, for $p_\perp$-$q^2$-B tune, the following settings variations: - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig: no $g \to q\bar{q}$</span>. Turning off $g \to q \bar{q}$ splittings in the parton shower. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig: no CR</span>. The variation turns off color reconnections. We can see that the results are not very sensitive to the change of the settings. This was not the case for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig++ 2.7.1</span> where the colour reconnection had a huge effect on the discrimination power, see [@Gras:2017jty]. Therefore, we can conclude that the difference is due to the improvements of the CR model described in Section \[sec:hadron\], which as expected reduce effects of CR in the case of $e^+ e^-$ collisions. Secondly, the results of the both tunes are quite similar and closer to the other predictions giving more constrained prediction on the quark/gluon jet discrimination power in $e^+ e^-$ collisions. In fact just before finishing this paper the new tune was used in [@Mo:2017gzp] confirming that indeed that improvements introduced in the manuscript reduced the tension between Pythia and Herwig and bring Herwig results closer to NNLL’ results from [@Mo:2017gzp]. Next, in Fig. \[fig:summary\_hadron\_pp\_all\] we show the results for $\Delta$ in the case of quark/gluon tagging at the LHC (see Section 6 of [@Gras:2017jty] for details). Here we can see that the differences between <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig++ 2.7.1</span> and the both tunes are more modest when compared to the previous case of $e^+ e^-$ collisions. However, as expected the largest differences between generators appear for IRC-unsafe observables like multiplicity (0,0) and $p_T^D$ (2,0), where nonperturbative hadronization plays an important role. It is also worth to notice that the $p_\perp$-$p_\perp$-B tune which is preferred by the data on the charged particle multiplicity in gluon jets at LEP Fig.\[fig:gluonN\], and in jets at the LHC Figs.\[fig:ATLASNCharged\],\[fig:ATLASNdiff\] gives slightly better discrimination power reducing the gap between predictions of and the other generators. Finally, it would be interesting to estimate the parton-shower uncertainties [@Bellm:2016rhh; @Bellm:2016voq; @Mrenna:2016sih; @Bothmann:2016nao] in the context of the quark and gluon jet discrimination observables to see whether the remaining discrepancy in the predictions is covered by the uncertainty band. [^1]: For a recent review of modern Monte Carlo event generators see [@Buckley:2011ms]. [^2]: See Ref.[@Gras:2017jty] for a more detailed discussion. [^3]: Additional results on quark and gluon jet discrimination power are included in the Appendix. [^4]: There is an option to extend the parton-shower radiation to the non-perturbative region and effectively remove the cut-off, see [@Gieseke:2007ad]. [^5]: Due to the choice of ordering variable the hardest emission may not be the one that has the highest value of the ordering variable, i.e. the hardest emission may be not the first emission. [^6]: For charmonium and bottomonium states there are a number of other states below the threshold. [^7]: The value from the tune of Herwig 7.1 with a new soft and diffractive model [@Gieseke:2016fpz]. [^8]: While tuning the parameters sensitive to bottom quarks it proved impossible to get a reliable interpolation of the generator response with and therefore a random scan of the bottom parameters was performed and the values adjusted by hand about the minimum to minimise the $\chi^{\prime2}$. [^9]: The results and the analysis code used for this study is available as a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rivet</span> routine [@Buckley:2010ar], which can be downloaded from <https://github.com/gsoyez/lh2015-qg>.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A model for the relation between radio jet power and the product of central black hole (BH) mass and Eddington ratio of AGN is proposed, and the model is examined with data from the literature. We find that radio jet power positively correlates but not linearly with the product of BH mass ($m$ in solar mass) and Eddington ratio ($\lambda$), and the power law indices ($\mu$) are significantly less than unity for relatively low accretion ($\lambda<0.1$) AGN, $P_{j}\propto (\lambda m)^{\mu}$, in the radio galaxies and the Seyfert galaxies. This leads to a negative correlation between radio loudness and $\lambda m$ for the low luminosity AGN, i.e. $R\propto (\lambda m)^{\rho}$ with $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1<0$, which may be attributed to a contribution of BH spin to total jet power assuming that the spin induced jet is gradually suppressed as the accretion rate increases. Whereas, for the high-z quasars which often show the slope $\mu\geq1$, a positive correlation between the radio loudness and disc luminosity is predicted. We discuss that the jet powers of the high-z FRII quasars are likely dominated by the accretion disc rather than by the BH spin.' author: - Xiang Liu - Zhenhua Han title: 'Is radio jet power linearly proportional to the product of central black hole mass and Eddington ratio in AGN?' --- Introduction ============ It is generally accepted that active galactic nuclei (AGN) harbor massive black holes (BHs). The black holes have only three physical parameters: mass, spin and net charges, the net charges are often considered to be zero. The mass (and its time derivative) and spin (and its time derivative) of BHs are crucial for understanding the AGN phenomena; most models and simulations suggest that it is the mass accretion and/or spin of black holes that produce the jets of AGN, e.g. see @bla77 model for the BH spin induced jet, @bla82 model for the disc accretion induced jet, and see recent reviews for the simulations of accretion disc [@fra13] and for hot accretion flows [@yuan14]. The co-evolution of central BH and its host AGN makes it possible for measuring the BH mass via various ways, and the mass accretion rate can be estimated through the measurements of Eddington ratio. While BH spins are still difficult to measure, although there is an explosion of BH spin measurements in recent years, only some 19 AGN may have BH spin measurements [@rey13]. About 10% of quasars are radio loud [@kal12], and many more are in radio weak/quiet state, while a higher radio loud fraction was found in low luminosity AGN [@ho02]. It is not well understood how a radio jet is related to the central BH mass, spin, and accretion rate (or Eddington ratio) in AGN. Observationally, radio jet powers are not well correlated with BH masses [@ho02], whereas there are several findings that radio luminosity correlates with the narrow emission line luminosity or the bolometric luminosity which assumed to be proportional to disc accretion rate [@raw91; @wil99; @cao04; @van13]. In recent development of the @bla77 mechanism, @tch11 and @mck12 demonstrate that the magnetically arrested flows can extract BH spin energy efficiently. A jet-spin correlation has been suggested in X-ray binaries [@ste13], but there are some debates on the correlation [@rus13]. Furthermore, an anti-correlation between the radio loudness and Eddington ratio is found in relatively low luminosity AGN [@ho02; @sik07; @sik13], which is probably due to the BH spin [@sik13; @sikb13]. It is likely that both the disc accretion and BH spin may contribute to the jet power of AGN. In this paper, we propose a simple model between radio jet power and disc accretion, and reanalyze the data from the literature to examine the relation and discuss the result. Relation of radio jet power to BH mass and Eddington ratio ========================================================== In the Newtonian approximation – this is suitable to a distance beyond a few Schwarzschild radii of BH [@mei12], where a jet may be formed from the disc accretion of AGN if not to consider a contribution from the BH spin, the binding energy of unit mass in a Keplerian orbit is $GM/2r$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant. For an accreting mass of $\Delta{M}$ in time of $\Delta{t}$, the binding energy $E$ per unit time is $$E=\Delta{M}/\Delta{t}\times(GM/2r)=G \dot{M} M/2r.$$ Where $\dot{M}$ is the accretion rate defined by accreted mass $\Delta{M}$ per unit time. For the radiative efficiency of $\varepsilon$ in an accretion disc, the disc luminosity: $$L_{disc}=\varepsilon G \dot{M} M/2r.$$ Similarly assuming radio jet power is also proportional to the binding energy with a jet efficiency $\eta$, we will have the radio jet power $P_{j}$: $$P_{j}=\eta G \dot{M} M/2r.$$ Considering the ratio of disc luminosity to the Eddington luminosity: $$\frac{L_{disc}}{L_{Edd}}=\frac{\varepsilon G \dot{M} M/2r}{4\pi G M m_{p} c/\sigma_{T}}.$$ We have $$L_{disc}/L_{Edd}=5.28\times 10^{-12} \varepsilon \dot{M}/r.$$ Taking this relation into equation (3), $r$ is cancelled, and we have $$P_{j}=1.26\times10^{38} (\eta /\varepsilon) [(L_{disc}/L_{Edd}) M/M_{\odot}] (erg/s).$$ This relation shows that the jet power is the disc accretion dominated, which is expected to be linearly proportional to the product of the Eddington ratio ($\lambda=L_{disc}/L_{Edd}$) and the BH mass ($M$) of AGN, with the coefficient of $\eta$/$\varepsilon$. The jet power depends not only on the Eddington ratio but also BH mass in this relation. It is equivalent to the relation (from equations 2 and 3): $$P_{j}=(\eta /\varepsilon)L_{disc}.$$ Statistical analysis of the jet power, BH mass and Eddington ratio ================================================================== To test the formula (6), we searched for suitable AGN samples which have information on radio jet luminosity, BH mass and Eddington ratio (or disc luminosity). Firstly, we study from the @sik13 sample, the sample consists of 404 narrow line radio galaxies (NLRGs) consisting of FRIs and FRIIs, double-double radio lobes, X-shaped lobes, and one side lobes (for details, see @sik13), and the sample is limited to redshift $<$0.4. We use only the data of FRIs and FRIIs, they are the majority of the sample. The 1.4 GHz radio luminosity computed from 1.4 GHz fluxes in the NVSS catalog, BH mass and $H_{\alpha}$ (also $[O_{III}]$) line luminosity are available in the Sikora sample, where the black hole masses were estimated from the observed stellar velocity dispersion given in the SDSS using the relation by @tre02 with typical error of log$M$ less than 0.3 dex. The radio jet power $P_{j}$ can be estimated from low frequency (151 MHz) radio luminosity with the minimal energy argument for synchrotron emission [@wil99], assuming that the jet output results in energy stored in radio source lobes together with associated work done on the source environment. We convert the jet power formula of [@wil99] from 151 MHz to 1.4 GHz assuming source spectral indices $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-0.8}$, and we have $$P_{j}=2.32\times10^{20} (f/3)^{3/2} (P_{1.4})^{6/7}[W/Hz] (erg/s)$$ The $f$ (in range 1-20) represents several uncertainties associated with estimating $P_{j}$ from 151 MHz luminosity [@wil99]. We here use the median value $f=10$ [@blu00] and use the equation (8) for that we want to study the power law slope between $P_{j}$ and disc luminosity through $P_{1.4}$. @sik13 used a simplified formula $P_{j} \propto P_{1.4}$, that overestimates a jet power by more than a factor of 10 than that of equation (8). Where the $P_{1.4}$ is the 1.4 GHz luminosity, the radio jet power $P_{j}$ is generally less than the bolometric disc luminosity in our case. The bolometric luminosity $L_{bol}$ estimated with the $H_{\alpha}$ line luminosity, the same as in @sik13, see also @net09: $$L_{disc}=L_{bol} \simeq 2000 L_{line} (erg/s)$$ The Eddington ratio is computed from $L_{disc}/L_{Edd}$, and the Eddington luminosity $L_{Edd}$ depends only on BH mass. The radio loudness parameter $R$ is defined by the 1.4 GHz radio luminosity over the $H_{\alpha}$ line luminosity, i.e. $R=P_{1.4}/L_{H_{\alpha}}$. To test and fit the equations (6)-(7), we rewrite the equation (6)-(7) as a power law form $P_{j}=(\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'})L_{disc}^{\mu}$, i.e.: $$log(P_{j})=b + \mu \times log(\lambda M/M_{\odot}),$$ where $b=log [1.26\times10^{38} (\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'})]$, the ratio $\eta^{'}/\varepsilon^{'}$ is a coefficient for the power law form and it returns to $\eta/\varepsilon$ when $\mu=1$. For the anti-correlations between the radio loudness and disc luminosity (or Eddington ratio) found by @ho02, @sik07 [@sik13], it is reasonable to assume a power law relation, i.e: $R=\xi L_{disc}^{\rho}$, and rewrite it with the form ($m\equiv M/M_{\odot}$): $$log(R)=c + \rho \times log(\lambda m)$$ Then, we plot the radio power $P_{j}$ versus the production of BH mass and Eddington ratio for the sample, as well as the radio loudness $R$ versus $\lambda m$, and fit the data with the equation (10),(11) respectively, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig2\]. The linear regression fitted parameters are listed in Table \[tab1\], as well as the correlation coefficient and the null hypothesis probability in Table \[tab2\]. The result shows that the radio power of the NLRGs (FRIs+FRIIs) positively correlates with the $\lambda m$, with the power law index of 0.52$\pm$0.06 with high correlation coefficient and confidence level in Table \[tab2\], it is not a linear proportionality as one might expect from equations (6)-(7). The radio loudness is anti-correlated with the $\lambda m$ with the power law index of -0.40$\pm$0.08. It shows that the jet powers have no correlation with the BH masses (Fig. \[fig3\]). If we fit separately for FRIIs and FRIs in the sample, the slope $\mu$ is 0.52$\pm$0.08 and 0.49$\pm$0.18 for the FRIIs and FRIs respectively. ![Log\[jet power\] vs. log\[$\lambda m$\] for the narrow line radio galaxies (FRIs+FRIIs), with the best linear fit to the sample, the dash line is fitted with the fixed slope=1. The top axis is the disc luminosity, the right axis is the 1.4 GHz luminosity, and the Eddington ratio is approximately marked in the inside X-axis. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="8cm"} ![Log\[radio loudness\] vs. log\[$\lambda m$\] for the narrow line radio galaxies (FRIs+FRIIs), with the best linear fit to the sample, the dash line is fitted with the fixed slope=0.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="8cm"} ![Log\[jet power\] vs. log\[$m$\] for the narrow line radio galaxies (FRIs+FRIIs), $m$ is black hole mass in solar mass unit.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="8cm"} We also study the @sik07 sample, that consists of five sub-samples including broad-line radio galaxies (BLRGs), radio-loud quasars (RLQs), FRI radio galaxies, optically selected quasars (PG quasars), and Seyfert galaxies plus LINERS (only 3), all the sources are at redshift z$<$0.5. The 5 GHz radio luminosity, BH mass and Eddington ratio are available in the @sik07 sample. We searched total 1.4 GHz flux densities available from the literature (@con98; and data from the NED and references therein) for the sample, for that the lower frequency radio luminosity would reflect the isotropic properties of emission in the lobes and extended jets. The BH masses in @sik07, were estimated using a broad-line region size-luminosity relation, assuming virial velocities of the gas, which produces broad $H_{\alpha}$ lines [@gre05], or from the appropriate references. The uncertainties of BH mass from @gre05, typically $\sim$20% in the virial mass formula that depends on the $H_{\alpha}$ line alone. The Eddington ratio is $\lambda$=$L_{bol}/L_{Edd}$, and the bolometric luminosity $L_{bol}$ is assumed to be 10 times optical $B$-band nuclear luminosity (at 4400$\AA$), i.e. $L_{bol}=10L_{B}$ (see, e.g., @ric06), where $L_{B}=\nu_{B} L_{\nu_{B}}$, which is from directly measured apparent magnitudes of the nuclear regions or also estimated from the $H_{\alpha}$ line, the errors of $H_{\alpha}$ flux can be $\leq$30% [@gre05], see @sik07 for more details on the estimation of BH mass and nuclear disc luminosity. Here we use the equation (8) to estimate the jet power by using $f=10$ and $P_{1.4}$. As each subsample of the @sik07 sample is relatively small, to compare with the sample in Fig. \[fig1\] which are narrow line FRI/FRII galaxies, we combine the FRI galaxies and BLRGs into radio galaxies (RG) in the @sik07 sample, also because the FRI and FRII galaxies may have similar accretion mode [@cao04]. The BLRGs and RLQs which divided by absolute magnitude $M_{V}>-23$ and $M_{V}<-23$, are almost all the FRIIs [@sik07]. We plot the jet power $P_{j}$ derived from 1.4 GHz luminosity versus $\lambda m$ in Fig. \[fig4\] as well as the radio loudness versus $\lambda m$ in Fig. \[fig5\]. A few outliers are excluded in our analysis (e.g., the NGC1275 from Seyfert galaxies, which is actually hosted by a giant elliptical galaxy, and 5 PGQs which are in the RLQ area), and those data with only upper/lower limits are excluded. The radio loudness is computed with $R=1\times10^{5}L_{1.4}/L_{B}$ which converted from the formula $R=1.36\times10^{5}L_{5.0}/L_{B}$ at 5 GHz in @sik07, assuming source spectral index $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-0.8}$. Linear regression fittings to the RGs, Seyferts+LINERS, and PG quasars are shown in Fig. \[fig4\] with the fitted parameters in Table \[tab1\], as well as the correlation coefficient and null probability in Table \[tab2\]. The quality of a linear regression can be measured by the coefficient of determination (COD), a value from 0 to 1. If it is close to 0 the relationship between X and Y will be regarded as very poor, the COD theoretically equals to the square of the Pearson coefficient of linear correlation. We try to do linear fitting with slope=1 (dash line in Fig. \[fig1\]), the resulted COD is 0.07, which is much lower than the COD=0.52 of the best linear fit for the FRIs+FRIIs. This is also true for the subsamples in Fig. \[fig4\], except the PG quasars which is close to slope=1 but with larger errors in Table \[tab1\]. The correlation coefficient and confidence level are quite high for the radio galaxies, Seyferts+LINERS in the two samples in Table \[tab2\]. We did not fit for the radio loud quasars (RLQs), because they are clustering in a small area making it difficult to fit them properly. ![Log\[jet power\] vs. log\[$\lambda m$\] for the radio galaxies (RG), Seyfert galaxies and LINERS (Sey+L), and PG quasars (PGQ), with the best linear fit to each subsample, the dash line is fitted with the fixed slope=1. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="8cm"} ![Log\[radio loudness\] vs. log\[$\lambda m$\] for the sub-samples (same as in Fig.4), with the best linear fit to each subsample.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="8cm"} $$ [c\|c\|c\|c\|c ]{} Sample & subsample & $\mu$ & $b$ & $\eta^{'}/\varepsilon^{'}$\ Sikora13 & NLRG(0.52) & 0.52$\pm$0.06 & 40.10$\pm$0.34 & 100.0\ Sikora07 & RG(0.51) & 0.35$\pm$0.10 & 41.06$\pm$0.60 & 912.0\ & Sey+L(0.47) & 0.32$\pm$0.12 & 38.32$\pm$0.58 & 1.7\ & PGQ(0.47) & 0.92$\pm$0.44 & 34.08$\pm$3.42 & 9.5E-5\ & & $\rho$ & $c$ &\ Sikora13& NLRG(0.32) & -0.40$\pm$0.08 & 3.46$\pm$0.40 &\ Sikora07& RG(0.69) & -0.59$\pm$0.12 & 7.22$\pm$0.70 &\ & Sey+L(0.73) & -0.63$\pm$0.14 & 4.02$\pm$0.66 &\ & PGQ(0.00) & 0.07$\pm$0.52 & -0.89$\pm$3.96 &\ $$\end{table} \begin{table} \caption[]{The Pearson, Spearman and Kendall linear correlation coefficient between $log[P_{j}]$ and $log[\lambda m]$, and that between $log[radio loudness]$ and $log[\lambda m]$ marked `logR' in second line, with null hypothesis probability (non correlation probability) in brackets.} \label{tab2} \small$$ [c\|c\|c\|c]{} Subsample & Pearson & Spearman & Kendall\ NLRG & 0.72(0) & 0.71(0) & 0.53(0)\ logR & -0.57(0) & -0.52(0) & -0.36(1.6E-18)\ RG & 0.71(5.7E-9) & 0.64(6.4E-7) & 0.45(5.7E-6)\ logR & -0.83(1.1E-13) & -0.81(1.1E-12) & -0.62(2.5E-10)\ Sey+L &0.68(4.2E-6) & 0.68(5.2E-6) & 0.51(1.5E-5)\ logR & -0.85(3.6E-11) & -0.86(2.4E-11) & -0.70(2.2E-9)\ PGQ & 0.69(5.5E-4) & 0.64(0.002) & 0.57(3.9E-4)\ logR & 0.06(0.78) & 0.17(0.45) & 0.17(0.29)\ $$ In the results, we show that the jet powers at 1.4 GHz positively correlate with the $\lambda m$, but not linearly, i.e. the power law indices ($\mu$) are significantly less than unity for the radio galaxies and Seyferts+LINERS. The radio loudness is anti-correlated with the $\lambda m$ for the radio galaxies and Seyferts+LINERS. For PG quasars, there appears to be a linear proportionality between the jet power and disc luminosity but with larger errors, that leads to no correlation between radio loudness and disc luminosity. To further study the anti-correlation between the radio loudness and the $\lambda m$ we found, considering $P_{j}=\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'} L_{disc}^{\mu}$ and equation (8)-(9), we have radio loudness: $$R=P_{1.4}/L_{line} \propto P_{j}^{7/6}/L_{disc} \propto L_{disc}^{(7/6)\mu-1}\propto L_{disc}^{\rho}$$ The ratio $\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'}$ can be estimated from the $b$ of the linear fit parameters in Table \[tab1\]. From equation (12) we find a relation $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1$. This relation accords with the fitting results in Table \[tab1\], e.g. for $\mu=0.52$, the $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1$= -0.39 is close to the measured value $\rho=-0.40\pm0.08$ in Table \[tab1\] for the NLRGs. So the anti-correlation is apparently explained, that is due to the $\mu<6/7$, so that $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1<0$. The physics for $\mu<6/7$ (0.86) needs to be explored further in the $P_{j}= (\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'}) L_{d}^{<0.86}$, it implies that the jet power increases less efficiently than the disc luminosity increases. For $\mu<1$, the $\eta$ and $\varepsilon$ may be not constants but vary with the accretion rate. @sik13 used the relation of $\varepsilon\propto\lambda^{2/5}$ for the BH magnetosphere of a truncated disc, in which the jet power is dominated by a BH spin. With $R=P_{1.4}/L_{line}\propto\eta /\varepsilon$ approximately, they explain that the anti-correlation in radio loudness and Eddington ratio could be due to the $\varepsilon\propto\lambda^{2/5}$, i.e. $R\propto\lambda^{-0.4}$. @van13 find that from 763 FRII quasars with the median redshift of 1.16, a linear correlation between 1.4 GHz luminosity and bolometric disc luminosity with $P_{1.4}\propto L_{bol}$. If we use the equation (8), the jet power will be $P_{j}\propto P_{1.4}^{6/7} \propto L_{bol}^{0.86}$. They claim that, for this nearly linear proportionality, the power output from the inner part of the accretion disc dominates over the power extracted from the black hole by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (BZ-jet, hereafter). @kal12 investigated the $[O_{II}]$ emission line properties of 18508 quasars at z $<$ 1.6 drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasar sample. The quasar sample has 1692 radio-loud (RLQs) and 16816 radio-quiet quasars (RQQs), according to the traditional radio-loud/quiet division of the radio-to-optical flux ratio of 10, and the radio loudness computed using the radio flux density at 1.4 GHz and the optical (7480$\AA$) flux density from the SDSS. They found a strong correlation between 1.4 GHz radio luminosity and narrow emission-line luminosity, with a power law index of $\mu\sim1.6$ and $\sim$1.2 for the RLQs and RQQs respectively. For radio jet power, using the equation (8), the slope reduces to $\mu\sim1.4$ and $\sim$1.0 for the RLQs and RQQs respectively. The optical line luminosity is linearly proportional to the disc luminosity in @kal12. Discussion ========== From the results above, in general there is a positive power law correlation between radio jet power and disc luminosity $P_{j}=\eta^{'} /\varepsilon^{'} L_{disc}^{\mu}$. The power law indices are significantly less than unity for the Seyfert galaxies, FRI and FRII galaxies at z $<$ 0.5 and the Eddington ratio $\lambda<0.1$ (or typically $\lambda m<7$ in Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig4\]). Second, there is an anti-correlation between radio loudness and disc luminosity for the samples which have the $\mu<$6/7. We find that the negative correlation is caused by $(7/6)\mu <1$ with the relation $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1<0$. On the other hand, in high-z quasars from the literature, we have $\mu\sim0.86$ for the FRII quasars in @van13 and $\mu>1$ for the quasars in @kal12. It will lead to a positive correlation between radio loudness and disc luminosity for $\mu>6/7$ and no correlation for $\mu\sim6/7$ in the high-z samples, and we will investigate these in future. The radio loudness problem appears to be resolved with our interpretation, the underlying physics is still not clearly identified. Are there different accretion discs or jet forming mechanisms for the power-law correlation index $\mu\ll$1 and $\mu\geq$1? In the BH accretion models, there are cold and hot accretion flows. Cold accretion flow consists of optically thick and geometrically thin gas, e.g. the standard thin disc [@shak73], which occurs at a fraction of the Eddington mass accretion rate, and the slim disc at super-Eddington rates [@abr88]. Hot accretion flows, however, are virially hot and optically thin, they occur at lower mass accretion rates, and are described by models such as the advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF, @nar94) and luminous hot accretion flow. Observations show that hot accretion flows are often associated with jets, and they are present in low-luminosity AGN (LLAGN) (see @yuan14, for a review on hot accretion flows). @ho01 and @ho02 find that most of the LLAGN in nearby galaxies are radio-loud, and the radio loudness is inversely correlated with the disc luminosity. @sik13 and @sikb13 find that the anti-correlation of radio loudness and disc luminosity could be explained with the $\varepsilon\propto\lambda^{2/5}$ in the BH spin paradigm, implying that the BH spin plays an important role in the jet powers. Therefore the Seyfert galaxies and radio galaxies in our samples are likely powered by both the inner part of accretion disc and the BH spin. If the BZ-jet power is gradually suppressed when the accretion rate increases, the jet power could be less proportional to the disc luminosity and this may lead to an anti-correlation of radio loudness and disc luminosity. This is some similar to the transition from hard/low (with low accretion rate and radio jet) to soft/high (with high accretion rate and no jet) state in the X-ray binaries, in which a contribution of jet power from black hole spin is possible [@fen04]. However, this explanation needs a high fraction of rapid spin BHs in the low-z AGN. @mar11a [@mar11b] analyzed the ratio of jet power to disc luminosity, they find that at z$<$0.5 the low-excitation galaxies have low accretion rates and bimodal spin distributions, with approximately half of the population having maximal spins, while high exciting galaxies are explained as high-accretion rate but very low spin objects at higher redshifts (z$\sim$1) and only a small population of nearly maximally spinning high accretion rate objects is possible. This may be supported by the findings that much higher fraction of radio loud galaxies at low accretion rates [@ho01; @ho02] than the fraction ($\sim$10%) of radio loud quasars at higher redshifts [@kal12]. And it has been suggested that low redshift FRIs have rapid spinning BHs [@wu11]. In high-z quasars, a steep slope $\mu \sim 1$ or $>$1 between jet power and disc luminosity is often observed, e.g, @van13, @wil99, @fer11, @kal12. The quasars are at high accretion state ($\lambda>0.1$) and hosted by elliptical galaxies. The massive ellipticals are most likely formed via major merger events, and their nuclei may have different nuclear environments than disc galaxies. @fal10 find evidence for the environmental source density to increase with the radio luminosity of AGN at around z=1. The jets of FRII quasars are probably launched through the Bondi accretion of hot interstellar gas [@bon52; @all06; @gas13; @sik13], with efficient jet powers [@wer12]. @all06 find a tight positive correlation between the Bondi accretion rate and the radio power required to inflate cavities observed in the surrounding X-ray emitting gas, suggests that the Bondi formulae provide a reasonable description of the accretion process for powerful jets. Furthermore, the powerful jet may live in a short time for quasars, given that the majority of quasars are radio quiet. @mei01 proposed a hybrid model combined both the disc accretion and the BH spin/magnetosphere effects, it can produce powerful jets if the BH spin $a_{\ast}>0.9$ ($a_{\ast}$ is dimensionless spin parameter ranging from 0-1, see also @nem07). Therefore, both the hybrid model and the magnetically arrested disc [@tch11; @mck12] needs maximally spinning BHs for producing FRII jets, it is suggested that only a small population of nearly maximally spinning BHs in high accretion rate objects, and spins of BHs are generally low at around z=1 [@mar11a; @mar11b]. As noted by @van13, the powerful jets of FRII quasars are mainly controlled by the inner part of accretion flows rather than by the power extracted from the BH spin (also see @liv99), in contrast to that the BZ-jet may control the negative correlation of radio loudness and disc luminosity in the low luminosity AGN as we discussed above. @fer11 find from a radio selected sample of 27 radio galaxies at a narrow redshift range z=0.9-1.1 that is unbiased to evolutionary effects, that there is a tight positive correlation between the radio luminosity and the mid-IR (also the $[O_{II}]$) line luminosity with power law indices $\mu>1$. They added optical selected quasars (OSQs) into the analysis, the correlation for the brightest radio sources appears to become an upper envelope. However, @kal12 investigated both radio loud and quiet quasars at z $<$ 1.6 drawn from the SDSS quasar sample. They find a strong correlation between 1.4 GHz radio luminosity and narrow emission-line luminosity, for both RLQs and RQQs, with power law indices $\mu>1$. This sample is much larger than the @fer11 sample, so it could be statistically more significant. Our studies concentrate mainly on radio loud sources, and it is needed to include radio quiet ones in larger and complete samples into analysis in future. Finally, we note that the different slopes of correlation between radio jet power and disc luminosity might be affected by selection effects, e.g. sample sizes etc., however, we have high confidence for that in high-z quasars the slopes are much steeper than those of low redshift galaxies in our analysis. There are no correlation found between radio luminosities and source sizes in @wil99 and @sik13 for FRIs and FRIIs, however, caution must be taken if there is a wide range of source sizes in a relative small sample [@sha13]. The Doppler boosting effect is not considered here, since our samples are mainly the FRIs, FRIIs and Seyfert galaxies, and the blazars are not included. Furthermore, as noted by @sing14, the radio power and/or the disc luminosity may be also related to the redshift, a redshift – luminosity correlation (Malmquist bias) in a flux-limited sample. We checked our data, find there are weak positive correlations for the radio galaxies while stronger correlation for the PG quasars between the radio jet power (or disc luminosity) and redshift. In fact, the correlation is stronger between the radio power and the disc luminosity than that between the radio (or disc) luminosity and redshift in the radio galaxies of our samples, these type of source are mainly studied in this paper, but the Malmquist bias might still have some effects which we were currently not able to remove from our data. As analyzed by @sing14, a flux limited sample with a wide range of radio luminosities within narrow redshift ranges (and vice versa) will be needed to disentangle the effects in future. Summary ======= A model for the relation between radio jet power and the product of central BH mass and Eddington ratio of AGN is proposed. The model is examined with data from the literature. We find that radio jet power positively correlates but not linearly with the product of BH mass and Eddington ratio, and the power law indices are significantly less than unity for relatively low accretion ($\lambda<0.1$) AGN, $P_{j}\propto (\lambda m)^{\mu}$, in the radio galaxies and the Seyfert galaxies. This leads to a negative correlation between radio loudness and $\lambda m$ for the low luminosity AGN, i.e. $R\propto (\lambda m)^{\rho}$ with $\rho=(7/6)\mu-1<0$, which may be attributed to a contribution of BZ-jet to total jet power assuming that the BZ-jet power is gradually suppressed as the accretion rate increases. On the contrary, for the high-z quasars which often show the slope $\mu\geq1$, a positive correlation between the radio loudness and disc luminosity is predicted. We discuss that the jet powers of the high-z FRII quasars are likely dominated by the accretion disc rather than by the BH spin. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We thank the reviewer for useful comments. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.11273050) and the 973 Program of China (2009CB824800). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E.: 332, 646 (1988) Allen S. W., Dunn R. J. H., Fabian A. C., Taylor G. B., Reynolds C. S.: 372, 21 (2006) Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L.: 179, 433 (1977) Blandford R. D., Payne D. G.: 199, 883 (1982) Blundell K. M., Rawlings S.: 119, 1111 (2000) Bondi H.: 112, 195 (1952) Cao X., Rawlings S.: 349, 1419 (2004) Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J.: 115, 1693 (1998) Falder J. T., Stevens J. A., Jarvis M. J.: 405, 347 (2010) Fender R. P., Belloni T. M., Gallo E.: 355, 1105 (2004) Fernandes C. A. C., Jarvis M. J., Rawlings S. et al.: 411, 1909 (2011) Fragile P. C., arXiv:1304.5541 Gaspari M., Ruszkowski M., Oh S. P.: 432, 3401 (2013) Greene J. E., Ho L. C.: 630, 122 (2005) Ho L. C., Peng C. Y.: 555, 650 (2001) Ho L. C.: 564, 120 (2002) Kalfountzou E., Jarvis M. J., Bonfield D. G., Hardcastle M. J.: 427, 2401 (2012) Livio M., Ogilvie G. I., Pringle J. E.: 512, 100 (1999) Martínez-Sansigre A., Rawlings S.: 418, L84 (2011a) Martínez-Sansigre A., Rawlings S.: 414, 1937 (2011b) McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., Blandford R. D.: 423, 3083 (2012) Meier D. L.: in Black Hole Astrophysics: The Engine Paradigm Springer. Chichester UK, p231 (2012) Meier D. L.: 548, L9 (2001) Nemmen R. S., Bower R. G., Babul A., Storchi-Bergmann T.: 377, 1652 (2007) Narayan R., Yi I.: 428, L13 (1994) Netzer H.: 399, 1907 (2009) Rawlings S., Saunders R.: 349, 138 (1991) Reynolds C. S., arXiv:1302.3260 Richards G. T., Lacy M., Storrie-Lombardi L. J.: 166, 470 (2006) Russell D. M., Gallo E., Fender R. P.: 431, 405 (2013) Shabala, S. S., Godfrey, L. E. H.: 769, 129 (2013) Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A.: 24, 337 (1973) Sikora M., Stawarz L., Lasota J.-P.: 658, 815 (2007) Sikora M., Stasińska G., Koziel-Wierzbowska D., Madejski G. M., Asari N. V.: 765, 62 (2013) Sikora M., Begelman M. C.: 764, L24 (2013) Singal A. K., Rajpurohit K.: 442, 1656 (2014) Steiner J. F., McClintock J. E., Narayan R.: 762, 104 (2013) Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C.: 418, L79 (2011) Tremaine S., Gebhardt K., Bender R. et al.: 574, 740 (2002) van Velzen S., Falcke H.: 557, L7 (2013) Werner N., Allen S. W., Simionescu A.: 425, 2731 (2012) Willott C. J., Rawlings S., Blundell K. M., Lacy M.: 309, 1017 (1999) Wu Q. W., Cao X. W., Wang D.-X.: 735, 50 (2011) Yuan F., Narayan R., arXiv:1401.0586	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We calculate strange star properties, using large $N_c$ approximation with built-in chiral symmetry restoration (CSM). We used a relativistic Hartree Fock mean field approximation method, using a modified Richardson potential with two scale parameters $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^{\prime}$, to find a new set of equation of state (EOS) for strange quark matter. We take the effect of temperature (T) on gluon mass, in addition to the usual density dependence, and find that the transition T from hadronic matter to strange matter is 80 MeV. Therefore formation of strange stars may be the only signal for formation of QGP with asymptotic freedom (AF) and CSM.' address: - '$^1$ Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Ganeshkhind, Pune, 411007, India' - '$^2$ Department of Physics, Presidency College, Kolkata 700073, India' author: - 'Subharthi Ray$^1$, Manjari Bagchi$^2$, Jishnu Dey$^2$ & Mira Dey$^2$' title: Strange stars at finite temperature --- Introduction ============ There have been some exciting developments recently since the four groups BRAHMS, PHENIX, PHOBOS and STAR have analyzed RHIC data. These four groups reporting on RHIC, with gold on gold, show that quark gluon plasma with asymptotic freedom and chiral symmetry restoration may never be realized in RHIC although a non-hadronic phase is reached. Unfortunately, their conclusions are negative in so far as finding of asymptotically free chirally symmetric QCD state is not possible in these reactions - although a new phase is formed which is quite distinct from the hadronic phase. This phase is strongly interacting and is not fully understood theoretically but it is certainly not QGP with asymptotic freedom and chiral symmetry restoration. Two decades back Witten[@wit] has proposed the existence of strange matter and strange stars, and even today it is still difficult to prove or disprove the existence of a state of strange quark matter in its purest form. In literature, there are several EOSs for strange quark matter, starting from the Bag model [@afo86; @han86; @ket95] to the recent models like the mean field model with interacting quarks[@D98], the perturbative QCD approach[@fps01], chiral chromodielectric model[@mft03], Dyson-Schwinger model[@blas99], etc. Subsequently, Rajagopal and Wilczek combined asymptotic freedom and BCS theory to arrive at the color-flavor locked state of quark matter[@rw00], and ever since, a lot of studies on this state and their application to quark matter EOSs are made[@abr01]. Here, we developed a set of new EOSs using a two parameter interaction potential. The Model ========= The original qq potential of Richardson[@rich] was designed to obtain the mass spectrum of heavy mesons (Charmonium and Upsilon). It takes care of two features of qq force, AF and confinement, however, with the same scale, ${\Lambda}$ : $$V_{ij} = \frac{12 \pi}{27}\frac{1}{ln(1 + {({\bf k}_i- {\bf k}_j)}^2 /\Lambda ^2)}\frac{1}{{({\bf k}_i - {\bf k}_j)}^2} \label{eq:V}$$ with ${\Lambda}$=400 MeV. It was further applied to light meson spectroscopy and baryon properties with the same value of ${\Lambda}$[@crater; @ddt]. In strange stars, the AF part is important and there ${\Lambda}$ would be much smaller, around 100 MeV which is the scale for asymptotic freedom as obtained from perturbative QCD. Indeed, for the self bound high density strange quark matter Dey et al.[@D98] found that ${\Lambda}$ needed to be $\sim 100 $ MeV. Quarks are deconfined at high density, as the bare potential is screened. Confinement is softened and the AF part takes over. This bare potential in a medium will be screened due to gluon propagation. The temperature dependence of the screening in quark matter is taken from Alexanian & Nair [@alexnair]. The inverse Debye screening length (the gluon mass) becomes : $$(D^{-1})^2 = \frac{ 2 \alpha_0}{\pi} \sum_{i=u,d,s,}k^f_i \sqrt{(k^f_i)^2 + m_i^2} ~+ 7.14 ~\alpha_0 ~T \label{eq:gmt}$$ where $k^f_i$, the Fermi momentum of the [i-th]{} quark is obtained from the corresponding number density ${k^f_i} = (n _i \pi^2)^{1/3}$ and $\alpha_0$ is the perturbative quark gluon coupling. In our model, chiral symmetry restoration at high density is incorporated by assuming that the quark masses are density dependent : $$M_i = m_i + M_Q sech\left( \frac{n_B}{N n _0}\right), \;\;~~~ i = u, d, s. \label{eq:qm}$$ where $n_B = (n_u+n_d+n_s)/3$ is the baryon number density; $n_0 = 0.17~fm^{-3}$ is the normal nuclear matter density; $n_u$, $n_d$, $n_s$ are number densities of u, d and s quarks respectively and $N$ is a parameter. The current quark masses ($m_i$) are taken as : $m_u = 4 \;MeV,\; m_d = 7 \;MeV,\; m_s = 150 \;MeV$. It is ensured that in strange matter, the chemical potentials of the quarks satisfy ${\beta}$ equilibrium and charge neutrality conditions. The parameters $M_Q$ and $N$ are adjusted in such a way that the minimum value of $E/A$ for u,d,s quark matter is less than that of Fe$^{56}$, so that u,d,s quark matter can constitute stable stars. The minimum value of $E/A$ is obtained at the star surface where the pressure is zero. The surface is sharp since strong interaction dictates the deconfinement point. However, the minimum value of $E/A$ for u-d quark matter is greater than that of Fe$^{56}$ so that Fe$^{56}$ remains the most stable element in the non-strange world. Recently the magnetic moments of $\Delta^{++}$ and $\Omega ^-$ with three u and three s valence quarks respectively have been found in accurate experiments. These sensitive properties are fitted with a two parameter modified Richardson potential with different scales for confinement ($\sim 350$ MeV) and AF ($\sim 100 $ MeV)[@mmsj]. The baryonic properties depend more on the confinement part and less on the AF part as baryons are confined quark systems. It is natural to apply this new potential to star calculation since they are constrained by baryonic data. In our present calculation, we have modified the Richardson potential as : $$\begin{aligned} V_{ij} = \frac{12 \pi}{27}\left[(\frac{1}{{\rm ln}(1 + \frac{{({\bf k}_i- {\bf k}_j)}^2}{\Lambda ^2})-\frac{\Lambda^2}{({\bf k}_i- {\bf k}_j)^2}}) +\frac{{\Lambda^\prime}^2}{({{\bf k}_i- {\bf k}_j})^2}\right] \times \frac{1}{({\bf k}_i - {\bf k}_j)^2} \label{eq:Vtl}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\Lambda}^{ \prime}$ taking care of the confinement property and ${\Lambda}$ that of asymptotic freedom. The term $\left(\frac{1}{Q^2ln(1 + Q^2 /\Lambda ^2)}-\frac{{\Lambda}^2}{Q^4}\right)$ is asymptotically zero for large momentum transfer $Q^2 = ({{\bf k}_i- {\bf k}_j})^2$ and the term $\frac{{\Lambda^\prime}^2}{Q^4}$ explains the confinement reducing to a linear confinement for small $Q^2$. The appropriate values of ${\Lambda}$ and ${\Lambda}^{\prime}$ as obtained from a fit to baryonic properties calculations[@mmsj] are $\Lambda \sim 100~MeV$ and $\Lambda^\prime \sim 350~MeV$, which we used in the present calculation. Finite temperature T is incorporated in the system through the Fermi function[@fintemp]: $$FM(k,T)=\frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon - \epsilon_F)/T} + 1}$$ with the flavour dependent single particle energy $$\epsilon_i=\sqrt{k^2+M_i(\rho)^2}+U_i(k). \label{eq:ep}$$ $$I=\frac{\gamma}{2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty \phi(\epsilon)k^2FM(k,T) dk \label{eq:i}$$ I = number density for $\phi(\epsilon) = 1 $ and I = energy density for $\phi(\epsilon) = \epsilon $. $\gamma$ is the spin-colour degeneracy, equal to 6. The system is highly degenerate even at very high $T$ which is around 80 $MeV$ since the chemical potential is very high, of order several hundred $MeV$. The entropy is calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned} S(T)=\int_0^\infty k^2[FM(k,T)ln(FM(k,T)) + (1-FM(k,T))ln(1-FM(k,T))] dk \label{eq:s}\end{aligned}$$ The pressure is calculated from the free energy $f = \epsilon - Ts$ as follows: $$P=\sum_i\rho_i\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial \rho_i} - f_i \label{pressure}$$ With the obtained EOS (pressure vs density), we solve the Tolman Oppenheimer Volkov equation, to get the stellar structure. ![\[eos\]EOS for the set of parameters $\Lambda=100~MeV$ and $\Lambda^\prime=350~MeV$, $N=3$ and $\alpha_0=.2$ and for temperatures 0, 50, 80 and 90 Mev (bottom to top). We see that for 90 MeV, there is no stable configuration.](mrtemp.eps){width="7.5cm"} ![\[eos\]EOS for the set of parameters $\Lambda=100~MeV$ and $\Lambda^\prime=350~MeV$, $N=3$ and $\alpha_0=.2$ and for temperatures 0, 50, 80 and 90 Mev (bottom to top). We see that for 90 MeV, there is no stable configuration.](eostempn.eps){width="7.5cm"} ![\[sbya\]The entropy per baryon decrease with density. In the nuclear matter limit (say 1.5$\times$ normal nuclear matter density), it is found to match exactly with the experimental results](gmasstemp.eps){width="7.5cm"} ![\[sbya\]The entropy per baryon decrease with density. In the nuclear matter limit (say 1.5$\times$ normal nuclear matter density), it is found to match exactly with the experimental results](sbya.eps){width="7.5cm"} Conclusions and summary: ======================== A set of new EOS for strange matter is presented, using the Richardson potential with the value of ${\Lambda}^{\prime}~ \simeq~300~{\rm to}~350~MeV$ and the value of ${\Lambda}~= ~100~MeV$, the two scales for confinement and AF respectively. This is then a good inter-quark potential as it also explains both the properties of the deconfined quark matter (our present work) and the properties of confined 3u and 3s baryons[@mmsj]. Although the confinement part ${\Lambda}^{\prime}~$ is stronger, leading to a sharp surface, - it is softened by medium effect, developing a screening length. Inside the star, the AF part is more important. We have found that for a wide range of parametric variation, the strange matter EOS gives minimum energy of E/A, much less than compared to ${(E/A)}_{Fe^{56}}=~930.6~MeV$ which ensures that the system is absolutely stable, and unlike neutron star like structure, it is not gravitational force alone that binds the system. However, for this present article, we have presented with only one such EOS. Considering temperature dependent screening of the potential, we have found that strange stars can sustain stable configurations up to a temperature of 80 $MeV$; this value of the temperature is very close to Witten’s scenario of cosmic phase separation. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== Witten E. 1984 [Phys. Rev. D]{} [30]{} 272. Alcock C. Farhi E. and Olinto A 1986 [ApJ]{} [310]{} 261. Haensel P. Zdunik J. L. and Schaeffer R. 1986 [Astron. and Astrophys.]{} [160]{} 121. Kettner C. Weber F. Weigel M. K. and Glendenning N.K. 1995 [Phys. Rev. D]{} [51]{} 1440. Dey M. Bombaci I. Dey J. Ray S. and Samanta B.C. 1998 [Phys. Lett. B]{} [438]{} 123; Addendum 1999 [447]{} 352; Erratum 1999 [467]{} 303. Fraga E. S. Pisarski R. D. and Schaffner-Bielich J. 2001 [Phys. Rev. D]{} [63]{} 121702. Malheiro M. Fiolhais M. and Taurines A. R. 2003 [J. Phys. G]{} [29]{} 1045. Blaschke D. Grigorian H. Poghosyan G. Roberts C. D. and Schmidt S. M. 1999 [Phys. Lett. B]{} [450]{} 207. Rajagopal K. and Wilczek F. 2001 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [86]{} 3492. Alford M.G. Bowers J. A. and Rajagopal K. 2001 [J. Phys. G]{} [27]{} 541. Richardson J. L. 1979 [Phys. Lett. B]{} [82]{} 272. Crater H. W. and van Alstine P. 1984 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [53]{} 1527. Dey J. Dey M. and Le Tourneux J. 1986 [Phys. Rev. D]{} [34]{} 2104. Alexanian G. and Nair V. P. 1995 [Phys. Lett. B]{} [352]{} 435. Bagchi M. Dey M. Daw S. and Dey J. 2004 [Nucl. Phys. A]{} [740]{} 109. Ray S. Dey J. Dey M. Ray K. and Samanta B.C. 2000 [Astron. and Astrophys. Lett.]{} [364]{} 89. Ray S. Dey J. and Dey M. 2000 [Mod. Phys. Lett. A]{} [15]{} 1301.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Space solar cells radiation hardness is of fundamental importance in view of the future missions towards harsh radiation environment (like e.g. missions to Jupiter) and for the new spacecraft using electrical propulsion. In this paper we report the radiation data for triple junction (TJ) solar cells and related component cells. Triple junction solar cells, InGaP top cells and GaAs middle cells degrade after electron radiation as expected. With proton irradiation, a high spread in the remaining factors was observed, especially for the TJ and bottom cells. Very surprising was the germanium bottom junction that showed very high degradation after protons whereas it is quite stable against electrons. Radiation results have been analyzed by means of the Displacement Damage Dose method and DLTS spectroscopy.' author: - \| Carsten Baur$^{5}$, Roberta Campesato$^{1}$, Mariacristina Casale$^{1}$, Massimo Gervasi$^{2,3}$,\ Enos Gombia$^{4}$, Erminio Greco$^{1}$, Aldo Kingma$^{4}$, Pier Giorgio Rancoita$^{2}$,\ Davide Rozza$^{2,3}$, Mauro Tacconi$^{2,3}$. title: 'Displacement Damage dose and DLTS Analyses on Triple and Single Junction solar cells irradiated with electrons and protons' --- $^1$ CESI, via Rubattino 54, I-20134 Milan, Italy\ $^2$ INFN Sezione di Milano Bicocca, I-20126 Milan, Italy\ $^3$ Università di Milano Bicocca, I-20126 Milan, Italy\ $^4$ IMEM-CNR Institute, Parco Area delle Scienze 37/A, 43124 Parma, Italy\ $^5$ ESA/ ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ Noordwijk, The Netherlands\ Abstract accepted for poster session at\ 2017 IEEE Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conference,\ July 17-21, New Orleans. Introduction ============ In the last 10 years spacecraft are mainly powered by Triple junction solar cells based on III-V compound semiconductors. These solar cells are characterized by 30% conversion efficiency and a very high radiation hardness that allow to extend mission lifetime and to use electric propulsion.\ The radiation analysis of solar cells is very important to predict the End Of Life (EOL) performances of the solar arrays.\ The test of the solar cell radiation hardness is conducted on Earth by irradiating the solar cells using protons and electrons at different energies.\ Of course, it is not possible to cover the full spectrum of charged particle energies in space, therefore the experiments on Earth are generally limited to a few energies for electrons and protons.\ The evaluation of the radiation hardness of the solar cells is performed by means of two methods: - The Equivalent Fluence method from JPL[@Anspaugh]; - The Displacement Damage Dose (DDD) from NRL [@Messengers]. The JPL method is historically the first implemented and used by the space actors; this method uses empirically determined relative damage coefficients (RDCs) and has the advantage of being immediately understandable but, to generate a good estimation, several particle energies shall be used (at least 8 for protons and 3 for electrons).\ The DDD method uses calculated values of non-ionizing energy loss (NIEL); the main advantage of this method is that it requires only 1 energy for protons and 2 energies for electrons in order to predict the EOL behavior of solar cells.\ In this paper, we will present the results of electron and proton irradiation on triple junction solar cells and related component cells manufactured by CESI.\ The analysis of the radiation hardness is conducted by the DDD method using an innovative approach for the NIEL calculation. Triple junction solar cells and component cells =============================================== InGaP/InGaAs/Ge triple junction (TJ) solar cells and related component cells with a size of 4 cm$^2$ and AM0 efficiency class 30% (CTJ30), have been manufactured and qualified following the ESA ECSS E ST20-08C standard.\ These solar cells have been developed on a large MOCVD epitaxial reactor, VEECO E450G, suitable to simultaneously process up to thirteen 4-inch wafers per run.\ The improvement in conversion efficiency was obtained by introducing Quantum Structures, mainly Bragg Reflectors, inside the solar cell stack and by a fine tuning of the electrical field inside the solar cell active regions[@Gori].\ These solar cells have standard thickness of 140 $\mu$m and have been used on several satellites since 2013.\ ![Scheme of a TJ cell(a), top(b), mid(c), bot(d).[]{data-label="fig:SchemeTJ"}](./3Jtot.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} ![Scheme of a TJ cell(a), top(b), mid(c), bot(d).[]{data-label="fig:SchemeTJ"}](./Top.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![Scheme of a TJ cell(a), top(b), mid(c), bot(d).[]{data-label="fig:SchemeTJ"}](./Middle.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![Scheme of a TJ cell(a), top(b), mid(c), bot(d).[]{data-label="fig:SchemeTJ"}](./Bottom.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} The basic structure of the solar cells is reported in figure \[fig:SchemeTJ\]. The TJ solar cell is composed by a germanium bottom junction obtained by diffusion into the germanium P-type substrate, a Middle junction of (In)GaAs, whose energy gap is around 1.38 eV and a top junction of InGaP with energy gap 1.85 eV. Component cells are single-junction cells which shall be an electrical and optical representation of the subcells inside the TJ cell. Therefore, to manufacture them, special attention was put to reproduce the optical thicknesses of all the upper layers present in the TJ structure. For example, for the Middle component cell, an n-doped InGaP layer with the same thickness as the top cell was added to absorb the blue portion of the spectrum. Experimental irradiation results ================================ TJ solar cells and component cells have been irradiated with protons and electrons at different fluences. Figure 2 shows the remaining power factors for TJ solar cells obtained for self annealing (solar cells kept in a dry box for 1 month before EOL measurement) and after annealing (8 hours in AM0, 60$^{\circ}$C).\ An important observation is related to the high spread of results in remaining factors obtained when solar cells are irradiated with low energy protons (0.7 MeV).\ ![Remaining power factors of TJ solar cells.[]{data-label="fig:PowerFactor"}](./Fluence_No_Annealing.eps "fig:"){width="80.00000%"} ![Remaining power factors of TJ solar cells.[]{data-label="fig:PowerFactor"}](./Fluence_Annealing.eps "fig:"){width="80.00000%"} When component cells EOL behavior was analyzed, it turned out that the weakest and more unstable junction is the bottom one.\ Germanium is highly resistant against electrons[@Baur] but it shows a bad radiation resistance against proton irradiation, especially if low energy protons are concerned.\ Table 1 shows the main results for TJ and component cells after proton irradiation at 0.7 MeV, fluence $4.5\cdot10^{11}$ p$^+$/cm$^2$.\ The irradiation was performed by CSNSM on 3 samples for each solar cell type whose area was 4 cm$^2$.\ The bottom junction is highly degraded after proton irradiation whereas it is highly radiation resistant when irradiated with electrons (table 2). At the irradiation of $4.5\cdot10^{11}$ p$^+$/cm$^2$ with 0.7 MeV protons, the bottom junction has a shunted I-V curve, for this reason the short circuit current of the TJ is limited by the middle junction but probably the bad behavior of the germanium junction could explain the low fill factor observed in TJ solar cells.\ After annealing, the V$_{oc}$ of Top and Mid cells increases thus improving the V$_{oc}$ of the TJ as expected. The bottom junction seems to recover a portion of the short circuit current (+10% after annealing) but the shunted I-V curve is still present.\ [@cccccc@]{}\ & I$_{sc}$\[A\] & V$_{oc}$\[V\] & P$_{max}$\[W\] & F.F. & Eff.\[%\]\ \ &\ \ TJ & 0.070 & 2.608 & 0.152 & 0.84 & 28.3\ Top & 0.071 & 1.365 & 0.082 & 0.85 & 15.03\ Mid & 0.077 & 1.012 & 0.065 & 0.84 & 11.91\ Bot & 0.105 & 0.220 & 0.010 & 0.46 & 2.01\ \ &\ \ TJ & 0.056 & 2.207 & 0.094 & 0.75 & 17.12\ Top & 0.069 & 1.197 & 0.065 & 0.78 & 11.91\ Mid & 0.057 & 0.806 & 0.034 & 0.75 & 6.24\ bot & 0.039 & 0.158 & 0.002 & 0.35 & 0.39\ \ &\ \ TJ & 0.057 & 2.232 & 0.097 & 0.77 & 17.70\ Top & 0.069 & 1.219 & 0.067 & 0.80 & 12.31\ Mid & 0.057 & 0.815 & 0.035 & 0.75 & 6.42\ Bot & 0.045 & 0.166 & 0.003 & 0.35 & 0.48\ \[tab1\] [@cccc@]{}\ 1 MeV e- fluence & RF I$_{sc}$ & RF V$_{oc}$ & RF P$_{max}$\ \ 1.00$\cdot10^{14}$ & 0.94 & 0.99 & 0.92\ 5.00$\cdot10^{14}$ & 0.90 & 0.96 & 0.84\ 1.00$\cdot10^{15}$ & 0.88 & 0.96 & 0.82\ \[tab2\] Smaller diodes of 1 mm$^2$ with the same epitaxial structure of middle and top component cells, have been irradiated in order to measure DLTS spectra on them. In the final paper, all the results after irradiation will be presented. Niel analysis ============= In this section the photovoltaic parameters of the TJ solar cell, and single junction cells are investigated as a function of displacement damage dose ($D^{NIEL}$) which is the product of the particle fluence $\Phi$ and the displacement mass-stopping power ${dE_{\rm de}}/{d\chi}$ (i.e., the so-called NIEL in MeVcm$^2$/g), which was calculated by means of the SR (Screened Relativist) treatment[@Boschini]: $$\label{Eq_DDD} {D^{NIEL}}\left(E_d\right)=\Phi\frac{dE_{de}}{d\chi},$$ with $$\label{Eq_dEdchi} \frac{dE_{de}}{d\chi}=\frac{N}{A}\int_{E_d}^{E_R^{max}}{E_RL\left(E_R\right)\frac{d\sigma\left(E,E_R\right)}{dE_R}dE_R},$$ where $\chi =x \rho_{\rm A}$, $\rho_{\rm A}$ the absorber density in g/cm$^3$, $N$ is the Avogadro constant; $A$ is the atomic weight of the medium; $E$ is the kinetic energy of the incoming particle; $E_R$ and $E_R^{max}$ are the recoil kinetic energy and the maximum energy transferred to the recoil nucleus respectively; $E_d$ the displacement threshold energy; $L(E_R)$ is the Lindhard partition function; $d\sigma(E,E_R)/dE_R$ is the differential cross section for elastic Coulomb scattering for electrons or protons on nuclei. By inspection of equation \[Eq\_dEdchi\] one can remark that $D^{NIEL}$ depends on the displacement threshold energy $E_d$. Furthermore, one can note that, for electrons, there is no relevant kinetic energy variation along the path inside the absorber (i.e. the TJ solar cell). On the contrary, such a change occurs for protons. In fact, their actual energy, in each junction, could be estimated by means of SRIM[@Ziegler]. Thus, the doses were computed for the corresponding proton kinetic energies. For example a proton of 0.7 MeV loses about 30% of its initial kinetic energy before reaching the center of the middle junction, and 40% before reaching the center of the bottom junction.\ In the current study, the $D^{NIEL}$ for the TJ solar cells (see figure 3a) are those evaluated for the middle GaAs cell.\ In addition, the relative degradation of Pmax, Isc, and Voc obtained after irradiation for the bottom cell exhibit an expected sudden drop. This was already observed and explained in [@Baur]. Therefore, the three sets ($P_{max}/P_{max}(0), I_{sc}/I_{sc}(0)$, and $V_{oc}/V_{oc}(0)$) of experimental data were interpolated using the expression: $$\label{Eq_fit} \left(1-C_1\right)-C\cdot\log_{10}\left[1+\frac{D^{NIEL}(E_d}{D_x}\right]$$ ![(a) Optimal fit of $P_{max}/P_{max}(0)$ as function of the dose for the 3J solar cell; (b) Optimal fit of $P_{max}/P_{max}(0)$ as function of the dose for single junction bottom cell.[]{data-label="fig:Pmax"}](./3J_plus_bottom.eps){width="1.\textwidth"} where $C_1$, $C$ and $D_x$ are obtained by a fit to the data in which the NIEL threshold energy, $E_d$, was varied to minimize the differences among electrons and protons data with respect to the corresponding curve obtained from eq. \[Eq\_fit\].\ It should also be noted that $C_1$ is only relevant for the bottom cell, while it is negligible in the cases of 3J and GaInP, GaAs single cells. The optimal fit for the TJ cell was obtained using $E_d\approx24$ eV for Ga and As, while we obtained $E_d\approx40$ eV for Ge in the bottom junction (see figure \[fig:Pmax\]). Dlts analysis ============= In order to perform DLTS (Deep Level Transient Spectroscopy) investigations of deep levels induced by electrons and protons irradiations, mesa-structures of 0.5 mm in diameter have been prepared on top and middle junctions by means of optical photolithography and metal evaporation. Top and middle junctions have exactly the same epitaxial structure of the related component cells.\ ![DLTS spectra obtained on a middle junction irradiated with electrons (1 MeV at a fluence of $10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$) using different reverse voltage $V_r$ at fixed pulse amplitude of 1.4 V. Emission rate=46 s$^{-1}$, pulse width=500 ms, V1=pulse voltage.[]{data-label="fig:DLTS"}](./DLTS.eps){width="80.00000%"} These samples were irradiated with electrons and protons, simultaneously with the TJ and component solar cells. Fig. \[fig:DLTS\] shows the DLTS spectra of an electron irradiated middle junction obtained using different reverse voltages $V_r$ (-0.4 V, -1.5 V, and -2.9 V) at fixed pulse amplitude (1.4 V). The electrons fluence was 10$^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ and the corresponding NIEL dose $\approx1.1\cdot10^{10}$ MeV/g.\ With increasing reverse voltage $V_r$ the spectra show the characteristics of regions at increasing distance from the n+/p interface. From the figure it can be seen that the amplitude and hence the trap concentration of the high temperature peak (activation energy=0.71 eV, labelled E3) drastically reduces with the distance from the interface.\ Considering that a peak with the same characteristics is also present in the non-irradiated samples, E3 is likely to correspond to a defect at the junction interface. For higher reverse biases the DLTS spectra show the presence of at least two levels, labelled E1 (0.21 eV) and E2 (0.45 eV), which are not observed in non-irradiated samples and therefore are attributed to electron irradiation induced defects. In the spectrum obtained using the lowest reverse bias (-0.4 V) the E1 and E2 peaks are not observable, as they are covered by the presence of a broad DLTS signal most likely due to low energy interface defects.\ ![Comparison of the DLTS spectra of two middle junctions irradiated by protons and electrons respectively. Emission rate=46 s$^{-1}$, pulse width=500 ms, reverse voltage $V_r$=-1.5 V, pulse voltage V1=-0.1 V.[]{data-label="fig:DLTScomp"}](./DLTScomp.eps){width="80.00000%"} In Fig. \[fig:DLTScomp\] the DLTS spectrum of a middle cell diode irradiated with protons (energy 0.7 MeV and fluence $4.5\cdot10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ corresponding to NIEL dose of $3\cdot10^{10}$ MeV g$^{-1}$) is compared to that of a middle cell diode irradiated with electrons (energy 1 MeV and fluence $1\cdot10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ corresponding to NIEL dose of 1.1$\cdot10^{10}$ MeV g$^{-1}$). From the analysis of the figure the most important observations are: 1. two or more DLTS peaks at high temperature are present in the proton irradiated sample, while a single peak E3 is present in the electron irradiated sample. 2. in both electron and proton irradiated samples the peaks E1 and E2 and a broad low temperature shoulder of peak E2 are present. 3. the ratio of the peak amplitudes E2/E1 is observed to be much larger for the proton irradiated sample than for the electron irradiated one. Currently further DLTS investigations are being performed on top and middle junctions to obtain a more complete picture of the dependence of irradiation induced deep levels on electron and proton energy and fluence. Conclusions and future work =========================== TJ InGaP/GaAs/Ge solar cells and related component cells have been irradiated with protons and electrons at different energies.\ The data have been analyzed using the DDD methods by the evaluation of the NIEL. Very peculiar results were obtained for the bottom junction that showed high degradation after proton irradiation.\ The analysis by DDD requires an additional parameter to take into account, at the same time, the behavior of the bottom junction cell and TJ. However, the parameter C1 is particularly relevant only in the description of dose dependence for the Ge bottom cell.\ DLTS analyses, carried out on middle junctions, indicate that complex defects are introduced at a different rate for electron and proton irradiations. [100]{} Anspaugh “GaAs Solar Cell Radiation Handbook” NASA 1996 S.R. Messengers, et al.: “Modeling solar cell degradation in space: A comparison of the NRL displacement damage dose and the JPL equivalent fluence approaches” PIP 2001, 10.1002/pip.357View G. Gori, R. Campesato : Photovoltaic Cell Having a high Conversion Efficiency PCT I09111-WO (2009) C. Baur et al.,”Investigation of Ge component cells”, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Conference Record of the Thirty-first IEEE, 2005 M.J. Boschini, P.G. Rancoita and M. Tacconi (2014), SR-NIEL Calculator: Screened Relativistic (SR) Treatment for Calculating the Displacement Damage and Nuclear Stopping Powers for Electrons, Protons, Light- and Heavy- Ions in Materials (version 3.5.4); \[Online\] available at INFN sez. Milano-Bicocca, Italy \[2017, January\]: http://www.sr-niel.org/. James F. Ziegler , SRIM – The stopping range and range of ions in matter. Code online at www.srim.org	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In a recent publication, we have discussed the effects of boundary conditions in finite quantum systems and their connection with symmetries. Focusing on the one-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian under twisted boundary conditions, we have shown that properties, such as the ground-state and gap energies, converge faster to the thermodynamical limit ($L \rightarrow \infty$) if a special torsion $\Theta^$ is adjusted to ensure particle-hole symmetry. Complementary to the previous research, the present paper extends our analysis to a key quantity for understanding correlations in many-body systems: the entanglement. Specifically, we investigate the average single-site entanglement ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ as a function of the coupling $U/t$ in Hubbard chains with up to $L=8$ sites and further examine the dependence of the per-site ground-state $\epsilon_0$ on the torsion $\Theta$ in different coupling regimes. We discuss the scaling of $\epsilon_0$ and ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ under $\Theta^$ and analyse their convergence to Bethe Ansatz solution of the infinite Hubbard Hamiltonian. Additionally, we describe the exact diagonalization procedure used in our numerical calculations and show analytical calculations for the case-study of a trimer.' author: - Krissia Zawadzki - 'Irene D’Amico' - 'Luiz N. Oliveira' bibliography: - 'hubbard\_entanglement.bib' title: Entanglement in finite quantum systems under twisted boundary conditions --- \[sec:intro\] Introduction ========================== The study of many-body phenomena has gained a new perspective with the recent collaboration between condensed matter (CM) and quantum information theory (QIT). Experimentally, technical advances fostered by QIT have allowed for a high control of nanoscale set-ups, turning into reality the possibility to simulate condensed matter models [@Jordens-Nat.455.204; @Byrnes-PRB.78.075320; @Salfi-Nat-11342; @Baier-Science-352.6282] and to measure their properties with single site resolution [@Edge-PRA.92.063406; @Parsons-Sci.353.1253; @Boll-Sci.353.1257]. At a fundamental level, both communities have brought contributions to our understanding of quantum correlations. The concept of entanglement has become a key ingredient to investigate collective behavior arising from microscopic degrees of freedom, such as critical properties and quantum phase transitions [@Vidal-PRL.90.227902; @Amico-RMP.80.517; @Laflorencie-PhysRep.646.0370]. In this context, a problem which have been receiving special attention deals with the conditions under which properties in the thermodynamical limit can be accurately assessed by means of finite systems [@Gammel-SM.57.4437], in which boundary conditions play a crucial role in the system’s symmetries. From the experimental point of view, this issue is equivalent to attenuating finite-size effects by means of a given quantum protocol [@Papanastasiou-PRA.96.042332; @Kormos-NatPhys.13.3; @wang2018floquet]; analytically, it is an important ingredient for improving numerical methods for many-body systems [@Kent-PRB.59.1917], such as exact diagonalization [@Gammel-SM.57.4437; @Gros-PRB.53.6865], Monte Carlo Simulations [@Lin-PRE.64.016702; @Dagrada-PRB.94.245108] and Renormalization-Groups [@Cirac-AP.387.100; @Yang-PRL.118.110504]. In a previous work [@Zawadzki-BJP.47.5], we have examined this question by addressing the compatibility between boundary conditions and conserved quantities in the finite one dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian [@Hubbard-PRoyalSL.276.1365238; @Lieb-PA.321.01]. We analysed some properties of small Hubbard chains under open, periodic and twisted boundary conditions and presented results for the ground state and gap energies, and local densities and magnetizations at half-filling. Special attention was given to the case of twisted boundary conditions [@Shastry-PRL.65234], [[ in which the ends of the chain are connected with a hopping amplitude having a torsion phase $\Theta$. ]{}]{} [[ This situation is physically equivalent to a Hubbard chain coupled to an external vector potential $A$. The effect of twisted boundary conditions in integrable models has been widely discussed [@Alcaraz-Annal-182.2; @Shastry-PRL.65234; @Shiroishi-JPSJ.66.8; @Yue-JPA-30.3.849; @Fukui-PRB.58.16051]. A vast literature on the low-energy properties covering analytical calculations via Bethe Ansatz of the ground-state energies, correlation functions and order parameters in spin chains, including the Hubbard Hamiltonian [@Shastry-PRL.65234]. In particular, it has been demonstrated that properties of Hamiltonians obeying U(1) symmetry do not deppend on the boundary condition as the system size is increased, the dependence being exponentially suppressed [@Shastry-PRL.65234]. Our motivation to revisit the case of finite and relatively small chains has its origins in recent studies of qubit systems. The discussion is linked especially to the experimental realization of protocols engineering few particle systems, which, in practice, are no longer described by integrable models [@Rigol-PRL.103.100403; @Weinberg-PR.688.1]. ]{}]{} [[ In an attempt to be pedagogical,]{}]{} we demonstrated that there is a special torsion $\Theta^* = \pi L/2$, where $L$ is the system size, in which one can preserve most symmetries of the infinite Hubbard model. [[ We argued that]{}]{} an important consequence of this finding is that under twisted boundary conditions with $\Theta^$, properties converge faster to the limit $L \rightarrow \infty$, with excellent results already for relatively small chains of, up to $7$ sites. Here, we complement our analysis of the twisted boundary condition targetting the special property of entanglement. [[ We also provide an instructive description of a flexible numerical procedure based on a binary approach for small spin lattices, used to obtain the results in Ref. [@Zawadzki-BJP.47.5] and in the present paper.]{}]{} [[ Here, we report numerical calculations for the ground-state energy and the average single-site entanglement, exploring their deviations from the thermodynamical limit ($L \rightarrow \infty$) as a function of the torsion $\Theta$ and the re-scaled coupling $U/t$.]{}]{} [[ Equivalent results could be obtained from the Bethe Ansatz solution of the finite Hubbard Hamiltonian under twisted boundary conditions [@Bannister-PRB.61.4651].]{}]{} Our results indicate that the entanglement under $\Theta^$ converges fast, like the ground-state energy. We identify different behaviors in chains with odd and even number of sites [[ and their scaling as $L$ is increased. ]{}]{} [[ The present paper is organized as follows. ]{}]{}In section \[sec:Hubbard\] we review the connection between symmetries and boundary conditions. In section \[sec:numerical\], we explain the numerical procedure devised to perform the exact diagonalization of the many-body Hubbard Hamiltonian. Numerical results for the per-site ground-state energy and single-site entanglement of half-filled chains are presented in section \[sec:results\]. Finally, we conclude our analysis on the scaling properties of Hubbard chains under twisted boundary conditions in section \[sec:conclusion\]. In appendix \[apx:trimer\], we also include the case-study of the Hubbard trimer, calculating explicitly the matrix Hamiltonian under twisted boundary condition and presenting analytical results for the single-site entanglement. [[ We show additional results for the deviations from the limit $L\rightarrow \infty$ in the single-site entanglement as a function of the torsion $\Theta$ and the coupling $U/t$ in appendix \[apx:Sj\_Theta\]. ]{}]{} \[sec:Hubbard\] Symmetries of the Hubbard Hamiltonian under twisted boundary conditions ======================================================================================= The Hubbard Hamiltonian is one of the most studied models in condensed matter physics. It has grounded most of our knowledge of a wide class of solid state systems, ranging from conductors to insulators. More recently, it has been successfully used to investigate exotic states of matter occuring in quantum dots [@Byrnes-PRB.78.075320], ultracold fermionic atoms and ion traps [@Salfi-Nat-11342; @Jordens-Nat.455.204], Bose-Einstein condensates [@Baier-Science-352.6282], etc. Comprising two terms - namely, the hopping and the Coulombian interaction - it translates in a simple way the competition between the localization and de-localization trends of quantum particles in a lattice. In one dimension, the fermionic Hubbard Hamiltonian including boundary conditions is written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Hubbard_BC} \hat{H} & = - t \sum_{\ell = 1}^{L-1} ({\hat{c}}_{\ell+1}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{\ell} + H.c.) + U \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} {\hat{n}}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{\ell {\downarrow}} \nonumber \\ & \hphantom{=} - \mu \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} {\hat{n}}_{\ell} + \hat{H}_{\text{BC}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the operators ${\hat{c}}_\ell (c^\dagger_\ell)$ anihilates (creates) an electron at site $\ell$, ${\hat{n}}_{\ell, \sigma} = {\hat{c}}^\dagger_{\ell, \sigma} {\hat{c}}_{\ell, \sigma}$ counts the occupation of electrons with spin $\sigma$ at site $\ell$, $t$ is the hopping amplitude, $U$ accounts for the Coulomb repulsion penalyzing double occupation and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. The last term connects the ends of the chain $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = L$ and defines the boundary condition (BC) $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Hboundary} \hat{H}_{\text{BC}} & = - ( \tau {\hat{c}}_{1}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{L} + \tau^{} {\hat{c}}^\dagger_L {\hat{c}}_1 ),\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:boundary_conditions} \tau & = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{open (OBC)} \\ t & \text{periodic (PBC)}\\ t e^{i\Theta} & \text{twisted (TBC)} \end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ $0 < \Theta < \pi$being the torsion phase. [[ [^1]]{}]{} Increasing $L \rightarrow \infty$ and keeping the average electron density constant we recover the thermodynamical limit and the Hamiltonian becomes independent of the boundary condition. [[ This limit is particularly interesting due to the variety of symmetries of the infinite Hubbard chain: besides conserving charge, spin and spin rotation, which are symmetries present also in finite chains under any of the boundary conditions defined in eq. [(\[eq:boundary\_conditions\])]{}, the infinite model also possesses inversion, translation and particle-hole symmetry; the latter having a crucial role.]{}]{} An illustration of the last three is shown in figure \[fig:symmetries\] and a complete discussion can be found in ref. [@Zawadzki-BJP.47.5]. [[ Here, we recapitulate, in more detail, the derivation of]{}]{} the condition that the twist phase $\Theta$ must fulfill to preserve particle-hole and translation symmetries in a finite Hubbard chain under twisted boundary condition. ![\[fig:symmetries\] Some of symmetries present in the infinite one-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian. (a)* inversion symmetry: re-labelling sites from left to right and vice-versa does not change the transformed Hamiltonian. (b) particle-hole symmetry: the energetic cost to add a particle to the first unoccupied level is the same of removing a particle at the last occupied level. (c) translation symmetry: the system remains invariant by shifting sites to its neighbors, so that the linear momentum is conserved.](fig1.pdf) In the presence of particle-hole symmetry, the cost for adding or removing a particle from the Fermi level is the same. The Hamiltonian must be invariant under the transformation $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs} {\hat{c}}_\ell \rightarrow (-1)^\ell {\hat{a}^\dagger}_\ell. \end{aligned}$$ Carrying out the transformation for the Hamiltonian under open boundary condition $\hat{H}_{OBC}$, we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs_OBC} \hat{H}_{OBC} & =- t \sum_{\ell = 1}^{L-1} (-1)^{2\ell+1} ( {\hat{a}}_{\ell+1} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell} + {\hat{a}}_{\ell} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell+1} ) + U \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} (-1)^{4\ell} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\downarrow}} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\downarrow}} - \mu \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} (-1)^{2\ell} ({\hat{a}}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\uparrow}} + {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\downarrow}} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\downarrow}} ) \nonumber \\ & = - t \sum_{\ell = 1}^{L-1} ( {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell} {\hat{a}}_{\ell+1} + {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell+1} {\hat{a}}_{\ell} ) + U \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\downarrow}} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\downarrow}} - \mu \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} ({\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\uparrow}} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\uparrow}} + {\hat{a}^\dagger}_{\ell {\downarrow}} {\hat{a}}_{\ell {\downarrow}} ), \end{aligned}$$ so that the open chain remains invariant. Carrying out the transformation for ${\hat{H}}_{BC}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs_TBC} \hat{H}_{\text{BC}} & = - ( \tau (-1)^{1} {\hat{a}}_1 (-1)^{L} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_L + \tau^{} (-1)^{L} {\hat{a}}_L (-1)^1 {\hat{a}^\dagger}_1 ) \nonumber \\ & = (-1)^{L+1} \tau {\hat{a}^\dagger}_L {\hat{a}}_1 + (-1)^{L+1} \tau^{} {\hat{a}^\dagger}_1 {\hat{a}}_L .\end{aligned}$$ To respect particle-hole symmetry, the hopping amplitude in the boundary must fulfill the condition $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs_TBC_condition} (-1)^{L+1} \tau^* & = - \tau. \end{aligned}$$ As shown in Ref. [@Zawadzki-BJP.47.5], condition [(\[eq:phs\_TBC\_condition\])]{} is fullfilled if the torsion is adjusted as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs_TBC_condition3} \Theta^* & = \frac{\pi L}{2}. \end{aligned}$$ For $0 \leq \Theta \leq \pi$, the previous relation split the cases of even and odd $L$’s $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phs_condition_Loddeven} \Theta^{}_{\text{odd}} & = \frac{\pi}{2} \nonumber \\ \Theta^{}_{\text{even}} & = \begin{cases} 0, & \text{$L/2$ even} \\ \pi, & \text{$L/2$ odd} \end{cases} . \end{aligned}$$ Now, we can carry out a similar sequence of steps to find the conditions for the phase $\Theta$ so that the system conserves momentum. Starting from the transformation $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:translation} {\hat{c}}_\ell \rightarrow e^{i\ell \theta} {\hat{a}}_\ell, \end{aligned}$$ and inserting it into ${\hat{H}}$ only change the first and last terms of eq. [(\[eq:Hubbard\_BC\])]{}, giving $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HBC_hopping} - t \sum_{\ell=1}^{L-1} ({\hat{c}}_{\ell+1}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{\ell} + H.c.) & = - \sum_{\ell=1}^{L-1} (e^{-i\theta} {\hat{a}}_{\ell+1}^\dagger {\hat{a}}_{\ell} + e^{+i\theta} {\hat{a}}_{\ell+1}^\dagger {\hat{a}}_{\ell}), \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HBC} {\hat{H}}_{BC} & = - t (e^{i(L-1)\theta +\Theta} {\hat{a}}_{1}^\dagger {\hat{a}}_{L} + e^{-i(L-1)\theta-\Theta} {\hat{a}}_{L}^\dagger {\hat{a}}_{1}). \end{aligned}$$ The invariance of the Hamiltonian under [(\[eq:translation\])]{} requires $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:theta} \theta = \frac{\Theta}{L}, \end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent of implementing a local twist through the hopping amplitudes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:t_theta} t \rightarrow t e^{i\theta}, \end{aligned}$$ so that the torsion $\Theta$ is distributed along the chain. These valuable findings bring the interesting question of how properties in the thermodynamical limit compare with those in finite chains when the boundary conditions fulfill conservation laws. Here, we are going to examine the dependencies of energies and correlations with the torsion $\Theta$, discussing their convergence to their values for the infinite Hubbard model calculated exactly with the Bethe Ansatz. We now consider the distances $\Delta \epsilon_p = \|\epsilon_p (L, n, U, \Theta)-\epsilon_p^{BA}(n,U)\|$ [[ between the Bethe Ansatz density energies $\epsilon_p^{BA}(U,n)$ for the infinite Hubbard model with filling $n$ and ]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:persite_ergs} \epsilon_p(L, n, U, \Theta) & = \frac{1}{t \, L}\bra{\Psi_p} \hat{H}(L, n, U, \Theta) \ket{\Psi_p}, \end{aligned}$$ is the per-site energy, where $\ket{\Psi_p}$ is the exact $p$-th state of $\hat{H}$ [[ ($p=0$ corresponds to the ground-state, $p=1$ corresponds to the first excited state and so on)]{}]{} calculated for a chain with $L$ sites, $Q = nL$ particles, coupling $U$ and torsion $\Theta$. In particular, the ground-state [[ density energy $\epsilon_0(L, n=1, U, \Theta)$ at half-filling ($n=1$ or $Q = L$) will be compared with the Bethe Ansatz ground-state energy for the infinite half-filled Hubbard model, calculated from ]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eGSBA} \epsilon_0^{BA}(n=1, U) & = -4 \int_0^\infty dx \frac{J_0(x) J_1(x)}{x[1+e^{Ux/2}]} . \end{aligned}$$ The single-site entanglement can be quantified by means of the Von Neumann entropy $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Von_Neumann_S} S(\rho_\ell) &= -\sum_p \lambda_p \log(\lambda_p), \end{aligned}$$ where $0 \leq \lambda_p \leq 1$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix $ \rho_\ell = {\text{Tr}_{k \neq \ell} \left[ \rho \right]} $, defined for pure states $\rho = \ket{\Psi} \bra{\Psi}$ and obtained by tracing all the degrees of freedom of the system [[ excluding the degrees of freedom of site $\ell$.]{}]{} For fermions, the reduced density matrix is a $4 \times 4$ diagonal matrix whose eigenvalues correspond to the probabilities to find the $\ell$-th site empty ($\lambda_{0}$), single ($\lambda_{\uparrow}$ and $\lambda_{\downarrow}$) or double occupied ($\lambda_{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}}$). Explicitly, it reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SSreduced_density_matrix3} \rho_\ell & = \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{0} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & \lambda_{{\downarrow}} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & \lambda_{{\uparrow}} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda_{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ In our comparision of the average single-site entanglement entropy ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n, U, \Theta^)$ with the Bethe Ansatz results for the infinite Hubbard model, we will rely on the analytical expression derived in [[ Refs. [@Gu-PRL.93.086402; @Larsson-PRL.95.196406; @Franca-PRL.100.070403].]{}]{} It reads $$\label{eq:SSem_BA} {\langle S_j \rangle}(n, U) = - 2 \Bigg( \frac{n}{2} - \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \Bigg) \log_2 \Bigg[ \frac{n}{2} - \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \Bigg] - \Bigg( 1 - n+ \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \Bigg) \log_2 \Bigg[ 1- n + \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \Bigg] - \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \log_2 \Bigg[\frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial U} \Bigg] ,$$ where $\epsilon = \epsilon^{BA}_0(n,U)$ is the per-site ground-state energy, which will be computed from the Bethe Ansatz at half-filling $n=1$ as indicated in eq. [(\[eq:eGSBA\])]{}. The numerical procedure we used to obtain these properties in the case of finite lattices with given torsion $\Theta$ is described in the next section. \[sec:numerical\] Exact diagonalization procedure ================================================= The complete Hilbert space of a fermionic Hubbard chain with $L$ sites comprises $4^L$ states, as each site can be empty, singly occupied with $\sigma={\uparrow}, {\downarrow}$ or doubly occupied. In practice, carrying out the diagonalization of the full matrix Hamiltonian is limited to few sites, of the order of ten. The conservation of charge and spin allows us to bring the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Hubbard\_BC\])]{} into a block diagonal form, so that each block $H(Q,S)$ is associated with a smaller Hilbert space $(Q,S)$ formed by states with definite charge $Q$ and spin $S$. [[ For chain with $L \leq 9$ sites, the number of states in the largest subspace $(Q,S)$ (8820 states) can still be handled exactly without high computational efforts. In practice, larger matrices $L > 10$ would require the use of special techniques for storing and diagonalizing the matrix Hamiltonian $H(Q,S)$, i.e., a large space in memory RAM and a longer time to perform the diagonalization, whose complexity order scales with $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$, where $n$ is the dimension of the problem. ]{}]{} In the present work, we [[ implemented]{}]{} an exact diagonalization procedure in which the fermionic states are represented in a binary notation [@Lin-PRB.42.6561; @Lin-CP.7.4.400]. [[ The use of hashing tables, like the binary notation, to represent quantum states of spin models is a convenient choice in exact diagonalization procedures, including the Lanczos algorithm [@Gagliano-PRB.34.1677; @Lin-PRB.42.6561]. The latter allows to obtain with high accuracy the low-energy spectrum of chains with up to $L = 24$ sites [@Lin-CP.7.4.400] for open boundary conditions and $L=12$ for twisted boundary conditions [@Gagliano-PRB.34.1677; @Bannister-PRB.61.4651], the latter being halved because the twist phase introduces complex numbers in the Hamltonian matrix therefore requiring the double of space and more computation time compared to real matrices. ]{}]{} [[ Here, we will describe a simple formulation of a binary hashing to represent quantum states of one-dimensional fermionic systems, from which one is able to obtain exactly the full spectrum of the Hamiltonian $H(Q,S)$ using a standard diagonalization routine. Differently from other methods, such as the Lanczos diagonalization, the procedure yields all the $4^L$ eigenstates and eigenvalues of the full many-body Hamiltonian without any approximation or truncation. The procedure comprises three steps: the binary representation of basis elements in the subspace $(Q,S_z=S)$, the rotation of the basis in $(Q,S_z)$ to the subspace $(Q,S)$, and the projection of the Hamiltonian operator into the basis elements forming the subspace $(Q,S)$.]{}]{} [[ The fist step of the exact calculation involves the definition of the hashing code to represent fermionic states in the binary form.]{}]{} Given a lattice of $L$ sites, each one of the $n_B = 2^{2L}$ possible spin configurations $\ket{\vec{\sigma}} = \ket{\sigma_1} \otimes \ket{\sigma_2} \otimes ... \otimes \ket{\sigma_L}$ is associated with a sequence of $2L$ bits, the even indexes referring to occupations of ${\uparrow}$ and the odd indexes referring to occupations of ${\downarrow}$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:binconf} \ket{b} & = \ket{b_{1{\uparrow}} \, b_{1{\downarrow}} \,\, b_{2 {\uparrow}} \, b_{2 {\downarrow}} \, , ..., \,\, b_{L {\uparrow}L} \, b_{L {\downarrow}}} \nonumber \\ & = \ket{\sigma_1} \otimes \ket{\sigma_2} \otimes ... \otimes \ket{\sigma_L} , \end{aligned}$$ [[ where $b_{\ell \sigma}$ ($\ell=1,...,L$) can be either $0$ or $1$. $b_{\ell{\uparrow}} = 1$ means that there is an electron ${\uparrow}$ in the $\ell$-th site (it is equivalent to the creastion operator $c_{\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger$), whereas $b_{\ell{\uparrow}} = 0$ indicates that site $\ell$ does not have an electron ${\uparrow}$. Likewise, $b_{\ell{\downarrow}} = 1$ is equivalent to $c_{\ell{\downarrow}}^\dagger$ and $b_{\ell{\downarrow}} = 0$ is equivalent to $c_{\ell{\downarrow}}$.]{}]{} Some examples are illustrated in figure \[fig:bin\_repr\]. ![\[fig:bin\_repr\] Binary representation of fermionic configurations $\ket{b}$. Examples of configurations for (a)* single-site with $i_b = 0, 2, 1, 3$ from top to bottom; (b) dimer $L = 2$ with $i_b = 3$; and (c) tetramer $L = 4$ and $i_b = 180$.](fig2.pdf) We can ascribe an integer label $i_b = 0, ..., n_B-1$ to each binary configuration $\ket{b}$, so that [[ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:binary_to_index} i_b & = \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} ( b_{\ell {\uparrow}} \, 2^{2L-\ell} \, + b_{\ell {\downarrow}} \, 2^{2L-\ell-1}). \end{aligned}$$ ]{}]{} The label $i_b$ provides all information of the spin state $\sigma_\ell$ of each site $\ell$. For instance, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bitUpj} b_{\ell{\uparrow}} & = \text{mod}_2\left[\frac{i_b}{2^{2L-2\ell+1}}\right], \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bitDmnj} b_{\ell{\downarrow}} & = \text{mod}_2\left[\frac{i_b}{2^{2L-2\ell}}\right]. \end{aligned}$$ The action of any operator $\hat{O}$ on any state of the complete Hilbert space written in the binary form of eq. [(\[eq:binary\_to\_index\])]{} only requires the definition of such operator in terms of bit operations. For instance, the action of the creation and annihilation operators ${\hat{c}}_{\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger$ and ${\hat{c}}_{\ell{\uparrow}}$ ($\ell=1,...,L$) in a state $\ket{i_b}$ labeled by $i_b$ can be defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:example_binOp} {\hat{c}}_{\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger \ket{i_b} & \equiv \frac{1}{2}(1+(-1)^{b_{\ell{\uparrow}}}) \ket{i_b+2^{2(L-\ell)+1}} \nonumber \\ {\hat{c}}_{\ell{\uparrow}} \ket{i_b} & \equiv \frac{1}{2}(1+(-1)^{1+b_{\ell{\uparrow}}}) \ket{i_b+2^{2(L-\ell)+1}}. \end{aligned}$$ Similar relations can be defined for the ${\downarrow}$ spins, replacing $2\ell \rightarrow 2\ell-1$ and adding an extra factor $(-1)^{b_{\ell{\uparrow}}}$ accounting for the fermionic signals. As an example, consider the state $\ket{i_b = 9} = \ket{1 0 0 1}$ and the action of the operators ${\hat{c}}_{1{\downarrow}}^\dagger$ and ${\hat{c}}_{2{\uparrow}}$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{ex:a_ad} {\hat{c}}_{1{\downarrow}}^\dagger \ket{i_b=9} & = \frac{1}{2} (1+(-1)^0) \ket{9 + 2^{2(2-1)}} = \ket{\tilde{i}_b = 13} \nonumber \\ {\hat{c}}_{2{\uparrow}} \ket{i_b=9} & = \frac{1}{2} (1+(-1)^1) \ket{9 + 2^{2(2-2)+1}} = 0 \ket{\tilde{i}_b = 11}. \end{aligned}$$ Notice that while the operation ${\hat{c}}_{1{\downarrow}}^\dagger \ket{i_b=9}$ yields a new binary index $\tilde{i}_b = 13$ which reconstructs the binary state $\ket{1 1 0 1}$, the action of ${\hat{c}}_{2{\uparrow}}$ on $ \ket{i_b=9}$ does not produce a new binary configuration, as the spin ${\uparrow}$ of the second site is empty. Once defined the operators composing the Hamiltonian in terms of binary relations, we are able to proceed and construct the corresponding matrix $H$ in the subspaces of states with definite charge and spin. Within the binary approach, the subspaces $(Q,S)$ can be obtained in two steps. First, we need to identify the $n_B$ configurations constrained by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:q_sum} \sum_{\ell = 1}^L b_{{\uparrow}\ell} + b_{{\downarrow}\ell} - L = Q, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sz_sum} \sum_{\ell = 1}^L b_{{\uparrow}\ell} - b_{{\downarrow}\ell} = S_z, \end{aligned}$$ which form the Hilbert space $(Q,S_z)$ of eigenstates of the operators $\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{S_z}$, defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Q_Op} \hat{Q} & = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{L}\sum_{\sigma={\uparrow},{\downarrow}} ({\hat{c}}_{\ell\sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{\ell\sigma} -\frac{1}{2}), \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Sz_Op} \hat{S}_z & = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \sum_{\mu, \nu = {\uparrow}, {\downarrow}} {\hat{c}}_{\ell\mu}^\dagger \sigma^{z}_{\mu, \nu}{\hat{c}}_{\ell\nu}, \end{aligned}$$ [[ where $\sigma^z$ is the $z$ component of the Pauli matrices.]{}]{} [[ The subspace $(Q,S_z)$ comprises $n_B$ binary configurations forming the basis $\{ \ket{q,s_z, b} \}$ $(b=0,1,...,n_B-1)$, where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:QSzeig} \hat{Q}\ket{q,s_z, b} & = Q \ket{q,s_z, b} \nonumber \\ \hat{S}_z \ket{q,s_z, b} & = S_z \ket{q,s_z, b} \end{aligned}$$ for all $b = 0, ..., n_B-1$.]{}]{} The conservation of the total spin $S$ yields a new projection of the Hamiltonian into the subspace $(Q,S)$ comprising $n_P < n_B$ eigenstates $\{ \ket{q,s,s_z=s, p} \}$ $(p = 0, ..., n_P-1)$ of the operator $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:S_Op} \hat{\vec{S}} & = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \sum_{\mu, \nu = {\uparrow}, {\downarrow}} {\hat{c}}_{\ell\mu}^\dagger \vec{\sigma}_{\mu, \nu}{\hat{c}}_{\ell\nu}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\sigma} = \sigma_x \hat{x} + \sigma_y \hat{y} + \sigma_z \hat{z}$. All $n_P$ basis elements in the subspace $(Q,S)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:QSzeig} \hat{\vec{S}}^2 \ket{q, s, s_z=s, p} & = s (s+1) \ket{q, s, s_z=s, p}. \end{aligned}$$ Having the $n_B$ eigenstates $\{ \ket{q,s_z, b} \}$ and definitions for the operators in the binary notation, [[ the projection of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ into a basis definying the subspace $(Q,S)$ requires the transformation $\mathcal{T}_{p,b}$ rotating the basis $\{ \ket{q,s_z, b} \}$ in $(Q,S_z)$ into the new basis $\{ \ket{q,s,s_z=s, p} \}$ in $(Q,S)$.]{}]{} This can be done using two approaches. We can define the operator $\hat{S}^2$ in the binary form, project it into the basis $\{ \ket{q,s_z, b} \}$ and from the diagonalization of the matrix $S^2$ identify the eigenstates with $s$ and $s_z=s$. Alternatively and, more efficiently, we implement an iterative procedure in which the Hilbert spaces $(Q,S)$ are constructed by growing the chain from $\ell = 1$ to $\ell=L$ and finding the eigenstates $\ket{q_\ell,s_\ell, s_{z\ell}, p_\ell}_\ell$ with help of the rules of addition of angular momenta. We start with all eigenstates $\ket{q_{\ell=1},s_{\ell=1},s_z=s,p_{\ell=1}}$ for a single site in the end of the chain, which are $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:qs_single_site} \ket{q = 0, s = 0, s_z = 0, p = 0}_{\ell=1} & = {\ket{0}}\nonumber \\ \ket{q = 1, s = +\frac{1}{2}, s_z = +\frac{1}{2}, p = 0}_{\ell=1} & = {\hat{c}}^\dagger_{L{\uparrow}} {\ket{0}}\nonumber \\ \ket{q = +2, s = 0, s_z = 0, p = 0}_{\ell=1} & = {\hat{c}}^\dagger_{L{\uparrow}} {\hat{c}}^\dagger_{L{\downarrow}} {\ket{0}}. \end{aligned}$$ ![\[fig:QS\_boards\] Board of active sectors $(Q,S)$ in the iterations $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = 2$ and the number $p$ of states $\ket{q,s,s=s_z,p, \ell}$ with definite charge and spin inside them. Colored squares indicate the active sectors of the current chain. White numbers mean the number of states in each sector.](fig3.pdf) These states are stored in a board of active sectors, as illustrated in figure \[fig:QS\_boards\]. The next step is adding the site $L-1$ with Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to obtain the eigenstates of $\ket{q_{\ell=2},s_{\ell=2},s_z=s,p_{\ell=2}}$, which are stored in a new set of active sectors in the board. For this, we use the following relations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Osouth} \ket{q,s,s_z,p'}_{\ell+1} = \ket{q+1,s,s_z,p'}_{\ell} \quad p '= 0,.., n_P(q+1,s)_{\ell},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Oeast} \displaystyle \ket{q,s,s_z,p''+\max{p'}}_{\ell+1} & = c_{L-\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger \ket{q,s-\frac{1}{2},s_{z}-\frac{1}{2},p''}_{\ell} \nonumber \\ & p ''= 0,.., n_P(q,s-\frac{1}{2})_{\ell},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Owest} \displaystyle \ket{q,s,s_z,p'''+\max{p'}+\max{p''}}_{\ell+1} & = \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2s + 1}} c_{L-\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger \ket{q,s+\frac{1}{2},s_{z}-\frac{1}{2},p'''}_{\ell} \nonumber \\ & + \sqrt{\frac{2s}{2s+1}} c_{L-\ell{\downarrow}}^\dagger \ket{q,s+\frac{1}{2},s_{z}+\frac{1}{2},p'''}_{\ell} \nonumber \\ & p'''= 0,.., n_P(q,s+\frac{1}{2})_{\ell},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Onorth} \displaystyle \ket{q,s,s_z,p''''+\max{p'}+\max{p''}+\max{p'''}}_{\ell+1} & = c_{L-\ell{\uparrow}}^\dagger c_{L-\ell{\downarrow}}^\dagger \ket{q-1,s,s_z,p''''}_{\ell} \nonumber \\ & p''''= 0,.., n_P(q-1,s)_{\ell}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, due to the degeneracy of the $z$ components of momentum, fixing $s_z = s$ is convenient to save memory, so that we do not need to store all the $s_z$ components of $s$ (states $\ket{q,s,s_z\neq +s, p}$) because they can be simply recovered from $\ket{q,s,s_z=+s, p}$. For example, the the configurations $\ket{q,s, s_z = s -1, p}_{\ell}$ needed to construct states $\ket{q,s\pm 1/2, s_z \pm 1/2, p}_{\ell+1}$ from the ones obtained in the last iteration - $\ket{q,s, s_z = s, p}_{\ell}$ in eqs. [(\[eq:Oeast\])]{} and [(\[eq:Owest\])]{}- can be implemented easily by flipping all the spins ${\uparrow}$ of the previously stored $\ket{q,s, s_z = s, p}_{\ell}$. The growing procedure is repeated until $\ell = L$, yielding all the rotation matrices $\mathcal{T}_{p,b}(Q,S)$ for each subspace $(Q,S)$ and their binary states $\ket{b}$. Using the bit rules for the action of the operators defining the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, the matrix elements of $H(Q,S_z)$ are calculated as $$H_{b,b'} =\bra{{i_b}} \hat{H} \ket{{i_{b'}}},$$ where ${i_b}$ and ${i_b'}$ label the binary configurations $\ket{b}$ and $\ket{b'}$ of $(Q,S)$. The rotation $\mathcal{T}_{p,b}(Q,S)$ is then applied, resulting in a matrix $n_P \times n_P$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:H_QS} H(Q,S) & = \mathcal{T}_{p,b}(Q,S) \, H(Q,S_z) \mathcal{T}^{-1}_{p,b}(Q,S) , \end{aligned}$$ which can be diagonalized. In the table below, we present some examples of numbers $n_P$ and $n_B$ as a function of $L$. $L$ $n_P$ $n_B$ ----- ------- ------- 2 3 4 3 6 9 4 20 36 5 75 100 6 175 400 7 784 1225 8 1764 4900 9 8820 15876 10 19404 63504 : \[tab:1\] Highest number $n_P$ of states in local Hilbert spaces $(Q,S)$ and number $n_B$ of binary configurations needed to generate them as a function of $L$. For even $L$, the most dense Hilbert space is $(Q=L,S=0)$, whereas for $L$ odd it is $(Q=L, S= \frac{1}{2})$. Under twisted boundary conditions, once the matrix elements of $H$ are complex, effectively, the memory needed to store the full Hamiltonian is $n_P^2$ double precision floating points, which is twice the capacity needed for open and periodic boundary conditions. The procedure introduced above was used in our numerical calculations of the ground-state energy and single site entanglement presented in section \[sec:Hubbard\]. Besides the ground-state properties, our code provides the full excitation spectrum of $H(Q,S)$ for any coupling $U$ and torsion $\Theta$. It also offers a flexible framework with support for non-homogeneous model parameters, non-local interactions and time-dependent calculations. For the purposes of the present paper, we will focus our analysis on the case of half-filled chains $Q = L$ and $S = 0$ ($L$ even) or $S= 1/2$ ($L$ odd). Our results are presented below. \[sec:results\] Results ======================= In the infinite chain, ground-state properties at half-filling capture the rich physics regarding the phases of the Hubbard model. For $U = 0$, the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}}(L \rightarrow \infty)$ reduces to a free electron gas, as the electrons can move freely along the chain through the kinetic hopping. In the presence of non-zero coupling, even infinitesimal, the system enters in an insulating phase, with gap energy $\Delta$ increasing with $U/t$. In the limit $U \rightarrow \infty$, the prohibitive cost of double occupation leads the system to become a Nèel antiferromagnetic insulator. The change in the behavior of properties during the transition from the non-interacting ($U/t \rightarrow 0$) to [[ extreme]{}]{} Mott insulating ($U/t \gg 1$) phase is noticeable, as illustrated in figure \[fig:BA\_props\]. The per-site ground-state energy starts from its minimum value $\epsilon_0^{BA} (n=1,U \rightarrow 0) \approx - 4 /\pi$ and increases up to zero, when electrons freeze in a state whose components only assume single occupation. See figure \[fig:BA\_props\](a). ![\[fig:BA\_props\] Ground-state energy (a) and single-site entanglement entropy (b) for the infinite 1-D Hubbard model computed from the Bethe Ansatz solution at half-filling - eqs. [(\[eq:eGSBA\])]{} and [(\[eq:SSem\_BA\])]{}. The behavior of both quantities illustrates two solid state phases of the Hubbard model: a tight-binding model for a free electron gas when the coupling is abscent ($U = 0$) and a Nèel antiferromagnetic insulator in the limit $U \rightarrow \infty$. In the shaded in region (gray), the Coulomb repulsion is not negligible nor high enough, so that competing correlations exist in the ground-state wave function.](fig4.pdf) The transition between these two extremes is particularly interesting when we analyse internal correlations by means of the average single-site entanglement, shown in figure \[fig:BA\_props\](b). When $U = 0$, the ground-state wave-function $\ket{\Psi_0}$ decomposes in a Slater determinant of single-site orbitals with equal contribution. Inspection of eq. [(\[eq:SSreduced\_density\_matrix3\])]{} provides a limiting value for ${\langle S_j \rangle}(U \rightarrow 0) \rightarrow 2$, when all the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are degenerate, i.e., $\lambda_{0} \approx \lambda_{\uparrow} \approx \lambda_{\downarrow} \approx \lambda_{\uparrow\!\downarrow} \approx 1/4$. In this limit, all individual sites become uniformely coupled to the rest of the chain, so that the entropy reaches its maximum. In the presence of coupling, the competition between the scales $t$ and $U$ results in a complex ground-state, whose components are formed by spin configurations with non-trivial occupation probabilities $\lambda_0 \neq \lambda_{\uparrow}\neq \lambda_{\downarrow}\neq \lambda_{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}}$. The sensitivity of $\ket{\Psi_0}$ to the Coulomb repulsion manifests in the measure of the average single-site entanglement, as ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ decreases almost ballistic within the range $1 \leq U/t \leq 10^2$. Outside this region and, in particular, for very large coupling, empty and double occupations vanish $\lambda_{0}, \lambda_{\uparrow\!\downarrow} \rightarrow 0$. The entropy reaches half of its maximum, as the components of $\ket{\Psi_0}$ formed by single occupied sites contributes equally $\lambda_{{\uparrow}} \approx \lambda_{{\downarrow}} \rightarrow 1/2$. We note that this corresponds to the maximum entropy of the halved Hilbert space. We can now examine how far from the thermodynamical limit are these quantities in the case of finite chains under twisted boundary conditions. We vary the torsion of $\pi$ around the special phases $\Theta_{\text{odd}}^$ or $\Theta^_{\text{even}}$ under which the system possesses particle-hole and translation symmetries. In order to extend the previous analysis about the correspondence between the the phases of the Hubbard Hamiltonian and its coupling regimes, we keep the Coulomb repulsion within the range $10^{-2} < U/t < 10^{3}$. Initially, we consider the deviations in the per-site ground-state energy from the thermodynamical limit of the one-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian at half-filling, analysing the dependences on the coupling $U/t$ and the torsion $\Theta$. Here, we argue that working with the absolute difference instead of the percentual deviation is more convenient in the comparison of the ground-state energy because it avoid numerical divergences in the limits ($U \gg 10t$) where $\epsilon_0$ vanishes . Explicitly, $\Delta \epsilon_0$ is calculated as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:absolute_dev} \Delta \epsilon_0 (L, n=1, U, \Theta) = \|\epsilon_0(L, n=1, U, \Theta) - \epsilon_0^{BA}(n=1,U)\|. \end{aligned}$$ Figures \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\] and \[fig:E\_gs\_even\] show $\Delta \epsilon_0$ as a function of $U/t$ and $\Theta$ for odd and even number of lattice sites, respectively. The dependence of $\Delta \epsilon_0$ on $\Theta$ is only appreciable in low and intermediate coupling regimes, where we identify a periodic behavior which differ among chains with odd and even number of sites. [[ The difference between $L$ odd and $L$ even can be understood easily by inspecting the non-interacting limit ($U = 0$), for which the deviations are maximized. For $L$ even, the Hamiltonian remains invariant under inversion. Under the special torsion $\Theta^$ for $U=0$ and even $L$, several of the single-particle levels with nonzero momentum are degenerate. For $L$ odd, the Hamiltonian breaks inversion symmetry and the single-particle levels are not degenerate. As the degeneracy of levels for $L$ even leads to a relatively poor representation of the thermodynamical limit, it follows that $\Theta^$ preserving particle-hole symmetry maximizes the deviation from the Bethe Ansatz solution for $L \rightarrow \infty$. By contrast, in chains with odd number of sites (for which the single-particle levels are non-degenerate), the special condition minimizes the deviation. This analysis can be extended for the interacting Hubbard Hamiltonian. Moreover, if we consider $\Theta$ varying from $0$ to $L\pi$, we will observe $L$ minima for both even and odd chains, their position being $(2n +1) \pi / 2$ $n=1,...,L$. The maxima, occur in the mid points of the minima and differ between even and odd chains. Inspecting panels (a)-(c) of Fig. \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\], we observe two maxima in the deviations at points $\Theta^* \pm \pi / 2$ for $L=3,5,7$. Panels (a)-(c) of Fig. \[fig:E\_gs\_even\] reveal a different structure: the highest deviation from the Bethe Anstaz occur exactly at the special torsion $\Theta^$, and two local maxima with a smaller amplitude is found at the points $\Theta^ \pm \pi$. This corresponds to a different periodicity around the special torsion $\Theta^$: for $L$ odd, the behavior repeats around $\Theta^ \pm \pi/2$, while for even $L$, the periodicity of properties occur around $\Theta^* \pm \pi$.]{}]{} Comparison of panels (a)-(c) in figures \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\] and \[fig:E\_gs\_even\] within the coupling region limited by $U/t < 10$, indicates the lowest deviations in the energy for $L=3,5$ and $7$ occurying exactly at $\Theta^_{\text{odd}}$, whereas for $L=4,6$ and $8$, $\Delta \epsilon_0$ reaches its maximum value for $\Theta^_{\text{even}}$. Clearly, increasing $L$ ensures convergence to the thermodynamical limit. Following panels (a) to (c) in figure \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\], we observe the highest deviations decrease from $\Delta \epsilon_0 \approx 0.3$ for $L=3$ to one order below $\Delta \epsilon_0 \approx 0.05$ for $L=7$. In the case of $L$ even, shown in \[fig:E\_gs\_even\](a)-(c), we note that the upper limit of $\Delta \epsilon_0$ is of the same order of those found in $L-1$, with the correspondence $L=3$ and $L=4$, $L=5$ and $L = 6$, and $L=7$ and $L=8$. When the system approaches the Nèel state, the lowest absolute differences in energy are $\Delta \epsilon_0 \approx 10^{-4}$ for $L$ up to $7$ and $\leq 5 \times 10^{-5}$ for $L=8$. ![image](fig5.pdf) ![image](fig6.pdf) The case in which the special torsion $\Theta^$ ensures particle-hole symmetry is presented in panel (d)* of figures \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\] and \[fig:E\_gs\_even\]. Under $\Theta^$, deviations from the thermodynamical limit are nearly constant for $U/t < 1$, and depict a rapid decreasing up to $U/t < 100$, when the system becomes antiferromagnetic. The shaded region distinguishes the limits of couplings for which the system is away from either the single-particle and the Nèel states. For both odd and even chains, $\Delta \epsilon_0(U, \Theta^)$ depicts a local minimum followed by a local maximum. We observe the inflection points occurying at different positions $U^(L)$ in the axis $U/t$, indicating the scaling of $\epsilon_0(L, \Theta^)$ , as for example, $U^(L=7) < U^(L=5) < U^(L=3)$, and similarly, with $L$ even. The analysis of the transition from the non-interacting ($U = 0$) to the Nèel insulating phase ($U/t\rightarrow \infty$) - shaded region in panel (d)* in figures \[fig:E\_gs\_odd\] and \[fig:E\_gs\_even\] - can be better understood in terms of the average single-site entanglement ${\langle S_j \rangle}$, which has been recently proposed as a [[ witness of quantum phase transition [@Osterloh-Nat.416.608O; @Wu-PRA.74.052335; @Vidal-PRA.69.022107; @Larsson-PRA.73.042320; @Amico-RMP.80.517]. ]{}]{} An important observation concerns the homogeinety of single-site entanglement along the chain, which is highly sensible to closed or open boundary conditions. As discussed in Ref. [@Zawadzki-BJP.47.5], local densities and magnetizations vary from site to site under open boundary conditions. Under twisted boundary conditions, a special case of closed boundary condidions, the densities are uniform and independent of $U/t$ and so does $S_j = {\langle S_j \rangle}$. Nevertheless, the strength of $U/t$ modifies the inner structure of the ground-state wave-function and this dependence must be reflected in correlation measurements, such as the entanglement. In that sense, our proposal to examine the effects of the twisted boundary condition in the average single-site entanglement can help to identify degrees of freedom contributing to the ground-state. Also, analysing the deviations from the infinite system can provide a deep understanding of the role of symmetries in connecting effective correlation lenghts to produce states and phases of the thermodynamical limit. ![\[fig:SSem\_odd\] Mean single site entanglement ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ as a function of the coupling $U/t$ for chains with odd number of sites under torsion $\Theta^$. (a)* The estimate for $\langle S_j \rangle$ in the limit $L \rightarrow \infty$ obtained via Bethe Ansatz is represented in black solid lines and colored marked curves show ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ for chains of odd number of sites $L = 3,5,7$. (b)* Percentual difference ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}(L,n=1,U,\Theta^)$ from the thermodynamical limit as a function of $U/t$. Colored arrows on the top of the right panel indicates the scaled couplings $U/t$ for which the relative deviations ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ are minimum. ](fig7.pdf) ![\[fig:SSem\_even\] Mean single site entanglement ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ as a function of the coupling $U/t$ for chains with even number of sites under torsion $\Theta^$. (a) The estimate for $\langle S_j \rangle$ in the limit $L \rightarrow \infty$ obtained via Bethe Ansatz is represented in black solid lines and colored marked curves show ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ for chains of odd number of sites $L = 4,6,8$. (b)* Percentual difference ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}(L,n=1,U,\Theta^)$ from the thermodynamical limit as a function of $U/t$. Colored arrows on the top of the right panel indicates the scaled couplings $U/t$ for which the relative deviations ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ are minimum. ](fig8.pdf) Our results for ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ as a function of the coupling $U/t$ for finite chains under $\Theta^$ are presented in figures \[fig:SSem\_odd\] and \[fig:SSem\_even\]. In panels (a), the entanglement entropy for the infinite Hubbard model - calculated from eq. [(\[eq:SSem\_BA\])]{} - is represented by a solid black line, whereas ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ calculated for $L=3,4,5,6,7,8$ is shown in colored lines and markers. We note that ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ is lower than its value in the infinite Hubbard model for $L$ odd in all coupling regimes, while for even $L$ it stays within the limits $1 \leq S_j(L\rightarrow \infty) \leq 2$. The reason for that is that at half-filling, chains with odd number of sites are magnetized with total spin $S = 1/2$, so that $\lambda_{{\uparrow}} > \lambda_{{\downarrow}}$ for $U \gg 1$. In the extreme, $U/t \rightarrow \infty$ the Nèel state is described by two components with weights corresponding to $\lambda_{\uparrow}$ and $\lambda_{\downarrow}$. For closed chains with odd $L$, the antiferromagnetic state arising in the limit $U/t \gg 100$ offers an example of magnetic frustration, absent for even $L$ as spins ${\uparrow}$’s match consecutive ${\downarrow}$’s. For the deviations in the average single-site entanglement, we work with the percentual difference ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ between the Bethe Ansatz estimate ${\langle S_j \rangle}^{BA}(n=1,U)$ and the calculated ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1,U,\Theta)$ for finite chains. Explicitily, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:percent_diff_S} {\langle \delta S_j \rangle} (L, n=1, U, \Theta) & = \frac{\|{\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1,U,\Theta) - {\langle S_j \rangle}^{BA}\|}{{\langle S_j \rangle}^{BA}} . \end{aligned}$$ Panel (b) of figures \[fig:SSem\_odd\] and \[fig:SSem\_even\] display ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ as a function of $U/t$ for chains with $L = 3,5,7$ and $L = 4,6,8$ in the case where the torsion is $\Theta^$. Similarly to the ground-state energy, chains with odd and even number of sites present opposite trends under $\Theta^$ The behavior of ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle} (L, n=1, U, \Theta)$ is particularly interesting within the shaded region ($1 \leq U/t \leq 100$). For $L$ odd, the deviation ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ is nearly constant for $U/t \leq 1$ and $U / t \geq 10$. The cases $L=4,6,8$ depict a different trend, the differences in ${\langle S_j \rangle}$ start increasing in couplings of one order below those with successive $L$ even, reaching a maximum value for all even sizes around $U/t \approx 2.5$ and smoothly decreasing to valleys in $U/t \approx 6.5, 8.5 $ and $14.5$ for $L=4,6$ and $8$, respectively. The couplings $U/t$ for which ${\langle \delta S_j \rangle}$ is minimum are marked in colored arrows on the top of the panels \[fig:SSem\_odd\] (b) and \[fig:SSem\_even\] (b). Following the increasing in the chain size, we observe $U/t$ to decrease, suggesting not only a scale property, but also the existence of a critical coupling for which a finite system with size $L$ is able to reproduce with arbitrarily good precision the correlations of the thermodynamical limit. A deep understanding of such property requires further examination; we suggest to investigate other correlation measures, such as the spin correlations and block-block entanglement. Finally, we analyse the scaling on the ground-state and the average single-site entanglement under $\Theta^$. Figure \[fig:scaling\] shows $\epsilon_0(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ (a) and ${\langle S_j \rangle}(L, n=1, U, \Theta^)$ (b)* as a function of $L$ for some values of $U/t$ ranging from the free (dark blue) to the strongly coupling (yellow) regime. Colored arrows on the right side of the panels indicate the values of $\epsilon_0(U, n=1)$ and ${\langle S_j \rangle}(U, n=1)$ for $L \rightarrow \infty$. Colored circles and empty squares identify odd and even chains, respectively. Comparing chains with odd and even number of sites, we note the first perform better in low and intermediate coupling regimes. For $U/t > 1$, they become comparable, and for $U/t > 10$, there is an inversion, as values for even $L$ are closer to the Bethe Ansatz. The same trend is observed for both ground-state energy and single-site entanglement. ![\[fig:scaling\] Scaling of the ground-state energy (a) and average single-site entanglement (b) under twisted boundary conditions with torsion $\Theta^$ for various coupling regimes. Empty squares represent $L$ even and filled circles correspond to $L$ odd. [[ The different scaling trend followed by $L$ even (dot-dashed lines) and odd (dashed lines) is understood in terms of the degeneracy of spin configurations contributing to the ground-state in the case of $L$ even under $\Theta^$. The degeneracy under particle-hole symmetry for $L$ even reduces the number of effective states needed to represent the thermodynamical limit.]{}]{} Values of $\epsilon_0^{BA}(n=1,U)$ and ${\langle S_j \rangle}^{BA}(n=1,U)$ in the thermodynamical limit ($L \rightarrow \infty$) are indicated by colored arrows on the right side of the axis. .](fig9.pdf) \[sec:conclusion\] Conclusions ============================== We have discussed the one-dimensional finite Hubbard Hamiltonian under twisted boundary conditions and examined two important invariances present in the infinite model, namely, particle-hole symmetry and momentum conservation. We have derived the special torsion phase which restores these symmetries in finite Hubbard chains by means of local twisted hoppings with phases of $\Theta^_{\text{odd}} = \pi /2$ and $\Theta^_{\text{even}} = \pi$. We have presented exact numerical results for the ground-state energy of half-filled chains as a function of the torsion $\Theta$ and the coupling $U/t$, investigating how far from the thermodynamical limit these quantities are for chains with size $L=3,4,5,6,7,8$ under the special torsion. We show that, ensuring particle-hole and translation symmetry by fixing $\Theta^$, the [[ deviations in the per-site ground-state energy of lattices of few sites ($L=7$ or $L=8$) from the Bethe Ansatz calculation for $L \rightarrow \infty$ are maximum in small and intermediate coupling regimes]{}]{}, whereas reproduces quite well the insulating phase of the infinite Hubbard model. The analysis of the average single-site entanglement completed our analysis of the phase transition in finite Hubbard lattices and of its scaling behavior. We have identified couplings for which finite lattices enter in the Nèel antiferromagnetic insulating phase. Finally, we discussed the differences between chains with even and odd number of sites. Our findings provide new insights into the understanding of scaling laws in phase transitions occurying in finite systems. In particular, examining the role of symmetries in finite chains and their correspondence with the thermodynamical limit can help us to [[ identify the quantum states yielding the most important contributions to the $L\rightarrow \infty$ limit. Special attention to such states may help us to define novel renormalization-group transformations. ]{}]{} Moreover, the understanding of symmetries presevation in few particle systems has a practical importance for quantum technologies, as it can guide the development of protocols for manipulating properties in qubits systems. LNO acknowledges FAPESP (Fellowship grant no. 12/02702-0) and CNPq (grants no. 312658/2013-3) for financial support. KZ aknowledges support from CNPq (PhD Scholarship grant no. 140703/2014-4) and CAPES (PDSE grant no. 88881.135185/2016-01). ID acknowledges support from the Royal Society through the Newton Advanced Fellowship scheme (grant no. NA140436) and CNPq through the PVE scheme (grant no. 401414/2014-0). \[apx:Sj\_Theta\] Single-site entanglement deviations as a function of $\Theta$ and $U/t$ ========================================================================================= In section \[sec:results\], we presented results (Figs. \[fig:SSem\_odd\] and \[fig:SSem\_even\]) for the deviations $\delta S_j$ from the thermodynamical limit in the single-site entanglement of finite Hubbard chains under the special torsion $\Theta^$. Here, we present the results for $\delta S_j$ as a function of the torsion $\Theta$ and the coupling $U/t$. Figure \[fig:SSe\_gs\_odd\] shows the deviations in the average single-site entanglement for chains with an odd number of sites $L=3,5$ and $7$. Similarly to the periodic ehavior with respect to $\Theta$ observed in the plots for the ground-state energy $\Delta \epsilon_0(L,n=1,U,\Theta)$, the deviations $\delta S_j (L,n=1,U,\Theta)$ for odd $L$are minima under the special torsion $\Theta^$ and maxima at the points $\Theta^ \pm \pi/2$. For odd $L$, the deviations are constant in small and strong coupling regimes; for intermediate coupling regimes $1 < U/t < 10$, a complex structure arises. ![image](fig10.pdf) The percentual deviations from the Bethe Ansatz in the case of chains with even number of sites is shown in figure \[fig:SSe\_gs\_even\]. The deviation is below $10^{-8}$ in small and strong coupling regimes, being amplified for couplings $1 < U/t < 10$ specially at the torsion $\Theta^*$ ensuring particle-hole symmetry. ![image](fig11.pdf) \[apx:trimer\] Case study: trimer ================================= For instance, consider a trimer $L = 3$ with $\mu=0$. For open and periodic boundary conditions, Hamiltonian of eq. [(\[eq:Hubbard\_BC\])]{} can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:H_trimer_OBC} \hat{H}_{OBC}(L=3) & = - t ({\hat{c}}_{1 \sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{2 \sigma} + {\hat{c}}_{2 \sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{1 \sigma}) - t ({\hat{c}}_{2\sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{3\sigma} + {\hat{c}}_{3\sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{2\sigma}) \nonumber \\ & \hphantom{=} + U {\hat{n}}_{1{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{1 {\downarrow}} + U {\hat{n}}_{2{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{2 {\downarrow}} + + U {\hat{n}}_{3{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{3 {\downarrow}} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:H_trimer_PBC} \hat{H}_{PBC}(L=3) & = \hat{H}_{OBC}(L=3) - t ({\hat{c}}_{1 \sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{3 \sigma} + {\hat{c}}_{3 \sigma}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{1 \sigma}),\end{aligned}$$ respectively. For twisted boundary conditions with twist phase $\theta$ we replace ${\hat{c}^\dagger}_\ell \rightarrow e^{i\theta \ell} {\hat{c}^\dagger}_\ell$ to write the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Hubbard\_BC\])]{} as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:H_trimer_TBC} \hat{H}_{TBC}(L=3) & = -t e^{-i\theta} ( {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{1} {\hat{c}}_{2} + {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{2} {\hat{c}}_{3} + {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{3} {\hat{c}}_{1} ) \nonumber \\& \hphantom{=} - t e^{i\theta} ( {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{2} {\hat{c}}_{1} + {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{3} {\hat{c}}_{2} + {\hat{c}^\dagger}_{1} {\hat{c}}_{3} ) \nonumber \\& \hphantom{=} + U {\hat{n}}_{1{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{1 {\downarrow}} + U {\hat{n}}_{2{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{2 {\downarrow}} + + U {\hat{n}}_{3{\uparrow}} {\hat{n}}_{3 {\downarrow}} .\end{aligned}$$ At half-filling the basis set comprises $18$ states, $9$ associated with $z$ component of spin $S_z = -1/2$ and $9$ with $S_z = +1/2$, which are degenerate. They are: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:basis_trimer_half_filling} \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 1} & = {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{3 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 2} & ={{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{2 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 3} & ={{\hat{c}}_{1 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 4} & = {{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{3 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 5} & = {{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 6} & = {{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 7} & = {{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{2 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 8} & ={{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{1 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{3 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} \nonumber \\ \ket{L=3, S=1/2, S_z=1/2,b = 9} & = {{\hat{c}}_{1 {\uparrow}}^\dagger {\hat{c}}_{1 {\downarrow}}^\dagger} {{\hat{c}}_{2 {\uparrow}}^\dagger} \ket{0} . \end{aligned}$$ Projecting the operator $\hat{H}$ in eq. [(\[eq:H\_trimer\_TBC\])]{} into the basis defined by eq. [(\[eq:basis\_trimer\_half\_filling\])]{}, we obtain the corresponding matrix Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Htrimer_TBC_Sundef} H_{L=3} (\theta)= t \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & e^{i\theta} & 0 & e^{-i\theta} & -e^{i\theta}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & e^{i\theta} & -e^{i\theta} & e^{-i\theta} & -e^{-i\theta} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & e^{-i\theta} & -e^{i\theta} & 0 & -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & e^{i\theta}\\ -e^{i\theta} & 0 & e^{i\theta} & \tilde{U} & e^{-i\theta} & -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & e^{-i\theta} & -e^{-i\theta} & e^{i\theta} & \tilde{U} & 0 & 0 & -e^{i\theta} & 0\\ e^{-i\theta} & -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & -e^{i\theta} & 0 & \tilde{U} & e^{i\theta} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & e^{i\theta} & -e^{i\theta} & 0 & 0 & e^{-i\theta} & \tilde{U} & 0 & -e^{-i\theta}\\ e^{i\theta} & -e^{i\theta} & 0 & 0 & -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & 0 & \tilde{U} & e^{-i\theta}\\ -e^{-i\theta} & 0 & e^{-i\theta} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -e^{i\theta} & e^{i\theta} & \tilde{U} \end{array}\right),$$ where $\tilde{U} = U / t$. Notice that, the periodic boundary condition, can be recovered by choosing $\theta = 0$. As discussed in sec. \[sec:Hubbard\], $\theta = \pi /2$ ensures particle-hole symmetry. In the non-interacting case, $U = 0$ with $\theta = \pi / 2$ the ground-state is a combination of three states $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:GS} \ket{\Psi_0} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \ket{\psi_0} + \frac{1+ i \sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{3}} \ket{\psi_1} - \frac{1 - i \sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{3}} \ket{\psi_2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eigenbasis_trimer} \ket{\psi_0} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (\ket{{\uparrow}\, \, {\uparrow}\, \, {\downarrow}\, }+ \ket{{\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}{\uparrow}} - \ket{{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}{\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}{\uparrow}}) \nonumber \\ \ket{\psi_1} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} ( - \ket{{\uparrow}\, \, {\downarrow}\, \, {\uparrow}\, } + \ket{{\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}\, {\uparrow}{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} - \ket{{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}{\uparrow}\, {\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}}) \nonumber \\ \ket{\psi_2} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} ( \ket{{\downarrow}\, \, {\uparrow}\, \, {\uparrow}\, } + \ket{{\uparrow}\, {\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} - \ket{ {\uparrow}{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}{\uparrow}\! {\downarrow}} ).\end{aligned}$$ In order to calculate the single-site entanglement, we must compute the reduced density matrix by tracing the degrees of fredoom of two sites, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:reduced_density_matrix_trimer} \rho^{k} = {\text{Tr}}_{\ell \neq k} \ket{\Psi_0} \bra{\Psi_0},\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j,k$ refers to the sites labels. On basis of $\ket{\psi}$’s the density matrix is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rhomat+} \rho = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{3} & \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{6} & - \frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{6} \\ \frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{6} & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{6} \\ - \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{6} & \frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{6} & \frac{1}{3} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Let’s first consider the trace over sites $0$ and $1$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Tr01} \rho_{2} & = {\text{Tr}}_{0,1} \big[ \rho \big] \nonumber \\ & = \sum_{\sigma_0, \sigma_1} \bra{\sigma_0 \, \sigma_1 } \rho^+ \ket{\sigma_0 \, \sigma_1 },\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma = {\uparrow}, {\downarrow}$. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Tr01} \rho_{2} & = {\text{Tr}}_{1,3} \big[ \rho \big] .\end{aligned}$$ The reduced density matrix is diagonal since the products of states of sites $0$ and $1$ with each $\ket{\Psi}$ are $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:products} \braket{\sigma_0 \, \sigma_1}{ \psi_0} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \Big[ \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow}} \ket{{\downarrow}} + \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} \ket{{\uparrow}} - \delta_{\sigma_0, {\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \ket{{\uparrow}} \Big] \nonumber \\ \braket{\sigma_0 \, \sigma_1}{ \psi_1} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \Big[ - \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\downarrow}} \ket{{\uparrow}} + \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow}} \ket{{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} - \delta_{\sigma_0, {\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow}} \ket{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \nonumber \\ \braket{\sigma_0 \, \sigma_1}{ \psi_2} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \Big[ \delta_{\sigma_0, {\downarrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow}} \ket{{\uparrow}} + \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \ket{{\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} - \delta_{\sigma_0, {\uparrow}} \delta_{\sigma_1, {\!\rule{.5em}{.4pt}\!}} \ket{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}} \Big],\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:reduced_Tr01} \rho_{2} = \frac{1}{3}\left( \begin{array}{cccc} \|\alpha_1\|^2 + \|\alpha_2\|^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \|\alpha_0\|^2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2\|\alpha_0\|^2 + \|\alpha_1\|^2 + \|\alpha_2\|^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \|\alpha_1\|^2 + \|\alpha_2\|^2 \end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:alphas} \alpha_0 & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \rightarrow \|\alpha_0\|^2 = \frac{1}{3} \nonumber \\ \alpha_1 & = \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{6} \rightarrow \|\alpha_2\|^2 = \frac{1}{3} \nonumber \\ \alpha_2 & = \frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{6} \rightarrow \|\alpha_2\|^2 = \frac{1}{3}, \end{aligned}$$ so that eq. [(\[eq:reduced\_Tr01\])]{} is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:reduced_Tr01} \rho_{2} = & \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{2}{9} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{9} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{4}{9} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{2}{9} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The mean single-site entanglement is therefore $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SSetrimer} S_2 (U = 0)& = - \frac{1}{9} \left[ 4 \log(\frac{2}{9}) + \log(\frac{1}{9}) + 4 \log(\frac{4}{9}) \right] \nonumber \\ & = \approx 1.8365. \end{aligned}$$ The Mott-insulating phase ($U/t \rightarrow \infty$) of the Hubbard trimer is the other limit in which analytical calculations are straightforward. The high price for double occupation reduces the basis set in eq. [(\[eq:basis\_trimer\_half\_filling\])]{} to only three components $\ket{{\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\uparrow}}$, $\ket{{\downarrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}}$ and $\ket{{\uparrow}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}}$. The probabilities to have empty ($\lambda_{\_}$) and double occupied ($\lambda_{{\uparrow \hspace{-0.225em}\downarrow}}$) sites vanishes. Once we fixed the magnetization of the system to be $m = \frac{1}{3}$, $\lambda_{\uparrow}= \frac{2}{3}$ and $\lambda_{\downarrow}= \frac{1}{3}$, so that the single-site entanglement is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SSetrimer} S_2 (U \rightarrow \infty)& = - \frac{1}{3} \left[ 2 \log\left( \frac{2}{3} \right) + \log\left( \frac{1}{3} \right) \right] \nonumber \\ & = \approx 0.9183. \end{aligned}$$ [^1]: We note that phases $0 \leq \Theta \leq \pi$ are symmetric to those from $ 2\pi$ to $\pi$ with the first half of trigonometric circle by $\Theta \rightarrow 2\pi - \Theta$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'After a short status report on chiral perturbation theory, I review recent progress in determining some of the low-energy couplings by matching the effective theory to QCD. Consequences for $K_{l3}$ decays and for the extraction of the CKM matrix element $V_{us}$ are reported. Hadronic vacuum polarization at low energies and its impact on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon are discussed.' author: - Gerhard Ecker title: Progress in Chiral Perturbation Theory --- [ address=[Inst. Theor. Physik, Univ. Wien, Boltzmanng. 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria]{} ]{} Introduction ============ At a time when the LHC is getting ready to open a new era in particle physics, it is legitimate to ask why one should still be interested in QCD (more generally in the Standard Model) at low energies. There are at least two good reasons to pursue the study of QCD in the confinement regime. - It is a challenge for theoretical particle physics to derive reliable results in the nonperturbative domain. An impressive example is pion-pion scattering, one of the few examples in hadron phenomenology at low energies where theory is ahead of experiment [@Colangelo:2001df]. Important information on the mechanism of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking can be extracted from pion-pion scattering, especially from S-wave scattering lengths. The study of QCD in the nonperturbative regime may turn out to be relevant even for LHC physics if the simple Higgs mechanism of the Standard Model turns out to be insufficient to describe electroweak symmetry breaking. - The assessment of physics beyond the Standard Model will remain an important research topic even at much lower than LHC energies. The reduction in energy must be compensated by an increase in precision, both in experiment and in theory. In the long run, lattice gauge theories and low-energy effective field theories will survive as the most comprehensive and reliable approaches in this field. In this talk, I present a short progress report on chiral perturbation theory (CHPT), which is precisely the effective field theory of the Standard Model at low energies. Green functions and amplitudes are dominated at low energies by the exchange of pseudoscalar mesons, the pseudo-Goldstone bosons of spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, allowing for a systematic expansion in momenta and quark masses. I discuss recent progress in determining some of the a priori unknown coupling constants of CHPT, a recent CHPT analysis of $K_{l3}$ decays to extract the CKM matrix element $V_{us}$ and, finally, very recent developments concerning the determination of hadronic vacuum polarization, a topic of great importance for comparing the Standard Model prediction of the muon magnetic moment with experiment. The extension of CHPT to the intermediate-energy region dominated by meson resonances is covered by J. Portolés [@JP_QCDW]. Status of chiral perturbation theory ==================================== The spontaneously and explicitly broken chiral symmetry of QCD is the key feature of CHPT. The corresponding Lagrangian is organized in an expansion in derivatives (vestige of spontaneous symmetry breaking) and in quark masses (explicit breaking). CHPT is a nonrenormalizable quantum field theory that must nevertheless be renormalized like any respectable quantum field theory. The main difference to renormalizable theories is the rapidly increasing number of low-energy constants (LECs) in higher orders of CHPT. As a low-energy effective field theory, CHPT can be applied to processes with momenta $\ll$ 1 GeV. In the mesonic sector, the original effective chiral Lagrangian of next-to-leading order [@Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg] has been extended to next-to-next-to-leading order [@Bijnens:1999sh] or $O(p^6)$ in the standard chiral counting. At this order, diagrams with up to two loops have to be taken into account for a consistent low-energy expansion (see Ref. [@Bijnens:2004pk] for a recent review). Still in the meson sector, the formalism of CHPT has been extended to incorporate the nonleptonic weak interactions and to implement radiative corrections for strong processes as well as for semileptonic and nonleptonic weak decays. The corresponding Lagrangians and the associated number of LECs are displayed in Table \[tab:EFTSM\]. As the Table indicates, the state of the art for these extensions is next-to-leading order with at most one-loop amplitudes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- ${\cal L}_{\rm chiral\; order}$ ($\#$ of LECs) loop order \[8pt\] ${\cal L}_{p^2}(2)$ + ${\cal L}_{G_Fp^2}^{\Delta S=1}(2)$ + ${\cal L}_{e^2p^0}^{\rm em}(1)$ + ${\cal L}_{G_8e^2p^0}^{\rm emweak}(1)$ $L=0$ \[15pt\] + ${\cal L}_{p^4}(10)$ + ${\cal L}_{p^6}^{\rm odd}(32)$ + ${\cal L}_{G_8p^4}^{\Delta S=1}(22)$ + ${\cal L}_{G_{27}p^4}^{\Delta S=1}(28)$ $L=1$ \[3pt\] + ${\cal L}_{e^2p^2}^{\rm em}(14)$ + ${\cal L}_{G_8e^2p^2}^{\rm emweak}(14)$ + ${\cal L}_{e^2p}^{\rm leptons}(5)$ \[15pt\] + ${\cal L}_{p^6}(90)$ $L=2$ \[8pt\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- : The effective chiral Lagrangian of the SM in the meson sector. The numbers in brackets refer to the number of independent couplings for $N_f=3$. The parameter-free Wess-Zumino-Witten action that cannot be written as the four-dimensional integral of an invariant Lagrangian must be added.[]{data-label="tab:EFTSM"} Effective chiral Lagrangians have also been employed for baryonic processes [@Bernard:1995dp] and for light nuclei [@Bedaque:2002mn]. Low-energy constants ==================== As Table \[tab:EFTSM\] shows, a major problem of CHPT is the abundance of LECs in higher orders of the chiral expansion. For a phenomenological determination of those constants, two types of LECs can be distinguished. - The associated contributions survive in the chiral limit. Such LECs govern the momentum dependence of amplitudes and are at least in principle accessible experimentally. - The couplings are associated with explicit chiral symmetry breaking. Such LECs specify the quark mass dependence of amplitudes. They are difficult if not impossible to extract from experiment but they are accessible in lattice QCD. However, at the present level of sophistication it is unrealistic to expect a phenomenological determination of all LECs even of type i only. Instead, some progress has been made recently in matching CHPT to QCD by investigating specific Green functions in the limit of large $N_C$. As in every effective field theory, the LECs are sensitive to the “heavy” degrees of freedom not represented by explicit fields in the Lagrangian. Experience shows that truncation of the infinitely many intermediate states (for $N_C \to \infty$) to the lowest-lying resonances is usually sufficient. Instead of reviewing the matching procedure in general, I discuss two specific examples recently considered that have some impact on topics of current interest. Radiative semileptonic decays ----------------------------- In the discussion of radiative corrections for semileptonic kaon decays the Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{e^2p}^{\rm leptons}$ [@Knecht:1999ag] in Table \[tab:EFTSM\] enters. In a two-step procedure, the Fermi theory of semileptonic decays was matched to both the Standard Model and CHPT [@Descotes-Genon:2005pw] resulting in spectral representations for all five LECs in ${\cal L}_{e^2p}^{\rm leptons}$. Let me concentrate here on one of those LECs ($X_1$) that will be relevant later on. The authors of Ref. [@Descotes-Genon:2005pw] obtain the following representation for $X_1$, $$X_1 = \displaystyle\frac{3i}{8} \displaystyle\int \displaystyle\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\left(\Gamma_{VV}(k^2) - \Gamma_{AA}(k^2) \right)/k^2 ~,$$ in terms of vertex functions ($V_\mu^a$ is an $SU(3)$ vector current and $\phi^c$ is a member of the pseudoscalar octet) $$\Gamma_{VV}(k^2) \sim \displaystyle\lim_{p \to 0} \displaystyle\int d^4 x e^{i k x} \langle 0\|T\, V_\mu^a(x) V_\nu^b(0)\| \phi^c(p) \rangle$$ and similarly for $\Gamma_{AA}(k^2)$. The integral converges well and, when saturated with the lowest-lying $V,A$ meson resonances, produces a value $X_1=-0.0037$ [@Descotes-Genon:2005pw] to be used for the analysis of $K_{l3}$ decays. Strong LECs of ${\mathbf}{O(p^6)}$ ---------------------------------- The second example concerns LECs that appear in the $K_{l3}$ amplitudes at $O(p^6)$. The Green function of interest is the three-point function of scalar and pseudoscalar densities: $$i^2\! \int \! dx\, dy \, e^{i px +i qy + irz} \langle 0 \| T S^a (x) P^b (y) P^c (z) \| 0 \rangle = d^{abc} \,\Pi_{SPP} (p^2,q^2,r^2) ~.$$ At low energies, $\Pi_{SPP}$ is given in terms of LECs of $O(p^4)$ and $O(p^6)$ since loop contributions are subdominant for large $N_C$. At high momenta, the operator product expansion (OPE) fixes the behaviour of $\Pi_{SPP}$ that vanishes in QCD perturbation theory as an order parameter of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Additional constraints apply for (transition) form factors at large momentum transfer, with two external momenta on shell. To interpolate between CHPT and QCD, a large-$N_C$ motivated ansatz can be employed [@Cirigliano:2005xn]: $$\Pi_{SPP}^{{{{\cal S}}{{\cal P}}}}(s,t,u) = \frac{P_0+P_1+P_2+P_3+P_4}{[{M_S}^2 -s][-t][-u][{M_P}^2-t][{M_P}^2-u]}~,$$ with polynomials $P_n$ of degree $n$ in $s,t,u$ (altogether 21 parameters). The OPE limits $n \le 4$ and lowest-order CHPT fixes the constant $P_0$. The high-energy conditions constrain the polynomials $P_1, P_2$ of direct relevance for the LECs. The final relations for the $O(p^6)$ LECs of interest are [@Cirigliano:2005xn] $$\begin{aligned} {C^{{{{\cal S}}{{\cal P}}}}}_{12} = - \displaystyle\frac{F^2}{8 {M_S}^4}~,\, & {C^{{{{\cal S}}{{\cal P}}}}}_{34} = \displaystyle\frac{3 \, F^2}{16 {M_S}^4} + \displaystyle\frac{d_m^2}{2} \left(\displaystyle\frac{1}{{M_S}^2} - \displaystyle\frac{1}{{M_P}^2} \right)^2\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the masses $M_S, M_P$ of the lowest-lying (pseudo-)scalar nonets, the pion decay constant $F$ and a resonance coupling $d_m ~\sim ~F/(2\sqrt{2})$. All parameters refer to the chiral limit. The first interpretation of these results is not too encouraging. There are big uncertainties related to the value of $M_S$ in particular and to the rather strong scale dependence of $C_{12}$ and $C_{34}$, which is however inaccessible at leading order in $1/N_C$. ${\mathbf}{K_{\lowercase{l3}}}$ and ${\mathbf}{V_{\lowercase{us}}}$ =================================================================== The analysis of $K_{l3}$ decays allows for the presently most accurate determination of the CKM matrix element $V_{us}$. In general, two form factors characterize the decay matrix element: $$\langle \pi^- (p_\pi) \| \bar{s} \gamma_\mu u \| K^0 (p_K) \rangle = f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (t) \, (p_K + p_\pi)_\mu + f_{-}^{K^0 \pi^-} (t) \, (p_K - p_\pi)_\mu ~.$$ Of special interest for the determination of $V_{us}$ is the quantity $f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0)$ with the following chiral expansion: $$f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0) = 1 + f_{p^4} + f_{e^2\,p^2} + f_{p^6} + O[(m_u - m_d)p^4,e^2\,p^4] ~.$$ The present status is as follows: ---------------- -- ------------------------------- -- --------------------------------- $f_{p^4}$ $- 0.0227$ (no uncertainty) [@Gasser:1984ux] $f_{e^2\,p^2}$ radiative corrections ($X_i$) [@Cirigliano:2004pv] $f_{p^6}$ loop contributions [@Post:2001si; @Bijnens:2003uy] tree contributions $L_5^2$, $C_{12}+C_{34}$ ---------------- -- ------------------------------- -- --------------------------------- For a first comparison with experiment, consider the ratio [@Cirigliano:2004pv] $$\begin{aligned} r_{+0} := \left( \frac{2 \, \Gamma(K^+_{e 3 (\gamma)}) \, M_{K^0}^5 \, I_{K^0}}{\Gamma(K^0_{e 3 (\gamma)}) \, M_{K^+}^5 \, I_{K^+}} \right)^{1/2} = \displaystyle\frac{\|f_{+}^{K^+ \pi^0} (0)\|}{\|f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0)\|} ~. \end{aligned}$$ The theoretical prediction for $r_{+0}$ is independent of $f_{p^6}$. The only previously unknown LEC in $r_{+0}$ is $X_1$. With the newly determined value for $X_1$ [@Descotes-Genon:2005pw] and using quadratic fits for the form factors to extract $f_+(0)$ from the data, one finds [@Mescia:2004xd; @HN05] $$\begin{aligned} r_{+0}^{\rm th} &=& 1.023 \pm 0.003 {\nonumber \\}r_{+0}^{\rm exp} &=& 1.036 \pm 0.008 ~.\end{aligned}$$ A possible discrepancy between theory and experiment for $r_{+0}$ could be due to several reasons: radiative corrections applied by experimentalists are not always state of the art, the lifetimes of $K^+, K_L$ may still undergo revisions and the error in $r_{+0}^{\rm th}$ due to neglected effects of $O[(m_u - m_d)p^4,e^2\,p^4]$ could be underestimated. Turning now to $f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0)$, the uncertainty in the $O(p^6)$ contribution $f_{p^6}$ is mainly due to the LECs. Loop and local contributions are separately scale dependent. The loop contributions at the scale $\mu=M_\rho$ amount to [@Bijnens:2003uy] $$f_{p^6}^{L=1,2} (M_\rho) = 0.0093 \pm 0.0005 ~.$$ The local contribution is given by $$f_{p^6}^{\rm tree} (M_\rho) = 8 \frac{\left( M_K^2 - M_\pi^2 \right)^2}{F_\pi^2} \, \left[\frac{\left(L_5^r (M_\rho) \right)^2}{F_\pi^2} - C_{12}^r (M_\rho) - C_{34}^r (M_\rho) \right] ~.$$ The results of large-$N_C$ matching discussed in the previous section can be read off from Fig. \[fig:spp\]. The separate contributions $L_5^2$ and $C_{12} + C_{34}$ depend strongly both on the uncertain scalar resonance mass $M_S$ and on the renormalization scale. However, as shown in Fig. \[fig:spp\] for the $M_S$ dependence, both uncertainties are substantially reduced for the relevant combination entering $f_{p^6}^{\rm tree} (M_\rho)$. (300,175) (110,65)[(50,50)]{} (260,-5)[ $M_S \ ({\rm GeV})$ ]{} (-55,160)[ $ f_{p^6}^{\rm tree} (M_\rho) $ ]{} (110,140)[ [$L_5 \times L_5 / F_\pi^2 $ ]{} ]{} (100,50)[ [$- (C_{12} + C_{34})$ ]{} ]{} A strong destructive interference between the two local contributions is observed. The final result (allowing for a second pseudoscalar multiplet $P^\prime$) is [@Cirigliano:2005xn] $$\begin{aligned} f_{p^6}^{\rm tree} (M_\rho) &=& - 0.002 \pm 0.008_{\, 1/N_C} \pm 0.002_{\, M_S} \,\mbox{}_{- 0.002}^{+0.000} \,\mbox{}_{\, P^\prime} {\nonumber \\}f_{p^6} &=& 0.007 \pm 0.012 {\nonumber \\}f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0) &=& 0.984 \pm 0.012 ~.\end{aligned}$$ We find less $SU(3)$ breaking in $f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0)$ compared to Leutwyler and Roos [@Leutwyler:1984je], with $f_{p^6}$ being dominated by the loop contribution. From the experimental result [@Mescia:2004xd] $f_{+}^{K^0 \pi^-} (0) \cdot \|V_{us}\| = 0.2160(10)$ one obtains $$\|V_{us}\| = 0.2195 \pm 0.0027_{f_+(0)} \pm 0.0010_{\rm exp} ~.$$ Before observing a possible conflict with CKM unitarity (the PDG value [@pdg04] for $V_{ud}$ gives rise to $\|V_{us}\|^{\rm unitarity} = 0.2265 \pm 0.0022$), the following remarks are in order. - A new result for the neutron lifetime [@Serebrov:2004zf] would prefer a value for $V_{ud}$ in perfect agreement with $\|V_{us}\| = 0.2195$ and unitarity. - A recent analysis of semileptonic hyperon decays [@Acosta:2005iw] yields $\|V_{us}\| = 0.2199 \pm 0.0026$. After the Workshop, the uncertainties of extracting $V_{us}$ from semileptonic hyperon decays have been reassessed in Ref. [@Mateu:2005wi]. - To achieve an accuracy of better than 1% for $V_{us}$, the differences between $K^+$ and $K^0$ results must be straightened out. An independent check of the theoretical estimate for the LECs of $O(p^6)$ is provided by the slope $\lambda_0$ of the scalar form factor (accessible in $K_{\mu 3}$ decays) that depends on the same LECs $C_{12},C_{34}$ as $f_{+}(0)$. -------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------- Ref. Cirigliano et al. [@Cirigliano:2005xn] KTeV [@Alexopoulos:2004sy] \[.2cm\] $\lambda_0\cdot 10^3$ $13 \pm 3$ $13.72 \pm 1.31$ -------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------- Hadronic vacuum polarization and ${\mathbf}{(\lowercase{g}-2)_\mu}$ =================================================================== At present, the biggest uncertainty in the evaluation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $a_\mu$ in the Standard Model is due to hadronic vacuum polarization at lowest order in $\alpha$ (shown in Fig. \[fig:amu\]) that is directly related to the cross section $\sigma(e^+ e^- \to$ hadrons). About 73 % of $a_\mu^{\mathrm}{vac.pol.}$ comes from the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ final state, the low-energy part being especially important. ![Contribution of lowest-order hadronic vacuum polarization to the muon magnetic moment.[]{data-label="fig:amu"}](gmudia){height=".2\textheight"} In the isospin limit, the two-pion contribution to hadronic vacuum polarization can also be obtained from the decay $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$ [@Alemany:1997tn]. At the level of accuracy needed for a comparison with the measured value of $a_\mu$ [@Bennett:2004pv], isospin violating and electromagnetic corrections must be included [@Cirigliano:2002pv; @Davier:2003pw]. However, until recently the two-pion spectral functions from $e^+ e^-$ annihilation and from $\tau$ decays seemed to differ significantly especially above the $\rho$ region, even after accounting for isospin violating effects. The value of $a_\mu^{\pi\pi}$ on the basis of the most precise $e^+ e^-$ data from the CMD-2 Collaboration [@Akhmetshin:2003zn] was then confirmed by KLOE [@Denig:2005eb] although the actually measured $\pi\pi$ cross sections are not in very good agreement. The consensus among many experts in the field was spelled out by Höcker at last year’s High Energy Conference in Beijing [@Hocker:2004xc]: until the origin of the discrepancy between $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau$ data is understood the $\tau$ data should be ignored for the evaluation of $a_\mu$. A recent analysis of Maltman [@Maltman:2005yk] suggests a new perspective on this issue. He investigates so-called pinched FESR of the type $$\displaystyle\int_0^{s_0} w(s) \rho(s) ds = -\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi\,i} \oint_{\|s\|=s_0} w(s) \Pi(s) ds \label{FESR}$$ for current correlators $\Pi(s)$ with associated spectral functions $\rho(s)$. The spectral functions of interest here are the electromagnetic spectral function $\rho_{\rm em}$ measured in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation and the charged $I=1$ vector current spectral function $\rho_V^{I=1}$ accessible in $\tau$ decays. The weight function $w(s)$ is a positive definite analytic function in the complex $s$-plane for $\|s\| \le s_0$, but otherwise arbitrary except for the constraint $w(s_0)=0$ to minimize duality violations (pinching). The left-hand side of the FESR (\[FESR\]) is evaluated with experimental input (CMD-2 [@Akhmetshin:2003zn] and ALEPH [@Barate:1997hv]) whereas the right-hand side is calculated from QCD with the help of the OPE. The freedom of choosing the weight function $w(s)$ can be employed to eliminate the dimension $D=6$ OPE contributions altogether. The right-hand side is then mainly sensitive to the $D=0$ perturbative part known up to $O(\alpha_s^3)$, with weaker dependences on $m_s$ (in the $D=2$ piece) and on $D=4$ quark and gluon condensates. Effects with $D \ge 8$ can be kept under control by varying $s_0$. Discarding all low-energy input for the determination of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (such as the $\tau$ data that are to be tested with FESR), Maltman obtains a value $$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1200 \pm 0.0020 \label{as}$$ to be used for the right-hand side of (\[FESR\]). A first test performed in Ref. [@Maltman:2005yk] consists in fitting $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ from the experimentally determined spectral integrals (left-hand side), leaving all other input for the right-hand side unchanged. The results for two typical weight functions $w_1, w_6$ are shown in Table \[tab:as\], to be compared with the best value from high-energy data in Eq. (\[as\]). Taking into account that the weights are positive definite, the results in Table \[tab:as\] indicate that the electromagnetic spectral density is too low whereas the $\tau$ spectral data are in perfect agreement with the canonical value of $\alpha_s$. \[tab:as\] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- weight type $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ -------- -------- ----------------------------------------------------------- $w_1$ em 0.1138$\begin{array}{l} + 0.0030 \\ - 0.0035 \end{array}$ $w_6$ em 0.1150$\begin{array}{l} + 0.0022 \\ - 0.0026 \end{array}$ $w_1$ $\tau$ 0.1218$\begin{array}{l} + 0.0027 \\ - 0.0032 \end{array}$ $w_6$ $\tau$ 0.1201$\begin{array}{l} + 0.0020 \\ - 0.0022 \end{array}$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Fitted values of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ from experimentally determined spectral integrals for two different weight functions [@Maltman:2005yk]. A second independent consistency check of the data comes from a comparison of the two sides in Eq. (\[FESR\]) for different values of $s_0$ [@Maltman:2005yk]. When plotting the spectral integrals as functions of $s_0$ one arrives at a similar conclusion as before: the slopes in the electromagnetic case differ by about 2.5 $\sigma$ between data and QCD. On the other hand, the $\tau$ data show perfect consistency both for the slope and in absolute normalization (depending on $\alpha_s$). The conclusions of Ref. [@Maltman:2005yk] are very convincing even if the statistical weight is not overwhelming: the sum rule tests clearly favour the $\tau$ over the $e^+ e^-$ data. The status of $a_\mu$ at the time of the Workshop can be summarized as follows [@Davier:2004gb]: $$\left(a_\mu^{\mathrm}{exp} - a_\mu^{\mathrm}{SM}\right)\cdot 10^{10} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 23.9 \pm 9.9 & (2.4 ~\sigma) ~~[e^+ e^-]\\ 7.6 \pm 8.9 & (0.9 ~\sigma) ~~[\tau, e^+ e^-] \end{array} \right. ~.$$ Using the isospin corrected $\tau$ data for the $2\pi$ and $4\pi$ final states thus leads to agreement between theory and experiment to better than 1 $\sigma$. Two weeks after the Workshop, new $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ data were released [@Achasov:2005rg] that appear to lie between the CMD-2 and the (isospin corrected) ALEPH data. Conclusions =========== In the meson sector, chiral perturbation theory has been pushed to next-to-next-to-leading order. At this order, the main limitation for further progress is the abundance of coupling constants, an unavoidable feature of a nonrenormalizable effective field theory. Some progress has been made recently in estimating those constants by using large-$N_C$ methods to interpolate between CHPT and QCD. CHPT is the only reliable approach for calculating electromagnetic and isospin violating corrections for hadronic processes at low energies. This is in particular important for the analysis of $K_{l3}$ decays in order to extract the CKM matrix element $V_{us}$ to better than 1 % accuracy. Recent sum rule tests [@Maltman:2005yk] favour $\tau$ over $e^+ e^-$ data for evaluating the hadronic vacuum polarization at low and intermediate energies. As a consequence, there is at present no conflict between the Standard Model and experiment for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. This work has been supported in part by HPRN-CT2002-00311 (EURIDICE). I thank Helmut Neufeld for discussions and for numerical help with the ratio $r_{+0}$. Special thanks and congratulations to Pietro Colangelo, Fulvia De Fazio, Giuseppe Nardulli and their team for a very successful Workshop. [99]{} G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [603]{} (2001) 125 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103088\]. J. Portolés, these Proceedings. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. [158]{} (1984) 142. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [250]{} (1985) 465. J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker, JHEP [9902]{} (1999) 020 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9902437\]. For a recent review see J. Bijnens, arXiv:hep-ph/0409068. V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U. G. Meißner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [4]{} (1995) 193 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9501384\]. P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [52]{} (2002) 339 \[arXiv:nucl-th/0203055\]. M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger and P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C [12]{} (2000) 469 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9909284\]. S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [42]{} (2005) 403 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0505077\]. V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, M. Eidemüller, R. Kaiser, A. Pich and J. Portoles, JHEP [0504]{}, 006 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503108\]. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [250]{} (1985) 517. V. Cirigliano, H. Neufeld and H. Pichl, Eur. Phys. J. C [35]{} (2004) 53 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0401173\]. P. Post and K. Schilcher, Eur. Phys. J. C [25]{} (2002) 427 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0112352\]. J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [669]{} (2003) 341 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0303103\]; see also http://www.thep.lu.se/$\sim$bijnens/chpt.html. F. Mescia, arXiv:hep-ph/0411097. H. Neufeld, private communication. H. Leutwyler and M. Roos, Z. Phys. C [25]{} (1984) 91. S. Eidelman et al. \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [592]{} (2004) 1. A. Serebrov et al., Phys. Lett. B [605]{} (2005) 72 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0408009\]. R. Acosta and R. Flores-Mendieta, arXiv:hep-ph/0501231. V. Mateu and A. Pich, arXiv:hep-ph/0509045. T. Alexopoulos [et al.]{} \[KTeV Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [70]{} (2004) 092007 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0406003\]. R. Alemany, M. Davier and A. Höcker, Eur. Phys. J. C [2]{} (1998) 123 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9703220\]. G. W. Bennett [et al.]{} \[Muon g-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [92]{} (2004) 161802 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0401008\]. V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker and H. Neufeld, JHEP [0208]{} (2002) 002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207310\]; Phys. Lett. B [513]{} (2001) 361 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0104267\]. M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. Höcker and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C [31]{} (2003) 503 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308213\]. R. R. Akhmetshin [et al.]{} \[CMD-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [578]{} (2004) 285 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0308008\]. A. G. Denig \[KLOE Collaboration\], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [20]{} (2005) 1935. A. Höcker, arXiv:hep-ph/0410081. K. Maltman, arXiv:hep-ph/0504201. R. Barate [et al.]{} \[ALEPH Collaboration\], Z. Phys. C [76]{} (1997) 15. M. Davier and W. J. Marciano, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [54]{} (2004) 115. M. N. Achasov [et al.]{}, arXiv:hep-ex/0506076.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Electron temperatures derived from the recombination line ratios, designated $T_{\rm e}$(), are presented for 48 planetary nebulae (PNe). We study the effect that temperature fluctuations inside nebulae have on the $T_{\rm e}$() value. We show that a comparison between $T_{\rm e}$() and the electron temperature derived from the Balmer jump of the recombination spectrum, designated $T_{\rm e}$(), provides an opportunity to discriminate between the paradigms of a chemically homogeneous plasma with temperature and density variations, and a two-abundance nebular model with hydrogen-deficient material embedded in diffuse gas of a “normal” chemical composition (i.e. $\sim$ solar), as the possible causes of the dichotomy between the abundances that are deduced from collisionally excited lines to those deduced from recombination lines. We find that $T_{\rm e}$() values are significantly lower than $T_{\rm e}$() values, with an average difference of $\langle T_{\rm e}$()-$T_{\rm e}$()$\rangle=4000$K. The result is consistent with the expectation of the two-abundance nebular model but is opposite to the prediction of the scenarios of temperature fluctuations and/or density inhomogeneities. From the observed difference between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$(), we estimate that the filling factor of hydrogen-deficient components has a typical value of $10^{-4}$. In spite of its small mass, the existence of hydrogen-deficient inclusions may potentially have a profound effect in enhancing the intensities of recombination lines and thereby lead to apparently overestimated helium abundances for PNe. author: - 'Y. Zhang' - 'X.-W. Liu' - 'Y. Liu' - 'R. H. Rubin' title: Helium recombination spectra as temperature diagnostics for planetary nebulae --- Introduction ============ Two long-standing problems in nebular astrophysics are a) heavy element abundances relative to hydrogen obtained from collisionally excited lines (CELs) are generally lower than those determined from optical recombination lines (ORLs); and b) electron temperatures deduced from the collisionally excited \[\] nebular-to-auroral forbidden line ratio – hereafter $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) – are systematically higher than those determined from the Balmer jump (BJ) of recombination spectrum – hereafter $T_{\rm e}$() – (see @liu209 for a recent review). Several solutions have been proposed for the discrepancies. @peim67 showed that temperature fluctuations within nebulae can lead to a $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) which overestimates the average emission temperature of the recombination spectrum and the \[\] nebular lines. As a consequence, the O$^{2+}$/H$^+$ ionic abundance ratio derived from the intensity ratio of the \[\] nebular lines to H$\beta$, assuming $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) as the electron temperature, may be grossly underestimated. The presence of temperature fluctuations will also lead to a $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) that is systematically higher than $T_{\rm e}$(), the temperature derived from the recombination spectrum. Evidence in favor of this was first presented by [@peim71] who measured values of $T_{\rm e}$() in several H [ii]{} regions and planetary nebulae (PNe) from the observed magnitude of the H [i]{} Balmer jump and found that they are systematically lower than the corresponding values of $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) of the same nebulae. A parameter $t^2$ was introduced by @peim67 to characterize the magnitude of temperature fluctuations in a given nebula. The scenario has however been found to be unable to account for the low abundances derived from temperature-insensitive IR CELs. High quality measurements of IR fine-structure lines with the [Infrared Space Observatory]{} ([ISO]{}) for a number of PNe have shown that these lines of very low excitation energies generally yield abundances similar to the values inferred from optical/UV CELs. Again they are lower with respect to ORL abundances [e.g. @liubarlow2000; @liuyi04b; @tsamis04]. Moreover, recent observational studies of several samples of PNe show that typical values of $t^2$ derived by comparing $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) and $T_{\rm e}$() are so large that they are well beyond the predictions of any photoionization models [@liu93; @zhang2004] unless extra energy input (such as from magnetic reconnection or from shocks) is considered. A more plausible solution for the discrepancies of temperature and abundance determinations using CELs and ORLs is the two-component nebular model with hydrogen-deficient inclusions embedded in the diffuse nebula first proposed by [@liubarlow2000]. Unlike the purely phenomenological temperature fluctuations scenario, the two-component nebular model provides a physical explanation for the temperature and abundance determination discrepancies. The model assumes that there is a small amount of H-deficient material embedded in the diffuse nebula of “normal” composition. Due to the much enhanced cooling rates by IR fine-structure lines of heavy element ions as a result of the high metallicity, hydrogen-deficient inclusions have so low an electron temperature that they emit copiously in ORLs but essentially not at all in CELs. In this scenario, the high heavy elemental abundances yielded by ORLs simply reflect the enhanced metallicity in those H-deficient inclusions, rather than representing the overall chemical composition of the whole nebula. Detailed two-abundance photoionization models incorporating H-deficient inclusions have been constructed by @pequignot. The models provide a satisfying explanation for the apparent large discrepancies between the results of temperature and abundance determinations using CELs and ORLs, for the PNe , and . Contrary to the temperature fluctuations scenario, the two-component nebular model does not need any extra energy input to reproduce the large temperature inhomogeneities within PNe. On the other hand, the presence of such H-deficient inclusions is not predicted by any of the current theories of the nucleosynthesis and evolution of low- and intermediate-mass stars and their nature and origin remain unclear. One possibility is that they are evaporating icy planetesimals (Liu 2003). More plasma diagnostic methods are helpful to probe nebular physical structure and to advance our understanding of the aforementioned fundamental problems. Earlier studies [e.g. @peimbert2000; @peimbert2002] show that temperature fluctuations can affect the intensities of lines. @peimbert1995 presented a method to determine the average emission temperature of lines, – hereafter $T_{\rm e}$() – by adjusting the optical depth, the $t^2$ parameter and electron temperature to reconcile the He$^+$/H$^+$ ratios yielded by individual lines. The method however requires accurate atomic data in addition to high quality line intensity measurements. Increasingly reliable atomic data are becoming available. A calculation for the effective recombination coefficients of a selection of lines was given by @smits1996. @sawey studied the contributions of collisional excitation from the He$^0$ 2s$^3$S and 2s$^1$S meta-stable levels by electron impacts to the observed fluxes of lines. Combining the recombination data of @smits1996 and the collision strengths of @sawey, @benjamin presented improved line emission coefficients and fit the results with analytical formulae. More recently, @benjamin2002 studied the effects of the optical depth of the 2s$^3$S meta-stable level on line intensities. The availability of these improved atomic data has made it possible to obtain secure measurements of $T_{\rm e}$(), given high quality spectroscopic data. The main goal of the current paper is to demonstrate that emission lines provide a valuable probe of nebular thermal structure and a method to discriminate different scenarios proposed as the causes of the CEL versus ORL temperature and abundance determination discrepancies. In Section 2, we present electron temperatures derived from lines and confront the results with the predictions of the scenarios of temperature fluctuations, density inhomogeneities and of the two-abundance nebular model in Section 3. We summarize our results in Section 4. Electron temperatures from lines ================================ Method and atomic data ---------------------- @benjamin provide analytic formulae for the emissivities of lines as a function of electron temperature for $N_{\rm e} = 10^2, 10^4$ and $10^6$cm$^{-3}$, including contributions from recombinations of He$^+$ with electrons [@smits1996] and from the effects of collisional excitation from the 2s$^3$S and 2s$^1$S meta-stable levels [@sawey]. Using their formulae, the intensity ratio of two lines is given by $$\frac{I_1}{I_2}=\frac{a_1}{a_2}T_{\rm e4}^{b_1-b_2} \exp(\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{\rm e4}}),$$ where $T_{\rm e4}=T_{\rm e}/10^4$K. Values of the fitting parameters $a_i$, $b_i$ and $c_i$ are given by @benjamin for the temperature range 5000–20000K, within which the emissivity fits have a maximum error of less than 5%. For lower temperatures, we have obtained similar fits using the numerical values given by @smits1996 and @sawey and present the results in Appendix A. For singlet lines, Case B recombination was assumed. By measuring the intensity ratio of two recombination lines, one can in principle determine the electron temperature from Eq. (1). This is however not an easy task given the relatively weak dependence of the line ratio on temperature. Apart from recombination and collision excitation, other minor effects that can potentially affect the observed line intensities may also need to be considered, such as self-absorption from the meta-stable 2s$^3$S level which can be significantly populated under typical nebular conditions. In order to achieve the best measurements of the average line emission temperature, one needs to take into account a variety of considerations, including the strengths and ability to measure the lines involved in the ratio, the accuracy and reliability of the atomic data for the lines, the sensitivity of the ratio to $T_{\rm e}$, and the magnitudes of contaminations by other unwanted side effects such as collisional excitation and self-absorption. After a thorough investigation, we decided that the best line ratio suitable for temperature determinations is probably the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$, for the following reasons: 1) The $\lambda\lambda7281,6678$ lines are amongst the strongest lines observable in the optical, after the $\lambda$5876 and $\lambda$4471 lines, and both lines fall in a spectral region clear of serious telluric absorption/emission and blending by any other known strong spectral features (see Fig. \[spec\] for a typical nebular spectrum showing the relevant spectral region); 2) The atomic data associated with the $\lambda\lambda7281,6678$ lines are amongst the best determined; 3) The $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratio is more sensitive to temperature but less sensitive to density compared to other ratios of strong lines; 4) Both the $\lambda6678$ and $\lambda7281$ lines are from singlet states and thus are essentially unaffected by the optical depth effects of the 2s$^3$S level; 5) Given the small wavelength span between the $\lambda\lambda7281,6678$ lines, measurements of their intensity ratio are less sensitive to any uncertainties in reddening corrections and flux calibration [c.f. also @liuyi04b]. Results ------- In this work, a total of 48 PNe are analyzed. Amongst them, 23 were observed with the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope at La Palma and the ESO 1.52m telescope, as described in @zhang2004. For the remaining sources, spectral data are from @liuyi04a, @tsamis, @wesson04, @ruiz2003 and @peimbert2004. The corresponding references are listed in the last column of Table \[result\]. In Fig. \[ra\_te\], we plot the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratio versus $T_{\rm e}$( $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$) for different electron densities. The observed $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratios along with measurement uncertainties are also overplotted. The electron densities of individual nebulae are taken from @zhang2004, @liuyi04a, @tsamis, @wesson04, @ruiz2003 and @peimbert2004. The observed line fluxes have been corrected for dust extinction using reddening constants taken from the same references. The resultant electron temperatures derived from the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratio are presented in Table \[result\]. The associated uncertainties were estimated based on the line ratio measurement errors. Inspection of Fig. \[ra\_te\] shows that most PNe in our sample have $T_{\rm e}$() less than $10\,000$K. For this low temperature regime, the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratio is quite insensitive to electron density. Thus our temperature determinations should be hardly affected by any uncertainties in density measurements. For comparison, we have also determined temperatures using the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda5876$ ratio. For this ratio, additional uncertainties may arise due to the optical depth effects of the 2s$^3$S level on the intensity of the $\lambda5876$ line. Based on the line emissivities given by @benjamin2002, we have also plotted in Fig. \[ra\_te2\] one curve showing the variations of the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda5876$ ratio as a function of $T_{\rm e}$ for the case of $N_{\rm e}=10^4$cm$^{-3}$ and $\tau_{3889} = 100$, the optical depth at the centre of the 2s$^3$S – 3p$^3$P$^{\rm o}$ $\lambda$3889 line. Fig. \[ra\_te2\] shows that uncertainties in $\tau_{3889}$ may in principle lead to an error of approximately 1000K in temperature determinations and that the uncertainty increases with increasing temperature. Values of $T_{\rm e}$() derived from the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda5876$ ratio are also tabulated in Table. \[result\]. Possible errors caused by uncertainties in $\tau_{3889}$ have not been included in the error estimates. In Fig. \[hehe\], we compare electron temperatures derived from the $\lambda7281/\lambda6678$ ratio and from the $\lambda7281/\lambda5876$ ratio. Inspection of the figure shows that temperatures derived from the two ratios are generally in good agreement. There is however some evidence that the $\lambda7281/\lambda5876$ ratio tends to yield lower temperatures. Two effects may be responsible for the small offsets. In our calculations, the possible effects of self-absorption on the intensity of the $\lambda5876$ line were not considered. If $\tau_{3889}>0$, then our calculations may have systematically underestimated the $\lambda7281/\lambda5876$ temperatures (c.f. Fig. \[ra\_te2\]). Alternatively, if there is some small departure from pure Case B to Case A recombination for the singlet lines, then our calculations may have underestimated temperatures derived from both ratios. But this effect is expected to be small for temperatures derived from the $\lambda7281/\lambda6678$ ratio as both lines involved in the ratio are from singlet spectral terms, and as a result the effect may have largely canceled out. It is difficult to discriminate between these two possibilities. In any case, the relatively small offset between the two temperatures as shown in Fig. \[hehe\] suggests that both effects are not large and should not have affected our temperature determinations by a significant amount. Table \[result\] also lists values of $T_{\rm e}$(), the temperature derived from the ratio of the hydrogen Balmer discontinuity at 3646[Å]{} to H11 $\lambda3770$, taken from @zhang2004. A comparison between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() is given in Fig. \[heihi\]. It shows that, with the only exception of , $T_{\rm e}$() is lower than $T_{\rm e}$(). The average difference between the two temperatures for the whole sample is $\langle T_{\rm e}$()$-$$T_{\rm e}$()$\rangle$=$4000$K. A measure of the electron temperature characterizing the zones can also be obtained by observing the discontinuity at 3421[Å]{}, produced by He$^{+}$ recombinations to the 2p$^3$P$^{\rm o}$ level [@liu93]. With $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() as free parameters, the and recombination continuum spectrum is calculated to fit the observed continuum spectrum of . The best fit yields $T_{\rm e}$() = $4000\pm1500$K (Fig. \[jum\]), consistent within the uncertainties with the value $3350\pm1000$K derived from the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ line ratio. The $\lambda$3421 discontinuity is much weaker than the Balmer discontinuity and falls in a spectral region of even shorter wavelengths crowded by strong emission lines such as the Bowen fluorescence lines $\lambda\lambda$3428,3444, and is therefore much more difficult to measure. Nevertheless, high quality spectroscopic observations of this discontinuity should be invaluable. Discussion ========== Temperature fluctuations and density inhomogeneities ---------------------------------------------------- The discrepancy between electron temperatures derived from the \[\] forbidden line ratio and those deduced from the hydrogen Balmer jump was first discovered by @peim71 and was ascribed to temperature fluctuations within nebulae. For a nebula with small magnitude temperature fluctuations, for a given ionic species of number density $N_i$, the nebular thermal structure can be characterized by an average temperature $T_0$ and a mean square temperature fluctuation parameter $t^2$ defined as [@peim67], $$T_0(N_i)=\frac{\int T_{\rm e}N_{\rm e}N_idV}{\int N_{\rm e}N_idV}$$ and $$t^2(N_i)=\frac{\int (T_{\rm e}-T_0)^2N_{\rm e}N_idV}{T_0^2\int N_{\rm e}N_idV}.$$ For $T_{\rm e}$() derived from the H [i]{} recombination spectrum Balmer discontinuity, it can be shown that [@peim67], $$T_{\rm e}({\rm H~{\sc I}})=T_0(1-1.67t^2).$$ The deduction implicitly assumes that $t^2\ll 1$. Adopting the analytic expression for the fit of line emissivity as described in Section 2.1, we can write the flux of a recombination line as, $$I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_i)=\int N_{\rm e}N({\rm He^+})a_iT_{{\rm e}4}^{b_i}\exp(\frac{c_i}{T_{\rm e4}})dV.$$ Then if $t^2\ll1$, one can rewrite the expression as a Taylor series expanded around the average temperature $T_0$, keeping only terms to the second order [@peim67], $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber I({\rm He\,{\sc I}},\lambda_i)\approx a_iT_{04}^{b_i}\exp\left(\frac{c_i}{T_{04}}\right)\int N_{\rm e}N({\rm He^+})\hspace{3.1in} \\ \nonumber \times\left\{1+\left(b_i-\frac{c_i}{T_{04}}\right)\left(\frac{T_{\rm e}-T_0}{T_0}\right) +\frac{1}{2}\left[b_i(b_i-1)-\frac{2c_i(b_i-1)}{T_{04}} +\frac{c_i^2}{T_{04}^2}\right]\left(\frac{T_{\rm e}-T_0}{T_0}\right)^2\right\}dV,\\\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{04}=T_0/10^4$K. Then from Eqs. (2), (3) and (6), we have, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1)}{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_2)}&\equiv&\frac{a_1}{a_2}T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)^{b_1-b_2}\exp\left[\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)}\right]\\ &\approx & \frac{a_1}{a_2}T_{04}^{b_1-b_2}\exp\left(\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{04}}\right)[1+A(T_0)t^2],\end{aligned}$$ where $$A(T_0)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{b_1(b_1-1)-b_2(b_2-1)-2[c_1(b_1-1)-c_2(b_2-1)]\frac{1}{T_{04}}+\frac{c_1^2-c_2^2}{T_{04}^2}\right\}.$$ Introducing a parameter $B$ and when $\|Bt^2\|\ll 1$, we can obtain from Eqs. (7) $$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)^{b_1-b_2}\exp\left[\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)}\right] \approx \left[T_{04}(1-Bt^2)\right]^{b_1-b_2}\exp\left[\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{04}(1-B t^2)}\right]\\ B=T_{04}A(T_0)/[c_1-c_2-(b_1-b_2)T_{04}]. \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ Thus if $t^2\ll1$ and $\|Bt^2\|\ll 1$, we have $$T_{\rm e}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)\approx T_0\left[1-\frac{T_0A(T_0)}{10^4(c_1-c_2)-(b_1-b_2)T_0}t^2\right].$$ In Eq.(10) the coefficient in front of $t^2$ is a slowly varying function of $T_0$. For $T_{\rm e}$(; $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$) derived from the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ ratio, according to the line emissivity fit parameters $b_1$, $b_2$, $c_1$ and $c_2$ given by @benjamin for $T_{\rm e}$ between 5000 and 20000 K and $N_{\rm e}=10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, this coefficient varies between 0.97 and 1.25. For $T_{\rm e} < 5000$ K and $N_{\rm e}=10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, using the fit parameters given in Appendix A (Table \[fit\]), we find that this coefficient varies between 1.03 and 1.22. Therefore, as an approximation, we adopt a value of 1.07 for this coefficient, as calculated for $T_{\rm e}=10000$ K and $N_{\rm e}=10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, and have $$T_{\rm e}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda7281/\lambda6678)\approx T_0(1- 1.07t^2).$$ Under the scenario of small temperature fluctuations ($t^2\ll 1$), we can reasonably assume that $T_{\rm 0}$() $\approx T_{\rm 0}$() $ = T_{\rm 0}$ (c.f. Section 3.2 for further discussion on the legitimacy of this assumption) and $t^2$() $\approx t^2$() $ = t^2$. Consequently, a comparison of Eqs. (4) and (11) shows that $T_{\rm e}$(, $\lambda7281/\lambda6678$) $\ga$ $T_{\rm e}$(), which is exactly opposite to what is observed (c.f. Section 2.2, Table \[result\]). Using Eqs. (4) and (10), we plot in Fig. \[heihi\] $T_{\rm e}({\rm H~{\sc I}})$ as a function of $T_{\rm e}$(, $\lambda7281/\lambda6678$), for the case of $t^2=0.00$, 0.04, 0.10 and 0.16, assuming a constant density of 10$^4$cm$^{-3}$. Obviously, the differences between $T_{\rm e}({\rm H~{\sc I}})$ and $T_{\rm e}({\rm He~{\sc I}})$ are in the opposite direction to what is predicted by temperature fluctuations. It follows that the lines may arise from regions characterized by significantly lower temperature than that of the emission regions, i.e., $T_{\rm 0}$()$<T_{\rm 0}$(). This, however, will invalidate the condition $t^2\ll 1$, and thus is beyond the scope of the description of the temperature fluctuations as originally envisioned by @peim67 [@peim71]. A detailed discussion will be given below in Section 3.2. Another theory that has been proposed to explain the ORL/CEL abundance determination and the BJ/CEL temperature determination discrepancies is density variations in a chemically homogeneous nebula [@rubin1989; @viegas]. In this scenario, because the \[\] $\lambda$4363 auroral line has a much higher critical density than the $\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 nebular lines and is therefore less affected by collisional de-excitation in high density regions, the presence of such high density regions will lead to an overestimated $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) and consequently underestimated CEL abundances, analogous to the effects of temperature fluctuations. The presence of moderate density inhomogeneities in PNe is confirmed by recent observations [e.g. @zhang2004]. However, given that and recombination lines are permitted transitions and therefore hardly affected by collisional de-excitation, such a scenario predicts $T_{\rm e}$()$\sim T_{\rm e}$() (as long as zone $\sim$ zone; see discussion below in section 3.2), also inconsistent with observations. We thus conclude that for a chemically homogeneous nebula, the possible presence of large density inhomogeneities also fails to explain the observed differences between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$(). Two-abundance nebular models ---------------------------- The two-abundance nebular model proposed by @liubarlow2000 assumes the existence of another component of H-deficient, ultra-cold ($T_{\rm e} \sim 10^3$ K), ionized gas embedded in the diffuse gaseous nebula of “normal” (i.e. $\sim$solar) chemical composition. In this model emission from the H-deficient ultra-cold ionized regions has a larger contribution to the than to the lines, which are still dominated by emission from the normal component under a typical temperature of $T_{\rm e}\sim 10^4$ K. Thus, while the model predicts that $T_{\rm e}$() $<$ $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]), it also predicts that $T_{\rm e}$() $<$ $T_{\rm e}$(), in agreement with observations (@liu209; Fig. \[heihi\]). Quantitatively, in a two-abundance nebula model, the intensity ratio of two lines can be written as, $$\frac{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1)}{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_2)}=\frac{[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_1V]_h+[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_1V]_l}{[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_2V]_h+[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_2V]_l},$$ where $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_2$ are the line emission coefficients, $V$ is the volume of the emitting regions, and $l$ and $h$ refer to the low-metallicity regions (i.e. the diffuse nebula of “normal” composition) and the high-metallicity regions (i.e. the cold H-deficient inclusions). Then using the analytic fit to the line emissivity, we have, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1)}{I({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_2)}&\equiv& \frac{a_1}{a_2}T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)^{b_1-b_2}\exp\left[\frac{c_1-c_2}{T_{\rm e4}({\rm He~{\sc I}},\lambda_1/\lambda_2)}\right]\\ \nonumber &=&\frac{\mu_{\rm e}\mu_{\rm He}\omega \left[a_1T_{\rm e4}^{b_1} \exp\left(\frac{c_1}{T_{\rm e4}}\right)\right]_h+\left[a_1T_{\rm e4}^{b_1} \exp\left(\frac{c_1}{T_{\rm e4}}\right)\right]_l} {\mu_{\rm e}\mu_{\rm He}\omega \left[a_2T_{\rm e4}^{b_2}\exp\left(\frac{c_2} {T_{\rm e4})}\right)\right]_h+\left[a_2T_{\rm e4}^{b_2} \exp\left(\frac{c_2}{T_{\rm e4}}\right)\right]_l},\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{\rm e}=(N_{\rm e})_h/(N_{\rm e})_l$ and $\mu_{\rm He}=[N({\rm He}^+)]_h/[N({\rm He}^+)]_l$ are the electron density and He$^+$ ionic density contrasts between the two nebular components, respectively, and $\omega=V_h/V_l$ is the volume filling factor of the H-deficient component. Considering that the component of ultra-cold inclusions are hydrogen-deficient, the recombination line and continuum emission is characterized by the high temperature of the normal component, i.e. $T_{\rm e}$()$\approx (T_{\rm e})_l$. Given $(T_{\rm e})_h$, $\mu_{\rm e}$, $\mu_{\rm He}$ and $\omega$, one can thus obtain a relation between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$(). The current available observations are however not sufficient to provide full constraints of all four free parameters. Detailed photoionization models incorporating hydrogen-deficient inclusions have been constructed by @pequignot to account for the multi-waveband observations of PNe , and . If we make the simplified yet not unreasonable assumption that the postulated hydrogen-deficient inclusions in all PNe are of similar characteristics, then guided by the photoionization models of @pequignot, we assume that for all PNe analyzed in the current work, $(T_{\rm e})_h=1000$ K, $\mu_{\rm e}=100$ and $\mu_{\rm He}=25$. Under these assumptions, $T_{\rm e}$() as a function of $T_{\rm e}$() is plotted in Fig. \[heihi\] for filling factors of $\omega=0$, 10$^{-5}$, 10$^{-4}$ and 10$^{-3}$. Here line emissivity parameters $(a_i,b_i,c_i)$ for a density of $N_{\rm e}=10^4$ and $10^6$cm$^{-3}$ have been adopted for the “$l$” and “$h$” components, respectively. Adopting different densities however hardly affects our results since the emissivities of recombination lines are almost independent of electron density. Fig. \[heihi\] shows that a small amount of hydrogen-deficient material with a filling factor $\omega\sim10^{-4}$ can account for the observed difference between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() for most of the sample PNe. Such a small amount of hydrogen-deficient material would be difficult to detect by direct imaging, especially in the strong background emission of the “normal component”. Note that in the two-abundance nebular model, heavy element ORLs arise almost entirely from the cold H-deficient inclusions, and their average emission temperature, $T_{\rm e}({\rm CNONe\,ORLs})$ should represent the true electron temperature prevailing in this H-deficient component. Thus one expects $T_{\rm e}({\rm CNONe\,ORLs})\la T_{\rm e}$() [@liu209], a prediction that has also been confirmed by the available limited measurements of $T_{\rm e}({\rm CNONe\,ORLs})$ [@liu209; @wesson; @tsamis04; @liuyi04b; @wesson04]. Further accurate measurements of $T_{\rm e}({\rm CNONe\,ORLs})$ are thus essential to better constrain the physical conditions prevailing in these regions. For this purpose, high S/N ratio, high spectral resolution (and preferably also high spatial resolution) spectroscopy on a large telescope is required. An important consideration is whether the presence of a substantial He$^{2+}$ zone in some PNe may contribute significantly to the observed large difference between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$(). Due to a higher heating rate and less efficient cooling, the electron temperature in the He$^{2+}$ zone is generally higher than that in the He$^{+}$ zone. This is indeed the case found from photoionization models for two PNe in our sample ( and ) [@harrington; @clegg]. It follows, then, that the average temperature of the H$^{+}$ zone is higher than that of the He$^{+}$ zone since the former encompasses both the He$^{+}$ and He$^{2+}$ zones. However, none of the photoionization models published so far that assume a chemically homogeneous medium predict a huge $T_{\rm e}$() $-$ $T_{\rm e}$() difference as much as 4000K found in the current work. As an example, the classic photoionization model of constructed by @harrington yields only minute values of $t^2$() and $t^2$() and, as expected, in this model, $T_0$()$\approx T_{\rm e}$() and $T_0$()$\approx T_{\rm e}$(). The model yields $T_0$() of 12590K, in good agreement with the value $T_{\rm e}$() of $12\,200\pm600$K deduced from the H [i]{} Balmer discontinuity. However, their model predicts a value of 11620K for $T_0$(), significantly higher than the value $7690\pm1650$K derived from the $\lambda7281$/$\lambda6678$ line ratio. Finally, we note that the observed phenomenon of large difference between $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() persists in a number of low excitation PNe in our sample, such as , and where the He$^{2+}$ zone is essentially absent. As a consequence, we conclude that the presence of a He$^{2+}$ zone in PNe of high excitation is unlikely to play a major role in causing the large $T_{\rm e}$(), $T_{\rm e}$() discrepancy. In Fig.\[ect\], we plot $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() against the excitation class, E.C., calculated following the formalism of @dopita and tabulated in Table \[result\]. Fig.\[ect\] shows that there is a positive correlation between $T_{\rm e}$() and the E.C.. Excluding two peculiar PNe, and , we obtain a linear correlation coefficient of 0.66. This is consistent with the expectation that a hotter central star produces a higher heating rate per photoionization, resulting in a higher nebular temperature. Fig.\[ect\] also shows a weaker correlation between $T_{\rm e}$() and the E.C.. Again after excluding in addition to and , the data yield a correlation coefficient of 0.41 between $T_{\rm e}$() and the E.C.. Note that in the two-abundance nebular model, lines are strongly enhanced by emission from the H-deficient inclusions. As a consequence, the E.C. is no longer a good indicator of $T_{\rm e}$(). Rather, in this scenario, $T_{\rm e}$() will be mainly determined by the amount and properties of the postulated H-deficient inclusions, including their spatial distribution, density, chemical composition and filling factor. It is interesting to note that amongst the sample PNe the only nebula that exhibits a higher value of $T_{\rm e}$() compared to $T_{\rm e}$(), i.e. opposite the predictions of the two-abundance model, is where $T_{\rm e}$() is about 3500K [higher]{} than $T_{\rm e}$() (c.f. Fig.\[heihi\]). is ionized by a WC8 Wolf-Rayet central star [@smith1969; @crowther]. It is possible that in this particular object the nebular emission line spectrum is contaminated by emission from the strong stellar winds from the high-temperature H-deficient envelope of the central star, leading to apparently higher $T_{\rm e}$() with respect to $T_{\rm e}$() [c.f. @liuyi04b]. Further observations of this peculiar PN are needed to clarify the situation. Helium abundance ---------------- All lines observable in the optical and UV are essentially entirely excited by radiative recombination. As a consequence, their intensities can be significantly enhanced by the presence of a small amount of ultra-cold, H-deficient inclusions, leading to an overestimated overall He/H abundance characteristic of the entire ionized region [@liu209; @liueso]. For a large sample of PNe, @zhang2004 showed that there is a positive correlation between He/H abundance and the difference between the temperature derived from the \[\] forbidden lines and from the hydrogen Balmer discontinuity, lending further support to this possibility. In the following, we present an analytical method to obtain a quantitative estimate of the possible enhancement of the He/H abundance due to the postulated presence of H-deficient inclusions in PNe. The assumptions about the two-abundance nebular model are the same as those described above in Section 3.2. The intensity ratio of a recombination line to that of H$\beta$, $I({\rm He~{\sc I}}, \lambda_i)/I({\rm H}\beta)$ observed from a nebula is given by $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \frac{I({\rm He~{\sc I}}, \lambda_i)}{I({\rm H}\beta)}& = &\frac{N({\rm He}^+, \lambda_i)(\varepsilon_i)_l4861}{N({\rm H}^+)(\varepsilon_{{\rm H}\beta})_l\lambda_i}\\ &=&\frac{[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_iV]_h+[N_{\rm e}N({\rm He}^+)\varepsilon_iV]_l}{[N_{\rm e}N({\rm H}^+)\varepsilon_{{\rm H}\beta}V]_h+[N_{\rm e}N({\rm H}^+)\varepsilon_{{\rm H}\beta}V]_l}\frac{4861}{\lambda_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $N({\rm He}^+, \lambda_i)/N({\rm H}^+)$ is the He$^+$/H$^+$ ionic abundance ratio determined assuming a chemically homogeneous nebula. From the above equation we find, $$\frac{N({\rm He}^+, \lambda_i)}{N({\rm H}^+)}\approx\left[\omega\mu_{\rm e}\mu_{\rm He}\frac{(\varepsilon_i)_h}{(\varepsilon_i)_l}+1\right]\left[\frac{N({\rm He}^+)}{N({\rm H}^+)}\right]_l.$$ For the small amount of H-deficient material as hypothesized in the two-abundance model, the average He$^+$/H$^+$ ionic abundance ratio for the entire nebula is essentially identical to the value for the diffuse material, i.e. $[N({\rm He}^+)/N({\rm H}^+)]_l$. In such a case, the traditional method of abundance analysis assuming a chemically homogeneous nebula will overestimate the He/H abundance by a factor of \[$\omega\mu_{\rm e}\mu_{\rm He}(\varepsilon_i)_h/(\varepsilon_i)_l+1$\]. For the representative values of $\mu_{\rm e}=100$, $\mu_{\rm He}=25$ and $\omega=10^{-4}$, the He$^+$/H$^+$ ionic abundance ratio will be overestimated by a factor of 1.25. For example, the empirical analysis of NGC6153 by @liubarlow2000 assuming a chemically homogeneous nebula yields a He/H elemental abundance ratio of 0.136, which is a factor of 1.35 higher than the average He/H abundance ratio for the entire ionized region derived from the detailed two-abundance photoionization modeling of this nebula by @pequignot. The much lower He/H abundance ratio obtained by two-abundance photoionization modeling is supported by observations of the collisional excitation dominated 2s$^3$S – 2p$^3$P$^{\rm o}$ $\lambda$10830 line [@liu209]. Many PNe are known to show enhancement of helium with respect to the Sun. For example, the average He/H ratio obtained by @kingsburgh for a large sample of Galactic PNe is a factor of 1.35 solar. The enhancement is often ascribed to the second and third dredge-up processes that occur during the post-main-sequence evolution stages of the progenitor stars of PNe. However, the extremely high He abundances deduced for PNe such as [@kingsburgh] are difficult to explain by the current theories of nucleosynthesis and dredge-up processes. It is possible therefore that the very high He/H abundances observed in those extreme He-rich PNe are actually caused by the contribution of H-deficient inclusions embedded in the nebulae. The CEL/ORL abundance discrepancy and the BJ/CEL temperature discrepancy which are ubiquitously observed amongst PNe are also found in regions [e.g. @tsamisb]. The determination of $T_{\rm e}$() for regions is much more difficult than for PNe due to the generally much lower surface brightness of H [ii]{} regions and the strong contamination of scattered star light to the nebular spectrum in dusty H [ii]{} regions. Recently, @garc presented deep echelle spectroscopy of the Galactic region , covering the wavelength range from 3100–10400[Å]{}. They derived $T_{\rm e}$() of $6650\pm750$K and $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]) of $8500\pm50$ K, in agreement with the general pattern observed amongst PNe that $T_{\rm e}$() is systematically lower than $T_{\rm e}$(\[\]). On the other hand, from the $\lambda\lambda6678,7281$ line fluxes reported in their paper, we obtain $T_{\rm e}$() of $6800\pm600$K, which is consistent with $T_{\rm e}$() within the errors. Note that has a relatively small ORL/CEL abundance discrepancy (a factor of 1.8; @tsamis [@garc]). Measurements of $T_{\rm e}$() and $T_{\rm e}$() in more H [ii]{} regions are needed, especially for those exhibiting large ORL/CEL abundance discrepancies in order to have a better picture of this problem in H [ii]{} regions. For a few metal poor extragalactic regions, @peimbert2002 find that the electron temperatures derived from recombination lines are also systematically lower than the corresponding values deduced from the \[\] forbidden line ratio. If we ascribe the discrepancy to the presence of H-deficient inclusions in these nebulae, then the effects of these inclusions on the determination of the primordial helium abundance can be estimated roughly from Eqs. (13) and (15). Using the line fluxes presented by @peimbert2002 and assuming that the H-deficient material in these metal-poor H [ii]{} regions have similar composition as those postulated to exist in PN , we estimate that the primordial He abundance could have been overestimated by as much as 5%. Conclusions =========== In this paper, we show that recombination lines can be used to probe nebular thermal structures and provide vital information regarding the nature and physical causes of the long-standing ORL/CEL temperature and abundance determination discrepancies. We present electron temperatures derived from the $\lambda7281/\lambda6678$ ratio for 48 PNe. The temperatures are found to be systematically lower than those deduced from the Balmer jump of the recombination spectrum. The result is exactly opposite to the predictions of the scenarios of temperature fluctuation and density inhomogeneities but in good agreement with the expectations of the two-abundance nebular model proposed by @liubarlow2000. We estimate that a filling factor of the order of $10^{-4}$ of the ultra-cold, H-deficient material is sufficient to explain the observed differences between the and temperatures. We show that the possible presence of H-deficient inclusions in PNe may indicate that current estimates of He/H abundances in PNe may have been overestimated by a factor of $\sim1.25$. The possible existence of hydrogen-deficient inclusions in regions could also cause the primordial helium abundance determined from metal-poor galaxies to be overestimated. We stress the importance of high S/N ratio, high resolution spectroscopy in the tackling of these fundamental problems. We thank the referee, Dr. V. Luridiana, for helpful suggestions and incisive comments that improved the paper significantly. YZ acknowledges the award of a Liu Yongling Scholarship. Support for RHR was from the NASA Long-Term Space Astrophysics (LTSA) program. line emissivities ($T_{\rm e}<5000$K) ====================================== Combining the recombination model of @smits1996 and the collisional excitation rates of @sawey, we have calculated emissivities for the $\lambda\lambda$4471, 5876, 6678 and 7281 lines for $T_{\rm e}<5000$K – the temperature range not considered by @benjamin. At such low temperatures, the effects of collisional excitation are however essentially negligible. We may write, following the analytic expression used by @benjamin, $$\varepsilon_i=a_iT_{\rm e4}^{b_i}\exp(c_i/T_{\rm e4})\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm cm}^3\,{\rm s}^{-1},$$ where $T_{\rm e4}=T_{\rm e}/10^4$K, and $a_i$, $b_i$ and $c_i$ are constants. The constants were derived using a least-squares algorithm. The results are tabulated in Table \[fit\] for electron densities of $N_{\rm e}=10^2$, $10^4$ and $10^6$ cm$^{-3}$. The maximum errors of the fits for the temperature range $312.5-5000$K, $e_i$, are also listed in the last column of the Table. [lccccc]{} Cn 2-1 & $ 6900\pm1500$ & $ 5400\pm1300$ & $10800\pm 600$ &4.87&...\ H 1-35 & $ 6900\pm1100$ & $ 5600\pm1200$ & $10000\pm1000$ &2.14&...\ H 1-50 & $ 6300\pm1200$ & $ 5200\pm1300$ & $12500\pm1000$ &4.99&...\ He 2-118 & $ 7350\pm1100$ & $ 6050\pm1100$ & $18300\pm1000$ &3.12&...\ Hu 1-2 & $11500\pm1500$ & $11750\pm3000$ & $20000\pm1200$ &9.69& L04\ Hu 2-1 & $ 8400\pm1100$ & $ 7000\pm1200$ & $10000\pm 500$ &1.81& W04\ IC 1297 & $ 5000\pm1000$ & $ 5200\pm1000$ & $10000\pm 400$ &6.87&...\ IC 2003 & $ 5600\pm1100$ & $ 6700\pm1200$ & $11000\pm 800$ &4.78& W04\ IC 3568 & $ 8100\pm1000$ & $ 7800\pm1450$ & $ 9300\pm 900$ &4.59& L04\ IC 4191 & $ 5500\pm1000$ & $ 5000\pm1000$ & $ 9200\pm1000$ &5.12& T03\ IC 4406 & $ 5200\pm1000$ & $ 4550\pm1000$ & $ 9350\pm1000$ &4.68& T03\ IC 4634 & $ 5400\pm1200$ & $ 4100\pm1000$ & $ 8500\pm 400$ &3.03&...\ IC 4776 & $ 6150\pm1150$ & $ 5200\pm1300$ & $ 8600\pm 400$ &3.08&...\ IC 4997 & $ 7500\pm1500$ & $ 6250\pm1500$ & $10200\pm 500$ &3.07&...\ IC 5217 & $ 6100\pm1100$ & $ 5600\pm1200$ & $12000\pm 800$ &5.19& W04\ M 1-20 & $ 5880\pm1200$ & $ 4550\pm1000$ & $12000\pm 700$ &2.97&...\ M 1-42 & $ 2260\pm1000$ & $ 5280\pm1200$ & $ 4000\pm 600$ &2.21&...\ M 2-24 & $ 4550\pm1500$ & $ 2800\pm1000$ & $16000\pm2000$ &1.59&...\ M 2-36 & $ 2790\pm1000$ & $ 3120\pm1000$ & $ 6000\pm 400$ &3.43&...\ M 3-21 & $ 5200\pm1200$ & $ 3910\pm1000$ & $11000\pm 400$ &4.11&...\ M 3-32 & $ 2430\pm1000$ & $ 2110\pm1000$ & $ 4500\pm 500$ &3.00&...\ Me 2-2 & $ 6200\pm1100$ & $ 6050\pm1200$ & $11000\pm 500$ &3.32& W04\ NGC 40 & $10240\pm1900$ & $10580\pm4200$ & $ 7000\pm 700$ &0.18& L04\ NGC 3132 & $ 8540\pm1000$ & $ 8370\pm1000$ & $10780\pm1000$ &3.55& T03\ NGC 3242 & $ 4850\pm1000$ & $ 4270\pm1000$ & $10200\pm1000$ &5.74& T03\ NGC 3918 & $ 6050\pm1000$ & $ 5480\pm1000$ & $12300\pm1000$ &6.63& T03\ NGC 5307 & $ 6820\pm1050$ & $ 6540\pm1100$ & $10700\pm1000$ &5.69& R03\ NGC 5315 & $ 5480\pm1000$ & $ 5010\pm1000$ & $ 8600\pm1000$ &3.57& T03\ NGC 5315 & $ 6310\pm 300$ & $ 5720\pm 400$ & $ 7500\pm1000$ &3.79& P04\ NGC 5873 & $ 5740\pm1300$ & $ 5990\pm1400$ & $12000\pm 500$ &7.02&...\ NGC 5882 & $ 5340\pm1000$ & $ 4660\pm1000$ & $ 7800\pm1000$ &4.73& T03\ NGC 6153 & $ 3350\pm1000$ & $ 2700\pm1000$ & $ 6000\pm 400$ &3.83&...\ NGC 6210 & $ 6650\pm1200$ & $ 6900\pm1350$ & $ 8700\pm 800$ &4.69& L04\ NGC 6302 & $ 7830\pm1300$ & $ 6850\pm1300$ & $16100\pm 500$ &8.06&...\ NGC 6543 & $ 6010\pm1400$ & $ 5450\pm1400$ & $ 6800\pm 400$ &2.94&...\ NGC 6567 & $ 7480\pm1300$ & $ 6640\pm1300$ & $12000\pm 800$ &4.12&...\ NGC 6572 & $ 8690\pm1200$ & $ 7430\pm1650$ & $10300\pm1000$ &5.26& L04\ NGC 6620 & $ 7660\pm1300$ & $ 7120\pm1300$ & $10000\pm 500$ &5.71&...\ NGC 6720 & $ 8120\pm1700$ & $ 7810\pm2200$ & $ 8000\pm 600$ &5.52& L04\ NGC 6741 & $ 8500\pm1300$ & $ 7340\pm1880$ & $15000\pm 600$ &6.33& L04\ NGC 6790 & $ 9910\pm1500$ & $ 8790\pm2000$ & $14000\pm 500$ &6.23& L04\ NGC 6803 & $ 5000\pm1100$ & $ 4500\pm1200$ & $8500 \pm 400$ &4.93& W04\ NGC 6833 & $ 6000\pm1100$ & $ 4000\pm1200$ & $14000\pm 500$ &3.38& W04\ NGC 6818 & $ 3690\pm1000$ & $ 3820\pm1000$ & $12140\pm1000$ &7.71& T03\ NGC 6818 & $ 5310\pm1300$ & $ 5880\pm1300$ & $12500\pm 600$ &7.71&...\ NGC 6826 & $ 8290\pm1500$ & $ 8520\pm2000$ & $ 8700\pm 700$ &3.26& L04\ NGC 6884 & $ 7770\pm1000$ & $ 6030\pm1550$ & $11600\pm 400$ &5.34& L04\ NGC 7009 & $ 5040\pm 800$ & $ 4620\pm1100$ & $ 7200\pm 400$ &5.19&...\ NGC 7027 & $10360\pm1100$ & $ 9030\pm2200$ & $12000\pm 400$ &6.97&...\ NGC 7662 & $ 7690\pm1650$ & $ 7620\pm1950$ & $12200\pm 600$ &6.79& L04\ [ccccc]{}\ $j_{4471}$ & 6.835$\times10^{-26}$& -0.8224& -0.0074& $1.40\%$\ $j_{5876}$ & 1.838$\times10^{-25}$& -0.9745& -0.0086& $1.11\%$\ $j_{6678}$ & 5.251$\times10^{-26}$& -0.9819& -0.0088& $1.24\%$\ $j_{7281}$ & 9.104$\times10^{-27}$& -0.5594& 0.0007& $0.25\%$\ \ $j_{4471}$ & 6.775$\times10^{-26}$& -0.8270& -0.0041& $1.50\%$\ $j_{5876}$ & 1.824$\times10^{-25}$& -0.9702& -0.0068& $1.14\%$\ $j_{6678}$ & 5.203$\times10^{-26}$& -0.9767& -0.0068& $1.23\%$\ $j_{7281}$ & 9.463$\times10^{-27}$& -0.5289& 0.0068& $1.14\%$\ \ $j_{4471}$ & 6.746$\times10^{-26}$& -0.8337& 0.0067& $1.23\%$\ $j_{5876}$ & 1.819$\times10^{-25}$& -0.9509& 0.0035& $1.37\%$\ $j_{6678}$ & 5.185$\times10^{-26}$& -0.9581& 0.0035& $1.67\%$\ $j_{7281}$ & 9.663$\times10^{-27}$& -0.5307& 0.0179& $2.29\%$\ Benjamin, R. A., Skillman, E. D., & Smits, D. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 307 Benjamin, R. A., Skillman, E. D., & Smits, D. P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 288 Clegg, R. E. S., Harrington, J. P., Barlow, M. J., & Walsh, J. R. 1987, , 314, 551 Crowther, P. A., De Marco, O., & Barlow, M. J. 1998, , 296, 36 Dopita, M. A., & Meatheringham, S. J. 1990, , 357, 140 Garcia-Rojas, J., Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., Rodríguez, M., Ruiz, M. T., & Peimbert, A. 2004, , 153, 501 Harrington, J. P., Seaton, M. J., Adams, S., & Lutz, J. H. 1982, , 199, 517 Kingsburgh, R. L., & Barlow, M. J. 1994, , 271, 257 Liu, X.-W. 2003, in IAU Symp. 209, Planetary Nebulae, eds. S. Kwok, M. Dopita, R. Sutherland (San Francisco: ASP), p.339 Liu, X.-W. 2004, in Planetary Nebulae beyond the Milky Way, eds. J. Walsh, L. Stanghellini and N. Douglas (ESO, Garching bei München), in press Liu, X.-W., & Danziger, I. J. 1993, , 263, 256 Liu, X.-W., Luo, S.-G., Barlow, M. J., Danziger, I. J., & Storey P. J. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 141 Liu, X.-W., Storey, P. J., Barlow, M. J., Danziger, I. J., Cohen, M.,& Bryce, M. 2000, , 312, 585 Liu, Y., Liu, X.-W., Luo, S.-G. & Barlow, M. J. 2004a, MNRAS, 353, 1231 Liu, Y., Liu, X.-W., Barlow, M. J., & Luo, S.-G. 2004b, MNRAS, 353, 1251 Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Luridiana, V. 2002, , 565, 668 Peimbert, M. 1967, , 150, 825 Peimbert, M. 1971, Bol. Obs. Tonantzintla Tacubaya, 6, 29 Peimbert, M., Luridiana, V., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1995, RevMaxAA, 31, 147 Peimbert, M., Peimbert, A., & Ruiz, M. T. 2000, ApJ, 541, 688 Peimbert, M., Peimbert, A., Ruiz, M. T., & Esteban, C. 2004, , 150, 431 Péquignot, D., Liu, X.-W., Barlow, M. J., Storey, P. J., & Morisset, C. 2003, in IAU Symp. 209, Planetary Nebulae, eds. S. Kwok, M. Dopita, R. Sutherland (San Francisco: ASP), p.347 Rubin, R. H. 1989, , 69, 897 Ruiz, M. T., Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Esteban, C. 2003, , 340, 362 Sawey, P. M. J., & Berrington, K. A. 1993, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 55, 81 Smith, L. F., & Aller, L. H. 1969, , 157, 1245 Smits, D. P. 1996, , 278, 683 Tsamis, Y. G., Barlow, M. J., Liu, X.-W., Danziger, I. J., & Storey, P. 2003a, , 345, 186 Tsamis, Y. G., Barlow, M. J., Liu, X.-W., Danziger, I. J., & Storey, P. 2003b, , 338, 678 Tsamis, Y. G., Barlow, M. J., Liu, X.-W., Storey, P. & Danziger, I. J. 2004, , 353, 953 Viegas, S. M., & Clegg, E. S. 1994, , 271, 993 Wesson, R., Liu, X.-W., & Barlow, M. J. 2003, , 340, 253 Wesson, R., Liu, X.-W., & Barlow, M. J. 2004, , submitted Zhang, Y., Liu, X.-W., Wesson, R., et al. 2004, , 351, 935	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A sensor web is a collection of heterogeneous sensors which autonomously reacts to the observed environment. The SouthEast Alaska MOnitoring Network for Science, Technology, Education, and Research (SEAMONSTER) project has implemented a sensor web in partially glaciated watersheds near Juneau, Alaska, on the edge of the Juneau Icefield. By coupling the SEAMONSTER sensor web with digital earth technologies the scientific utility, education and public outreach efforts, and sensor web management of the project all greatly benefit. This paper describes the scientific motivation for a sensor web, the technology developed to implement the sensor web, the software developed to couple the sensor web with digital earth technologies, and demonstrates the SEAMONSTER sensor web in a digital earth framework.' address: - 'University of Alaska Southeast, 11120 Glacier Highway, Juneau, Alaska 99801' - 'Vexcel Corporation, Microsoft, Boulder, Colorado' author: - 'M. J. Heavner' - 'D. R. Fatland' - 'E. Hood' - 'C. Connor' title: 'SEAMONSTER: A Demonstration Sensor Web Operating in Virtual Globes' --- Digital Earth ,Sensor Webs ,Lemon Creek Glacier ,Glacier ,SEAMONSTER ,Southeast Alaska Introduction ============ A sensor web is fundamentally a distributed set of sensors coupled with in-web computational power sufficient to autonomously respond to observed changes in the environment. The Juneau area combines the Juneau Icefield, Tongass National Forest, and Inside Passage in close proximity. Diverse sensing needs in the area provide an environment to demonstrate the sensor web concept and to provide a testbed for maturing sensor web component technologies. The long term monitoring of changing characteristics of partially glaciated watersheds (driven by glacier recession) requires long duration, low sample rate observations to capture seasonal, annual, decadal or longer trends. Conversely, to study the impact of sudden events in the watersheds (such as catastrophic drainage of supraglacial lakes or extreme precipitation events) requires much higher sample rate observations. The autonomous reconfiguration between these two sampling regimes illustrates the sensor web concept. To implement this autonomy, field computers must operate year round in harsh environments ([e.g.]{} glaciers, the Tongass temperate rainforest or nunataks bordering the glaciers). The power constraints associated with remote computer operation create additional requirements for sensor web autonomy, namely power management. The SEAMONSTER project has implemented a prototype sensor web in partially glaciated watersheds in Juneau, Alaska on the margin of the Juneau Icefield. In order for the diverse data sets gathered by heterogeneous sensors to be of maximum societal benefit, the data set must be discoverable and visualizable. The use of public data archves or other alternative ways of hosting the data were not used because of the critical importance of data availability for “in-web” use to trigger autonomous reconfiguration and potential unavailability of internet connectivity. The coordinated management of a diverse set of large numbers of sensors requires considerable infrastructure. Both the needs for data exploration and sensor web management can be combined through the use of virtual globe technologies, as described in this paper. Sensor Webs ----------- An environmental sensor network is a distributed set of sensors, generally operating in a mode of storing the data locally and periodically sending the data via telemetry or manual download. Communication between nodes, coupled with in-web computational power provides the sensor network the capability for autonomous reconfiguration based on the observed environment. The condition which triggers the reconfiguration could be of scientific interest or hazard monitoring and response (such as a glacial lake outburst) or an operational event (such as a temperature sensor which fails or a decrease of available battery power below a critical threshold). The autonomous reconfiguration of the sensor network is the key feature of a sensor web. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has developed a set of Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) protocols (OGC reference document OGC-07-165). SEAMONSTER is utilizing OGC and OGC SWE protocols and practices. The SEAMONSTER project is primarily supported by the NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) project. In the final report from the 2007 NASA Earth Science workshop, the sensor web concept is defined as “a coherent set of heterogeneous, loosely-coupled, distributed nodes, interconnected by a communications fabric that can collectively behave as a single dynamically adaptive and reconfigurable observing system. The Nodes in a sensor web interoperate with common standards and services. Sensor webs can be layered or linked together” [@AIST_2007]. A software description of the sensor web concept is provided by [@Gibbons:2003p1394]. The sensor web concept incorporates the need for data discovery for unanticipated data use. This aspect of sensor webs is for both the incorporation of unanticipated existing or co-collected data sets as well as the dissemination of sensor web data sets to interested parties (incorporation and publication of data). The SEAMONSTER project has served as a testbed for both incorporation and publication of data. Another aspect of sensor webs that is not discussed in this paper is the integration of model analysis with data sets. The model and data integration within the sensor web can quickly help fine tune analyses and identify anomalous behavior in addition to the reduction and analysis of data gathered. The Earth Information Services prototype demonstrates model integration with the SEAMONSTER sensor web [@Hansen:2009p2273]. SEAMONSTER ---------- SEAMONSTER is the SouthEast Alaska MOnitoring Network for Science, Technology, Education, and Research project. The SEAMONSTER sensor web backbone of field-hardened, autonomous power-managing computers has been developed and deployed in the Lemon Creek watershed in Southeast Alaska. Lemon Creek is a small, glacial watershed that hosts a diversity of temperate ecosystems. At the head of the watershed, 1200 m above sea level, lies the Lemon Creek Glacier. The Lemon Creek Glacier covers approximately 20% of the watershed with a layer of ice up to a few hundred meters thick. Following the watershed down from the mountain peaks surrounding the glacier toward the marine environment, the watershed encompasses a range of complex and diverse ecosystems in a fairly small spatial expanse. The ecosystems include sparsely vegetated alpine tundra, lush alpine meadows, new and old-growth temperate rainforests, cold streams, and, at the lowest reach, tidally-influenced wetlands and an estuary region. One aspect of note for this study area is that Lemon Creek Glacier is part of the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) and was monitored during International Geophysical Year (IGY) (1957-58) [@Miller:1999p1290] and continuously on through the International Polar Year (IPY) (2007-8), providing a relatively long-term record of watershed changes. Some of the information gathered by JIRP is published as kml datasets and can be viewed in parallel with the kml publications from SEAMONSTER, illustrating the power of virtual globes to easily integrate publicly available datasets from disparate sources via kml standards. The integration of the SEAMONSTER sensor web with virtual globes was originally inspired by the James Reserve network sensor network integration with Google Earth [@Askay_2006]. The SEAMONSTER virtual globe effort was focused on outreach (as was the James Reserve network). The SEAMONSTER efforts in virtual globes presented in this paper expand on the James Reserve work by including the integration of the geowiki with the postgres database and the geoserver. The additional integration of tools enhances the virtual globes’ contributions to collaboration, development, and technology dissemination efforts. Science Motivation ------------------ Glaciers in southeastern Alaska have been retreating and thinning rapidly for the last several decades [@Larsen:2007p472; @Arendt:2002p1]. This loss of ice and the associated increase in freshwater discharge has important implications for the hydrology of pro-glacial rivers and the physical properties in downstream receiving marine ecosystems [@Hood:2008p869]. The proximity to the Juneau Icefield, the fifth largest icefield in North America, allows for the relatively easy deployment of a multi-layered sensor web to address fundamental questions regarding the ice dynamics and hydrology of outlet glaciers draining the icefield. Lemon Creek Glacier ($\sim$10 km$^2$) has a single supraglacial lake which fills during the summer and catastrophically drains into Lemon Creek, a relatively well constrained glacial hydrologic system, illustrated in (Figure \[fig:SM\_site\]). (480,200) (0,0) SEAMONSTER has begun expanding into the Mendenhall Glacier watershed. Approximately a dozen ice-marginal lakes form on the Mendenhall Glacier. Mendenhall Glacier terminates in Mendenhall Lake. These two features make the glacial hydrology of Mendenhall more complicated than the Lemon Creek system. The critical question the deployed sensor web will address is: Are accelerated rates of glacial melt and the associated increased runoff beneath the glacier creating a positive feedback effect by increasing the rate of basal ice motion which, in turn, increases the rate at which ice is being delivered to low elevation ablation zones? What in turn, is the impact of changing glacial control of the watersheds on the ecosystem? Understanding the relationship between glacial hydrology and glacier mass balance is critical for predicting environmental responses to climate change. Methods ======= The primary technology goal of the SEAMONSTER project is to instantiate a testbed sensor web in a harsh environment with multiple relevant science use cases. Hardware efforts were driven by requirements for power, communications, and in-situ processing required for autonomy. Software requirements included autonomous reconfiguration, data management, data discoverability, data browsing, and integration of additional, unanticipated data streams. Design goals for both hardware and software included the integration of existing technology with clear documentation of any modifications made for the SEAMONSTER project. Hardware -------- The backbone of the SEAMONSTER sensor web is a small headless field computer or ‘Microserver’ developed by Vexcel Corporation in Boulder Colorado. Vexcel Microservers were developed from 2003 to 2008 with NASA support. These were conceived as general-purpose sensor platforms spanning signal frequencies from one sample per day up to kilohertz sampling frequency, with applicability across a broad variety of field science disciplines and applications (seismology, meteorology, visual monitoring, GPS surveys of glacier motion, robotic surveys of stream and lake chemistry and more). Microservers are field-hardened for survivability in harsh environments. They include a standard COTS WiFi router or an equivalent high bandwidth communication device to enable creation of ad hoc field networks used for sharing data and in the future enabling sophisticated software to direct limited field resources towards interesting events. Microservers are also able to act as base stations for localized lightweight sensor networks built on mote technology such as TelosB motes available from Crossbow Technologies. Microservers address the power-cost-data challenge in environmental monitoring by providing a battery recharging system and a power conditioning subsystem that permits the unit to hibernate when the primary external energy source (typically a lead-acid battery) is depleted. Hibernation continues (drawing microwatts of power) until the system determines that the primary battery is sufficiently recharged, typically by solar panels. The computing environment is an ARM-based Single Board Computer and the device also incorporates a GPS board. Supported communication protocols in addition to WiFi include a PC/104 bus, Ethernet, USB, and RS-232 serial ports as well as several analog-to-digital (ADC) channels. Data storage capacity of many Gigabytes is provided by a solid state USB flash drive. As noted Microservers can act as base stations for second-tier lightweight mote-based sensor networks. SEAMONSTER follows the technology lead of the Johns Hopkins University “Life Under Your Feet” soil ecology program employing the Koala / FCP protocols to deploy ‘physical heartbeat’ sensors: Total Solar Radiation, Photosynthetically Active Radiation, temperature, soil moisture, relative humidity, and electrical conductivity. The motes use the 802.15.4 Zigby protocol to periodically recover data to the base station (Microserver file system) and from there a series of daemons move raw data to the SEAMONSTER online GeoServer data catalog. Sensors ------- Weather stations, based on Campbell Scientific data loggers, have been deployed at the top of Lemon Creek Glacier (near the lake) and near the terminus of the glacier to measure parameters such as air temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, wind speed and direction, snow depth, [etc]{}. The station overlooking the lake includes a high-resolution digital pan/tilt/zoom web camera. A pressure transducer to measures lake level is installed in the supra-glacial lake. Mounted downstream in Lemon Creek is an YSI probe that measures water-quality characteristics such as water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. Software -------- The SEAMONSTER project generates heterogeneous data sets at irregular time intervals. Managing the data with ease of access, public outreach, and easy of comparison between the different instruments for researchers motivated our use of a single SQL database for final storage of all data. (In situ data is typically stored as ASCII files within the Microserver filesystem.) As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:SM\_DataFlow\], all the data streams through sensors to the microservers and into a postgreSQL database with GIS extensions enabled, called PostGIS [@Hsu:2007p1594]. The GIS extensions require that every table entry be associated with a location and time entry. Coupling the PostGIS database with the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) GeoServer automatically provides the ability to disseminate the data streams through a web portal (http://seamonster.jun.alaska.edu/browser/), kml for 4-D Geobrowsers (such as Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth), services to more traditional GIS systems (such as the ESRI suite of Arc\* software), and through the geowiki. The PostGIS database stores both raster and vector ([e.g.]{} ESRI .shp files). The geowiki is a project wiki using mediawiki, which requires a SQL database for page storage. By using the same PostGIS database as SEAMONSTER data, a spatio-temporal location is required for each wiki page. Fig. \[fig:SM\_DataFlow\] illustrates the SEAMONSTER architecture with output to end-users. For readability, the data feedback loops enabling the sensor web aspects of SEAMONSTER are not shown, but the feedback loops are an integral aspect of the SEAMONSTER sensor web. (480,240) (0,0) To enable autonomous reactivity, SEAMONSTER has implemented several strategies. The Vexcel Microservers continuously run on-board code used to react to the local power conditions. Vexcel Microservers have scheduled scripts running to analyze data from other platforms and react. For example, when the pressure transducer data indicates the supraglacial lakes begin to drain, the scripts on the Vexcel Microserver force the pan/tilt/zoom camera to image the draining lake. SEAMONSTER also serves as a testbed platform for more sophisticated sensor web management solutions such as the MACRO (Multi-agent Architecture for Coordinated, Responsive Observations) project implementing a CORBA-based solution [@JohnSKinnebrew:2007p1458]. For resource management, SEAMONSTER makes use of the munin/rrdtool package and integrates the scheduled collection and plotting of resource information in the kml generation. Results ======= The coupling of the PostGIS database and GeoServer allows multiple dynamically generated access methods, as illustrated on the right side of Fig \[fig:SM\_DataFlow\]. This section describes three different examples of the access methods to the SEAMONSTER sensor web with virtual globes. The first example describes the geowiki, primarily illustrating the education and public outreach benefits of coupling sensor webs and virtual globes through Google Earth network links and dynamically generated kml. The data browsing and access potential of coupling SEAMONSTER and virtual globes is illustrated in the second subsection describing the integration of the SEAMONSTER data browser and Microsoft’s Virtual Earth via openlayers technology. Finally, the benefits of using virtual globe technology for sensor web management are described. Geowiki ------- (480,240) (0,0) The SEAMONSTER sensor web is testing new technology development for NASA, documenting impacts of climate change and glacier control of watersheds, and providing views and information about a popular tourist destination (approximately one million tourists visit Juneau every year). Education and public outreach are a major component of the SEAMONSTER project [@Berner:2007p1711]. As part of the efforts for education and public outreach as well as facilitating data discovery and sharing by other scientists, a public wiki was conceived of as a two-way conduit for general information about the sensor web. The wiki is intended to have a larger scope: a hypothetical example is a biologist interested in wind and temperature data in the Juneau area for a migratory bird study. The SEAMONSTER meteorologic data could be discovered and the migratory bird information could be easily added by the biologist to the public wiki. The mediawiki engine is used to implement the public wiki, requiring a SQL database backend. Typically, mediawiki is configured to use mySQL. However, the SEAMONSTER mediawiki installation makes use of the PostGIS database already containing the SEAMONSTER data. The benefit of using the PostGIS database in conjunction with the public wiki is the PostGIS requirement that every database entry have geospatial information–so every wiki page is georeferenced. Fig. \[fig:Geowiki\_GE\] illustrates the geowiki, with a screen capture from Google Earth showing the output from a network link, dynamically generated by the GeoServer requests into the PostGIS database. The network link provides both the kml features and the geowiki page content. The geowiki network links provide the wiki pages within Google Earth (the Glacial Outburst Flood wiki page is shown, along with the dataset showing the lake drainage at the bottom of the wiki page view). Another geowiki network link provides ecosystem polygons generated by ArcView (as .shp files) which delineate glacier, wetland, stream, alpine, and rainforest areas of the Lemon Creek watershed. Over fifty photographs related to the watershed are included as a layer served by the GeoServer/PostGIS geowiki. The integration of the virtual globe, sensor web, and wiki technologies through the PostGIS database, GeoServer, network links, and kml provides the SEAMONSTER education and public outreach portal. Data Access ----------- (480,240) (0,0) The diverse data sets and non continuous sampling from various sites created data cataloging and browsing issues. A web portal is used to avoid creating ”one-off” in-house solutions which may not be available for interested public or scientists. Fig. \[fig:DataBrowser\] illustrates two temperature records from different sites in the SEAMONSTER study area. The left panel shows a list of all the stations in gray. Selecting a station triggers (via openlayers) the map at the lower portion of Fig. \[fig:DataBrowser\] to identify the location of the sensor. The measurements available at the station are shown as a drop down menu (Temperature, Humidity, Precipitation, and Voltage are shown). After selection of a measurement, the graph updates to show the most recent year of measurements. The user can zoom in and out of the plot graphically or select a date range. One more dataset of a similar measurement from a different location can be overplotted on the plot, as is shown in Figure \[fig:DataBrowser\]. The raw data can be downloaded in various formats (text, netcdf, xls) via this web interface. The SEAMONSTER data browser shown in Fig. \[fig:DataBrowser\] is a second example of the benefits of the integration of the Sensor Web and Virtual Globe concepts. The data browser code is available through the project SVN (see Section \[section:resources\]) and has been tested for use by at least two other projects. Sensor Web Management --------------------- (480,400) (0,0) The third benefit resulting in the integration of the sensor web and virtual globe technologies is in the operation and management of the diverse resources of the sensor web. Visualizing power, communication, and other state of health information is critical, especially in the distributed, relatively harsh environment in which SEAMONSTER is operating. Fig. \[fig:SM\_Management\] illustrates a large number of placemarks designating sensors (Lake Pressure Transducer), locations (Eaglecrest Snow Site), future instrument placement (JIRP 10 Video), and other components of the sensor network (Antenna, North Ridge Watchdog). Even in this relatively busy view, it is reasonably easy to identify the Mendenhall Terminus Camera as the large blue X placemarker. This is used to indicate that data from the camera has not been received in the time period it was expected. Fig. \[fig:SM\_Management\] illustrates the SEAMONSTER sensor web management kml file which is regularly generated and embeds system information collected via munin and is useful in diagnosing system problems (for example, munin collects and plots battery voltage information, which is attached to the placemarks illustrated in the plot). Future Work =========== This paper describes the technology developed for integration of the SEAMONSTER sensor web and virtual globes. The SEAMONSTER project has developed and documented hardware and software. Rigorous evaluation of the success of the virtual globe technology and end user testing has not been undertaken. Feedback from technologists, scientists, and collaborators has been positive, but has only been collected and acted upon at the anecdotal level. A full evaluation of the SEAMONSTER virtual globe interface for usability is beyond the scope of the project. However, the technology developed for SEAMONSTER integration with virtual globes has been utilized as a prototype by other data dissemination groups and has been enhanced and subjected to user testing. Conclusions =========== The integration of sensor web and virtual globe technology provides dramatic benefits to the goals of sensor web (more efficient observations) and virtual globe (visualization and understanding) visions. The three examples provided illustrate the education/public outreach, data discovery and exploration, and sensor web management benefits realized by the coupling of sensor web and virtual globe technologies. The hardware and software used by SEAMONSTER to instantiate a sensor web coupled with virtual globes is described in hopes that the benefits realized by the SEAMONSTER effort may be duplicated (and improved upon). A final section provides pointers to the specific resources described. Resources {#section:resources} ========= The integration between sensor web and digital earth has been done in an open environment, coordinated through a project wiki, with all code stored in a publicly accessible subversion code repository. The SEAMONSTER public [geowiki]{} is available at http://seamonsterak.com/ and is intended to be primarily useful for the description of the SEAMONSTER study area. The [SEAMONSTER project wiki]{} at http://robfatland.net/seamonster is used to document the development efforts and technologies used with sufficient detail to replicate the sensor web and virtual globe efforts. All of the code developed by SEAMONSTER (from assembly code used for power control boards to SQL database design and php code for the data browser) is available through the [SEAMONSTER SVN]{} at http://seamonster.jun.alaska.edu/websvn/. The [SEAMONSTER databrowser]{} is available at http://seamonster.jun.alaska.edu/browser/. Acknowledgements ================ Funding for SEAMONSTER is provided through NASA Earth Science Technology Office grant AIST-05-0105, NOAA Education Partnership Panel Interdisciplinary Scientific Environmental Technology (ISET) Cooperative Science Center Grant, and NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates Grant No. 0553000. Marijke Habermann, Logan Berner, Edwin Knuth, Nick Korzen, David Sauer, Josh Galbraith, Shannon Siefert, and Nathan Rogers have been integral to the SEAMONSTER project. [10]{} NASA AIST Workshop, Feb 2007. [NASA]{} [AIST]{} [S]{}ensor [W]{}eb [T]{}echnology [M]{}eeting [R]{}eport. Http://esto.nasa.gov/sensorwebmeeting/files/ AIST\_Sensor\_Web\_Meeting\_Report\_2007.pdf. Arendt, A., Echelmeyer, K., Harrison, W., Lingle, C., Valentine, V., 2002. Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level. Science 297 (5580), 382–386. Askay, S. P., Dec 2006, New Visualization Tools for Environmental Sensor Networks: Using Google Earth as an Interface to Micro-Climate and Multimedia Datasets. Univ. California Riverside Masters Thesis. Berner, L., Habermann, M., Hood, E., Fatland, R., Heavner, M., Knuth, E., Jan 2007. Providing a virtual tour of a glacial watershed. EOS Trans, AGU 88 (52). Gibbons, P., Karp, B., Ke, Y., Nath, S., Seshan, S., Res, I., Pittsburgh, P., 2003. Irisnet: An architecture for a worldwide sensor web. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2 (4), 22–33. Hansen, T. L., LeFebvre, T. J., Schultz, M., Romberg, M., Mysore, A., Holub, K., McCaslin, P., Salm, S., Esterline, A., Li, Y., Baber, C., Fuller, K., Pogue, Y., Wright, W., Heavner, M., Steinbach, M., Olobode, R., Qian, L., Fatland, R., 2009. Earth information services. 25th Conference on International Interactive Information and Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology Session 7B, Internet Applications and Cyberinfrastructure II. Hood, E., Scott, D., Sep 2008. Riverine organic matter and nutrients in southeast Alaska affected by glacial coverage. Nature Geoscience 1 (9), 583–587. Hsu, L., Obe, R., 2007. PostGIS for geospatial analysis and mapping. Postgres OnLine Journal, 19–20. Kinnebrew, J. S., Biswas, G., Shankaran, N., Schmidt, D. C., Suri, D., April 2007. Integrating task allocation, planning, scheduling, and adaptive resource management to support autonomy in a global sensor web. 2007 [NASA]{} Science Technology Conference. Larsen, C., Motyka, R., Arendt, A., Echelmeyer, K., Jan 2007. Glacier changes in southeast Alaska and northwest British Columbia and contribution to sea level rise. Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (F01007). Miller, M., Pelto, M., Dec 1999. Mass balance measurements on the Lemon Creek Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska, 1953-1998. Geografiska Annaler 81, 671–681.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '[ A theoretical formula is derived for the threshold current to switch a perpendicular magnetization in a ferromagnet by the spin Hall effect. The numerical simulation of the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation indicates that magnetization switching is achieved when the steady-state solution of the magnetization in the presence of the current is outside an energetically unstable region. Based on the numerical result, an analytical theory deriving the threshold current is developed by focusing on the first-order perturbation to the unstable state. The analytical formula clarifies that the magnitude of the magnetic field applied to the current direction should be larger than 15% of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy field, and the current is less than the derived threshold value. ]{}' author: - Tomohiro Taniguchi title: Theoretical condition for switching the magnetization in a perpendicularly magnetized ferromagnet via the spin Hall effect --- Introduction {#sec:Introduction} ============ The theoretical predictions of the spin-transfer torque effect in nanostructured ferromagnetic/nonmagnetic multilayers have drastically changed our understanding of the electron transport and magnetization dynamics in the ferromagnet \[\]. It provides various interesting physics in condensed matter physics and nonlinear science, such as spin-dependent transport in fine structures \[\] and a switching and limit cycle of magnetization \[\]. In addition, since the current necessary to excite the dynamics decreases with decreasing the volume of the ferromagnet, the spin-transfer torque effect has also attracted much attention from an applied physics viewpoint \[\]. The magnetization switching by the spin-transfer torque is particularly important for both fundamental and applied physics. Whereas it had been first confirmed in current-perpendicular-to-plane metallic \[\] and highly resistive \[\] systems, the magnetization switching in a current-in-plane system was also demonstrated recently \[\], where the spin-transfer torque is excited by spin current generated by the spin Hall effect in nonmagnetic heavy metals \[\]. A key quantity for the magnetization switching is the threshold current. Its theoretical formula for various systems has been derived by solving the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation using several approaches such as linearization \[\], the averaging technique \[\], or integration \[\]. In particular, the threshold current formula for the switching of a perpendicular magnetization by the spin Hall effect was derived in Ref. \[\], where the formula was obtained by analyzing a steady-state solution of the magnetization. Simultaneously, however, it was clarified in Ref. \[\] that the derived formula is limitedly applicable to the ferromagnet with a large damping constant $\alpha( \gtrsim 0.03)$ because of the complex dependence of the threshold current on the damping constant for a small $\alpha$. This fact indicates the necessity of solving two issues. The first one is to clarify the origin of the complex dependence of the threshold current on $\alpha$. The second one is an extension of the theory to a small $\alpha$ limit because typical ferromagnetic materials, such as CoFeB, used in the spintronics devices have small damping constant on the order of $10^{-3}$ \[\]. In this paper, both numerical simulation and analytical theory are performed on the switching of the perpendicularly magnetized ferromagnet by the spin Hall effect. The phase diagram of the magnetization state are obtained by the numerical simulation of the LLG equation. The result indicates that the complex dependence of the switching current appears when the steady state of the magnetization in the presence of the current is in an energetically unstable region. It is clarified that although the formula in Ref. \[\] is still applicable to the small damping region, there is another boundary of the current to achieve the switching with high accuracy. Based on the numerical results, the theoretical formula of another threshold current is derived. The new formula indicates that the magnetization switching occurs when the magnetization field larger than 15% of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy field is applied to the longitudinal direction, combined with the fact that the magnitude of the current is in the range between the threshold currents derived in Ref. \[\] and the present work. ![ Schematic view of the system. The ferromagnet having the magnetization vector $\mathbf{m}$ ($\|\mathbf{m}\|=1$) is placed on the nonmagnet. The current density $j$ and external field $H_{x}$ are applied to the bottom nonmagnet and the ferromagnet, respectively, in the $x$ direction. The spin current having the spin polarization along the $y$ direction is injected into the ferromagnet by the spin Hall effect. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} System description and numerical results {#sec:System description and numerical results} ======================================== In this section, we describe the system under consideration, review the previous work briefly, and show the results of the numerical simulations. System description {#sec:System description} ------------------ The system we consider is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. The ferromagnetic layer having the magnetization $\mathbf{m}$ ($\|\mathbf{m}\|=1$) is placed on the nonmagnetic heavy metal. The $z$ axis is perpendicular to the plane, whereas the $x$ axis is parallel to the direction of the electric current density $j$ in the nonmagnet. An external field $H_{x}$ is also applied to the ferromagnet along the longitudinal ($x$) direction. The magnetization dynamics in the ferromagnet is described by the LLG equation, $$\frac{d \mathbf{m}}{dt} = -\gamma \mathbf{m} \times \mathbf{H} - \gamma H_{\rm s} \mathbf{m} \times \left( \mathbf{e}_{y} \times \mathbf{m} \right) + \alpha \mathbf{m} \times \frac{d \mathbf{m}}{dt}, \label{eq:LLG}$$ where $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ are the gyromagnetic ratio and the Gilbert damping constant, respectively. The magnetic field is given by $$\mathbf{H} = H_{x} \mathbf{e}_{x} + H_{\rm K} m_{z} \mathbf{e}_{z}, \label{eq:field}$$ where $H_{\rm K}$ is the net magnetic anisotropy field along the $z$ direction. Since we are interested in a perpendicularly magnetized ferromagnet, $H_{\rm K}$ should be positive. For the latter discussion, it is useful to introduce the magnetic energy density $E$ as $E=-M \int d \mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{H}$, where $M$ is the saturation magnetization. Note that the energy density $E$ has two minima corresponding to $\mathbf{m}_{0+}=(\sin\Theta,0,\cos\Theta)$ and $\mathbf{m}_{0-}=(\sin\Theta,0,-\cos\Theta)$, where $\Theta=\sin^{-1}(\|H_{x}\|/H_{\rm K})$. Throughout this paper, we assume that the initial state of the magnetization is located at $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$, for convention, which is close to $+\mathbf{e}_{z}$, whereas $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$ is close to $-\mathbf{e}_{z}$. The strength of the spin-transfer torque by the spin Hall effect is $$H_{\rm s} = \frac{\hbar \vartheta j}{2eMd},$$ where $\vartheta$ is the spin Hall angle of the nonmagnetic heavy metal, whereas $d$ is the thickness of the free layer. The values of the parameters used in this work are derived from Ref. \[\] as $M=1500$ emu/c.c., $H_{\rm K}=540$ Oe, $\vartheta=0.1$, $d=1.0$ nm, $\gamma=1.764 \times 10^{7}$ rad/(Oe s), and $\alpha=0.005$. Note that the value of the damping constant is similar to that of CoFeB \[\], and is one order of magnitude smaller than the value assumed in the previous theoretical analysis \[\]. Brief review of previous work {#sec:Brief review of previous work} ----------------------------- For the following discussion, it is useful to briefly review the derivation of the threshold current in Ref. \[\]. Reference \[\] uses the fact that the solution of the LLG equation in the presence of the current finally saturates to a fixed point. In terms of the zenith and azimuth angles $(\theta,\varphi)$, defined as $\mathbf{m}=(\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta)$, the LLG equation in a steady state is given by $$H_{x} \sin\varphi + H_{\rm s} \cos\theta \sin\varphi = 0, \label{eq:condition_1}$$ $$H_{\rm K} \sin\theta \cos\theta - H_{x} \cos\theta \cos\varphi - H_{\rm s} \cos\varphi = 0. \label{eq:condition_2}$$ It is also assumed in Ref. \[\] that the magnetization moves from the stable state to the $x$ direction where $m_{y}=0$, or equivalently, $\varphi=0$, when the current is injected. Then, Eq. (\[eq:condition\_1\]) becomes self-evident, whereas Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\]) gives a threshold current $$\begin{split} j_{\rm c\pm} = \pm & \frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{\rm K} \frac{\mp 3 h + \sqrt{8+h^{2}}}{16} \\ & \times \sqrt{ 8 \mp 2 h \left( \pm h + \sqrt{ 8 + h^{2} } \right) }, \label{eq:jc} \end{split}$$ where $h=H_{x}/H_{\rm K}$. The physical meaning of the threshold here is that the magnetization cannot stay in a hemisphere with $m_{y}=0$ when the current magnitude exceeds Eq. (\[eq:jc\]); see Appendix \[sec:AppendixA\]. ![image](fig2.eps){width="2.0\columnwidth"} Numerical simulation {#sec:Numerical simulation} -------------------- Now let us show the numerical solutions of Eq. (\[eq:LLG\]). Figures \[fig:fig2\](a), \[fig:fig2\](b), and \[fig:fig2\](c) are the phase diagram of $m_{x}$, $m_{y}$, and $m_{z}$, respectively. These steady-state solutions, satisfying $d \mathbf{m}/dt=\bm{0}$, are determined by the first and second terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:LLG\]). When the current magnitude is small and thus, the magnetization stays near the initial state, the magnetization lies in the $xz$ plane because $\mathbf{H}+H_{\rm s}\mathbf{e}_{y}\times\mathbf{m}$ in Eq. (\[eq:LLG\]) becomes zero in case the magnetization is in the plane. On the other hand, when the current magnitude is large and thus the magnetization moves far away from the $z$ axis, $\mathbf{m}$ moves to the $y$ direction because the spin polarization of the incoming spin current points to this direction. The phase diagram in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] is divided into three regions, labeled I, II, and III in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](c). The first one locates near the zero-current region, where the magnetization stays close to the initial state, $m_{z}\simeq 1$. The second region appears when the applied field exceeds a certain value, which is about 80 Oe, in which the magnetization moves close to the switched state, $m_{z} \simeq -1$. The third region corresponds to the other region where the magnetization stays near the $xy$ plane, where $m_{z} \simeq 0$. The solid lines in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] correspond to those of Eq. (\[eq:jc\]). It can be seen from these figures that the formula, Eq. (\[eq:jc\]), provides a reasonable estimation of the lower boundary of the instability threshold, i.e., the magnetization stays in the first region, which is near the initial stable state ($m_{z}\simeq 1$), when the current magnitude is less than Eq. (\[eq:jc\]). However, the formula cannot distinguish between the second ($m_{z}\simeq -1$) and third ($m_{z} \simeq 0$) regions. ![ (a) The steady state of $m_{z}$ after turning off the current. The field $H_{x}$ is fixed to $200$ Oe in (b). []{data-label="fig:fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} We should note that the experimental study often investigates the magnetization state after turning off the current. Therefore, we also attempt to calculate the relaxed state of the magnetization after the current is turned off, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a). It is revealed that the magnetization switches to the stable point $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$ when the magnetization in the presence of the current stays in region II in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](c). On the other hand, when the magnetization was in region III, the relaxed state after turning off the current becomes either $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$, depending on the values of $j$ and $H_{x}$. Figure \[fig:fig3\](b) illustrates such deterministic and complex switching behavior by showing the magnetization state as an example, in the case where $H_{x}$ is 200 Oe in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a). Here, for the current density of $-148 \lesssim j \lesssim 48$ MA/cm${}^{2}$, the magnetization returns to the initial state $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$. On the other hand, for the current density of $48 < j \lesssim 148$ MA/cm${}^{2}$, the magnetization definitely switches to the other stable state $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$. However, outside these regions, the magnetization relaxes to either $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$. Such a complex behavior of the relaxed state will be an origin of a back-hopping in a high current region, which is recently studied in a current-perpendicular-to-plane system \[\]. ![image](fig4.eps){width="2.0\columnwidth"} Switching mechanism {#sec:Switching mechanism} ------------------- To apprehend such a complex dependence of the relaxation state on the current and field, it is useful to study the dynamics on the energy landscape of the energy density $E$. Figure \[fig:fig4\](a) shows the energy landscape of the present system, where the lines correspond to the constant energy curves of $E$. There are two stable states, $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$, near $\pm \mathbf{e}_{z}$. The highest energy state is located at $\mathbf{m}_{\rm u}\equiv -\mathbf{e}_{x}$. On the other hand, the point $\mathbf{m}_{\rm s}\equiv +\mathbf{e}_{x}$ corresponds to the saddle point. For the sake of convention, let us call the regions between $\mathbf{m}_{0\pm}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{\rm s}$ the stable regions and the region between $\mathbf{m}_{\rm s}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{\rm u}$ the unstable region. Note that there are two boundaries between the stable and unstable regions because of the presence of two stable fixed points, $\mathbf{m}_{0\pm}$. We emphasize that the complex switching behavior mentioned above appears when the steady-state solution in the presence of the current is located in the unstable region. Figures \[fig:fig4\](b) and \[fig:fig4\](c) show an example of such dynamics. In Fig. \[fig:fig4\](b), the dynamic trajectory of the magnetization in the presence of a current density of $j=160$ MA/cm${}^{2}$ and longitudinal field $H_{x}=50$ Oe is shown. The magnetization finally locates at a certain point inside the unstable region. After the current is turned off, the magnetization starts to precess around the negative $x$ direction, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\](c). This is because the torque due to the magnetic field induces the precession on a constant energy curve. Because of the presence of the damping torque, however, the magnetization slowly relaxes to the lower energy state. In the case of Fig. \[fig:fig4\](c), the magnetization traverses the upper ($m_{z}>0$) boundary and therefore is saturated to $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$. In this case, the switching does not occur. The result shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\] reveals the reason why the large damping assumption was necessary in the previous work \[\]. Let us consider the case that the steady-state solution in the presence of the current locates inside the unstable region, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\](b). When the damping constant is small, as in the case in Fig. \[fig:fig4\](c), the magnetization undergoes many precessional oscillation before traversing the boundary between the stable and unstable regions. Which of the relaxed states, $\mathbf{m}_{0-}$ or $\mathbf{m}_{0+}$, is accomplished is determined by whether the magnetization traverses the lower or upper boundary between the stable and unstable region. It depends on many parameters in the LLG equation, such as the damping constant and the longitudinal field, as well as the steady state solution in the presence of the current, which is the initial condition of the relaxation dynamics. Therefore, the current and/or field dependence of the relaxation dynamics becomes complex, as can be observed in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]. Although the relaxed state can be predicted deterministically from the LLG equation in principle, it is difficult to obtain the analytical solution due to the nonlinearity of the LLG equation. On the other hand, when the damping constant is large, the relaxation dynamics becomes fast. In this case, the magnetization will traverse the boundary between the stable and unstable state without showing the precession around the negative $x$ axis. Then, the magnetization switches its direction accurately. At the end of this section, we should mention that the complex behavior of the relaxed state is not related to chaos, contrary to the suggestion in Ref. \[\]. As can be seen in the derivation of Eq. (\[eq:jc\]) above, the magnetization dynamics in the present system is described by two dynamical variables, $\theta$ and $\varphi$. On the other hand, chaos is prohibited in a two-dimensional system, according to the Poincaré-Bendixson theorem \[\]. Therefore, the complex dependence of the switched state on the current and/or field cannot be explained by chaos theory. Theoretical conditions for switching {#sec:Theoretical conditions for switching} ==================================== The above discussion indicates the existence of another threshold current density to achieve the switching. As mentioned, the complex switching behavior appears when the steady state solution of the magnetization in the presence of the current locates inside the energetically unstable region. In fact, comparing Figs. \[fig:fig2\](b), \[fig:fig2\](c), and \[fig:fig3\](a), we notice that the complex switching behavior appears in region III, where $m_{y} \neq 0$, corresponding to the unstable region. On the other hand, magnetization switching occurs when the steady state solution satisfies $m_{y} \simeq 0$, as shown in region II in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. Therefore, we will focus on a small perturbation, $\|\delta\varphi\| \ll 1$, in Eqs. (\[eq:condition\_1\]) and (\[eq:condition\_2\]), where $\delta\varphi$ is a small deviation from $\varphi=0,\pi$. Then, we obtain $$\left( H_{x} + H_{\rm s} \cos\theta \right) \delta \varphi = 0, \label{eq:condition_1_rev}$$ $$H_{\rm K} \sin\theta \cos\theta - H_{x} \cos\theta \cos\varphi - H_{\rm s} \cos\varphi = 0, \label{eq:condition_2_rev}$$ where $\cos\varphi$ in Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\_rev\]) should be $-1$ ($+1$) for $\varphi=\pi$ ($0$). Solving Eqs.(\[eq:condition\_1\_rev\]) and (\[eq:condition\_2\_rev\]) with $\delta\varphi \neq 0$, the current density necessary to keep the magnetization mostly in the stable region is given by (see Appendix \[sec:AppendixB\]) $$j_{\rm th\pm} = \frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{x} \sqrt{ \frac{2}{-h^{2} \pm h \sqrt{4+h^{2}}} }, \label{eq:jth}$$ where $j_{\rm th+(-)}$ is defined for $h>(<)0$ The current density $j_{\rm th}$ determines the boundary between $\|m_{y}\| \simeq 0$ and $\|m_{y}\| \gg 0$, which corresponds to the boundary between the regions II and III in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. In fact, Eq. (\[eq:jth\]) well explains the boundary found by the numerical simulation, as shown by the dotted lines in Figs. \[fig:fig2\] and \[fig:fig3\]. The difference between Eqs. (\[eq:jc\]) and (\[eq:jth\]) is as follows. Equation (\[eq:jc\]) is the threshold current density to keep the magnetization in the north hemisphere. When the current magnitude becomes larger than $\|j_{\rm c}\|$, the magnetization moves to the south hemisphere. However, Eq. (\[eq:jc\]) does not provide any information as to whether $m_{y}$ becomes small or large in the steady state. For a switching, the magnetization in the steady state should satisfy $\|m_{y}\|\simeq 0$. Equation (\[eq:jth\]) determines the boundary between $\|m_{y}\| \simeq 0$ and $\|m_{y}\| \gg 0$ (see Appendix \[sec:AppendixB\]). ![image](fig5.eps){width="2.0\columnwidth"} The above results clearly indicate the theoretical conditions for the magnetization switching. The switching occurs when the steady-state solution in the presence of the current is in region II, as can be understood from Figs. \[fig:fig2\] and \[fig:fig3\]. The boundary between region I and other regions is determined by Eq. (\[eq:jc\]), whereas the boundary between region II and III is given by Eq. (\[eq:jth\]). Therefore, the switching is achieved when the current density $j$ is in the range of $j_{\rm c} \le j \le j_{\rm th}$. Note that the condition $j_{\rm c}<j_{\rm th}$ is satisfied when $$\|h\| > 0.147547... \simeq 0.15. \label{eq:critical_field}$$ Therefore, the magnitude of the applied field should be larger than 15% of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy field for the switching to take place. It should be emphasized that the results obtained here are applicable even to materials with low damping constant. The existence of the critical field, Eq. (\[eq:critical\_field\]), for the determining switching can also be understood from another viewpoint. The dots depicted in Fig.s \[fig:fig5\](a) and \[fig:fig5\](b) show the steady state solutions in the presence of the current on the unit sphere, where the longitudinal field is (a) $H_{x}=50$ Oe and (b) $200$ Oe. The constant energy curves near the boundary between the stable and unstable states are also shown by lines. Note that the critical field in the present system is $H_{\rm K}\times 0.147547...\simeq 80$ Oe. For $H_{x}=50$ Oe, corresponding to the field less than the critical field, the steady-state solutions are inside the unstable region or near the initial state ($\mathbf{m}\simeq+\mathbf{e}_{z}$). In such a case, a deterministic switching does not occur, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:Switching mechanism\]. On the other hand, for $H_{x}=200$ Oe, which is larger than the critical value, some of the steady-state solutions are located outside the unstable state and near the switched state ($\mathbf{m}\simeq -\mathbf{e}_{z}$). The deterministic switching becomes possible in this situation. Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion} ========== In conclusion, the comprehensive theory for achieving magnetization switching of the perpendicular ferromagnet by the spin Hall effect was developed. The numerical simulation of the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation indicated that the switching occurs when the steady state of the magnetization in the presence of the current stays in the energetically stable state. The theoretical formula of a threshold current was derived, which determines the boundary of the deterministic switching. The formula revealed that the magnitude of the magnetization field applied to the ferromagnet should be larger than 15% of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy field. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== The author is grateful to Masamitsu Hayashi and Kyung-Jin Lee for valuable discussion. The author is also thankful to Satoshi Iba, Aurelie Spiesser, Hiroki Maehara, and Ai Emura for their support and encouragement. Derivation of $j_{\rm c}$ {#sec:AppendixA} ========================= In this section, the derivation of $j_{\rm c\pm}$ in the main text is shown. For this purpose, it is useful to express the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation in terms of the zenith and azimuth angle, $(\theta,\varphi)$, as $$\frac{d \theta}{dt} = -\frac{\gamma}{M \sin\theta} \frac{\partial E}{\partial \varphi} - \gamma H_{\rm s} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{p} - \alpha \sin\theta \frac{d\varphi}{dt}, \label{eq:LLG_theta}$$ $$\sin\theta \frac{d\varphi}{dt} = \frac{\gamma}{M} \frac{\partial E}{\partial \theta} - \frac{\gamma H_{\rm s}}{\sin\theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi} \mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{p} + \alpha \frac{d\theta}{dt}, \label{eq:LLG_varphi}$$ where the direction of the spin polarization $\mathbf{p}$ is the unit vector in the $y$ direction in the present case. The energy density is given by $$E = -MH_{x} m_{x} - \frac{MH_{\rm K}}{2} m_{z}^{2}. \label{eq:energy}$$ Therefore, the steady state solutions of $(\theta,\varphi)$, satisfying $d\theta/dt=0$ and $d\varphi/dt=0$, are determined by Eqs. (\[eq:condition\_1\]) and (\[eq:condition\_2\]). Reference \[\] assumes $\varphi=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:condition\_1\]). This assumption is valid for the dynamics before the magnetization reaches to the steady state with positive current $j>0$ and field $H_{x}>0$. However, the steady-state solution satisfies $\varphi=\pi$, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a). In addition, for the negative field case $H_{x}<0$, the dynamics to the steady state satisfies $\varphi=\pi$. Therefore, instead of assuming $\varphi=0$, we introduce a parameter $p=\pm 1$ and reconstruct Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\]) as $$p H_{\rm K} \sin\theta \cos\theta - H_{x} \cos\theta = H_{\rm s}. \label{eq:condition_2_p}$$ Note that a function $$f = \left( p \sin\theta - h \right) \cos\theta,$$ with $h=H_{x}/H_{\rm K}$ has local minima and maxima at $$\sin\theta = \frac{1}{4} \left( ph + \sqrt{ h^{2} + 8 } \right),$$ where we use $\sin\theta \ge 0$ because, in the spherical coordinate, $0 \le \theta \le \pi$. Using the solution of $\sin\theta$, we also find that $$\cos^{2}\theta = \frac{4-h^{2}-ph \sqrt{h^{2}+8}}{8}.$$ Substituting these solutions of $\sin\theta$ and $\cos\theta$ to the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\_p\]), the maximum and minimum current densities $j(\propto H_{\rm s})$ satisfying Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\]) are, depending on the values of $p=\cos\varphi=\pm 1$ and $\cos\theta$, given by $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm c1} = \frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{\rm K} \frac{\left( -3h + \sqrt{8+h^{2}} \right)}{16} \sqrt{ 8 - 2 h \left( h + \sqrt{ 8 + h^{2} } \right) }, && \left( \cos\varphi=1,\ \cos\theta>0 \right), \label{eq:jc1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm c2} = \frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{\rm K} \frac{\left( 3h + \sqrt{8+h^{2}} \right)}{16} \sqrt{ 8 + 2 h \left( -h + \sqrt{ 8 + h^{2} } \right) }, && \left( \cos\varphi=-1,\ \cos\theta<0 \right), \label{eq:jc2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm c3} = -\frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{\rm K} \frac{\left( -3h + \sqrt{8+h^{2}} \right)}{16} \sqrt{ 8 - 2 h \left( h + \sqrt{ 8 + h^{2} } \right) }, && \left( \cos\varphi=1,\ \cos\theta<0 \right), \label{eq:jc3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm c4} = -\frac{2eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{\rm K} \frac{\left( 3h + \sqrt{8+h^{2}} \right)}{16} \sqrt{ 8 + 2 h \left( -h + \sqrt{ 8 + h^{2} } \right) }, && \left( \cos\varphi=-1,\ \cos\theta>0 \right). \label{eq:jc4}\end{aligned}$$ Since we study the magnetization switching from the initial state close to $+\mathbf{e}_{z}$, the solutions of $j_{\rm c}$ for $\cos\theta>0$ give the condition for the magnetization switching. In fact, Eq. (\[eq:jc1\]) and (\[eq:jc4\]) above are $j_{\rm c+}$ and $j_{\rm c-}$ in Eq. (\[eq:jc\]), respectively. According to the derivation above, $j_{\rm c}$ determines the current density necessary to keep the magnetization in the north ($\cos\theta>0$) or south ($\cos\theta<0$) hemisphere with $m_{y}=0$. Reference \[\] suggested that, above $j_{\rm c}$, the magnetization abruptly moves to the region of $m_{y} \neq 0$. We should, however, note that the current density $j_{\rm c}$ does not provide any information on the value of $m_{y}$. For example, let us consider the case that the magnetization initially stays in the north hemisphere. When the current density becomes larger than $j_{\rm c1}$, the magnetization cannot stay in the north hemisphere and moves to the south sphere. This is the instability threshold studied in Ref. \[\]. However, the instability in the north hemisphere does not necessarily mean $m_{y} \neq 0$. In fact, as studied in Fig. \[fig:fig2\], the magnetization can stay in the south hemisphere with $m_{y}=0$. If the current is turned off in this situation, the magnetization relaxes to the stable state close to the south pole, as a result of the relaxation dynamics. Therefore, to study the accuracy of the switching, it is necessary to study whether $\|m_{y}\|\simeq 0$ or $\|m_{y}\| \gg 1$ after the magnetization moves to the south hemisphere. This boundary is determined by $j_{\rm th}$ found in the present work. The accurate switching occurs when the current density is in the range of $j_{\rm c}<j\le j_{\rm th}$. When the current density is larger than $j_{\rm th}$, the magnetization moves to the region of $\|m_{y}\| \gg 1$ because the spin polarization of the spin current generated by the spin Hall effect points to the $y$ direction. The magnetization then stays in an energetically stable state, resulting in a complex switching behavior after the current is turned off. Derivation of $j_{\rm th}$ {#sec:AppendixB} ========================== In this section, the derivation of $j_{\rm th\pm}$ in the main text is described. Let us consider a small perturbation, $\delta\varphi$, from $\varphi=0,\pi$ in the LLG equation. Equations (\[eq:condition\_1\]) and (\[eq:condition\_2\]) are rewritten as, $$\left( H_{x} + H_{\rm s} \cos\theta \right) \delta \varphi = 0, \label{eq:condition_1_rev}$$ $$H_{\rm K} \sin\theta \cos\theta - p H_{x} \cos\theta - p H_{\rm s} = 0, \label{eq:condition_2_rev}$$ where $p=\cos\varphi\simeq \pm 1$, up to the first order of $\delta\varphi$, is introduced in Appendix \[sec:AppendixA\]. Note that we are interested in the steady state solutions satisfying $\delta\varphi \neq 0$. Using Eq. (\[eq:condition\_1\_rev\]), Eq. (\[eq:condition\_2\_rev\]) can be rewritten as $$H_{\rm K} \left( 1 - \sin^{2}\theta \right) + p H_{x} \sin\theta = 0.$$ Therefore, the steady state solution of $\sin\theta$ with $\delta\varphi \neq 0$ is given by $$\sin\theta = \frac{ph + \sqrt{h^{2}+4}}{2},$$ where we use $\sin\theta \ge 0$ again for the spherical coordinate. The current densities satisfying $\delta\varphi \neq 0$ and $\|\delta\varphi\| \ll 1$ are, depending on the values $p=\cos\varphi\simeq \pm 1$ and the sign of $\cos\theta$, obtained from Eq. (\[eq:condition\_1\_rev\]) as $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm th1} = \frac{2 eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{x} \sqrt{ \frac{2}{-h^{2}+h \sqrt{4+h^{2}}} }, && \left( \varphi=\pi,\ \cos\theta<0 \right), \label{eq:jth1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm th2} = \frac{2 eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{x} \sqrt{ \frac{2}{-h^{2}-h \sqrt{4+h^{2}}} }, && \left( \varphi=0,\ \cos\theta<0 \right), \label{eq:jth2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm th3} = -\frac{2 eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{x} \sqrt{ \frac{2}{-h^{2}+h \sqrt{4+h^{2}}} }, && \left( \varphi=\pi,\ \cos\theta>0 \right), \label{eq:jth3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} j_{\rm th4} = -\frac{2 eMd}{\hbar \vartheta} H_{x} \sqrt{ \frac{2}{-h^{2}-h \sqrt{4+h^{2}}} }, && \left( \varphi=0,\ \cos\theta>0 \right). \label{eq:jth4}\end{aligned}$$ When $\cos\theta<0$, the magnetization after turning off the current relaxes to the switched state close to $-\mathbf{e}_{z}$. Therefore, Eqs. (\[eq:jth1\]) and (\[eq:jth2\]) provide the accurate switching condition. In fact, $j_{\rm th1}$ and $j_{\rm th2}$ defined above are $j_{\rm th+}$ and $j_{\rm th-}$ in Eq. (\[eq:jth\]), respectively. [30]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , **, (). , , (). , eds., (, ). , , , (, ). , , , eds., (, ). , , , , , **, (). , , , , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , , (). , , (). , , , , , , , , , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , , , (). , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , , , (). , , (). , (, ), ed.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'When AI systems are granted the agency to take impactful actions in the real world, there is an inherent risk that these systems behave in ways that are harmful. Typically, humans specify constraints on the AI system to prevent harmful behavior; however, very little work has studied how best to facilitate this difficult constraint specification process. In this paper, we study how to design user interfaces that make this process more effective and accessible, allowing people with a diversity of backgrounds and levels of expertise to contribute to this task. We first present a task design in which workers evaluate the safety of individual state-action pairs, and propose several variants of this task with improved task design and filtering mechanisms. Although this first design is easy to understand, it scales poorly to large state spaces. Therefore, we develop a new user interface that allows workers to write constraint rules without any programming. Despite its simplicity, we show that our rule construction interface retains full expressiveness. We present experiments utilizing crowdworkers to help address an important real-world AI safety problem in the domain of education. Our results indicate that our novel worker filtering and explanation methods outperform baseline approaches, and our rule-based interface allows workers to be much more efficient while improving data quality.' author: - \| Travis Mandel$^1$, Jahnu Best, Randall H. Tanaka$^1$, Hiram Temple$^1$, Chansen Haili$^1$, Kayla Schlectinger$^1$$^2$,\ Roy Szeto$^3$\ $^1$Computer Science Department, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI\ $^2$ Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN\ $^3$Center for Game Science, University of Washington, Seattle, WA\ {tmandel, jahnub, dh404, htemple, haili808, kayla82}@hawaii.edu, [email protected] bibliography: - 'constraints.bib' --- Introduction ============ As AI systems become more ubiquitous, and are given greater agency to impact human lives, we must ensure that these systems behave in a safe manner. Although when one hears the term “AI safety” it brings to mind robot uprisings and autonomous cars running down pedestrians, this term is broad enough to encompass types of harm that are not physical in nature. One recent example of this is online movie recommendations [@Balakrishnan2018nflix], where we do not want an AI system to recommend a movie with extreme violence to a young child (even if they are likely to watch it). Another related example is education, where we want to empower AI systems to select among a wide array of content in order to personalize the educational experience for each student, but we do not want to allow the AI to teach incorrect or misleading information to impressionable young students. A standard machine learning approach to this problem is simply to learn through trial-and-error which actions are harmful. However, actually trying a potentially unsafe action in the real system is extremely undesirable in most settings. Therefore, researchers have studied AI systems that learn to predict when actions are unsafe before they executed, either based on results from simulation [@dosovitskiy2017carla] or from explicit feedback [@awad2018moral; @balakrishan2018; @Balakrishnan2018nflix]. Unfortunately, this is difficult in many real-world systems (especially those without a high quality simulator) as if the agent makes a mistaken prediction it may execute unsafe actions. Therefore, AI systems often rely on experts in both machine learning and the specific domain to hand-craft rules, called constraints, that specify what behaviors are unsafe. In this setting, AI researchers tend to focus on studying how to create machine learning systems that obey these prespecified constraints [@dalal2018safe; @chow2018lyapunov; @tessler2018reward]. Although this research is valuable from an AI perspective, often the weakest link are the human factors. Unfortunately, designing these constraint rules is time consuming and error prone, especially when the space of all states and actions is large and complex. Additionally, the group of experts who write these constraints is limited and they may not share the same values or perspectives as the general populace. The valuable time and effort expended to generate these constraints is also in competition with other important tasks related to improving the AI system (such as improving the underlying algorithm). Although the core AI problem of integrating constraints is very well studied, there is unfortunately very little work exploring how to most effectively design the interaction process by which humans specify these constraints. In this paper, we present the first study of how to develop user interfaces that facilitate effective constraint specification for AI systems. Our goal is to make interfaces that are easy to use, allow a variety of individuals with diverse backgrounds to contribute, ease the burden on the limited group of experts, and ensure high-quality output. Therefore, we take a crowdsourcing approach to this work, evaluating our task designs on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Although we do not expect crowdworkers to have an in-depth understanding of the specific domain, for many AI problems, one does not need to be an expert to recognize when an AI system is about to execute an unsafe action. For example, one does not need to be an expert event planner or child psychologist to recognize that booking a band known for their explicit lyrics for a child’s birthday party is in some sense unsafe. In our first interface design, we visualize a situation and a candidate action to workers, and ask them whether or not the action would be safe to take in that context. Initial performance is surprisingly poor, so we explore new variations of the task design that produce higher quality constraints by better filtering workers and promoting more careful work. Although this “case-by-case” interface design is relatively straightforward, it seems inefficient when there are a large number of state-action pairs. Therefore, we additionally develop an interface that allows workers to write rules that can constrain many state-action pairs at the same time. Our rule-based interface does not require any programming, and gives users near-instant feedback about the impact of the rule. Further, we develop a novel simplification that makes the rule construction task more accessible, while provably retaining full expressiveness. We evaluate our scenarios on an important real world AI problem in education, using data from thousands of students and several educational experts. We find that our new methods of filtering and promoting careful work are effective at increasing precision. We also find that our rule-based approach improves upon the case-by-case approach in terms of precision, while being much more cost-efficient. Related work ============ Crowdsourcing Decisions and Constraints --------------------------------------- Perhaps the most closely related to our paper is recent work by Awad et al. [-@awad2018moral] on using large amounts of non-expert workers to determine which decisions are most ethical for an AI system. This work asks the user to choose between multiple unsafe actions (i.e. killing passengers or killing pedestrians) in artificially constructed scenarios. However, Awad et al. did not explore how best to design the user interface for this task, and makes the assumption that users always select their true preference. In our work, we focus on determining the safety of actions in real-world scenarios, and even though the correct answer is much more clear cut in our domain, we observe that many workers struggle to understand this difficult task. This motivates our exploration of how to design user interfaces to increase data quality in this safety-critical setting. Work by Zhuo [-@zhuo2015crowdsourced] (and Gao et al. [-@gao2015acquiring]) looks at a related problem, in which they ask human workers to help specify an action model (including constraints) for various simulated AI planning tasks. However, instead of having workers build their own constraints, they simply had users answer whether or not a given pre-generated constraint was correct. Also, note that constraints are not a safety issue in planning, unlike in our case where the AI plans to take these actions in the real world. As such, this work did not investigate user interface designs to improve worker performance. Other work has focused on using human workers to add new actions to an AI system [@williams2016axis; @mandel2017where]. Indeed, related past work has looked at using crowdworkers to write hints which could be added to an educational game, potentially serving as actions for a downstream AI system [@chen2016crowdsourcing]. However, these crowdworker-written hints were not found to be high-quality enough to deploy in-game without needing extensive expert filtering and revision. Therefore, in this paper we assume the task of writing hints (developing actions) is handled by education experts. But these experts have very limited time and resources to write new hints, and as such we focus on how to design accessible tasks that maximize the efficacy of these hints by determining in what situations it is safe to try them. Data Quality ------------ Vast amounts of past work has looked at different procedures to increase the accuracy of data coming from crowdworking platforms such as Mechanical Turk [@soylent; @ambati2012; @heer2010; @mitra2015comparing]. However, in this task our goal is not simply to have high accuracy, but rather to have extremely high precision and non-negligible recall, which is a very different objective and requires changes in the task design to achieve. Further, these works have looked at improving accuracy on other types of tasks such as image labeling or sentiment analysis, and therefore cannot leverage or examine any specific properties of constraint-design tasks.[^1] As we explore throughout the rest of the paper, real-world AI constraint design tasks are particularly difficult to make accessible for a variety of reasons. Although there is a large body of work exploring the quality and impact of gold questions for the purpose of filtering crowdworkers [@dai2011artificial; @bragg2016optimal], most of it requires experts to expend substantial additional effort annotating a sizable dataset of positive and negative examples. Some work has studied programmatically generating gold questions [@oleson2011programmatic], however it still requires experts to spend significant time identifying common mistakes and construct mutation operators and associated error descriptions. In our setting we get certain gold labels without needing to expend this effort, and we investigate whether filtering workers based on these alone is sufficient to ensure high precision. Problem Setup {#sec:probsetup} ============= We deal with problems where an AI system, known as an agent, must take actions in an unknown real-world environment. Specifically, we assume the agent has a set of actions $\mathcal{A}$ and a (possibly large) set of states $\mathcal{S}$.[^2] The environment produces a state $s \in \mathcal{S}$, the agent chooses an action $a \in \mathcal{A}$, and the environment transitions to a new state $s'' \in \mathcal{S}$ . We assume there exists a function $C(s,a)$, which is unknown to the agent, that returns true if and only if the action $a$ is safe to take at state $s$. In this paper, our goal is to use humans (e.g. crowdworkers) to find a Boolean function $\hat{C}(s,a)$ that approximates $C(s,a)$ as well as possible, so that we can develop “safe” agents that only take actions where $\hat{C}(s,a)=true$. Other than this, we are completely agnostic to the details of the AI algorithm the agent uses to select actions (this could include reinforcement learning approaches, recommendation algorithms, etc.). In terms of evaluating $\hat{C}(s,a)$, our primary aim is to maximize precision; that is, the proportion of cases where $\hat{C}(s,a) = true$ that $C(s,a) = true$. This is because, since we intend to feed $\hat{C}(s,a)$ to an autonomous agent, if $\hat{C}(s,a) = true$ and $C(s,a) = false$, the agent may take an unsafe action. Of course, one can get high precision just by letting $\hat{C}(s,a)=false$ almost everywhere, so the number of cases where $\hat{C}(s,a) = true$ is a secondary consideration. We make the following simplifying assumption: For every action $a'$, we can produce at least one state $s'$ such that $C(s',a')=true$; in other words, a state where $a'$ is known to be safe. \[ass:posgold\] This assumption is not very strong, since usually actions are constructed with a specific situation in mind. For example, a robot may have a manipulator designed to pick up a certain type of block, or a telemarketing agent may have a standard script giving the normal situation a line should be uttered in. In situations where this is not the case, we imagine that it should be relatively easy for an expert to identify some state where the action is safe to try.[^3] Case-by-case Design =================== ![A comparison of the general-purpose design of our case-by-case interface (left) and our rule-based interface (right).[]{data-label="fig:interface_gen"}](GenericInterfaces.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} \[sec:casebycase\] One way to dramatically simplify the task of constructing the constraint function $C(s,a)$ is to have human workers view individual $(s,a)$ pairs and give a Boolean response indicating whether action $a$ is safe to try in state $s$. Figure 1 shows the basic task design. We visualize the state to the user, show the action, and then allow the user to respond (yes/no) as to whether the action applies. This task has the advantage of resembling a standard binary labeling task, which is familiar to many people (especially crowdworkers). However, it differs in a few key ways. First, in our case, we care much more about precision, compared to a typical binary labeling task where precision is roughly as important as recall (reducing false negatives). Although controlling the tradeoff between precision and recall is trivial in machine learning systems, it is unclear how this can be done with human workers. Second, this task seems quite complex compared to other crowdsourced tasks. Figure \[fig:interface\_gen\] is somewhat deceptive in this respect, as the worker must consider numerous elements of the state and action, and think carefully about how they relate to each other. The final difference relates to gold questions, which are questions with a known response that can be interspersed in a task to filter out poorly-performing workers. To achieve quality responses, experts typically generate a large dataset of positive and negative gold questions, which is a significant burden. However, due to Assumption \[ass:posgold\], for every action $a''$ we have a single state $s''$ where that action is known to be safe. Since the correct answer when presented with the pair $(s'', a'')$ is “yes”, this is a gold question which requires no additional expert effort to generate. Therefore, as a baseline way of filtering workers, we include a single positive gold question per task (randomly generated as per Assumption \[ass:posgold\]), and if workers answer no to any of these gold questions, their responses are excluded. To train workers, we include a short tutorial before the task, which simply explains to the worker why each response they submit is correct or incorrect. Filtering and Training {#sec:stage1cond} ---------------------- To ensure high-quality work, effective worker training and filtering is key. Therefore, we try several alternative methods to the previously-described Baseline: Tutorial Overload The first time a worker performs the task, all but one question is a tutorial. We generated the additional tutorial questions by going through randomly-selected state-action pairs and writing brief explanations for the yes and no answers. If the original number of unknown questions in the first task is $N$, the expert will need to label $N-1$ gold questions. In our experiment, of the 5 additional questions, 3 were yes answers and 2 were no answers. Gold Overload The first time a worker performs the task, all but one question is a gold question. The positive gold were generated using Assumption \[ass:posgold\], but the negative gold were generated by labeling $N-1$ gold questions as per Tutorial Overload. Unfortunately, this means that the negative gold state-action pairs will always be the same and thus may be susceptible to memorization by workers. Fake Gold \[sec:fakegold\] Although in our application we found sufficient “no” answers fairly quickly, that is not a guarantee in general. In many cases, the actions are safe almost everywhere (e.g. a servomechanism on a robot, or the brake on a car), and have a relatively small number of situations where they are unsafe. Finding these situations to generate more tutorial or gold questions places a tremendous burden on the expert. Furthermore, although the aforementioned methods are natural ways to test the impact of tutorials and gold on precision, they increase the cost per valuable worker answer substantially, as only one question in the initial task actually deals with a $(s',a')$ such that $C(s',a')$ is unknown. Therefore, to further reduce expert effort we introduce a “fake” negative gold action, i.e. a synthetic action that will clearly not apply to any states. To make the action better test whether the workers understand the task, we propose having the action refer to the task itself. For example, if the action space is text-based and we are running the task on Mechanical Turk, the action could read “Keep up the good work! You only have \[n\] questions left before you complete this HIT!” Or, if the action space is visual advertisements, one could show an image giving the worker positive reinforcement as a misdirect. Note that this approach is not equivalent to just adding one negative gold question. The state (which consumes most of the case-by-case display, see Figure \[fig:interface\_gen\]) changes every time the worker gets a fake gold question. Thus even if they were able memorize the correct response to every state-action pair they had previously seen, it would not directly help them when receiving the next fake gold question. H.1 We hypothesized that Tutorial and Gold Overload would help precision but generate very little work, while Fake Gold would retain a lot of the precision benefit but generate more useful work due to the higher ratio of unknown questions. Promoting Careful Thinking {#sec:stage2cond} -------------------------- Next, we explored a variety of approaches designed to further improve performance by encouraging workers to think carefully about relationship between states and actions: Continuity Work by Lasecki et al. [-@lasecki2014using] has studied workflow continuity, showing that presenting closely related tasks in succession can yield improved performance compared to a series of unrelated tasks (likely by reducing cognitive load). In our case, we keep the state the same throughout the task, allowing only the action to change. To make detecting what had changed easier on the worker, we added special highlights to show that the action changes from task to task. Skip Past work [@stefano2015; @chen2016crowdsourcing] has shown that promoting self-reflection is key to ensuring careful work. Therefore, we added a large “Skip” button between the “Yes” and “No” buttons, which is intended to cause workers to reflect on whether they are confident enough to submit a response, or would prefer to see a different question. To implement this button we pick another question of the same type (positive gold, fake gold, or non-gold), so workers still have to complete the same number of unknown and gold questions per task. We also added a tool-tip explaining to the workers that there would be no penalty for pressing the skip button. Two-sided Explanation Past work [@drapeau2016microtalk] has shown that requiring users to explain their answers can promote reflection and improve answer quality. Therefore, we tried an approach where whenever the user selected an answer, a textbox appears in which they must type an explanation before the task can proceed. Similar to past work [@drapeau2016microtalk], we apply a degree of filtering to the explanations: we do not allow the worker to proceed unless the explanation is 5th grade level (according to the Flesch-Kincaid scale) and at least 8 words. To further promote worker reflection, we added text and arrows that appear after an initial response is selected to make it clear workers could reconsider their response and choose the other option. One-sided Explanation A unique feature of our task is that, as mentioned in the problem setup section, we care primarily about reducing false positives. Therefore, we developed an approach similar to the two-sided explanation condition, except that when the user presses “No”, no explanation is requested and they simply proceed to the next question. The hypothesis is that this approach would encourage low-effort workers to simply select “No”, while encouraging high-effort workers to think more deeply about whether they have made the right selection. H.2 Our hypothesis was that all the variants would improve precision. We felt our one-sided explanation condition would likely perform the best due to the combination of promoting reflection and filtering out low-effort workers. Rule-Based Method ================= Our proposed case-by-case method scales poorly to larger state-action spaces, as workers must decide on every state-action pair individually. The standard solution is to instead specify $C(s,a)$ by writing rules, which can forbid or allow a large set of state-action pairs. This is typically thought to be a task that requires extensive programming (in a language like LISP), which greatly reduces the accessibility of the task. Additionally, the process of defining a general rule (which encompasses arbitrary states and arbitrary actions) requires a comprehensive understanding of the state-action space, which is very challenging even for AI experts. Logically, there are two natural alternatives for writing more focused rules: Either a user is shown a single state and must write a rule defining what actions can safely apply there, or the user is shown a single action and must write a rule defining where (i.e., at which states) it is safe to apply that action. The choice between these is somewhat domain-dependent, but in cases where the action space is large, action-specific rules seem the clear choice. For example, a worker may have trouble understanding all the different visual advertisements that form the action space, but given a single advertisement likely has intuition about what types of customers it is applicable to. This is also natural for systems that expand their capabilities (i.e. increase the action space) while keeping the state space fixed, which is common in domains such as education [@williams2016axis; @mandel2017where]. In these cases, before the new action(s) can be safely taken by the AI system, the system needs an action-specific constraint. Therefore, we have users write rules that specify $C(s,a')$ for some chosen $a' \in \mathcal{A}$. However, despite this simplification, the worker has to reason about the entire state space $\mathcal{S}$, which can be challenging. To mitigate this, our system gives the user instant feedback about what states their rule includes and excludes. The layout of the task is shown in Figure \[fig:interface\_gen\]. We place the action at the top of the screen, and below that we show the user (on hover) the known valid state for that action (which exists due to Assumption \[ass:posgold\]). Below that is the rule-writing area, in which workers can use dropdowns to create a rule (described further in the next section). When the user wishes to test their rule, they press the “Show Examples” button, which processes their rule and populates the included and excluded state areas with an visualized example of an included (or excluded) state. If states are too large to visualize in the small space, we recommend showing some sort of condensed version and allowing it to expand when the user hovers over it. The user can then press “Show More Examples” if they want to see more example states, “Clear Workspace” to clear their rule, or “Next” to move on to writing a rule for the next action (after some basic validation). Additionally, at all times, we allow workers to press a “Glossary” button to view a pop-up glossay window explaining the meanings of the different terms used. Dropdown-Based Rule Creation \[sec:dropdown\] In order to enable workers to create expressive rules without programming, we designed a dropdown-based rule creation system. The initial text says “The action applies to” and then the user is presented with a dropdown with the options “all states”, “no states”, or “a state if”. Selecting the first two terminates the rule, but selecting the last option generates another dropdown for the user to continue writing their constraint. Constraints are usually specified in first order logic; more specifically, a logical combination of domain-specific predicates and arguments [@osullivan2002interactive; @mitrovic2007intelligent]. Therefore, a natural approach is to represent these terms of dropdowns, where the user chooses a dropdown for a predicate followed by one or more dropdowns for the argument(s). However, to a worker without background in AI this ordering is unintuitive, as in many natural languages (such as English) the predicate comes after the argument(s), not before, for instance “if door six is open” instead of “if isOpen(doorSix).” Therefore we flip the order, asking users to select valid arguments first, and then auto-populating the next dropdown with the valid predicates for those argument(s). Additionally, if an argument only is valid for one predicate, we condense them into one dropdown to reduce confusion. After testing, a user may wish to change their rule. They can do this by pressing “Clear Workspace”, or by changing any existing dropdown, at which point the following dropdowns are removed since the allowed follow-up dropdowns may have changed. Logic and Parentheses When writing constraints, it is important that the language is sufficiently expressive to allow users to write the desired constraint. Clearly, this requires logical connectives, e.g. “The robot is pointing at the target AND there is not a human in the way of the laser.” Unfortunately this immediately raises the question of operator ordering and parentheses. Take the following example: (the road is wet AND the car has hydroplaning-resistant tires) OR (the road is snowy AND the car has studded tires) There is no way to present this expression exactly through left-to-right evaluation (in this example, left-to-right order would require studded tires for a wet road!). Unfortunately, introducing parentheses complicates the task enormously, as the number of ways to parenthesize an expression grows roughly exponentially (Catalan) with the expression length. We developed a method to reduce the complexity of adding parentheses, which works by allowing users an occasional binary choice about where they want to place the next expression. As soon as a user introduces the first logical (AND or OR) such as “A OR”, it immediately adds the first set of parenthesis around the expression: “(A OR …)”. Once the user has completed the statement inside some set of parentheses, we create two special dropdown elements we call ** to allow them to choose where to put the next logical. Specifically, there is a choicebox just inside the innermost right parenthesis, and a choicebox just outside the innermost right parenthesis, e.g. where the – elements represent the choiceboxes. Upon choosing a logical from one of the two choiceboxes, the unselected choicebox disappears. Additionally, a left parenthesis is placed just before the leftmost atomic element (which is a literal if they chose the innermost choicebox, otherwise a parenthesized expression) and a space to add the next literal is added to the right of the new logical followed by a right parenthesis. Although this way to specify parentheses seems potentially more accessible, it would also seem to be quite limiting in terms of which expressions can be produced. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the case. We show in Theorem \[thm:expressive\] that our method is sufficiently expressive to represent any Boolean function of the predicates. The full proof is in the appendix section, here we provide a proof sketch. Aside from the length limit, our method of rule construction is fully expressive, that is, it can represent any Boolean function over the set of base predicates. \[thm:expressive\] Proof Sketch We show how our interface can allow the creation of any statement in disjunctive normal form (DNF). The basic idea is to select the outer choicebox in most cases, except when one is adding the second literal of a DNF clause, in which case one should add an inner choicebox in order to place a left parenthesis to separate out the clause. Since ANDs are always added at the outer choicebox, there is always at most one right parenthesis belonging to the clause and so it is easy to ensure that the OR is fully outside the clause. Finally, since any logical relation can be represented as a DNF [@davey1990introduction], the claim holds. Note that, although the proof works by showing any DNF expression is possible, it is straightforward to alter the proof to show that any CNF expression is possible as well. We feel our parentheses method balances giving user choices about how to most intuitively organize logical expressions, while keeping the interface simple and retaining full expressiveness. Tutorial & Filtering Design Even with a simplified interface, the task is relatively complex, so an effective tutorial is key. Our tutorial design works through a special “Get Help” button, which had text above it indicating that workers should press it if they were confused. Pressing the button gives workers context-sensitive feedback on creating their rule, e.g. checking the number of included and excluded states to make sure they are roughly correct for that action. If all those checks have passed, it shows the worker an expert-generated example rule and an associated explanation, and asks them to reconstruct it. Since each question is quite time-consuming, we do not include explicit gold questions to maximize the use of worker time. Instead, to ensure high-quality work we filter out workers whose rule does not include the original (known valid) state. H.3 Our hypothesis was that the rule-based interface would generate more positive responses than case-by-case due to the more efficient method of constraint specification, while retaining roughly equivalent accuracy. Experiment Setup ================ As a real-world testbed for our approaches, we examine the AI problem of improving hints in an educational game, Riddle Books. Riddle Books, developed by the Center for Game Science (CGS), has been played by over 350,000 people online. It teaches 3rd-5th grade students how to conceptually understand math word problems by diagramming out the relationship between items in the problem. At any time, students can receive a hint by pressing a hint button. A video demo of how the game works can be found in the video figure. The Riddle Books AI System -------------------------- The initial set of hints built into the game did not seem to be very effective. Therefore, CGS researchers recruited educational experts to help improve the hints. CGS showed the experts specific states where students were stuck and asked them to write a hint for each one. These researchers plan to feed this dataset of hints to an AI system,[^4] which can learn over time which hints from the dataset are best for students in each situation. The action space for the system consists of text-based hints written by the experts. In this paper we used a dataset of roughly 100 hints, but we expect the experts to continue writing hints and adding them to the system over time. The state space for the system is defined by the level number and the student model (aka diagram) at which the hint button was pressed. Certain small alterations to a model (e.g. flipping two elements) are considered to be in the same state. There are approximately 540 total states. Before launching this AI system into the wild, properly defined constraints are key. Clearly, it would not be safe to simply launch the system with full freedom over showing any hint in any student state, as that would mean the game would show hints that might actually lead young children in the wrong direction (for example, telling them something false, or giving them terrible advice). CGS researchers tried an initial experiment only showing the new hints in the exact states the experts wrote them for. Unfortunately results were poor; likely due to the system being overconstrained. With properly defined constraints, the system would have much greater freedom to safely try a single expert-written hint in many different student states, likely improving student outcomes. To visualize our states, we implemented a domain specific visualizer that renders states in a nearly identical manner to the way they are displayed in game. We developed a server-side backend system which automatically selects an exemplar diagram taken automatically from data of thousands of students playing Riddle Books on popular educational websites. This exemplar is then sent back to the client for visualization. Action visualization was trivial: we just displayed the text of a hint drawn from the expert hint dataset. For the rule-based method, we created a total of 8 domain-specific predicates. These allowed rules to specify simple properties of the student model, for instance saying “the larger value is a bracket” in the student model. The rule is crafted on the client interface and sent to our server, which recursively processes it and quickly evaluates which student situations in the database it includes and excludes. ![The Riddle Books case-by-case interface, with the prompt from the one-way explanation condition displayed. The correct answer is “No” in this case; the hint does not apply because the student already has a 6 block in their diagram to represent the flying cats.[]{data-label="fig:rbcase"}](oneway_shot3.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![The Riddle Books rule creation interface, with a tooltip and choicebox displayed.[]{data-label="fig:rbrule"}](rulecreator_shot.png){width="\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:rbcase\] shows the Riddle Books case-by-case interface, while Figure \[fig:rbrule\] shows Riddle Books rule-based interface. A more dynamic presentation of our two interface designs can be found in the video figure. Participants & Procedures ------------------------- We launched our experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In all experiments, workers were required to have a task approval rate of 98% or higher along with at least one completed task, to ensure some small degree of filtering. Upon starting a HIT, the worker’s Turk ID was associated with a randomly-assigned condition in our database, so that when a worker returns they are placed in the same condition. Workers were required to agree to a standard consent form before starting the task, as required by our approved IRB protocol. In a small pilot study, we found one of the most complicated versions of the case-by-case task (one-sided explanation) to take roughly 5.5 minutes, thus we paid workers \$0.93 per HIT for the case-by-case experiments to ensure a reasonable hourly wage.The first case-by-case HIT a worker completes is a 3-question tutorial followed by a 6-question task. Subsequent case-by-case HITs are 7 non-tutorial questions. To prevent our data from being overwhelmed by the results of a very small number of workers, we limit workers to a maximum of 5 case-by-case tasks. Similarly, in a pilot study on Mechanical Turk we found the rule-based task to take roughly 21.5 minutes, thus we paid workers \$3.62 per HIT for the rule-based experiments to ensure a reasonable hourly wage. The first rule-based HIT a worker completes is a 2-question tutorial followed by a 3-question task. Subsequent rule-based HITs are 4 non-tutorial questions. We limit workers to a maximum of 3 rule-based tasks. To evaluate precision, the first author of the paper judged the accuracy of the “yes” responses using an interface which blinded the conditions from which they were drawn. In all conditions the ultimate output consists of binary responses (whether an action applies to a specific state), but due to a low amount of samples in certain experiments we used the Fisher’s exact test instead of the typical Chi-squared approximation. We use two-tailed tests unless otherwise noted. Results ======= ![image](pre_res_stage1.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ![image](pre_res_stage2.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ![image](pre_res_rule.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ![image](pos_res_rule.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Experiment 1: Tutorials and Gold Precision results from our first experiment with 111 HITs and 68 participants, evaluating the impact of different methods of tutorials and gold, are shown in Figure \[fig:pre1\]. The number of filtered positive samples were as follows: In the baseline condition we had 37 positive results from 5 workers, in the tutorial overload condition we had 28 positive results from 6 workers, in the gold overload condition we had 6 positive results from 3 workers, and in the Fake Gold condition we had 9 positive results from 6 workers. The first thing we can notice is that the precision in the Baseline condition is extremely low (only 27%). Clearly, one would not expect such a low base precision for a standard binary labeling task such as sentiment analysis. This surprising result further motivates our study of task design for constraint tasks, as these tasks are inherently harder for workers due to a variety of factors. Even more surprising (in light of our hypothesis H.1) is the fact that tutorial overload, which gave workers almost three times the training of the baseline condition, did not improve at all in terms of precision. One hypothesis is that upon seeing a large number of questions with given answers, workers begin to think that the task is mostly meant for training, and therefore feel little need to expend much effort. Alternatively, it may be that these constraint tasks are inherently untrainable, that is, there is some subset of the Turk population who is (for any number of reasons: motivation, time constraints, distractions, etc.) unable to be trained to complete these complex tasks. Our data confirms H.1 as it relates to the Fake Gold condition. Fake Gold has significantly better precision than both Baseline (p=0.047; FET) and Tutorial Overload (p=0.042; FET). Note that the precision is a substantial jump, from 27% in Baseline (and 25% in Tutorial Overload) to 61% in Fake Gold. Although Fake Gold trended higher than Gold Overload in terms of precision, we did not find any significant difference (p=0.62; FET). However, all else being equal, we would much rather choose Fake Gold, as it requires much less expert effort, while allowing workers to do more useful work. Experiment 2: Promoting Careful Thinking In the first stage, we found the fake gold condition to be the most promising, so we build conditions on top of Fake Gold (instead of Baseline) in our next experiment. The precision results from our second experiment[^5] with 263 HITs and 127 participants are shown in Figure \[fig:pre2\]. “FG + Explanation” refers to the one-sided explanation condition in the figure. The number of filtered positive samples were as follows: In the Fake Gold condition we had 23 filtered positive results from 14 workers, in the one-sided explanation condition we had 15 positive results from 9 workers, in the continuity condition we had 26 positive results from 15 workers, and in the skip button condition we had 33 positive results from 13 workers. They show that, in line with our hypothesis H.2, all three methods appear to improve precision over fake gold. The main result we see in Figure \[fig:pre2\] is that one-sided explanation seems by far the best, with 87% precision compared to Fake Gold’s 30%. This difference is statistically significant (p$<$0.01, FET), demonstrating the benefit of asking the workers to explain the meaning of their “yes” answers. Experiment 3: Comparing Explanation Methods Our new one-sided explanation method seemed quite promising in experiment 2, but we wanted to make sure that it was more effective than the standard (two-sided explanation) method examined in past work [@drapeau2016microtalk]. Therefore, we did a straightforward comparison of the two conditions. Our third experiment (no figure) had 152 HITs and 92 participants. The number of filtered positive samples were: 11 positive results from 8 workers in the one-sided explanation condition and 37 positive results from 17 workers in two-sided explanation condition. We found that one-sided explanation seemed best, with 73% precision compared to two-sided explanation which had 45% precision. Using a one-tailed-test[^6] to compare precision, it did not quite rise to the level of statistical significance (p = 0.12, FET). However, we see a highly significant difference in terms of the percentage of positive responses (p$<$0.001, FET), with one-sided explanation having 10.3% positive responses (after worker filtering) compared to two-sided explanation which had 32.5% . This indicates that workers in the one-sided explanation condition are much more careful about where they select “yes” answers, which is desirable behavior in a safety-critical task like this. Also it’s important to note that fake gold + one-sided explanation is the only condition to achieve over 65% precision in any experiment, and has done so in two completely independent experiments. Experiment 4: Rule-Based We turn our attention to comparing our rule-based interface to the case-by-case interface. The rule-based task took longer for workers to complete than the case-by-case task (and therefore required more pay). This rendered the previous A/B Testing approach infeasible, as Amazon Mechanical Turk does not support programmatically determining how much to pay workers.[^7] Therefore, we created separate HIT groups for the two experiments. The HIT groups were released simultaneously, but we consider only results from a single HIT group for each worker. To allow us to better compare the efficiency of the tasks, we decided to equalize the amount we spent on each HIT group: We launched 30 rule-based HITs at a total cost of \$108.6 (prior to Amazon fees), and therefore launched 117 case-by-case HITs for a total cost of \$108.81. Additionally, in our Mechanical Turk pilot study we observed substantially decreased results for all interfaces, possibly due to the recently reported rise in bots [@wiredbots]. Therefore, we increased our task requirements to require 1000 HITs completed and the workers be from the US, Canada, or Singapore. All tasks completed in less than 24 hours. More specifically, the case-by-case task took a little over an hour to complete, while the rule-based task took roughly 22 hours. This may have been in part due to the abundance of HITs available on the case-by-case task, as well as the shorter max time allotted (20 minutes instead of 45 minutes) and more lenient task limiting (5 HITs per worker instead of 3). There was likely also an element of self-selection, where workers who were seeking more straightforward work selected other HITs over the rule-based task. Note that self-selection is not necessarily a negative in this situation: we would prefer that workers who (for whatever reason) do not think they can generate high-quality rules to decline the HIT, rather than have to design complicated mechanisms to filter them out after the fact. The precision results from our rule-based experiment, with 147 HITs and 64 participants, are shown in Figure \[fig:prerule\]. Figure \[fig:posrule\] shows the number of positive samples after filtering: The case-by-case fake gold condition had 269 positive results from 26 workers, the rule-based condition had 1246 positive results from 7 workers. Due to the very large number of positive results in certain conditions, we judged the accuracy of only 200 randomly-chosen results, 102 from rule-based and 98 from case-by-case. We noticed that despite the fake gold case-by-case experiment being virtually identical to that launched in experiments 1 and 2, the precision is much lower than either of those two experiments at 24%. We are not sure why the quality of work produced by workers on Mechanical Turk has declined in this fashion, our best guess is that our increased qualifications were not entirely successful at preventing the recent influx in bots [@wiredbots] from completing our task. In any case, we saw the the rule-based condition seemed quite effective when compared to the case-by-case task, even more so than we hypothesized in H.3. As shown in Figure \[fig:prerule\], the rule-based condition has higher precision (41%) than the case-by-case condition (24%), which is statistically significant (p=0.02, FET). This suggests that despite the task and interface being significantly more complex, workers were able to write rules that did as good or better than if they were looking at each individual case. We feel this demonstrates both the (often overlooked) ability of crowdworkers to perform complex work, and the successful design of our tutorial and interface in giving workers the appropriate feedback necessary to complete the task. Additionally, because of the power of writing rules, Turk workers were able to label an order of magnitude more states for the same pay, as shown in Figure \[fig:posrule\]. Typically, constraint specification is not a time-critical task, as workers can gradually add constraints to a system over time, and so the extra time taken to get results from the rule-based task is not major concern. However, our results suggest that our interfaces are perhaps best used in combination: The case-by-case interface can engage a wider group of workers and returns results more quickly, but the rule-based interface is more cost-effective and allows workers to be more efficient with their time while generating high-quality work. Discussion and Conclusion ========================= In this paper, we presented one of the first explorations of an important component of AI safety: how to design user interfaces that allow humans to efficiently specify high-quality constraints for real-world AI systems. Our results show that, despite the fact that baseline precision is quite low and more training has little impact, our new fake gold and one-sided explanation designs were able to substantially increase precision. Further, our novel rule-based interface is quite effective, generating better precision than a case-by-case approach while producing an order of magnitude more useful responses. Both of our user interface designs are highly general and could be applied to a wide variety of other difficult problems in AI. For example, there have been recent viral news articles about how Facebook’s AI algorithm served a deluge of highly insensitive ads to a mother whose baby was stillborn [@holohanbaby]. She wondered why Facebook did not use obvious indicators (like the number of sad reactions to her announcement of the loss) to prevent those ads from being shown to her. Our interfaces could easily apply in this setting: states would represent a user and their timeline content, and actions would be potential advertisements. Figure \[fig:cbc\_fb\] shows a mockup of what the case-by-case interface might look like in this case, and Figure \[fig:rule\_fb\] shows a mockup of the rule-based interface. ![A mockup of our case-by-case interface applied to constraining Facebook’s advertisement AI.[]{data-label="fig:cbc_fb"}](cbc_fb_mockup.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![A mockup of our rule-based interface applied to constraining Facebook’s advertisement AI.[]{data-label="fig:rule_fb"}](rule_fb_mockup.png){width="\columnwidth"} Note that, since our maximum precision was 73%-86%, these constraints are not quite ready for direct deployment at the current time. Future work includes increasing this precision even further through methods like weighted majority voting. Despite this, we think these results can already be useful, as experts simply need to confirm the safety of crowdsourced constraints rather than generating brand-new constraints. Another promising direction for future work is exploring methods for combining the rule-based and case-by-case interface to handle challenging state spaces, for example by using the case-by-case interface to generate automatic suggestions (with explanations) on how to improve the rules generated by the rule-based interface. Although there is much work to be done, in this paper we have taken the first steps towards a future where everyone, regardless of expertise, can be involved in the process of ensuring that AI systems will have the agency to help humankind, but not the agency to harm us. Appendix ======== Proof of Theorem 1 ------------------ Aside from the length limit[^8], our method of rule construction is fully expressive, that is, it can represent any Boolean function over the set of base predicates. We will show that we can represent any valid Boolean function in disjunctive normal form (DNF). Recall that in first-order logic, each literal in the DNF is composed of a predicate applied to valid arguments. First, note that our interface directly allows the user to select predicates and their valid arguments. Therefore it is possible to construct all valid literals in our interface. Now, in the DNF, each literal may be negated by the use of the not operator immediately preceding the literal. Although we do not allow the user to insert an explicit not operator, when choosing predicates we always allow the user to choose its negated form. Therefore, the user may construct any literal or its negation. We proceed to show that the user can create any sequence of DNF clauses joined by ORs, by induction on the number of literals**. As part of our inductive hypothesis we also prove an invariant: there is always either exactly one rightmost parenthesis belonging to the current clause[^9] after the last literal $D$, or there is zero and $D$ is the only literal in its clause. Note that in a DNF, the result is the same regardless of the order the ORs are evaluated in, due to the well-known associativity of the OR operator. Therefore it is not necessary to show that the clauses are evaluated left-to-right, just that they are fully evaluated (e.g. by being enclosed in parentheses) and then combined with another clause using the OR operator. Base Case: The dropdowns allow the user to directly create any single literal. There are no parentheses, but the literal is the only clause member so the inductive hypothesis holds. Inductive case: Our inductive hypothesis holds for one or more literals and we wish to add an additional literal. If there is one literal, our interface treats this differently, AND or OR may be added directly to achieve the desired single-clause or two-clause result. In the case of AND, there is a single rightmost parenthesis and multiple elements in the clause, so the invariant holds. In the case of OR, there are no right parentheses belonging to the cause, but the last literal is the lone element of the clause so the invariant holds. Now, assume there is more than one literal. In that case, there must be at least one logical. Take the rightmost logical. By our method of adding parentheses, it must have added a parenthesis just to the right of the last literal $D$. Further, in order to let the user add the next logical (and, subsequently, literal), our method of construction will add a choicebox around this right parenthesis . We can visually represent this as “[…]{}D –) –…’. Note that, by our inductive hypothesis, either there is exactly one right parenthesis after $D$ belonging to $D$’s clause or there is zero. If there is one, it clearly must be the parenthesis immediately following $D$.[^10] Therefore, there are three cases: 1. The parenthesis just after $D$ does not belong to the clause, and we want to add the current literal F WLOG, into the same clause as the preceding variable D. In this case we know D is the sole element of the clause by the inductive hypothesis. Therefore, we select the inner choicebox and fill it with an AND. Since we chose inner, the left hand parenthesis will go just before D, resulting in “…(D AND F))…”. Since by our inductive hypothesis D was correctly in a clause by itself before adding $F$, clearly $D$ and $F$ are now correctly in a clause together, as desired. We have multiple members in a clause and exactly one right parenthesis belonging to the clause to the right of $F$, so the invariant holds. 2. The parenthesis just after $D$ belongs to the clause, and we want to add the current literal F WLOG, into the same clause as the preceding variable D. In this case one selects the outer choicebox, resulting in “[…]{}D) AND F)…”. Since the parenthesis just after $D$ belongs to the clause, the matching left paren must be contained within the clause. The left hand parenthesis will go just before D’s left parenthesis, therefore since D was correctly a part of the clause by the inductive hypothesis, F must be as well. We have multiple members in a clause and exactly one right parenthesis belonging to the clause to the right of $F$, so the invariant holds. 3. We want F to be the first element of a new clause. We select the outer choicebox and fill it with an OR, giving us “[…]{}D ) OR F)…”. Now, as previously shown, because of the induction hypothesis the right parenthesis immediately following D is the only right parenthesis after D that can possibly belong to the clause. Therefore, OR and F must correctly be outside of $D$’s clause. Further, by the inductive hypothesis the DNF expression was built correctly thus far, so if the OR and F are outside of $D$’s clause they must also be outside all clauses.[^11] The only literal in the clause is F, and there are no right parentheses belonging to the clause, so the invariant holds. Acknowledgements ================ We acknowledge Yvonne Chen, Zoran Popović, Max Panoff, Nick Grogg, Katharina Reinecke, and NSF’s RII Track-1: Ike Wai: Securing Hawaii’s Water Future Award \#OIA-1557349. [^1]: For example, the fact that we need a large amount of annotations on a single action in different locations, or that we have pre-built gold knowledge based on default system actions. [^2]: This is common formalism in AI. States can be though of as “situations” or “contexts”, and actions can be though of as “interventions” or things an agent can do to affect the world around it. [^3]: If it is hard to identify any states where the action is safe, one wonders why the agent was provided this action in the first place! [^4]: Specifically, one based on reinforcement learning. [^5]: The experiment was run across two temporally distinct stages, results from the second stage were combined additively with the first stage. [^6]: As the point of this experiment was not to test if the two were different, but if one-sided was better than two-sided explanations. [^7]: Except through the use of promised bonuses, which did not appear effective in our pilot experiment. [^8]: We limit the length of the predicates due to practical storage and data transmission issues. [^9]: When we say a parenthesis belongs to the current clause, we mean that it (and it matching parenthesis) does not encompass any literals outside of the clause. [^10]: In order for the parenthesis to the right of the parenthesis after $D$ to belong to $D$’s clause, the inner parenthesis just after $D$ would have to as well. [^11]: Or they would be in a clause that somehow incorrectly has D’s clause nested inside of it, violating the inductive hypothesis.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We develop an analytic model of intermittent, three-dimensional, strong, reduced magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) turbulence with zero cross helicity. We take the fluctuation amplitudes to have a log-Poisson distribution and incorporate into the model a new phenomenology of scale-dependent dynamic alignment between the Elsässer variables $\displaystyle \bm{z}^\pm $. We find that the structure function $\displaystyle \langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^\pm _\lambda\|^n\rangle$ scales as $\displaystyle \lambda^{1-\beta^n}$, where $\displaystyle \Delta \bm{z}^\pm_\lambda$ is the variation in $\displaystyle \bm{z}^\pm$ across a distance $\displaystyle \lambda$ perpendicular to the magnetic field. We calculate the value of $\beta$ to be $\simeq 0.69$ based on our assumptions that the energy cascade rate is independent of $\displaystyle \lambda$ within the inertial range, that the most intense coherent structures are two-dimensional with a volume filling factor $\propto \lambda$, and that most of the cascade power arises from interactions between exceptionally intense fluctuations and much weaker fluctuations. Two consequences of this structure-function scaling are that the total-energy power spectrum is $\displaystyle \propto k_\perp^{-1.52}$ and that the kurtosis of the fluctuations is $\displaystyle \propto\lambda^{-0.27}$. Our model resolves the problem that alignment angles defined in different ways exhibit different scalings. Specifically, we find that the energy-weighted average angle between the velocity and magnetic-field fluctuations is $\displaystyle \propto \lambda^{0.21}$, the energy-weighted average angle between $\displaystyle \Delta \bm{z}^+$ and $\displaystyle \Delta \bm{z}^-$ is $\displaystyle \propto \lambda^{0.10}$, and the average angle between $\displaystyle \Delta \bm{z}^+$ and $\displaystyle \Delta \bm{z}^-$ without energy weighting is $\propto [\ln(L/\lambda)]^{-1/2}$ when $L/\lambda \gg 1$, where $L$ is the outer scale. These scalings appear to be consistent with numerous results from direct numerical simulations. author: - 'B. D. G. Chandran, A. A. Schekochihin, and A. Mallet' bibliography: - 'articles.bib' nocite: - '[@kolmogorov62]' - '[@k41; @she94]' - '[@boldyrev05; @boldyrev06]' title: Intermittency and Alignment in Strong RMHD Turbulence --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Plasma turbulence plays an important role in many astrophysical systems, including accretion flows around black holes, intracluster plasmas in clusters of galaxies, and outflows from stars, including the solar wind. In many of these systems, the energetically dominant component of the turbulence is non-compressive and can be modeled, at least in an approximate way, within the framework of incompressible magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). In incompressible MHD, velocity and magnetic-field fluctuations ($\displaystyle \delta \bm{v}$ and $\displaystyle \delta \bm{B}$) propagate either parallel or anti-parallel to the local background magnetic field $\displaystyle \bm{B}_{\rm loc}$, and nonlinear interactions occur only between counter-propagating fluctuations [@iroshnikov63; @kraichnan65]. As a consequence, the energy cascade is anisotropic, producing small-scale structures or “eddies” that satisfy $\lambda \ll l$, where $l$ ($\lambda$) is the correlation length of an eddy parallel (perpendicular) to $\bm{B}_{\rm loc}$ [@shebalin83; @goldreich95; @ng96; @galtier00; @cho00; @maron01]. When $\lambda \ll l$, the components of $\delta \bm{v}$ and $\delta \bm{B}$ perpendicular to $\bm{B}_{\rm loc}$ evolve independently of the components parallel to $\bm{B}_{\rm loc}$ and are well described by reduced MHD (RMHD) [@kadomtsev74; @strauss76]. When $\delta B \ll B_{\rm loc}$ and $\rho_{\rm p} \ll \lambda \ll l$, where $\rho_{\rm p}$ is the proton gyroradius, RMHD is a rigorous limit of gyrokinetics and is valid for both collisional and collisionless plasmas [@schekochihin09]. In this paper, we propose a phenomenological theory of RMHD turbulence that goes beyond scaling theories for spectra [@iroshnikov63; @kraichnan65; @goldreich95; @boldyrev06] and allows us to make predictions concerning the scale dependence of arbitrary-order structure functions and the relative orientation of the turbulent magnetic field and velocity. A new feature of this theory is that it accounts, within one model, for both intermittency and scale-dependent dynamic alignment (SDDA). The concept of SDDA was introduced by [@boldyrev05; @boldyrev06], who argued that the angle $\phi_\lambda$ between $\delta \bm{v}_\lambda$ and $\delta \bm{B}_\lambda$ decreases with decreasing $\lambda$, where $\delta \bm{v}_{\lambda}$ and $\delta \bm{B}_\lambda$ are the fluctuations in the velocity and magnetic field at perpendicular scale $\lambda$. As $\phi_\lambda$ decreases, nonlinear interactions in RMHD weaken, causing the power spectrum of the fluctuation energy to flatten relative to models that neglect SDDA. Intermittency is the phenomenon in which the fluctuation energy is concentrated into an increasingly small fraction of the volume as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. Intermittency has been measured in hydrodynamic turbulence [e.g., @benzi93], solar-wind turbulence [@burlaga91; @horbury97; @sorriso99; @forman03; @bruno07; @wan12b; @osman12; @perri12; @osman14], numerical simulations of MHD turbulence and RMHD turbulence [@muller00; @maron01; @muller03; @beresnyak06; @mininni09; @imazio13], and hybrid-Vlasov and particle-in-cell simulations of plasma turbulence [@greco12; @servidio12; @wan12; @karimabadi13; @wu13]. A number of theoretical models have been introduced to describe intermittency, including the log-normal model [@kolmogorov62; @gurvich67], the “constant-$\beta$” model [@frisch78], and multi-fractal models in which the fluctuation amplitudes scale differently on different subsets of the volume that have different fractal dimensions [@parisi85; @paladin87]. One such multi-fractal model, based on a log-Poisson probability distribution function for the local dissipation rate, was developed by [@she94] [see also @dubrulle94]. She & Leveque’s (1994) approach served as the basis for several previous studies of intermittency in both compressible and incompressible MHD turbulence [@grauer94; @politano95; @muller00; @boldyrev02a; @boldyrev02b]. We draw upon ideas from the She-Leveque model to construct an analytic model of strong RMHD turbulence that incorporates a new phenomenology of SDDA. We present this model in Section \[sec:theory\]. In Section \[sec:comp\], we compare our model with previously published numerical simulations, and in Section \[sec:discussion\] we discuss our results and the relation between our work and previous turbulence models. Analytic Model of Strong RMHD Turbulence {#sec:theory} ======================================== The equations of incompressible MHD can be written in the form $$\frac{\partial \bm{z}^\pm}{\partial t} \mp \bm{v}_{\rm A} \cdot \nabla \bm{z}^\pm = - \bm{z}^\mp \cdot \nabla \bm{z}^\pm - \nabla \Pi, \label{eq:RMHD}$$ where $\bm{z}^\pm = \delta \bm{v} \pm \delta \bm{B}/\sqrt{4\pi \rho}$ are the Elsässer variables, $\delta \bm{v}$ and $\delta \bm{B}$ are the velocity and magnetic-field fluctuations, $\rho$ is the mass density, $\bm{v}_{\rm A} = \bm{B}_0/\sqrt{4\pi \rho}$ is the Alfvén velocity, $\bm{B}_0$ is the background magnetic field, $\Pi = (p + B^2/8\pi)/\rho$, $p$ is the pressure, $\bm{B} = \bm{B}_0 + \delta \bm{B}$, and $\nabla \cdot \bm{z}^\pm = 0$. The RMHD equations are equivalent to Equation (\[eq:RMHD\]) supplemented by the condition $$\bm{B}_0 \cdot \bm{z}^\pm = 0. \label{eq:RMHDsuppl}$$ Throughout this paper, we neglect dissipation and focus on the inertial range. Statistical Distribution of Field Increments {#sec:statistical} -------------------------------------------- We consider the turbulence to be an ensemble of approximately localized $z^+$ and $z^-$ structures. We define $$\Delta \bm{z}^\pm_\lambda = \bm{z}^\pm(\bm{x} + 0.5\lambda \bm{\hat{s}},t) - \bm{z}^\pm(\bm{x}-0.5\lambda\bm{\hat{s}},t) \label{eq:Deltaz},$$ where $\bm{\hat{s}}$ is a unit vector perpendicular to $\bm{B}(\bm{x},t)$. We define $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ to be $\|\Delta \bm{z}^\pm_\lambda\|$ averaged over the direction of $\bm{\hat{s}}$, and we define $\theta_\lambda$ to be the (positive semi-definite) angle between $\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda$ and $\Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda$ averaged over the direction of $\bm{\hat{s}}$. We think of $\delta z^\pm_\lambda(\bm{x},t)$ as the characteristic amplitude of the $z^\pm$ structure of scale $\lambda$ that is located at position $\bm{x}$. Nonlinear interactions cause each structure at scale $\lambda$ to break up into a number of structures at smaller scales. These smaller structures in turn break up into even smaller structures, and so on. As can be seen from Equation (\[eq:RMHD\]), $\bm{z}^\pm$ fluctuations propagate with velocity $\mp\bm{v}_{\rm A}$. We can thus view $z^-$ ($z^+$) structures as wave packets that propagate parallel (anti-parallel) to the background magnetic field while being distorted by nonlinear interactions. The form of the nonlinear term in Equation (\[eq:RMHD\]) implies that nonlinear interactions occur only between $z^+$ fluctuations and $z^-$ fluctuations, and not between fluctuations that propagate in the same direction [@iroshnikov63; @kraichnan65]. The energy cascade in RMHD turbulence can thus be viewed as resulting from “collisions” between counter-propagating wave packets. In the discussion below, we use the terms “structure,” “wave packet,” and “fluctuation” interchangeably. In the Appendix, we argue that if a $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ fluctuation collides with a $\delta z^\mp_\lambda$ fluctuation that is either much stronger or much weaker than $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$, then $\lambda$ changes for both fluctuations (that is, they are sheared by each other), but the fluctuation amplitudes remain approximately the same. We refer to such collisions as “highly imbalanced.” On the other hand, if $\delta z^+_\lambda \sim \delta z^-_\lambda$ (“balanced collisions”), then in general both $\lambda$ and the fluctuation amplitudes decrease, as in models of non-intermittent MHD and RMHD turbulence [e.g., @goldreich95]. To construct an analytic model of RMHD turbulence, we assume that each balanced collision reduces a fluctuation’s amplitude by a constant factor $\beta$, which satisfies $$0 < \beta < 1, \label{eq:betarange}$$ while highly imbalanced collisions reduce $\lambda$ without reducing a fluctuation’s amplitude. Thus, $$\delta z^\pm_{\lambda} = \overline{ \delta z}\beta^q , \label{eq:z1}$$ where $\overline{ \delta z}$ is the amplitude of the fluctuation’s “progenitor” structure at the outer scale (or forcing scale) $L$, and $q$ is the number of balanced collisions experienced by the fluctuation during its evolution from scale $L$ to scale $\lambda$. For simplicity, we set[^1] $$\overline{ \delta z} = \mbox{ constant}. \label{eq:zconst}$$ To determine a plausible functional form for the probability distribution function (PDF) of $q$, we consider a hypothetical scenario in which balanced collisions have the property that they reduce a fluctuation’s amplitude without changing its length scale. In this case, balanced collisions are similar to the “modulation defect events” described by [@she95], in that a fluctuation’s amplitude can be reduced by a finite factor $\beta$ during an interval of time in which $\lambda$ decreases by only an infinitesimal amount. If the length scale of a fluctuation decreases from $L$ to $\lambda$, then we can divide the interval $[0,\ln(L/\lambda)]$ into infinitesimal sub-intervals, and within each sub-interval there is an infinitesimal chance that a modulation defect event occurs. Over the entire interval, however, the average number of modulation defect events is finite. If we assume that the probability of a balanced collision is independent of the number of balanced collisions that have already occurred, then $q$ has a Poisson distribution, $$P(q) = \frac{e^{-\mu}\mu^q }{q!}, \label{eq:Pq}$$ where $\mu$ is the as-yet-unknown, scale-dependent, mean value of $q$. In RMHD turbulence, balanced collisions do in fact change $\lambda$, and the probability that a balanced collision occurs may depend upon $q$. Thus, the above arguments do not provide a rigorous justification for Equation (\[eq:Pq\]). We proceed, however, using Equation (\[eq:Pq\]) as a model. We further assume that $\mu$ and $\overline{ \delta z}$ are the same for $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ and thereby restrict our analysis to the case of zero cross helicity. The median value of $q$ is approximately $\mu$ [@choi94], and thus the “typical” value of $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ that best characterizes the bulk of the volume is $$\delta z^\ast_\lambda = \overline{\delta z} \beta^\mu. \label{eq:zast}$$ In contrast, the most intense structures at scale $\lambda$ correspond to $q=0$ and occur with probability $e^{-\mu}$. Equation (\[eq:z1\]) implies that the variation in $\bm{z}^+$ or $\bm{z}^-$ across such a $q=0$ structure is $\overline{\delta z}$, independent of $\lambda$. We assume that these structures correspond to sheet-like quasi-discontinuities (current/vorticity sheets) with a volume-filling factor $\propto \lambda$ [c.f., @grauer94; @politano95]. Setting $e^{-\mu} \propto \lambda$, we obtain $$\mu = A + \ln\left(\frac{L}{\lambda}\right), \label{eq:chi1}$$ where $A$ is a constant that quantifies the breadth of the distribution at the outer scale. We can thus rewrite Equation (\[eq:zast\]) in the form $$\delta z^\ast_\lambda = \overline{ \delta z}\left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{-\ln\beta}. \label{eq:zast2}$$ Timescales and Critical Balance {#sec:timescales} ------------------------------- We define the nonlinear timescale $$\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm = \frac{\lambda}{\delta z^\mp_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda}, \label{eq:deftaunl}$$ which is the rate at which a $z^\pm$ structure at scale $\lambda$ is sheared by the $z^\mp$ structure at scale $\lambda$ at that same location. The factor of $\sin\theta_\lambda$ is included in Equation (\[eq:deftaunl\]) because, if $\bm{z}^+$ and $\bm{z}^-$ are aligned to within a small angle $\theta$, then $\|\bm{z}^\mp \cdot \nabla \bm{z}^\pm\|$ is reduced by a factor $\sim \theta$ relative to the case in which $\theta\sim 1$ [@boldyrev05]. We define the linear timescale $$\tau_{\rm lin,\lambda}^\pm = \frac{l^\pm_\lambda}{v_{\rm A}}. \label{eq:tau_lin}$$ Here, $l^\pm_\lambda$ is the “parallel” correlation length of a $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ structure measured along a local mean magnetic field, which is obtained by summing $\bm{B}_0$ with all the magnetic fluctuations at scales that exceed $\lambda$ by a factor of at least a few. In accord with the critical-balance hypothesis of [@goldreich95], we assume that $$\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm \sim \tau_{{\rm lin},\lambda}^\pm. \label{eq:CB0}$$ We can rewrite Equation (\[eq:CB0\]) as[^2] $$\chi^\pm = \frac{l^\pm_\lambda \delta z^\mp_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda}{\lambda v_{\rm A}}\sim 1. \label{eq:CB}$$ Equation (\[eq:CB0\]) is also equivalent to the relation $$l^\pm_\lambda \sim v_{\rm A} \tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm, \label{eq:lpmval}$$ which states that the parallel correlation length of a $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ fluctuation is roughly the distance it can propagate during its cascade timescale. When a $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuation collides with a $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuation and $\delta z^+_\lambda \sim \delta z^-_\lambda \sim \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ (see Equation (\[eq:zast\])), nonlinear interactions cause the $\delta z^-_\lambda$ and $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuations to evolve on the same timescale in a strongly coupled and unpredictable way, which impedes the development of alignment. We thus take $$\left.\begin{array}{c} \displaystyle \theta_\lambda \sim 1 \vspace{0.3cm} \\ \displaystyle \tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm \sim \lambda/\delta z^\ast_\lambda \end{array}\hspace{0.3cm} \right\} \hspace{0.1cm} \mbox{(when $\delta z^+_\lambda \sim \delta z^-_\lambda \sim \delta z^\ast_\lambda$)}. \label{eq:balanced}$$ The characteristic parallel correlation length of the median-amplitude fluctuations at scale $\lambda$ is then $$l^\ast_\lambda = \frac{v_{\rm A} \lambda }{\delta z^\ast_\lambda}. \label{eq:last}$$ Nonlinear Interactions and the Refined Similarity Hypothesis {#sec:NL} ------------------------------------------------------------ Given our assumption that $\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm \sim \tau_{{\rm lin},\lambda}^\pm$, the turbulence is strong, and $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ energy cascades to smaller scales on the timescale $\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm$. We define $\epsilon^\pm_\lambda$ to be the rate at which $z^\pm$ energy (per unit mass) is dissipated within a sphere of diameter $\lambda$. In keeping with earlier works on intermittency, we take $\epsilon^\pm$ to be “equal in law” to the quantity $(\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2/\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm$ [@frisch96]. This means that the $n^{\rm th}$ moment of $\epsilon^\pm_\lambda$ and the $n^{\rm th}$ moment of the quantity $(\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2/\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm$ scale with $\lambda$ in the same way for all $n$. We denote “equality in law” with the symbol $\approx$ and thus write $$\epsilon_\lambda^\pm \approx \frac{(\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2 \delta z^\mp_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda}{\lambda}. \label{eq:eps1}$$ Equation (\[eq:eps1\]) is analogous to Kolmogorov’s (1962) refined similarity hypothesis for hydrodynamic turbulence. We note that the scalings that we derive below do not require full “equality in law,” but just that the averages of the left- and right-hand sides of Equation (\[eq:eps1\]) scale with $\lambda$ in the same way. The average dissipation rate within a sphere of diameter $\lambda$ is independent of $\lambda$ and thus satisfies the relation $$\langle \epsilon^\pm_\lambda \rangle = \epsilon, \label{eq:exactlaw}$$ where $\langle \dots \rangle$ indicates a spatial average and $\epsilon$ is the global, average dissipation rate, which is the same for $z^+$ and $z^-$ fluctuations given our assumption that the cross helicity is zero. In forced turbulence that has reached a (statistical) steady state, $\epsilon$ is also the rate at which energy is injected into the turbulence at the outer scale. Our goal now is to use Equations (\[eq:eps1\]) and (\[eq:exactlaw\]) to determine the value of $\beta$. To average the right-hand side of Equation (\[eq:eps1\]), we consider the spherical trial volume of diameter $\displaystyle \lambda$ illustrated in Figure \[fig:source\_region\]. We can take the PDF of $\delta z^+_\lambda$ within the trial volume to be determined by Equations (\[eq:z1\]) and (\[eq:Pq\]). However, once we do so, we cannot also take the value of $\delta z^-_\lambda$ within the trial volume to have the same distribution, because in general $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ are correlated. ![Our analysis focuses on the $z^+$ cascade power $(\delta z^+_\lambda)^2/\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^+$ within a spherical trial volume of diameter $\lambda$ in which $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ and $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^-_\lambda$. The intense $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuation in the trial volume is part of a sheet-like coherent structure of thickness $\lambda$. The $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuation within the trial volume can be viewed as originating from a source region a distance $\sim l^\ast_\lambda$ from the trial volume “upstream” along the magnetic field. Field lines on opposite sides of the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure that are initially a distance $\lambda$ apart separate by a distance $ \sim \xi_\lambda = l^\ast_\lambda \delta z^+_\lambda/v_{\rm A}$ when they are followed for a distance $l^\ast_\lambda$. \[fig:source\_region\] ](source_region_slab.eps){width="8cm"} We assume that the dominant contribution to $\langle (\delta z^+_\lambda)^2 \delta z^-_\lambda \sin \theta_\lambda/\lambda \rangle$ comes from exceptionally intense $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuations satisfying the inequalities $\displaystyle \delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ and $\displaystyle \delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^-_\lambda$. We therefore focus on the case in which these inequalities are satisfied within the trial volume. We assume (and confirm below in Equation (\[eq:lplus2\])) that $l^+_\lambda \gg l^\ast_\lambda$ when $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$. Because of their comparatively large parallel correlation lengths (and long lifetimes, as we will see in Equation (\[eq:taunl1\])), we refer to structures with $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ as coherent structures. The $z^\pm$ fluctuations at scale $\lambda$ propagate along a local magnetic field obtained by summing $\bm{B}_0$ with the magnetic-field fluctuations at length scales exceeding $\lambda$ by some factor of order unity. Because this factor is not uniquely determined, the direction in which $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ fluctuations propagate is only determined to within an angular uncertainty of order $$\Delta \theta_\lambda \sim \frac{\delta z^\ast_\lambda}{v_{\rm A}}, \label{eq:Dtheta}$$ where we have taken the fluctuations at scales somewhat larger than $\lambda$ to have amplitudes comparable to $\delta z^\ast_\lambda$. Here we have assumed that the intense $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuations propagate through a background of median-amplitude $z^-$ fluctuations, a point that we discuss further in connection with Equation (\[eq:dzmxiast2\]) below. Because of the angular uncertainty $\Delta \theta_\lambda$, a $z^-$ structure of scale $\lambda$ is only able to propagate a distance $\displaystyle \sim \lambda/(\Delta \theta_\lambda) \sim l^\ast_\lambda$ (see Equation (\[eq:last\])) through a counter-propagating $\displaystyle \delta z^+_\lambda$ structure before propagating out of that structure. Because of this, if we follow the magnetic-field lines in the trial volume (Figure \[fig:source\_region\]) back along the magnetic field a distance $l^\ast_\lambda$, we reach a “source region” in which the $z^-$ fluctuations have not yet interacted with the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. Within this source region, the $z^-$ fluctuations are not aligned with the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, because they do not yet “know about” the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure’s orientation in space. If we pick two field lines a distance $\lambda$ apart within the trial volume and follow them for a distance $l^\ast_\lambda$, they will typically separate by a distance of order $$\xi_\lambda = \frac{l^\ast_\lambda \delta z^+_\lambda}{v_{\rm A}} = \lambda\,\frac{ \delta z^+_\lambda}{\delta z^\ast_\lambda} \gg \lambda. \label{eq:xiast}$$ We assume that the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure remains coherent over a distance of at least $\sim \xi_\lambda$ in the direction of the vector magnetic-field fluctuations associated with the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure — i.e., throughout the slab depicted in Figure \[fig:source\_region\]. The coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure is thus sheet-like. We expect (and confirm below in Equation (\[eq:taunl1\])) that the cascade timescale of the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure is $\gg l^\ast_\lambda/v_{\rm A}$, so that the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure changes very little as a $z^-$ fluctuation propagates from the source region to the trial volume. We make the approximation that during this transit, the $z^-$ fluctuation evolves as if it were acted upon by a linear $z^+$ shear with shearing rate $\delta z^+_\lambda/\lambda$ that lasts for a time $l^\ast_\lambda/v_{\rm A}$, where the term “linear” refers to the shear’s spatial profile (see Equation (\[eq:zplusshear\])). In the Appendix, we present an analytic calculation showing that in this approximation the amplitude of the $z^-$ fluctuation is unchanged by the shear, but the $z^-$ fluctuation is rotated into alignment so that $$\sin\theta_\lambda \simeq \theta_\lambda \sim \frac{\lambda}{\xi_\lambda} = \frac{\delta z^\ast_\lambda}{\delta z^+_\lambda} \label{eq:thetapm0}$$ within the trial volume. We also show in the Appendix that, because the $z^-$ fluctuations are sheared at rate $\delta z^+_\lambda/\lambda$ for a time $l^\ast_\lambda/v_{\rm A}$, their perpendicular scales decrease by a factor of $$\frac{\delta z^+_\lambda}{\lambda} \times \frac{l^\ast_\lambda}{v_{\rm A}} = \frac{\xi_\lambda}{\lambda} \gg 1 \label{eq:scale_reduction}$$ during their propagation from the source region to the trial volume. The source region in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] contains $z^-$ fluctuations spanning a range of perpendicular scales. According to the above arguments, the fluctuations at scale $\xi_\lambda$ in the source region make the dominant contribution to the values of $\delta z^-_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda$ within the trial volume. Thus, $$\delta z^-_\lambda \bigg\|_{\rm trial\;volume} \simeq \;\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}\bigg\|_{\rm source\;region}. \label{eq:tvsr1}$$ The top half of Figure \[fig:shear\_slab\] illustrates the arguments underlying Equation (\[eq:thetapm0\]) and the scale-reduction factor in Equation (\[eq:scale\_reduction\]) for the hypothetical case in which the $z^-$ fluctuations in the source region have square cross sections of scale $\lambda$ in the field-perpendicular plane. In the trial volume, the perpendicular scale length of these fluctuations becomes $\sim \lambda^2 /\xi_\lambda$ and, because of Equation (\[eq:thetapm0\]), $\theta_\lambda \ll 1$. The evolution of $z^-$ can be recovered heuristically by taking the pattern of the $z^-$ fluctuation in the field-perpendicular plane to follow the perturbed magnetic field lines and by taking the direction of the $\bm{z}^-$ fluctuation in the trial volume to become approximately parallel to the striated $z^-$ pattern, so as to preserve the incompressibility condition. The bottom half of Figure \[fig:shear\_slab\] illustrates the evolution of a $z^-$ eddy of perpendicular length scale $\sim \xi_\lambda$. Within the trial volume, the perpendicular length scale of this fluctuation becomes $\sim \lambda$. ![As $z^-$ fluctuations propagate a distance $l^\ast_\lambda$ through the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, the pattern of the $z^-$ fluctuations in the field-perpendicular plane approximately follows the magnetic field lines within the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. This causes the perpendicular length scale of the $z^-$ fluctuations to decrease by a factor $\sim \xi_\lambda/\lambda \gg 1$ and rotates the $z^-$ fluctuations into alignment with the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, decreasing the angle between the $\bm{z}^+$ and $\bm{z}^-$ fluctuations to a value $ \sim \lambda/\xi_\lambda$. \[fig:shear\_slab\] ](combined_shear_slab.eps){width="8cm"} Equations (\[eq:thetapm0\]) and (\[eq:tvsr1\]) imply that Equation (\[eq:eps1\]) becomes $$\epsilon^+_\lambda \approx \frac{ (\delta z^+_\lambda)^2 \delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}}{\xi_\lambda} \label{eq:eps2}$$ when $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$, where $\epsilon^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^+_\lambda$ are evaluated within the trial volume and $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}$ is evaluated within the source region. We now consider the average of Equation (\[eq:eps2\]). Our assumption that $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ in the trial volume decreases the probability that $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}$ is much larger than $\delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$ in the source region, because intense, counter-propagating, $z^\pm$ structures rapidly annihilate. We thus take the PDF of $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}$ within the source region to be negligible at large $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}$ and make the approximation that $$\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda}\bigg\|_{\rm source\;region} \simeq \delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}. \label{eq:dzmxiast2}$$ It follows from Equation (\[eq:zast2\]) that $\delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}/\xi_\lambda =(\delta z^\ast_\lambda/\lambda) (\xi_\lambda/\lambda)^{-1 -\ln \beta}$, and thus, using Equation (\[eq:xiast\]), we can rewrite Equation (\[eq:eps2\]) as $$\epsilon^+_\lambda \approx \frac{(\delta z^+_\lambda)^{1-\ln\beta} (\delta z^\ast_\lambda)^{2+\ln\beta}}{\lambda}. \label{eq:eps3}$$ We now average Equation (\[eq:eps3\]) over space. For the right-hand side of Equation (\[eq:eps3\]), this is equivalent to averaging over the Poisson distribution of $q$ in Equation (\[eq:z1\]), which is given in Equation (\[eq:Pq\]). We thus obtain $$\langle \epsilon^+_\lambda \rangle \sim \frac{(\overline{ \delta z})^3}{\lambda}\, \beta^{\mu(2+\ln\beta)} e^{-\mu} \sum_{q=0}^\infty \frac{(\mu \beta^{1-\ln\beta})^q}{q!}. \label{eq:eps4}$$ To derive Equation (\[eq:eps3\]), we assumed that $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$, and as a consequence the form of the summand in Equation (\[eq:eps4\]) is incorrect when $q\gtrsim \mu$. However, in the inertial range, in which $\mu$ is formally large, terms with $q\gtrsim \mu$ make only a small contribution to the sum in Equation (\[eq:eps4\]),[^3] consistent with our assumption that the total $z^+$ dissipation rate is dominated by large-$\delta z^+_\lambda$ regions. The sum in Equation (\[eq:eps4\]) is simply $\exp\left(\mu \beta^{1-\ln\beta}\right)$, and thus Equation (\[eq:eps4\]) implies that $$\langle \epsilon^+_\lambda \rangle \propto \left( \frac{\lambda}{L}\right)^{-(2+\ln\beta)\ln \beta - \beta^{1-\ln\beta}}. \label{eq:eps5}$$ Since $\langle \epsilon^+_\lambda \rangle$ must be independent of $\lambda$, we obtain $$(2+\ln\beta) \ln \beta + \beta^{1-\ln\beta} = 0. \label{eq:beta0}$$ There are two solutions to Equation (\[eq:beta0\]): $\beta \simeq 0.136$ and $\beta \simeq 0.691$. The solution $\beta \simeq 0.136$ leads to the scaling $\delta z^\ast_\lambda \propto \lambda^{1.98}$, which implies that the median variation in $\bm{z}^\pm$ across a distance $\lambda$ measured perpendicular to $\bm{B}$ is dominated by the outer-scale eddies and not by $\delta z^\ast_\lambda$, as we have assumed. Thus, the only solution to Equation (\[eq:beta0\]) that is consistent with its derivation is $$\beta \simeq 0.691. \label{eq:beta1}$$ We note that Equations (\[eq:exactlaw\]), (\[eq:eps4\]), and (\[eq:beta0\]) imply that $$\epsilon \sim \frac{(\overline{ \delta z})^3}{e^A L}. \label{eq:eps6}$$ Equation (\[eq:eps6\]) establishes a relationship between the energy input into the turbulence and the two parameters $\overline{ \delta z}$ and $A$ that quantify the non-universal features of the outer-scale fluctuations. Given $\epsilon$ and $L$, only one of $\overline{ \delta z}$ and $A$ is a free parameter in our model. Consistency of the Strong-Turbulence Assumption {#sec:strong} ----------------------------------------------- As described in Section \[sec:NL\], the type of nonlinear interaction that is most effective at shearing large-amplitude $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structures involves the typical $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda} \sim \delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$ structures (Equation (\[eq:dzmxiast2\])) at scale $\xi_\lambda$, which exceeds $\lambda$ to a degree that depends on the amplitude $\delta z^+_\lambda$ (see Equation (\[eq:xiast\])). These are the $z^-$ structures in the source region that, upon shearing by an intense $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, become the $\delta z^-_\lambda$ structures in the trial volume in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] (see Equation (\[eq:tvsr1\])) and enter into the computation of the average cascade power $\langle (\delta z^+_\lambda)^2 \delta z^-_\lambda \sin \theta_\lambda/\lambda \rangle$ within the trial volume. The parallel correlation length of the typical $\delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$ fluctuations in the source region in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] is $\sim l^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$, and thus the correlation time of the $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuation in the trial volume is $\sim l^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}/v_{\rm A}$ (assuming that the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure does not decorrelate on a shorter timescale, as we now demonstrate). Using Equations (\[eq:thetapm0\]), (\[eq:tvsr1\]), and (\[eq:dzmxiast2\]), we rewrite Equation (\[eq:deftaunl\]) in the form $$\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^+ \sim \frac{\xi_\lambda}{\delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}} = \frac{l^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}}{v_{\rm A}}, \label{eq:tau0}$$ where we have used Equation (\[eq:last\]) to deduce that $\xi_\lambda/\delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda} =l^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}/v_{\rm A}$. Thus, the cascade timescale $\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^+$ of a large-amplitude, coherent, $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure is also the correlation timescale of the $z^-$ fluctuations that dominate the shearing of that $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. This consistency check confirms that the turbulence is strong, as we have assumed. Locality {#sec:locality} -------- In Equation (\[eq:eps1\]), we assumed that the cascade is local in $\lambda$, in the sense that $z^\pm$ structures are sheared primarily by the counter-propagating $z^\mp$ structures of similar perpendicular scale at the same location. On the other hand, as we have just summarized in Section \[sec:strong\], an intense $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuation is cascaded primarily by collisions with $z^-$ fluctuations whose perpendicular scale prior to colliding was $\xi_\lambda$, which significantly exceeds $\lambda$. Thus, the cascade is local in $\lambda$ if the scales of the interacting fluctuations are evaluated at the same point in space (e.g., the trial volume in Figure \[fig:source\_region\]), but nonlocal if the perpendicular scale of $\delta z^+_\lambda$ is evaluated in the trial volume in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] while the perpendicular scale of the $z^-$ fluctuation is evaluated in the source region depicted in this figure. We note that Equations (\[eq:lpmval\]) and (\[eq:tau0\]) imply that, when $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$, $$l^+_\lambda \sim l^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}. \label{eq:lpmval2}$$ Thus, just before the nonlinear interaction begins, the $z^-$ fluctuations that dominate the shearing of a large-amplitude, coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure have the same parallel correlation length as that $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. In this sense, the cascade could be described as “local in parallel length scale.” Inertial-Range Scalings {#sec:scalings} ----------------------- The two-point structure functions $\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^n\rangle$ are the standard measures used to establish the presence of intermittency in turbulence [@kolmogorov62; @frisch96]. From Equations (\[eq:z1\]) through (\[eq:chi1\]), we obtain $$\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^n\rangle = (\overline{\delta z})^{n} e^{-\mu} \sum_{q=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(\mu \beta^n\right)^q}{q!}. \label{eq:sf0}$$ The sum in Equation (\[eq:sf0\]) is simply $e^{\mu\beta^n}$. With the use of Equation (\[eq:chi1\]), we thus obtain $$\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^n\rangle = (\overline{\delta z})^{n} \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{\zeta_n}, \label{eq:sfs}$$ where $$\zeta_n = 1 - \beta^n . \label{eq:xin}$$ The summand in Equation (\[eq:sf0\]) is maximized when $q\simeq q_n$, where $$q_n = \mu\beta^{n}. \label{eq:qn}$$ Terms with $q< q_n$ account for approximately half of the total sum in Equation (\[eq:sf0\]), just as the median of $P(q)$ in Equation (\[eq:Pq\]) is approximately $\mu$ [@choi94]. The mean value of $q$ is $\mu$, and the standard deviation of $q$ is $$\sigma = \langle (q - \mu)^2 \rangle^{1/2} = \mu^{1/2}. \label{eq:qrms}$$ Thus, the fluctuations that make the dominant contribution to $\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^n\rangle$ are $\sim N$ standard deviations out into the tail of the $q$ distribution, where $$N = \frac{\mu-q_n}{\sigma} = \mu^{1/2}(1-\beta^n). \label{eq:qnsigma}$$ As $\lambda$ decreases, $N$ increases, and this increase is more rapid when $n$ is larger. It is this fact that allows $\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^n\rangle$ in Equation (\[eq:sfs\]) to decrease more slowly with decreasing $\lambda$ than does $\langle \delta z^\pm_\lambda\rangle^n$. From Equations (\[eq:sfs\]) and (\[eq:xin\]), the second-order structure function satisfies the relation $$\langle (\delta z_\lambda^+)^2\rangle \propto \lambda^{1 - \beta^2} \simeq \lambda^{0.52}, \label{eq:zsqd}$$ which corresponds to an inertial-range $z^\pm$ power spectrum $$E(k_\perp) \propto k_\perp^{-1.52}, \label{eq:Ekperp}$$ where $k_\perp$ is the wave-vector component perpendicular to $\bm{B}_0$. Equation (\[eq:sfs\]) implies that the kurtosis obeys the scaling $$\frac{\langle (\delta z_\lambda^+)^4 \rangle}{\langle (\delta z_\lambda^+)^2\rangle ^2 } = \left(\frac{ \lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{- (1 -\beta^2)^2} \propto \lambda^{-0.27}, \label{eq:kurtosis}$$ which exemplifies how intermittency increases with decreasing $\lambda$. We emphasize that the parameter $A$ does not affect the exponents in any of the power-law scalings in our model (nor the fact that $\theta^\star_\lambda$ in Equation (\[eq:thetastarlim\]) below decreases logarithmically as $\lambda/L $ decreases to very small values). For reference, Equation (\[eq:zast2\]) implies that the amplitude of a “typical” structure is $$\delta z^\ast_\lambda = \overline{ \delta z}\left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{-\ln\beta} \propto \lambda^{0.37}, \label{eq:zastsc}$$ and hence $$\frac{\langle (\delta z^+_\lambda)^2 \rangle^{1/2}}{\delta z^\ast_\lambda} =\left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{\ln\beta + (1-\beta^2)/2} \propto \lambda^{-0.11}. \label{eq:mean_median}$$ This shows that at small $\lambda/L$ the rms fluctuation amplitude is much larger than the median fluctuation amplitude. Equation (\[eq:zastsc\]) implies via Equation (\[eq:last\]) that $$l^\ast_\lambda \propto \lambda^{1+\ln\beta} \simeq \lambda^{0.63}.$$ Equations (\[eq:thetapm0\]), (\[eq:tvsr1\]) and (\[eq:dzmxiast2\]) imply that, when $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$, $$\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^+ \sim \frac{\lambda}{\delta z^\ast_\lambda} \left( \frac{\delta z^+_\lambda}{\delta z^\ast_\lambda}\right)^{1 + \ln\beta}. \label{eq:taunl1}$$ The energy cascade timescale of the most intense fluctuations $\tau_{\rm max}$ follows from setting $\delta z^+_\lambda = \overline{\delta z}$ in Equation (\[eq:taunl1\]), which, together with Equation (\[eq:zastsc\]), yields $$\tau_{\rm max} \propto \lambda^{(1 +\ln \beta)^2} \simeq \lambda^{0.40}. \label{eq:taumax}$$ Finally, Equations (\[eq:lpmval\]) and (\[eq:taunl1\]) yield $$l^+_\lambda \sim l^\ast_\lambda \left(\frac{\delta z^+_\lambda}{\delta z^\ast_\lambda}\right)^{1+\ln\beta} \gg l^\ast_\lambda \label{eq:lplus2}$$ (which confirms an assumption to this effect in Section \[sec:NL\]). Alignment {#sec:alignment} --------- We define the average alignment angles $$\theta^\pm_\lambda = \frac{\langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\|\rangle}{ \langle\| \Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda\|\| \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\|\rangle} \label{eq:thetapm}$$ and $$\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda = \frac{\langle \|\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda \times\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda\|\rangle}{ \langle \|\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda\| \|\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda\|\rangle}, \label{eq:thetavb}$$ where $\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda = (\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda + \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda)/2$, $\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda = (\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda - \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda)/2$, and $\langle \dots \rangle$ now denotes averages over volume as well as the direction of the unit vector $\bm{\hat{s}}$ defined following Equation (\[eq:Deltaz\]). To evaluate $\theta^\pm_\lambda$, we set $$\langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda \|\rangle \sim \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle. \label{eq:approx1}$$ We assume (and verify below) that in the inertial range the dominant contribution to $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ comes from regions in which $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ or $\delta z^-_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$. Since $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ is symmetric with respect to the interchange of $z^+$ and $z^-$, we can estimate $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ by keeping only the contribution from regions in which $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$. We then evaluate this contribution by considering a spherical trial volume of diameter $\lambda$ as in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] and approximating $\delta z^-_\lambda$ and $\sin\theta_\lambda$ within the trial volume using Equations (\[eq:thetapm0\]), (\[eq:tvsr1\]), and (\[eq:dzmxiast2\]). We then average over the log-Poisson PDF of $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and make use of Equation (\[eq:beta0\]) to obtain $$\langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda \|\rangle \sim \overline{ \delta z}^2 \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{1 + (\beta - 1) \beta^{-\ln \beta}} \propto \lambda^{0.73}, \label{eq:ang_eq1}$$ Using the same approach and setting $$\langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda\| \|\Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\| \rangle \sim \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \rangle, \label{eq:approx0}$$ we obtain $$\langle \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda\| \|\Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\| \rangle \sim \overline{ \delta z}^2 \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{1 + \ln \beta} \propto \lambda^{0.63}, \label{eq:ang_eq2}$$ Combining Equations (\[eq:ang\_eq1\]) and (\[eq:ang\_eq2\]), we find that $$\theta^\pm_\lambda \sim \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{(\beta - 1)\beta^{-\ln\beta} - \ln\beta } \propto \lambda^{0.10}. \label{eq:ang_eq3}$$ The above scalings reflect the contributions to $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ and $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \rangle$ from regions in which $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ or $\delta z^-_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$. An upper bound on the contribution from the remaining regions in which $\delta z^\pm \lesssim \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ can be obtained by setting $\delta z^\pm_\lambda = \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ and $\sin \theta_\lambda \sim 1$ in $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ and $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \rangle$. The resulting upper bounds become negligibly small compared to the values in Equations (\[eq:ang\_eq1\]) and (\[eq:ang\_eq2\]) as $\lambda /L \rightarrow 0$, consistent with our assumption that the large-$\delta z^\pm$ regions make the dominant contributions to $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \sin\theta_\lambda \rangle$ and $ \langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda \rangle$. In the inertial range, the dominant contribution to $\langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2\rangle$ comes from regions in which $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ is unusually large. In most of these regions, $\delta z^\pm_\lambda \gg \delta z^\mp_\lambda$ and $\|\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda\| \simeq \|\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda\| \simeq \delta z^\pm_\lambda/2$. Keeping only the contribution to $\langle \|\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda\| \|\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda\|\rangle$ from the regions that make the dominant contributions to $ \langle (\delta z^+_\lambda)^2\rangle$ and $ \langle (\delta z^-_\lambda)^2\rangle$, we obtain the estimate $\langle \Delta v_\lambda \Delta b_\lambda \rangle \simeq \langle (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2\rangle/2$. Since $ \Delta \bm{v}_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{b}_\lambda = \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda/2$, Equations (\[eq:sfs\]) and (\[eq:ang\_eq1\]) imply that $$\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda \sim \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{\beta^2 + (\beta-1)\beta^{-\ln\beta}} \propto \lambda^{0.21}. \label{eq:ang_eq4}$$ Finally, we define a third average alignment angle $$\theta^\ast_\lambda = \left \langle\frac{ \|\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\|}{ \| \Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda\|\| \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda\|}\right\rangle. \label{eq:thetaast}$$ The angle $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ is the volume average of the (sine of the) angle between $\Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda $ and $\Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda$, whereas $\theta^{\pm}_\lambda$ is a weighted average of (the sine of) this angle that is dominated by regions in which the fluctuation amplitudes are large. If initially unaligned $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuations collide and $\delta z^+_\lambda \sim \delta z^-_\lambda$, then both fluctuations evolve nonlinearly on the same timescale in an unpredictable and disordered manner, which prevents the development of strong alignment. Building upon this idea, we estimate $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ as follows. We consider a new trial volume that is halfway between two source regions, one for $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and one for $\delta z^-_\lambda$, which are separated by a distance $2l^\ast_\lambda$. Because this distance is twice as large as the typical parallel correlation length that characterizes the bulk of the volume, we take $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ in the two source regions to be statistically independent. This assumption of statistical independence breaks down for exceptionally strong fluctuations with large values of $l^\pm_\lambda$, but such fluctuations account for only a small fraction of the volume and thus introduce only a small amount of error into our estimate of $\theta^\ast_\lambda$. We then set $\theta_\lambda = 1$ in the trial volume if $\delta z^+_{\lambda_1}$ and $\delta z^-_{\lambda_1}$ (where $\lambda_1 = e \lambda$) in the two different source regions are equal to within a factor of 3 (which is $\simeq \beta^{-3}$), and otherwise we set $\theta_\lambda = 0$. We compare $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ in the two source regions at scale $\lambda_1$ because we assume that the fluctuations cascade from scale $\lambda_1$ to scale $\lambda$ as they propagate from the source regions to the trial volume. This leads to the estimate $$\theta^\ast_\lambda = e^{-2\mu_1}\sum_{q_1 = 0}^\infty \sum_{\substack{q_2 = 0 \\ \|q_2 - q_1\| \leq 3}}^\infty \frac{\mu_1^{q_1 + q_2}}{q_1! \,q_2!}, \label{eq:thetastar1}$$ where $$\mu_1 = \mu - 1. \label{eq:mu1}$$ We rewrite Equation (\[eq:thetastar1\]) in the form $$\theta^\ast_\lambda = \sum_{q_1=0}^\infty \sum_{n=0}^{3} \frac{e^{-2\mu_1}\mu_1^{2q_1 + n}}{q_1! (q_1+n)!} + \sum_{q_2=0}^\infty \sum_{n=1}^{3} \frac{e^{-2\mu_1}\mu_1^{2q_2 + n}}{q_2! (q_2+n)!}, \label{eq:thetastar1.5}$$ which is equivalent to $$\theta^\ast_\lambda = e^{-2\mu_1}\sum_{n=-3}^{3} I_n(2\mu_1), \label{eq:thetastar2}$$ where $I_n(x)$ is the $n^{\rm th}$-order modified Bessel function of the first kind. As $\lambda\rightarrow 0$, $$\theta^\ast_\lambda \propto \left[ \ln\left(\frac{L}{\lambda}\right)\right]^{-1/2}, \label{eq:thetastarlim}$$ which decreases more slowly than any positive power of $\lambda$. We plot Equations (\[eq:ang\_eq3\]), (\[eq:ang\_eq4\]), and (\[eq:thetastar2\]) in Figure \[fig:thetas\]. ![Average alignment angles $\theta^\pm_\lambda$, $\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda$, and $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ defined in Equations (\[eq:thetapm\]), (\[eq:thetavb\]), and (\[eq:thetaast\]). The angles $\theta^\pm_\lambda$ and $\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda$ scale as $\lambda^{0.10}$ and $ \lambda^{0.21}$, respectively. The angle $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ decreases as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ more slowly than any positive power of $\lambda$. For these plots, we set $A=1$ in Equations (\[eq:ang\_eq3\]) and (\[eq:ang\_eq4\]), where the constant $A$ relates to the breadth of the PDF of $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ at the outer scale. We also set $A=1$ in Equation (\[eq:chi1\]) when evaluating $\mu_1$ in Equation (\[eq:thetastar2\]). \[fig:thetas\] ](thetas.eps){width="7cm"} Cross Correlation {#sec:cross} ----------------- Equations (\[eq:sfs\]), (\[eq:approx0\]), and (\[eq:ang\_eq2\]) yield the relation $$\frac{\langle \delta z^+_\lambda \delta z^-_\lambda\rangle} {\langle \delta z^+_\lambda\rangle \langle \delta z^-_\lambda\rangle } \sim \left(\frac{\lambda}{e^A L}\right)^{\ln\beta + 2\beta - 1} \propto \lambda^{0.012}, \label{eq:dependence}$$ which implies that $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ become anti-correlated at sufficiently small scales. However, this anti-correlation grows extremely slowly as $\lambda$ decreases. This very slow growth of anti-correlation results from the near cancellation of two competing effects. First, we argued in Equation (\[eq:dzmxiast2\]) that when $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$ in the trial volume in Figure \[fig:source\_region\], the likelihood that $\delta z^-_{\xi_\lambda} \gg \delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$ in the source region is decreased because intense, counter-propagating fluctuations rapidly annihilate. This effect acts to make $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ anti-correlated to an increasing degree as $\lambda$ decreases, because moments of the $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ distribution are increasingly dominated by exceptionally intense structures at smaller scales (see, e.g., the discussion following Equation (\[eq:qnsigma\])). On the other hand, a large-amplitude, coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure amplifies $\delta z^-_\lambda$ to a value $\sim \delta z^\ast_{\xi_\lambda}$ that exceeds $\delta z^\ast_\lambda$. Thus, a sheet-like coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure produces a weaker, sheet-like, $\delta z^-_\lambda$-structure at the same location. On its own, this effect would act to make $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ positively correlated, to a degree that would increase at smaller scales, again because the moments of the $\delta z^\pm$ distribution become increasingly dominated by large-amplitude fluctuations as $\lambda$ decreases. Comparison with Numerical Simulations {#sec:comp} ===================================== The scalings in Section \[sec:theory\] agree reasonably well with a number of results from direct numerical simulations. For example, the $k^{-1.52}$ scaling of the inertial-range power spectrum in our model is in good agreement with the low-wavenumber ranges of the power spectra in the numerical simulations of RMHD turbulence carried out by [@perez12] and [@beresnyak12; @beresnyak14]. We note, however, that [@beresnyak14] argued that the power spectra near the dissipation scale vary with Reynolds number in his simulations in the manner that would be expected if the inertial-range power spectrum were proportional to $k^{-5/3}$. A detailed discussion of this point is beyond the scope of this paper. In Figure \[fig:SF\], we show the scaling exponents $\zeta_n$ in Equation (\[eq:xin\]) as well as the velocity-structure-function scaling exponents found by [@imazio13] in simulations of strong RMHD turbulence. Both sets of exponents asymptote to a value $\simeq 1$ as $n$ increases to large values. In contrast, as shown in the figure, the scaling exponents for hydrodynamic turbulence and non-helical, globally isotropic (zero mean field), 3D, incompressible MHD turbulence reach significantly larger values at large $n$ and do not appear to asymptote towards a constant value as $n\rightarrow \infty$. We note that in the incompressible MHD simulations of [@muller03], as $\delta z^\pm_L/B_0$ decreases to values $\ll 1$, $\zeta_n$ becomes increasingly similar to the RMHD results shown in Figure \[fig:SF\]. In contrast to hydrodynamic turbulence, $\zeta_3$ need not be 1 in MHD turbulence or RMHD turbulence, because the average of the right-hand side of Equation (\[eq:eps1\]) is not the third moment of $\delta z^+$, but instead a correlation function involving both $\delta z^+$ and $\delta z^-$ [@politano98; @boldyrev09]. ![Open triangles show the predicted scaling exponents $\zeta_n$ of the $n^{\rm th}$-order $z^\pm$ structure-function given in Equation (\[eq:xin\]). Filled triangles show the scaling exponents for the velocity structure function in numerical simulations of RMHD turbulence [@imazio13]. Squares show the scaling exponents of the $z^\pm$ structure function in numerical simulations of 3D, non-helical, zero-mean-field, incompressible MHD turbulence [@muller00]. Circles show experimentally measured scaling exponents for the velocity structure function in hydrodynamic turbulence [@benzi93]. \[fig:SF\] ](SF.eps){width="7cm"} [@perez12] found that $\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda$ scaled like a power law that was slightly flatter than $\lambda^{1/4}$ in their highest-resolution, highest-Reynolds-number RMHD turbulence simulation (their simulation RB3b — see their Figure 5), consistent with Equation (\[eq:ang\_eq4\]). [@beresnyak12] found peak values of $\simeq 0.1$ for the scaling exponent $(d\ln \theta^\pm_\lambda)/d\ln\lambda$ in numerical simulations of RMHD turbulence, consistent with Equation (\[eq:ang\_eq3\]). In this same numerical study, [@beresnyak12] found peak values of $\simeq 0.2$ for the scaling exponent $(d\ln \theta^{(vb)}_\lambda)/d\ln\lambda$, in agreement with Equation (\[eq:ang\_eq4\]). [@beresnyak06] carried out simulations of incompressible MHD turbulence and found that $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ decreased very slowly with decreasing $\lambda$, remaining close to unity throughout the inertial range in their simulations, consistent with Equation (\[eq:thetastarlim\]). Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== Intermittency has qualitatively different effects upon the energy cascades rates in hydrodynamic turbulence and RMHD turbulence. In hydrodynamic turbulence, an intense vorticity structure interacts with itself. The concentration of fluctuation energy into a decreasing fraction of the volume as $\lambda$ decreases thus reduces the energy cascade timescale in the energetically dominant regions, to an increasing degree as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. Intermittency in hydrodynamic turbulence thus acts to steepen the inertial-range power spectrum. For example, $E(k) \propto k^{-1.71}$ in the She-Leveque model, whereas $E(k) \propto k^{-5/3}$ in Kolmogorov’s (1941) theory. In RMHD, since only counter-propagating fluctuations interact, the concentration of $\delta z^+_\lambda$ energy into a tiny fraction of the volume makes it difficult for a $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuation to “find” and interact with the dominant $\delta z^+_\lambda$ fluctuations. This in turn increases the energy cascade timescale, to an increasing degree as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$, causing the inertial-range power spectrum to flatten relative to models of RMHD turbulence that neglect intermittency, a point first made by [@maron01]. Like [@she94] and [@she95], we assume that the fluctuation amplitudes have a log-Poisson PDF and make an assumption about the dimension of the most intense structures. On the other hand, the PDF of the fluctuation amplitudes (and the PDF of the dissipation rate) in the She-Leveque model has three parameters, whereas the PDF in our model has just two: $\beta$ and $\mu$ (Equations (\[eq:z1\]) and (\[eq:Pq\])). (We do not count the overall normalization of the fluctuation amplitudes — e.g., $\overline{ \delta z}$ — as a parameter of the PDF in either model, because this normalization does not affect the inertial-range scalings.) Our PDF has one fewer parameter because of our argument that highly imbalanced collisions reduce a fluctuation’s length scale without affecting its amplitude, which implies that the amplitude of the most intense ($q=0$) fluctuations is independent of $\lambda$. In order to determine the extra free parameter in their model, [@she94] introduced an extra assumption concerning the scaling of the energy dissipation rate of the most intense structures. In this paper, we draw heavily upon Boldyrev’s (2005, 2006) argument that alignment within the field-perpendicular plane plays an important role in the energy cascade. However, our treatment of scale-dependent dynamic alignment differs from Boldyrev’s. In his theory, there is a single characteristic alignment angle at each scale. In our model, at each scale $\theta_\lambda$ varies systematically with the fluctuation amplitudes (Equation (\[eq:thetapm0\])). [@boldyrev06] argued that a larger fluctuation amplitude reduces alignment. In our model, given a scale $\lambda$, larger fluctuation amplitudes are associated with enhanced alignment, a phenomenon observed by [@beresnyak06] in numerical simulations of incompressible MHD turbulence. Also, in our model, there are two distinct mechanisms for aligning $\Delta \bm{v}_\lambda$ and $\Delta \bm{b}_\lambda$ fluctuations in regions where the fluctuation amplitudes are large. First, intense $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ fluctuations rotate weaker $\delta z^\mp_\lambda$ fluctuations into alignment, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:shear\_slab\], which reduces $\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda$ because $ \Delta \bm{v}_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{b}_\lambda = \Delta \bm{z}^-_\lambda \times \Delta \bm{z}^+_\lambda/2$. Second, when the fluctuations are intermittent, the turbulence becomes locally imbalanced at small scales [cf. @perez09a], with either $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^-_\lambda$ or $\delta z^-_\lambda \gg \delta z^+_\lambda$ in the regions containing most of the fluctuation energy. In such locally imbalanced regions, the velocity and magnetic-field fluctuations are nearly parallel or anti-parallel, regardless of whether $\bm{z}^+$ and $\bm{z}^-$ are aligned [@grappin13; @wicks13a; @wicks13b]. This second effect is why $\theta^{(vb)}_\lambda$ decreases more quickly than $\theta^\pm_\lambda$ as $\lambda/L$ decreases to small values. [@grauer94], [@politano95], and [@muller00] developed models of intermittent, incompressible, MHD turbulence based on the approach of [@she94] and the assumption that $\epsilon^\pm_\lambda \sim (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^4/(\lambda v_{\rm A})$. [@muller00] also developed a She-Leveque-like model of incompressible MHD turbulence under the assumption that $\epsilon^\pm_\lambda \sim (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^3/\lambda$. A major difference between our approach and these previous studies is that we set $\epsilon^\pm_\lambda \sim (\delta z^\pm_\lambda)^2 \delta z^\mp_\lambda (\sin \theta_\lambda)/\lambda$, accounting for alignment and treating $\delta z^+_\lambda$ and $\delta z^-_\lambda$ as separate but correlated random variables. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== We have constructed an analytic model of intermittent, three-dimensional, strong RMHD turbulence that incorporates a new phenomenology of scale-dependent dynamic alignment. We restrict our analysis to the case of “globally balanced” turbulence, in which the cross helicity is zero. There are three main assumptions in our model. First, we take the fluctuation amplitudes to have a scale-dependent, log-Poisson PDF. In Section \[sec:statistical\], we describe how this assumption can be motivated by treating a fluctuation’s evolution as a random, quantized, multiplicative process, as in the work of [@she95]. Second, we assume that the most intense $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ fluctuations are two-dimensional current/vorticity sheets with a volume filling factor $\propto \lambda$. Third, we assume that the turbulence obeys a refined similarity hypothesis (Equation (\[eq:eps1\])) that includes the effect of dynamic alignment. We argue that the largest contribution to the average $z^+$ cascade power at any inertial-range scale $\lambda$ comes from regions in which $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^-_\lambda$ and $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$, where $\delta z^\ast_\lambda$ is the typical (median) fluctuation amplitude at scale $\lambda$. We then develop an approximate theory describing how a large-amplitude, coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure interacts with a much weaker $z^-$ fluctuation. We show that during such an interaction, the $z^-$ fluctuation cascades rapidly to smaller scales without a reduction in amplitude and rotates into alignment with the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. By accounting for these effects, we compute the average $z^+$ cascade power using the assumed log-Poisson PDF of $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$. This log-Poisson PDF has two free parameters, $\mu$ and $\beta$ (see Equations (\[eq:z1\]) and (\[eq:chi1\])). Our assumption that the most intense fluctuations form two-dimensional structures with a filling factor $\propto \lambda$ determines $\mu$ up to an additive constant $A$, which affects neither the power-law scalings in our model nor the fact that $\theta^\ast_\lambda$ (Equation (\[eq:thetaast\])) decreases logarithmically as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. The condition that the average cascade power is independent of $\lambda$ then determines $\beta$. Once we have determined $\mu$ and $\beta$, we compute the scalings of the $z^\pm$ power spectrum, higher-order structure functions, and three different average alignment angles. Given the assumptions stated above, the scalings in our model do not depend upon free parameters and agree reasonably well with previously published numerical results. There are a number of ways in which our model could be improved. As presented, our model can approximate a broad distribution of outer-scale fluctuation amplitudes through the parameter $A$, but the outer-scale distribution is then forced to be log-Poisson. A more realistic approach might be to allow the quantity $\overline{ \delta z}$ (Equation (\[eq:z1\])) to be random with a distribution that could be adjusted so as to model different forcing mechanisms in forced turbulence or different initial conditions in decaying turbulence. Our finding that $\tau_{{\rm nl},\lambda}^\pm$ is an increasing function of $\delta z^\pm_\lambda$ at each scale suggests that, at least for some dissipation mechanisms such as Laplacian viscosity and resistivity, the dissipation scale is an increasing function of fluctuation amplitude. This would mean that the unusually intense fluctuations that make the dominant contribution to the power spectrum begin dissipating at a larger scale than the fluctuations that fill most of the volume. A useful direction for future research would be to develop this idea further by exploring the consequences of intermittency for the transition between the inertial and dissipation ranges within the framework of our analytic model. It would also be useful to extend our model to allow for nonzero cross helicity in order to investigate how intermittency affects strong “imbalanced” RMHD turbulence. Finally, inhomogeneity of the background plasma can fundamentally alter RMHD turbulence by causing the non-WKB reflection of Alfvén waves [@heinemann80]. This linear coupling between counter-propagating Alfvén waves occurs in the solar atmosphere and solar wind [@dmitruk02; @cranmer05; @verdini07; @chandran09c] and can modify the power spectrum and energy-cascade timescales in solar-wind turbulence [@velli89; @verdini12; @perez13]. Extending our model to account for background inhomogeneity and non-WKB wave reflection would be helpful for understanding intermittent turbulence in the inner heliosphere. This work was supported in part by grant NNX11AJ37G from NASA’s Heliophysics Theory Program, NASA grant NNN06AA01C to the Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Experiment, NASA grant NNX13AF97G, and NSF grant AGS-1258998. B. Chandran was supported in part by a Visiting Research Fellowship from Merton College, University of Oxford, and a sabbatical leave from the University of New Hampshire. Highly Imbalanced Collisions {#ap:shear} ============================ In this Appendix, we consider “highly imbalanced collisions” between a large-amplitude, sheet-like, coherent, $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure and smaller-amplitude $z^-$ fluctuations. We begin by considering the effects of such collisions on the weaker, $z^-$ fluctuations. For this part of our analysis, we make the simplifying approximation that the $\bm{z}^+$ field has the form of a linear shear within the volume of the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. We use the term “linear” to refer to the functional form of $\bm{z}^+$ in Equation (\[eq:zplusshear\]) below, and not to imply that the amplitude $\delta z_\lambda^+$ is small. We further assume that the evolution of $\bm{z}^-$ within the volume of the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure does not depend strongly on the properties of the $\bm{z}^+$ field outside of the structure. This assumption allows us to choose a convenient form for $\bm{z}^+$ throughout all of space, $$\bm{z}^+ = S(z, t) x \,\bm{\hat{y}}, \label{eq:zplusshear}$$ where $S(z,t)$ is the shearing rate and $(x,y,z)$ are Cartesian coordinates chosen so that $\bm{B}_0$ is in the $z$ direction. The RMHD equations can be rewritten in the form [@schekochihin07] $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \nabla_\perp^2 \psi^\pm \mp v_{\rm A}\frac{\partial }{\partial z}\nabla_\perp^2\psi^\pm = -\frac{1}{2}\left(\{\psi^+,\nabla_\perp^2 \psi^-\} + \{\psi^-,\nabla_\perp^2 \psi^+\} \mp \nabla_\perp^2\{\psi^+,\psi^-\}\right), \label{eq:RMHD2}$$ where $\nabla_\perp = \bm{\hat{x}} \partial/\partial x + \bm{\hat{y}} \partial/\partial y$, $\{g, h\} = \bm{\hat{z}} \cdot (\nabla_\perp g \times \nabla_\perp h)$ for any functions $g$ and $h$, and $\psi^\pm$ are the Elsässer stream functions, which satisfy $\bm{z}^\pm = \bm{\hat{z}}\times \nabla_\perp \psi^\pm$. Equation (\[eq:zplusshear\]) then implies that $\psi^+ = Sx^2/2$ to within an arbitrary additive function of the $z$ coordinate and time. Upon substituting this value of $\psi^+$ into Equation (\[eq:RMHD2\]), we obtain $$\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} + Sx \frac{\partial }{\partial y} + v_{\rm A} \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right) \nabla_\perp^2 \psi^- = - S\, \frac{\partial^2\psi^-}{\partial x\partial y}. \label{eq:RMHD3}$$ Although $\psi^+ = Sx^2/2$ is not localized, we take $\psi^-$ to vanish sufficiently rapidly as $x^2 + y^2 \rightarrow \infty$ that $$f = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int dx dy \psi^- e^{-ik_x x - i k_y y} \label{eq:deff}$$ is defined and the Fourier transforms in $x$ and $y$ of each term in Equation (\[eq:RMHD3\]) are defined. The Fourier transform of Equation (\[eq:RMHD3\]) yields $$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - Sk_y \frac{\partial}{\partial k_x} + v_{\rm A} \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\right) (k_\perp^2 f) = - S k_x k_y f. \label{eq:RMHDft}$$ To solve Equation (\[eq:RMHDft\]), we define a family of trajectories in $k_x-z$ space through the equations $dk_x/dt = - Sk_y$ and $dz/dt = v_{\rm A}$. The total time derivative of any function $G(k_x(t), k_y, z(t),t)$ along one of these trajectories is then $(d/dt)G = ( \partial/\partial t - Sk_y \partial/\partial k_x + v_{\rm A} \partial/\partial z)G$. Since $(d/dt) k_\perp^2 = -2Sk_x k_y$, we can rewrite Equation (\[eq:RMHDft\]) as $(d/dt)(k_\perp f) = 0$. The solution to Equation (\[eq:RMHDft\]) is thus $$f(k_x, k_y, z, t) = \frac{k_{\perp 0}}{k_\perp}\, f_0(k_{x0}, k_y, z_0), \label{eq:solution1}$$ where $z_0 = z - v_{\rm A} t$, $k_{x0} = k_x + k_y H$, $$H = \int_0^{t} S(z_0 + v_{\rm A} t^\prime, t^\prime)dt^\prime, \label{eq:defH}$$ $f_0(k_x, k_y, z) = f(k_x, k_y, z, 0)$, $k_\perp = \sqrt{k_x^2 + k_y^2}$, and $k_{\perp 0} = \sqrt{k_{x0}^2 + k_y^2}$. The Fourier transform of $\bm{z}^-$ is then $$\bm{z}^-_k = i (\bm{\hat{z}}\times \bm{\hat{k}_\perp}) k_{\perp 0} f_0(k_{x0}, k_y, z_0), \label{eq:zsolve}$$ where $\bm{\hat{k}_\perp} = (k_x \bm{\hat{x}} + k_{y}\bm{\hat{y}})/k_\perp$. If we focus on a cross section of $\psi^-$ in the $xy$-plane, then this cross section is advected to larger $z$ at speed $v_{\rm A}$, and each Fourier component of $\psi^-$ in that cross section is advected in $k_x$ at “wavenumber velocity” $-Sk_y$, resulting in the equation $$k_x = k_{x0} - k_y H, \label{eq:kxt}$$ where $k_{x0}$ is the initial value of $k_{x}$. The amplitude $k_\perp f$ of each Fourier component of $\bm{z}^-$ in this (moving) cross section remains constant in time. Moreover, as $t$ increases, $\|k_x\|$ may initially decrease, but eventually $\|k_x\|$ increases without bound. This causes $\bm{\hat{k}_\perp}$ to align with the $x$ axis and $\bm{z}^-$ to align with the $y$ axis. The angle $\theta$ between $\bm{z}^-$ and $\bm{z}^+$ is $\sin^{-1}\|k_{y}/k_\perp\|$. If $k_{x0} \sim k_{y}$ and $H \gg 1$, then $k_x \simeq -k_{y}H$, $$\theta \simeq H^{-1} \hspace{0.6cm} \mbox{ and } \hspace{0.6cm} \frac{k_\perp}{k_{\perp 0}} \simeq H. \label{eq:thetakp}$$ We now use these results to obtain an approximate description of the evolution of $z^-$ fluctuations as they propagate a distance $l^\ast_\lambda$ from the source region to the trial volume depicted in Figure \[fig:source\_region\] in the limit that $\delta z^+_\lambda \gg \delta z^\ast_\lambda$. Because the $z^-$ fluctuations in the source region have not yet interacted with the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure depicted in Figure \[fig:source\_region\], they do not yet “know about” the orientation of this structure. The typical case is thus that $k_{x0} \sim k_{y}$, so that the $z^-$ fluctuations are not initially aligned with the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. We set $S \rightarrow \delta z^+_\lambda/\lambda$, which is the shearing rate associated with the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, and we set $t\rightarrow l^\ast_\lambda/v_{\rm A}$, which is the time it takes the $z^-$ fluctuations to propagate from the source region to the trial volume. This leads to $ H = \delta z^+_\lambda/\delta z^\ast_\lambda \gg 1$, so that Equation (\[eq:thetakp\]) applies. The condition $k_\perp f = \mbox{ constant}$ and Equation (\[eq:thetakp\]) then lead to Equations (\[eq:thetapm0\]) and (\[eq:tvsr1\]). Equation (\[eq:thetakp\]) also implies that the perpendicular length scale of the $\bm{z}^-$ fluctuations decreases by a factor of $\delta z^+_\lambda/\delta z^\ast_\lambda$ as the $z^-$ fluctuations propagate from the source region to the trial volume. Finally, we consider how highly imbalanced collisions affect the larger-amplitude, coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. As can be seen in the bottom half of Figure \[fig:shear\_slab\], the $\delta z^-_\lambda$ fluctuations within a sheet-like coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure have been sheared in such a way that they resemble a smaller-amplitude, counter-propagating, current/vorticity sheet that is nearly aligned with the coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure. The nature of the effect of this $\delta z^-_\lambda$ current/vorticity sheet on the original $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure is also effectively linear shearing. Because of this, we can repeat the arguments leading from Equation (\[eq:zplusshear\]) to Equation (\[eq:kxt\]), interchanging the roles of $z^+$ and $z^-$. We thus conclude that highly imbalanced collisions between a sheet-like coherent $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure and much weaker $z^-$ fluctuations change the scale but not the amplitude of the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure, as argued in Section \[sec:statistical\]. We also note that the scale of the $\delta z^+_\lambda$ structure can either increase or decrease, depending on the directions of the vector fluctuations in the “colliding” fluctuations (i.e., depending on the relative signs of the two terms on the right-hand side of Equation (\[eq:kxt\]), when we have interchanged the roles of $z^+$ and $z^-$ in Equations (\[eq:zplusshear\]) through (\[eq:kxt\]) in order to describe the evolution of $\delta z^+_\lambda$). [^1]: More realistically, $\overline{ \delta z}$ would have its own (scale-independent) distribution reflecting the non-universal details of the outer-scale statistics (e.g., the statistics of the forcing). [^2]: Equation (\[eq:CB\]) is a simplifying assumption. In numerical simulations of RMHD turbulence, $\chi^\pm$ has a distribution, but this distribution is scale-independent and has a mean of order unity (Mallet et al. 2014, in preparation). [^3]: We verify this claim by first writing the sum in Equation (\[eq:eps4\]) as $I \equiv \sum_{q=0}^\infty (\alpha \mu)^q/q! = e^{\alpha \mu}$, where $\alpha = \beta^{1-\ln\beta} < 1$. For simplicity, we take $\mu$ to be an integer. The contribution to $I$ from terms with $q> \mu$ (which we denote $I_1$) then equals $e^{\alpha\mu} \gamma(\mu+1,\alpha \mu)/\mu!$, where $\gamma$ is the lower incomplete gamma function. When $a$ exceeds $x$ by a factor of order unity and $x\gg 1$, $\gamma(a+1,x) \simeq e^{-x}x^{a+1}/(a-x)$ [@ferreira05]. With the use of Stirling’s formula, $\mu! \simeq \sqrt{2\pi\mu}(\mu/e)^\mu$, we obtain $I_1 \simeq [\alpha/(1-\alpha)](2\pi\mu)^{-1/2}\exp(\mu(1+\ln\alpha))$, which is $\ll I$ because $1 + \ln\alpha < \alpha$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In 1993 E. I. Zelmanov has put the following question in Dniester Notebook:[Suppose that $F_{2, m}$ is a free 2-generated associative ring with the identity $x^m=0.$ Is it true that the nilpotency degree of $F_{2, m}$ has exponential growth?]{} We give the definitive answer to E. I. Zelmanov’s question showing that the nilpotency class of an $l$-generated associative algebra with the identity $x^d=0$ is smaller than $\Psi(d,d,l),$ where $$\Psi(n,d,l)=2^{18} l (nd)^{3 \log_3 (nd)+13}d^2.$$ This result is a consequence of the following fact based on combinatorics of words. Let $l$, $n$ и $d \geqslant n$ be positive integers. Then all words over an alphabet of cardinality $l$ whose length is not less than $\Psi(n,d,l)$ are either $n$-divisible or contain $d$-th power of a subword; a word $W$ is [$n$-divisible]{} if it can be represented in the form $W=W_0W_1\cdots W_n$ such that $W_1,W_2,\dots,W_n$ are placed in lexicographically decreasing order. Our proof uses Dilworth theorem (according to V. N. Latyshev’s idea). We show that the set of not $n$-divisible words over an alphabet of cardinality $l$ has height $h<\Phi(n,l)$ over the set of words of degree $\leqslant (n-1)$, where $$\Phi(n,l) = 2^{87} l\cdot n^{12\log_3 n + 48}.$$ author: - 'Alexei Belov, Mikhail Kharitonov' title: \| to to\ Subexponential estimates in Shirshov theorem on height --- [Keywords:]{} Shirshov theorem on height, word combinatorics, $n$-divisibility, Dilworth theorem, Burnside-type problems. Introduction ============ Shirshov theorem on height -------------------------- In 1958 A. I. Shirshov has proved his famous theorem on height ([@Shirshov1], [@Shirshov2]). A word $W$ is called [$n$-divisible]{} if $W$ can be represented in the form $W = vu_1u_2\cdots u_n$ such that $u_1\succ u_2\succ\dots\succ u_n$. In this case any non-identical permutation $\sigma$ of subwords $u_i$ produces a word $W_\sigma = vu_{\sigma(1)}u_{\sigma(2)}\cdots u_{\sigma(n)}$, which is lexicographically smaller than $W$. Some authors take this feature as the definition of $n$-divisibility. A -algebra $A$ is called an algebra [of bounded height $h=\Ht_Y(A)$ over a set of words $Y = \{ u_1, u_2,\ldots\}$]{} if $h$ is the minimal integer such that any word $x$ from $A$ can be represented in the form $$x = \sum_i \alpha_i u_{j_{(i,1)}}^{k_{(i,1)}} u_{j_{(i, 2)}}^{k_{(i,2)}}\cdots u_{j_{(i,r_i)}}^{k_{(i,r_i)}}$$ where $\{r_i\}$ don’t exceed $h$. The set $Y$ is called [a Shirshov basis]{} for $A$. If no misunderstanding can occur, we use $h$ instead of $\Ht_Y(A)$. ([@Shirshov1], [@Shirshov2]) [The set of not $n$-divisible words in a finitely generated algebra with an admissible polynomial identity has bounded height $H$ over the set of words of degree not exceeding $n-1$.]{} The Burnside-type problems related to height theorem are considered in [@Zelmanov]. The authors believe that Shirshov theorem on height is a fundamental fact in word combinatorics independently of its applications to $\PI$-theory. (All our proofs are elementary and fit in the framework of word combinatorics.) Unfortunately the experts in combinatorics haven’t sufficiently appraised this fact yet. As regards the notion of [$n$-divisibility]{} itself, it seems to be fundamental as well. V. N. Latyshev’s estimates on $\xi_n(k)$, the number of non-$n$-divisible polylinear words in $k$ symbols, have lead to fundamental results in $\PI$-theory. At the same time, this number is nothing but the number of arrangements of integers from $1$ to $k$, such that no $n$ integers (not necessarily consecutive) are placed in decreasing order. Furthermore it is the number of permutationally ordered sets of diameter $n$ consisting of $k$ elements. (A set is called [permutationally ordered]{} if its ordering is the intersection of two linear orderings, [the diameter]{} of an ordered set is the length of its maximal antichain.) Height theorem implies the solution of a set of problems in ring theory. Suppose an associative algebra over a field satisfies a polynomial identity $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$. It is possible to prove that then it satisfies an admissible polynomial identity (that is, a polynomial identity with coefficient $1$ at some term of the highest degree): $$x_1 x_2\cdots x_n = \sum_{\sigma}\alpha_{\sigma}x_{\sigma(1)} x_{\sigma(2)}\cdots x_{\sigma(n)},$$ where $\alpha_{\sigma}$ belong to the ground field. In this case, if $W = v u_1 u_2 \cdots u_n$ is $n$-divisible then for any permutation $\sigma$ the word $W_{\sigma} = vu_{\sigma(1)}u_{\sigma(2)}\cdots u_{\sigma(n)}$ is lexicographically smaller than $W$, and thus an $n$-divisible word can be represented as a linear combination of lexicographically smaller words. Hence a $\PI$-algebra has a basis consisting of non-$n$-divisible words. By Shirshov theorem on height, a $\PI$-algebra has bounded height. In particular, if a $\PI$-algebra satisfies $x^n = 0$ then it is nilpotent, that is, any its word of length exceeding some $N$ is identically zero. Surveys on height theorem can be found in [@BBL97; @Kem09; @BelovRowenShirshov; @Ufn90; @Dr04]. This theorem implies the positive solution of Kurosh problem and of other Burnside-type problems for $\PI$-колец. Indeed, if $Y$ is a Shirshov basis and all its elements are algebraic then the algebra $A$ is finite-dimensional. Thus Shirshov theorem explicitly indicates a set of elements whose algebraicity makes the whole algebra finite-dimensional. This theorem implies Let $A$ be a finitely generated $\PI$-algebra. Then $$\GK(A)<\infty.$$ $\GK(A)$ is [the Gelfand — Kirillov dimension of the algebra $A$]{}, that is, $$\GK(A)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\ln V_A(n)/\ln(n)$$ where $V_A(n)$ is [the growth function of $A$]{}, the dimension of the vector space generated by the words of degree not greater than $n$ in the generators of $A$. Indeed, it suffices to observe that the number of solutions for the inequality $k_1 \|v_1\|+\cdots+k_h\|v_h\|\leqslant n$ with $h\leqslant H$ exceeds $N^{H}$, so that $\GK(A)\leqslant \Ht(A)$. The number $m=\deg(A)$ will mean [the degree of the algebra]{}, or the minimal degree of an identity valid in it. The number $n=\Pid(A)$ is [the complexity]{} of $A$, or the maximal $k$ such that ${\Bbb M}_k$, the algebra of matrices of size $k$, belongs to the variety $\Var(A)$ generated by $A$. Instead of the notion of [height]{}, it is more suitable to use the close notion of [essential height]{}. An algebra $A$ has [essential height $h=H_{Ess}(A)$]{} over a finite set $Y$ called [an $s$-basis for $A$]{} if there exists a finite set $D\subset A$ such that $A$ is linearly representable by elements of the form $t_1\cdot\ldots\cdot t_l$, where $l\leqslant 2h+1$, $\forall i (t_i\!\in\! D \vee t_i=y_i^{k_i};y_i\in Y)$ and the set of $i$ such that $t_i\not\in D$ contains not more than $h$ elements. The [essential height]{} of a set of words is defined similarly. Informally speaking, any long word is a product of periodic parts and ”gaskets” of restricted length. The essential height is the number of periodic parts, and the ordinary height accounts “gaskets” as well. The height theorem suggests the following questions: 1. To which classes of rings the height theorem can be extended? 2. Over which $Y$ the algebra $A$ has bounded height? In particular, what sets of words can be taken for $\{v_i\}$? 3. What is the structure of the degree vector $(k_1,\ldots,k_h)$? First of all, what sets of its components are essential, that is, what sets of $k_i$ can be unbounded simultaneously? What is the value of essential height? Is it true that the set of degree vectors has some regularity properties? 4. What estimates for the height are possible? Let us discuss the above questions. Non-associative generalizations ------------------------------- The height theorem was extended to some classes of near-associative rings. S. V Pchelintsev [@Pchelintcev] has proved it for the alternative and the $(-1,1)$ сases, S. P. Mishchenko [@Mishenko1] has obtained an analogue of the height theorem for Lie algebras with a sparse identity. In the paper by one of the authors [@Belov1] the height theorem was proved for some class of rings asymptotically close to associative rings. In particular, this class contains alternative and Jordan $\PI$-algebras. Shirshov bases -------------- Suppose $A$ is a $\PI$-algebra and a subset $M\subseteq A$ is its $s$-basis. Then if all elements of $M$ are algebraic over $K$ then $A$ is finite-dimensional (the Kurosh problem). Boundedness of essential height over $Y$ implies “the positive solution of the Kurosh problem over $Y$”. The converse is less trivial. \[A. Ya. Belov\] \[ThKurHmg\] a) Suppose $A$ is a graded $\PI$-algebra, $Y$ is a finite set of homogeneous elements. Then if for all $n$ the algebra $A/Y^{(n)}$ is nilpotent then $Y$ is an $s$-basis for $A$. If moreover $Y$ generates $A$ as an algebra then $Y$ is a Shirshov basis for $A$. b\) Suppose $A$ is a $\PI$-algebra, $M\subseteq A$ is a Kurosh subset in $A$. Then $M$ is an $s$-basis for $A$. Let $Y^{(n)}$ denote the ideal generated by $n$th powers of elements from $Y$. A set $M\subset A$ is called [a Kurosh set]{} if any projection $\pi\colon A\otimes K[X]\to A'$ such that the image $\pi(M)$ is entire over $\pi(K[X])$ is finite-dimensional over $\pi(K[X])$. The following example motivates this definition. Suppose $A={\Bbb Q}[x,1/x]$. Any projection $\pi$ such that $\pi(x)$ is algebraic has a finite-dimensional image. However the set $\{x\}$ is not an $s$-basis for ${\Bbb Q}[x,1/x]$. Thus boundedness of essential height is a non-commutative generalization of the property of [entireness]{}. Shirshov bases consisting of words ---------------------------------- The Shirshov bases consisting of words are described by the following \[ThBelheight\] A set $Y$ of words is a Shirshov basis for an algebra $A$ iff for any word $u$ of length not exceeding $m = \Pid(A)$, the complexity of $A$, the set $Y$ contains a word cyclically conjugate to some power of $u$. A similar result was obtained independently by G. P. Chekanu and V. Drensky. Problems related to local finiteness of algebras and to algebraic sets of words of degree not exceeding the complexity of the algebra were investigated in [@Ufn90; @Cio97; @Cio88; @CK93; @Che94; @Ufn85; @UC85]. Questions related to generalization of the independence theorem were considered in these papers as well. Essential height ---------------- Clearly the Gelfand — Kirillov dimension is estimated by the essential height. Furthermore an $s$-basis is a Shirshov basis iff it generates $A$ as an algebra. In the representable case the converse is also true. Suppose $A$ is a finitely generated representable algebra and $H_{Ess}{}_Y(A)<\infty$. Then $H_{Ess}{}_Y(A)=\GK(A)$. The Gelfand — Kirillov dimension of a finitely generated representable algebra is an integer. If $H_{Ess}{}_Y(A)<\infty$ and $A$ is representable then $H_{Ess}{}_Y(A)$ is independent of choice of the $s$-basis $Y$. In this case the Gelfand — Kirillov dimension also is equal to the essential height by virtue of local representability of relatively free algebras. Although in the representable case the Gelfand — Kirillov dimension and the essential height behave well, even in this case the set of degree vectors may have a bad structure, namely, it can be the complement to the set of solutions of a system of exponential-polynomial Diophantine equations [@BBL97]. That is why there exists an instance of a representable algebra with the trascendent Hilbert series. However for a relatively free algebra, the Hilbert series is rational [@Belov501]. $n$-divisibility and Dilworth theorem ------------------------------------- The significance of the notion of [$n$-divisibility]{} exceeds the limits of Burnside-type problems. This notion is also actual in investigation of polylinear words and estimation of their number; a word is [polylinear]{} if each letter occurs in it at most one time. V. N. Latyshev applied Dilworth theorem for estimation of the number of not $m$-divisible polylinear words of degree $n$ over the alphabet $\{a_1,\dots,a_n\}$. The estimate is ${(m - 1)}^{2n}$ and is rather sharp. Let us recall this theorem. : [Let $n$ be the maximal number of elements of an antichain in a given finite partially ordered set $M$. Then $M$ can be divided into $n$ disjoint chains.]{} Consider a polylinear word $W$ consisting of $n$ letters. Put $a_i\succ a_j$ if $i>j$ and the letter $a_i$ is located in $W$ to the right from $a_j$. The condition of not $k$-divisibility means absence of an antichain consisting of $n$ elements. Then by Dilworth theorem all positions (and the letters $a_i$ as well) split into $(n-1)$ chains. Attach a specific color to each chain. Then the coloring of positions and of letters uniquely determines the word $W$. Furthermore the number of these colorings does not exceed $(n-1)^k\times (n-1)^k=(n-1)^{2k}$. The above estimate implies validity of polylinear identities corresponding to an irreducible module whose Young diagram includes the square of size $n^4$. This in turn enables, firstly, to obtain a transparent proof for Regev theorem which asserts that a tensor product of $\PI$-algebras is a $\PI$-algebra as well; secondly, to establish the existence of a sparse identity in the general case and of a Capelli identity in the finitely generated case (and thus to prove the theorem on nilpotency of the radical); and thirdly, to realize A. R. Kemer’s “supertrick” that reduces the study of identities in general algebras to that of super-identities in finitely generated superalgebras of zero characteristic. Close questions are considered in [@BP07; @Lot83; @02]. Problems related to enumeration of polylinear words which are not $n$-divisible are interesting of their own. (For example, there exists a bijection between not $3$-divisible words and Catalana numbers.) On one hand, this is a purely combinatorial problem, but on the other hand, it is related to the set of codimensions for the general matrix algebra. The study of polylinear words seems to be of great importance. V. N. Latyshev (see for instance [@LatyshevMulty]) has stated the problem of finite-basedness of the set of leading polylinear words for a $T$-ideal with respect to taking overwords and to isotonous substitutions. This problem implies the Specht problem for polylinear polynomials and is closely related to the problem of weak Noetherian property for the group algebra of an infinite finitary symmetric group over a field of positive characteristic (for zero charasteristic this was established by A. Zalessky). To solve the Latyshev problem, it is necessary to translate properties of $T$-ideals to the language of polylinear words. In [@BBL97; @Belov1] an attempt was made to realize a project of translation of structure properties of algebras to the language of word combinatorics. Translation to the language of polylinear words is simpler and enables to get some information on words of a general form. In this paper we transfer V. N. Latyshev’s technique to the non-polylinear case, and this enables us to obtain a subexponential estimate in Shirshov height theorem. G. R. Chelnokov suggested the idea of this transfer in 1996. Estimates for height -------------------- The original A. I. Shirshov’s proof, being purely combinatorial (it was based on the technique of elimination developed by him for Lie algebras, in particular in the proof of the theorem on freeness), nevertheless implied only primitively recursive estimates. Later A. T. Kolotov [@Kolotov] obtained an estimate for $\Ht(A)\leqslant l^{l^n}$($n=\deg(A)$, $l$ is the number of generators). A. Ya. Belov in [@Bel92] has shown that $\Ht(n,l)<2nl^{n+1}$. The exponential estimate in Shirshov height theorem was also presented in [@BR05; @Dr00; @Kh11(2); @Kh11(3)] . The above estimates were sharpened in the papers by A. Klein [@Klein; @Klein1]. In 2001 Ye. S. Chibrikov proved in [@Ch01] that $\Ht(4,l) \geqslant (7k^2-2k).$ M. I. Kharitonov in [@Kh11; @Kh11(2); @Kh11(3)] obtained estimates for the structure of piecewise periodicity. In 2011 A. A. Lopatin [@Lop11] obtained the following result: Let $C_{n,l}$ be the nilpotency degree of a free $l$-generated algebra satisfying $x^n=0$, and let $p$ be the characteristic of the ground field of the algebra, greater than $n/2.$ Then $$(1): C_{n,l}<4\cdot 2^{n/2} l.$$ By definition $C_{n,l}\leqslant \Psi(n, n, l).$ Observe that for small $n$ the estimate (1) is smaller than the estimate $\Psi(n, n, l)$ established in this paper but for growing $n$ the estimate $\Psi(n,n,l)$ is asymptotically better than (1). Ye. I. Zelmanov has put the following question in the Dniester Notebook [@Dnestrovsk] in 1993: Let $F_{2,m}$ be the free $2$-generated associative ring with identity $x^m=0.$ Is it true that the nilpotency class of $F_{2,m}$ grows exponentially in $m?$ Our paper answers Ye. I. Zelmanov’s question as follows: the nilpotency class in question grows subexponentially. The results obtained -------------------- [The main result]{} of the paper is as follows: \[c:main2\] The height of the set of not $n$-divisible words over an alphabet of cardinality $l$ relative to the set of words of length less than $n$ does not exceed $\Phi(n,l)$ where $$\Phi(n,l) = E_1 l\cdot n^{E_2+12\log_3 n} ,$$ $E_1 = 4^{21\log_3 4 + 17}, E_2 = 30\log_3 4 + 10.$ This theorem after some coarsening and simplification of the estimate implies that for fixed $l$ and $n \rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\Phi(n,l) < 2^{87} l\cdot n^{12\log_3 n + 48} = n^{12(1+o(1))\log_3{n}},$$ and for fixed $n$ and $l\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\Phi(n,l) < C(n)l.$$ The height of an $l$-generated $\PI$-algebra with an admissible polynomial identity of degree $n$ over the set of words of length less than $n$ does not exceed $\Phi(n,l)$. Moreover we prove a subexponential estimate which is better for small $n$: \[t1:log\_2\] The height of the set of not $n$-divisible words over an alphabet of cardinality $l$ relative to the set of words of length less than $n$ does not exceed $\Phi(n,l)$ where $$\Phi(n,l) = 2^{40} l\cdot n^{38+8\log_2 n}.$$ In particular we obtain subexponential estimates for the nilpotency index of $l$-generated nil-algebras of degree $n$ in an arbitrary characteristic. The second main result of our paper is the following \[c:main1\] Let $l$, $n$ and $d\geqslant n$ be positive integers. Then all $l$-generated words of length not less than $\Psi(n,d,l)$ either contain $x^d$ or are $n$-divisible. Here $$\Psi(n,d,l)=4^{5+3\log_3 4} l (nd)^{3 \log_3 (nd)+(5+6\log_3 4)}d^2.$$ This theorem after some coarsening and simplification of the estimate implies that for fixed $l$ and $nd \rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\Psi(n,d,l) < 2^{18} l (nd)^{3 \log_3 (nd)+13}d^2 = (nd)^{3(1+o(1))\log_3(nd)},$$ and for fixed $n$ and $l\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\Psi(n,d,l) < C(n,d)l.$$ Let $l$, $d$ be positive integers, and let an associative $l$-generated algebra $A$ satisfy $x^{d}=0$. Then its nilpotency index is less than $\Psi(d,d,l)$. Moreover we prove a subexponential estimate which is better for small $n$ and $d$: \[t2:log\_2\] Let $l$, $n$ and $d\geqslant n$ be positive integers. Then all $l$-generated words of length not less than $\Psi(n,d,l)$ either contain $x^d$ or are $n$-divisible. Here $$\Psi(n,d,l) = 256 l(nd)^{2\log_2 (nd)+10}d^2.$$ For a real number $x$ put $\ulcorner x\urcorner := -[-x].$ Thus we replace non-integer numbers by the closest greater integers. Proving theorem \[c:main2\] we also prove the following theorem on estimation of essential height: \[ThThick\] The essential height of an $l$-generated $PI$-algebra with an admissible polynomial identity of degree $n$ over the set of words of length less than $n$ is less than $\Upsilon (n, l),$ where $$\Upsilon (n, l) = 2n^{3\ulcorner\log_3 n\urcorner + 4} l.$$ In [@Bog01] it is established that the nilpotency index of an $l$-generated nil-semiring of degree $n$ equals the nilpotency index of an $l$-generated nilring of degree $n$, where addition is not supposed to be commutative. (The paper also contains examples of non-nilpotent nil-nearrings of index $2$.) Thus our results extend to the case of semirings as well. On estimates from below ----------------------- Let us compare the results obtained with the estimate for height from below. The height of an algebra $A$ is not less than its Gelfand — Kirillov dimension $\GK(A)$. For the algebra of $l$-generated general matrices of order $n$ this dimension equals $(l-1)n^2+1$ (see [@Procesi] as well as [@Bel04]). At the same time, the minimal degree of an identity in this algebra is $2n$ by Amitsur — Levitsky theorem. We have The height of an $l$-generated $\PI$-algebra of degree $n$ and of the set of not $n$-divisible words over an alphabet of cardinality $l$ is not less than $(l-1)n^2/4+1$. Estimates from below for the nilpotency index were established by Ye. N. Kuzmin in [@Kuz75]. He gave an example of $2$-generated algebra with identity $x^n=0$, such that its nilpotency index exceeds $(n^2+n-2)/2$. The problem of finding estimates from below is considered in [@Kh11]. At the same time, for zero characteristic and a countable set of generators, Yu. P. Razmyslov (see for instance [@Razmyslov3]) obtained an upper estimate for the nilpotency index, namely $n^2$. First we will prove theorem \[c:main1\], and in the following section we will deal with estimates for essential height, that is, for the number of distinct periodical pieces in a not $n$-divisible word. [Acknowledgements.]{} The authors are grateful to V. N. Latyshev, A. V. Mikhalyov and all participants of the seminar “Ring theory” for their attention to our work, as well as to the participants of the seminar at Moscow Physic-technical institute under the guidance of A. M. Raigorodsky. Estimates on occurence of degrees of subwords ============================================= The outline of the proof for theorem \[c:main1\] ------------------------------------------------ Lemmas \[Lm0.1\], \[c:lem1.2\] and \[c:lem1.3\] describe sufficient conditions for presence of a period of length $d$ in a not $n$-divisible word $W$. Lemma \[c:lem1.4\] connects $n$-divisibility of a word $W$ with the set of its tails. Further we choose some specific subset in the set of tails of $W$, such that we can apply Dilworth theorem. After that we color the tails and their first letters according to their location in chains obtained by application of Dilworth theorem. We have to know the position in any chain where neighboring tails begin to differ. It is of interest what is the $``$frequency$"$ of this position in a $p$-tail for some $p\leqslant n$. Further we somewhat generalize our reasoning dividing tails into segments consisting of several letters each and determining the segment containg the position where neighboring tails begin to differ. Lemma \[c:lem2\] connects the $``$frequencies$"$ in question for $p$-tails and $kp$-tails for $k = 3$. To complete the proof, we construct a hierarchical structure based on lemma \[c:lem2\], that is, we consecutively consider segments of $n$-tails, subsegments of these segments and so on. Furthermore we consider the greatest possible number of tails in the subset to which Dilworth theorem is applied, and then we estimate from above the total number of tails and hence of the letters in the word $W$. Periodicity and $n$-divisibility properties ------------------------------------------- Let $a_1, a_2,\ldots ,a_l$ be the alphabet used for constructing words. The ordering $a_1\prec a_2\prec\dots\prec a_l$ induces lexicographical ordering for words over the alphabet. For convenience, we introduce the following definitions. a\) If a word $v$ includes a subword of the form $u^t$ then we say that $v$ includes a [period of length $t.$]{} b\) If a word $u$ is the beginning of a word $v$ then these words are called [incomparable]{}. c\) A word $v$ is [a tail]{} of a word $u$ if there exists a word $w$ such that $u=wv$. d\) A word $v$ is [a $k$-tail]{} of a word $u$ if $v$ consists of $k$ first letters of some tail $u$. d\) [A $k$-beginning]{} is the same as $k$-tail. e\) A word $u$ [is to the left from]{} a word $v$ if $u$ begins to the left from the beginning of $v$. a\) For a real number $x$ put $\ulcorner x\urcorner := -[-x].$ b\) Let $\|u\|$ denote the length of a word $u$. The proof uses the following sufficient conditions for presence of a period: \[Lm0.1\] In a word $W$ of length $x$ either first $[x/d]$ tails are pairwise comparable or $W$ includes a period of length $d$. Suppose $W$ includes no word of the form $u^{d}$. Consider first $[x/{d}]$ tails. Suppose some two of them, say $v_1$ and $v_2$, are incomparable and $v_1=u\cdot v_2$. Then $v_2=u\cdot v_3$ for some $v_3$. Furthermore $v_1=u^2\cdot v_3$. Arguing in this way we obtain that $v_1=u^{d}\cdot v_{{d}+1}$ since $\|u\|<x/ {d}$, $\|v_2\|\geqslant ({d}-1)x/ {d}$. A contradiction. \[c:lem1.2\] If a word $V$ of length $k\cdot t$ includes not more than $k$ different subwords of length $k$ then $V$ includes a period of length $t$. We use induction in $k$. The base $k = 1$ is obvious. If there are not more than $(k - 1)$ different subwords of length $(k - 1)$ then we apply induction assumption. If there exist $k$ different subwords of length $(k - 1)$ then every subword of length $k$ is uniquely determined by its first $(k - 1)$ letters. Thus $V=v^t$ where $v$ is a $k$-tail of $V$. a\) A word $W$ is $n$-divisible in ordinary sense* if there exist $u_1, u_2,\ldots,u_n$ such that $W=v\cdot u_1\cdots u_n$ and $u_1\succ\ldots \succ u_n$. b\) In our proof we will call a word $W$ $n$-divisible in tail sense if there exist tails $u_1,\ldots,u_n$ such that $u_1\succ u_2\succ \ldots \succ u_n$ and for any $i=1, 2,\ldots, n - 1$ the beginning of $u_i$ is to the left from the beginning of $u_{i+1}$. If the contrary is not specified, an $n$-divisible word means $n$-divisible in tail sense. c\) A word $W$ is $n$-cancellable if either it is $n$-divisible in ordinary sense or there exists a word of the form $u^{d}\subseteq W$.. Now we describe a sufficient condition for $n$-cancellability and its connection with $n$-divisibility. \[c:lem1.3\] If a word $W$ includes $n$ identical disjoint subwords $u$ of length $n\cdot{d}$ then $W$ is $n$-cancellable. Suppose the contrary. Consider the tails $u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n$ of the word $u$ which begin from each of the first $n$ letters of $u$. Renumerate the tails to provide the inequalities $u_1\succ\ldots\succ u_n.$ By lemma 1 the tails are incomparable. Consider the subword $u_1$ in the left-most copy of $u,$ the subword $u_2$ in the second copy from the left, $\ldots, u_n$ in the $n$th copy from the left. We get an $n$-division of $W$. A contradiction. \[c:lem1.4\] If a word $W$ is $4nd$-divisible then it is $n$-cancellable. Suppose the contrary. Consider the numbers of positions of letters $a_i$, $a_1<a_2<\ldots<a_{4nd}$, that begin the tails $u_i$ dividing $W$. Set $a_{4nd+1} = \|W\|$. If $W$ is not $n$-cancellable then there exists $i$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant 4(n-1)d + 1$, such that for any $i\leqslant b<c\leqslant d<e\leqslant i+4d$ the $(a_c - a_b)$-tail $u_b$ is incomparable with the $(a_e-a_d)$-tail $u_d$. Compare $a_{i+2d} - a_i$ and $a_{i+4d} - a_{i+2d}$. We may assume that $a_{i+4d} - a_{i+2d}\geqslant a_{i+2d} - a_i$. Let $a_{j+1} - a_j = \inf\limits_k {(a_{k+1} - a_k)}, 0\leqslant j<2d.$ We may assume that $j<d.$ By assumption the $(a_{2d}-a_j)$-tail $u_j$ and the $(a_{2d} - a_{j+1})$-tail $u_{j+1}$ are incomparable with the $(a_{4d}-a_{2d})$-tail $u_{2d}$. Since $a_{4d}-a_{2d}\geqslant a_{2d}-a_j>a_{2d}-a_{j+1}$, the $(a_2d-a_j)$-tail $u_j$ and the $(a_{2d}-a_{j+1})$-tail $u_{j+1}$ are mutually incomparable. Since ${{a_{2d}-a_j}\over {a_{2d}-a_{j+1}}}\leqslant {{d+1}\over {d}},$ the $(a_{j+1}-a_j)$-tail $u_j$ in degree $d$ is included into the $(a_2d-a_j)$-tail $u_j$. A contradiction. If a word $W$ is not $n$-divisible in ordinary sense then $W$ is not $4nd$-divisible (in tail sense). Set $p_{n, d}:=4nd-1$. Let $W$ be a not $n$-cancellable word. Consider $U$, the $[\left\| W\right\|/d]$-tail of $W$. Then $W$ is not $(p_{n, d}+1)$-divisible. Let $\Omega$ be the set of tails of $W$, which begin in $U$. Then by lemma \[Lm0.1\] any two elements of $\Omega$ are comparable. There is a natural bijection between $\Omega$, the letters of $U$ and positive integers from $1$ to $\left\|\Omega\right\|=\left\|U\right\|$. Let us introduce a word $\theta$ which is lexicographically less than any other word. In the current proof of theorem \[c:main1\] all tails are assumed to belong to $\Omega$. Estimates on occurence of periodical fragments ============================================== #### An application of Dilworth theorem. For tails $u$ and $v$ put $u<v$ if $u \prec v$ and $u$ is to the left from $v$. Then by Dilworth theorem, $\Omega$ can be divided into $p_{n, d}$ chains such that in each chain $u \prec v$ if $u$ is to the left from $v$. Paint the initial positions of the tails into $p_{n, d}$ colors according to their occurence in chains. Fix a positive integer $p$. To each positive integer $i$ from 1 to $\left\|\Omega\right\|$, attach $B^p(i)$, an ordered set of $p_{n, d}$ words $\{f(i,j)\}$ constructed as follows: For each $j = 1, 2,\ldots, p_{n, d}$ put $$f(i,j)=\left\{\max \ f\leqslant i: f\ \mbox{ is painted into color }j\right\}.$$ If there is no such $f$ then the word from $B^p(i)$ at position $j$ is assumed to be equal to $\theta$, otherwise to the $p$-tail that begins from the $f(i,j)$-th letter. Informally speaking, we observe the speed of "evolution” of tails in their chains when the sequence of positions in $W$ is considered as the time axis. The sets $B^p(i)$ and the process at positions ---------------------------------------------- \[c:lem\] Given a sequence $S$ of length $\|S\|$ consisting of words of length $(k-1)$. Each word consists of $(k-2)$ symbols $``0"$ and a single symbol $``1"$. Let $S$ satisfy the following condition: [If for some $0 < s \leqslant k-1$ there exist $p_{n, d}$ words such that $``1"$ occupies the $s$th position then between the first and the $p_{n, d}$-th of these words there exists a word such that $``1"$ occupies a position with number strictly less than $s$]{}; $L(k-1)=\sup\limits_S \|S\|$. Then $L(k-1)\leqslant p_{n, d}^{k-1}-1$. We have $L(1) \leqslant p_{n, d}-1$. Let $L(k-1) \leqslant {p_{n, d}^{k-1}} - 1$. We will show that $L(k) \leqslant {p_{n, d}^{k}} - 1$. Consider the words such that $``1"$ occupies the first position. Their number does not exceed $p_{n, d}-1$. Between any two of them as well as before the first one and after the last one, the number of words does not exceed $L(k-1) \leqslant {p_{n, d}^{k-1}} - 1$. Hence $$L(k) \leqslant p_{n, d} - 1 + \left(p_{n, d}\right)\left({\left(p_{n, d}\right)^{k-1}}-1\right) = {\left(p_{n, d}\right)^{k}}-1,$$ as required. We need a quantity which estimates the speed of "evolution” of sets $B^p(i)$: Set $$\psi(p):= \left\{\max \ k: B^p(i)=B^p(i+k-1)\right\}.$$ In particular, by lemma \[c:lem1.2\] we have $\psi(p_{n,d})\leqslant p_{n, d} d$. For a given $\alpha$ we divide the sequence of the first $\left\|\Omega\right\|$ positions ${i}$ of $W$ into equivalence classes $\AC_\alpha$ as follows: $i\AC_\alpha j$ if $B^\alpha(i)=B^\alpha(j).$ For any positive integers $a<b$ we have $\psi(a) \leqslant \psi(b).$ \[c:lem2\] For any positive integers $a, k$ we have $$\psi(a)\leqslant p_{n,d}^k\psi(k\cdot a)+k\cdot a$$ Consider the least representative in each class of $\AC_{k\cdot a}$. We get a sequence of positions $\{i_j\}.$ Now consider all $i_j$ and $B^{k\cdot a}(i_j)$ from the same equivalence class of $\AC_a.$ Suppose it consists of $B^{k\cdot a}(i_j)$ for $i_j\in[b, c).$ Let $\{i_j\}'$ denote the segment of the sequence $\{i_j\},$ such that $i_j\in[b, c-k\cdot a).$ Fix a positive integer $r, 1\leqslant r\leqslant p_{n,d}.$ All $k\cdot a$-beginnings of color $r$ that begin from positions of the word $W$ in $\{i_j\}'$ will be called representatives of type $r$. All representatives of type $r$ are pairwise distinct because they begin from the least positions in equivalence classes of $\AC_{k\cdot a}.$ Divide each representative of type $r$ into $k$ segments of length $a$. Enumerate segments inside each representative of type $r$ from left to right by integers from zero to $(k-1)$. If there exist $(p_{n,d}+1)$ representatives of type $r$ with the same first $(t-1)$ segments but with pairwise different $t$th segments where $1\leqslant t\leqslant k-1$ then there are two $t$th segments such that their first letters are of the same color. Then the initial positions of these segments belong to different equivalence classes of $\AC_a.$ Now apply lemma \[c:lem\] as follows: in all representatives of type $r$ except the rightmost one we consider a segment as [a unit segment]{} if it contains the least position where this representative of type $r$ differs from the preceding one. All other segments are considered as [zero segments.]{} Now we apply the process lemma for the values of parameters as given in the condition of the lemma. We obtain that the sequence $\{i_j\}'$ contains not more than $p_{n,d}^{k-1}$ representatives of type $r$. Then the sequence $\{i_j\}'$ contains not more than $p_{n,d}^{k}$ terms. Thus $c-b\leqslant p_{n,d}^k\psi(k\cdot a)+k\cdot a.$ Completion of the proofs for theorems \[c:main1\] and \[t2:log\_2\] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $$a_0 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1.$$ Then $\left\|W\right\|\leqslant d\left\|\Omega\right\| + d$ by lemma \[Lm0.1\]. Since for the set $B^1(i)$ not more than $(1+p_{n,d}l)$ different values are possible, we have $\left\|W\right\|\leqslant d(1+p_{n,d}l)\psi(1) + d.$ By lemma \[c:lem2\] $$\psi(1)< (p_{n,d}^3 + p_{n,d})\psi(3)<(p_{n,d}^3 + p_{n,d})^2\psi(9)<\cdots <(p_{n,d}^3 + p_{n,d})^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}\psi(p_{n,d})\leqslant$$ $$\leqslant (p_{n,d}^3 + p_{n,d})^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}p_{n,d}d$$ Take $p_{n,d} = 4nd-1,$ to get $$\left\|W\right\|< 4^{5+3\log_3 4} l (nd)^{3 \log_3 (nd)+(5+6\log_3 4)}d^2.$$ This implies the assertion of [Theorem \[c:main1\].]{} The proof of theorem \[t2:log\_2\] is completed similarly but instead of the sequence $$a_0 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1$$ we have to consider the sequence $$a_0 = 2^{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 2^{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1.$$ An estimate for the essential height. ===================================== In this section we proceed with the proof of the main theorem \[c:main2\]. In passing, we prove theorem \[ThThick\]. We consider positions of letters in the word $W$ as the time axis. That is, a subword $u$ occurs before a subword $v$ if $u$ is entirely to the left from $v$ in $W$. Isolation of distinct periodical fragments in the word $W$ {#c:sub1} ---------------------------------------------------------- Let $s$ denote the number of subwords in $W$ such that each of them includes a period of length less than $n$ more than $2n$ times and each pair of them is separated by subwords of length greater than $n$, comparable with the preceding period. Enumerate these from the beginning to the end of the word: $x_1^{2n}, x_2^{2n},\ldots,x_s^{2n}$. Thus $W=y_0x_1^{2n}y_1x_2^{2n}\cdots x_s^{2n}y_s.$ If there is $i$ such that the word $x_i$ has length not less than $n$ then the word $x_i^2$ includes $n$ pairwise comparable tails, hence the word $x_i^{2n}$ is $n$-divisible. Then $s$ is not less than the essential height of $W$ over the set of words of length less than $n.$ A word $u$ will be called [non-cyclic]{} if $u$ is not representable in the form $v^k$ where $k>1$. [A word cycle $u$]{} is the set consisting of the word $u$ and all its cyclis shifts. A word $W$ is [strongly $n$-divisible]{} if it is representable in the form $W=W_0W_1\cdots W_n$ where the subwords $W_1,\dots,W_n$ are placed in the lexicographically decreasing order and each of $W_i, i=1, 2,\ldots, n$ begins from some word $z_i^k\in Z$ where all $z_i$ are distinct. \[lem4.10\] If there is an integer $m, 1\leqslant m<n,$ such that there exist $(2n-1)$ pairwise incomparable words of length $m: x_{i_1},\ldots ,x_{i_{2n-1}},$ then $W$ is $n$-divisible. Put $x:=x_{i_1}.$ Then $W$ includes disjoint subwords $x^{p_1}v'_1,\ldots ,x^{p_{2n-1}}v'_{2n-1},$ where $p_1,\ldots ,p_{2n-1}$ are positive integers greater than $n$, and $v'_1,\ldots ,v'_{2n-1}$ are words of length $m$ comparable with $x, v'_1=v_{i_1}.$ Hence among the words $v'_1,\ldots ,v'_{2n-1}$ either there are $n$ words lexicographically greater than $x$ or there are $n$ words lexicographically smaller than $x$. We may assume that $v'_1,\ldots ,v'_n$ are lexicographically greater than $x$. Then $W$ includes subwords $v'_1, xv'_2,\ldots ,x^{n-1}v'_n,$ which lexicographically decrease from left to right. Consider an integer $m, 1\leqslant m<n.$ Divide all $x_i$ of length $m$ into equivalence classes relative to strong incomparability and choose a single representative from each class. Let these be $x_{i_1},\ldots ,x_{i_s'},$ where $s'$ is a positive integer. Since the subwords $x_i$ are periods, we consider them as word cycles. $v_k := x_{i_k}$ Let $v(k, i)$ where $i$ is a positive integer, $1\le i\le m$, be a cyclic shift of a word $v_k$ by $(k - 1)$ positions to the right, that is, $v(k, 1) = v_k$ and the first letter of $v(k, 2)$ is the second letter of $v_k$. Thus $\{ v(k, i)\}_{i=1}^m$ is a word cycle of $v_k$. Note that for any $1\leqslant i_1, i_2\leqslant p, 1\leqslant j_1, j_2\leqslant m$ the word $v(i_1, j_1)$ is strongly incomparable with $v(i_2, j_2)$. The cases $m = 2, 3, n-1$ were considered in [@Kh11; @Kh11(2); @Kh11(3)]. An application of Dilworth theorem {#c:sub2} ---------------------------------- Consider a set $\Omega' = \{ v(i, j)\}$, where $1\leqslant i\leqslant p, 1\leqslant j\leqslant m.$ Order the words $v(i, j)$ as follows: $v(i_1, j_1)\succ v(i_2, j_2)$ if 1\) $v(i_1, j_1)> v(i_2, j_2)$ 2\) $i_1 > i_2$. \[c:lem4\] If in the set $\Omega'$ with ordering $\succ$ there exists an antichain of length $n$ then $W$ is $n$-divisible. Suppose there exists an antichain of length $n$ consisting of words\ $v(i_1, j_1), v(i_2, j_2),\ldots,v(i_n, j_n)$; here $i_1\leqslant i_2\leqslant\cdots\leqslant i_n.$ If all inequalities between $i_k$ are strict then $W$ is $n$-divisible by definition. Suppose that for some $r$ there exist $i_{r+1} = \cdots = i_{r+k}$ such that either $r = 0$ or $i_r < i_{r+1}$. Moreover the positive integer $k$ is such that either $k = n - r$ or $i_{r+k} < i_{r+k+1}$. The word $s_{i_{r+1}}$ is periodical, hence it is representable as a product of $n$ copies of $v^2_{i_{r+1}}$. The word $v^2_{i_{r+1}}$ includes a word cycle $v_{i_{r+1}}$. Hence in $s_{i_{r+1}}$ there exist disjoint subwords placed in lexicographically decreasing order and equal to $v(i_{r+1}, j_{r+1}),\ldots,v(i_{r+k}, j_{r+k})$ respectively. Similarly we deal with all sets of equal indices in the sequence $\{i_r\}_{r=1}^n$. The result is $n$-divisibility of $W$. A contradiction. Thus $\Omega'$ can be divided into $(n-1)$ chains. Put $q_n = (n-1)$. The sets $C^\alpha(i)$, the process at positions ------------------------------------------------ Paint the first letters of the words from $\Omega'$ into $q_n$ colors according to their occurence in chains. Paint also the integers from $1$ to $\left\|\Omega ' \right\|$ into the corresponding colors. Fix a positive integer $\alpha\leqslant m$. To each integer $i$ from 1 to $\left\|\Omega ' \right\|$, attach an ordered set $C^\alpha(i)$ of $q_n$ words in the following way: Set $\phi(a)=\{\max\ k:$ for some $i$ we have $C^a(i)=C^a(i+k-1)\}$. For a given $a\leqslant m$ define a division of the sequence of word cycles $\{i\}$ in $W$ into equivalence classes as follows: $i \AC_a j$ if $C^a(i) = C^a(j)$. Note that the above construction is rather similar to the construction from the proof of theorem \[c:main1\]. Observe that $B^a(i)$ and $C^a(i)$ are rather similar as well as $\psi(a)$ and $\phi(a)$. \[lem:m\] $\phi(m) \leqslant q_n/m$. In notation 4.1 we have enumerated word cycles. Consider the word cycles with numbers $i, i+1,\ldots, i+[q_n/m].$ We have shown that each word cycle consists of $m$ distinct words. Now consider words in the word cycles $i, i+1,\ldots, i+[q_n/m]$ as elements of the set $\Omega'.$ Then the first letter in each word cycle gets some position. The total number of the positions in question is not less than $n.$ Hence at least two of these positions are of the same color. Now strong incomparability of word cycles implies the assertion of the lemma. For any positive integers $a<b$ we have $\phi(a) \leqslant \phi(b).$ \[lem:thick\] For positive integers $a, k$ such that $ak\leqslant m$ we have $$\phi(a)\leqslant p_{n,d}^k\phi(k\cdot a)$$ Consider the minimal representative in each class of $\AC_{k\cdot a}$. We get a sequence of positions $\{i_j\}.$ Now consider all $i_j$ and $C^{k\cdot a}(i_j)$ from the same equivalence class of $\AC_a.$ Suppose it consists of $C^{k\cdot a}(i_j)$ for $i_j\in[b, c).$ Let $\{i_j\}'$ denote the segment of the sequence $\{i_j\},$ such that $i_j\in[b, c).$ Fix a positive integer $r$, $1\leqslant r\leqslant q_n.$ All $k\cdot a$-beginnings of color $r$ that begin from positions of $W$ in $\{i_j\}'$ will be called representatives of type $r$. All representatives of type $r$ are distinct because they begin at the least positions in equivalence classes of $\AC_{k\cdot a}.$ Divide each representative of type $r$ into $k$ segments of length $a$. Enumerate the segments of each representative of type $r$ from left to right by integers from zero to $(k-1)$. If there exist $(q_n+1)$ representatives of type $r$ with the same first $(t-1)$ segments but pairwise different $t$th segments where $1\leqslant t\leqslant k-1$ then there are two $t$th segments such that their first letters are of the same color. Then the initial positions of these segments belong to different equivalence classes of $\AC_a.$ Now apply lemma \[c:lem\] in the following way: in all representatives of type $r$ except the rightmost one we consider a segment as [a unit segment]{} if it contains the least position where this representative of type $r$ differs from the preceding one. All other segments are considered as [zero segments.]{} Now we can apply the process lemma for the values of parameters as given in the condition of the lemma. We obtain that the sequence $\{i_j\}'$ contains not more than $q_n^{k-1}$ representatives of type $r$. Then the sequence $\{i_j\}'$ contains not more than $q_n^{k}$ terms. Thus $c-b\leqslant q_n^k\phi(k\cdot a).$ Completion of the proof for theorem \[ThThick\] {#ThThick:end} ----------------------------------------------- Suppose $$a_0 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1.$$ Substitute these $a_i$ into lemmas \[lem:thick\] and \[lem:m\] to obtain $$\phi(1)\leqslant q_n^3\phi(3)\leqslant q_n^9\phi(9)\leqslant\cdots \leqslant q_n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 m\urcorner}\phi(m)\leqslant$$ $$\leqslant q_n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 m\urcorner+1}.$$ Since $C_i^{1}$ takes not more than $1+q_n l$ distinct values, we have $$\left\|\Omega'\right\|< q_n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 m\urcorner+1}(1+q_n l)< n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 n\urcorner+2} l.$$ By virtue of lemma \[lem4.10\] the number of subwords $x_i$ of length $m$ is less than $2n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 n\urcorner+3} l.$ Thus the total number of subwords $x_i$ is less than $2n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 n\urcorner+4} l.$ So $s<2n^{3\ulcorner \log_3 n\urcorner+4} l$ and theorem \[ThThick\] is proven. Proof of the main theorem \[c:main2\] and of theorem \[t1:log\_2\] =================================================================== Outline of the proof -------------------- Now [an $n$-divisible word]{} will mean a word $n$-divisible in ordinary sense. To start with, we find the necessary number of fragments in $W$ with length of the period not less than $2n$. For this, it suffices to divide $W$ into subwords of large length and to apply theorem \[c:main1\] to them. However the estimate can be improved. For this, we find a periodical fragment $u_1$ in $W$ with the period length not less than $4n$. Removing $u_1$, we obtain a word $W_1$. In $W_1$ we find a fragment $u_2$ with period length not less than $4n$ and remove it to get a word $W_2$. Now we again remove a periodical fragment and proceed in this way, as is described in the algorithm \[c:al\] in more detail. Then we restore the original word $W$ using the removed fragments. Further we show that a subword $u_i$ in $W$ usually is not a product of a big number of not neighboring subwords. In lemma \[c:lem3\] we prove that application of algorithm \[c:al\] enables to find the necessary number of removed subwords of $W$ with period length not less than $2n$. Summing up of essential heights and nilpotency degrees ------------------------------------------------------ Let $\Ht(w)$ denote the height of a word $w$ over the set of words of degree not exceeding $n$. Consider a word $W$ of height $\Ht(W)>\Phi(n,l)$. Apply the following algorithm to it: \[c:al\] [ ]{}\ Step $1.$ : By theorem \[c:main1\] the word $W$ includes a subword with period length $4n$. Suppose $W_0=W=u'_1x_{1'}^{4n}y'_1$ where the word $x_{1'}$ is not cyclic. Represent $y'_1$ in the form $y'_1=x_{1'}^{r_2}y_1$ where $r_2$ is maximal possible. Represent $u'_1$ as $u'_1=u_1x_{1'}^{r_1}$ where $r_1$ is maximal possible. Denote by $f_1$ the word $$W_0=u_1x_{1'}^{4n+r_1+r_2}y_1=u_1f_1y_1.$$ In the sequel, the positions contained in $f_1$ are called [tedious]{}, the last position of $u_1$ is called [tedious of type $1$,]{} the second position from the end in $u_1$ is called [tedious of type $2$,]{} ..., the $n$th position from the end in $u_1$ is called [tedious of type $n$.]{} Put $W_1 = u_1 y_1.$ Step $k.$ : Consider the words $u_{k-1},\ y_{k-1},\ W_{k-1}=u_{k-1}y_{k-1}$ constructed at the preceding step. If $\|W_{k-1}\|\geqslant\Phi(n,l)$ then we apply theorem \[c:main1\] to $W$ with the restriction that the process in the main lemma \[c:lem2\] is applied only to non-tedious positions and to tedious positions of type greater than $ka$ where $k$ and $a$ are the parameters from lemma \[c:lem2\]. Thus $W_{k-1}$ includes a non-cyclic subword with period length $4n$ such that $$W_{k-1}=u'_kx_{k'}^{4n}y'_k.$$ Then put $$r_1 := \sup \{r: u'_k = u_k x_{k'}^r\},\quad r_2 :=\sup \{r: y'_k = x_{k'}^r y_k\}.$$ (Note that the words involved may be empty.)\ Define $f_k$ by the equation $$W_{k-1}= u_kx_{k'}^{4n+r_1+r_2}y_k = u_kf_ky_k.$$ In the sequel, the positions contained in $f_k$ are called [tedious]{}, the last position in $u_k$ is [tedious of type $1$,]{} the second position from the end in $u_k$ is [tedious of type $2$,]{} ..., the $n$th position from the end in $u_k$ is [tedious of type $n$]{}. If a position occurs to be tedious of two types then the lesser type is chosen to it. Put $W_k = u_k y_k.$ Perform $4t+1$ steps of the algorithm \[c:al\] and consider the original word $W$. For each integer $i$ from the segment $[1,4t]$ we have $$W = w_0f_i^{(1)}w_1f_i^{(2)}\cdots f_i^{(n_i)} w_{n_i}$$ for some subwords $w_j$. Here $f_i = f_i^{(1)}\cdots f_i^{(n_i)}$. Moreover we assume that for $1\leqslant j\leqslant n_i-1$ the subword $w_j$ is not empty. Let $s(k)$ be the number of indices $i\in[1,4t]$ such that $n_i = k$. To prove theorem \[c:main1\], we have to find as many long periodic fragments as possible. For this, we can use the following lemma: \[c:lem3\] $s = s(1) + s(2) \geqslant 2t$. A subword $U$ of the word $W$ will be called [monolithic]{} if 1. $U$ is a product of words of the form $f_i^{(j)}$, 2. $U$ is not a proper subword of a word which satisfies the above condition (1). Suppose that after the $(i-1)$th step of the algorithm \[c:al\] the word $W$ includes $k_{i-1}$ monolithic subwords. Note that $k_i \leqslant k_{i-1}-n_i+2$. Then if $n_i \geqslant 3$ then $k_i\leqslant k_{i-1}-1.$ If $n_i\leqslant 2$ then $k_i\leqslant k_{i-1}+1$. Furthermore $k_1=1$, $k_t \geqslant 1 = k_1$. The lemma is proven. \[c:cor\] $$\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty {k\cdot s(k)} \leqslant 10t\leqslant 5s.(\ref{c:cor})$$ From the proof of lemma \[c:lem3\] we obtain $\sum\limits_{n_i\geqslant 3} {(n_i-2)} \leqslant 2t$. By definition $\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty {s(k)} =4t$, т.е. $\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty {2s(k)} =8t$. Summing up these two inequalities and applying lemma \[c:lem3\] we obtain the required inequality \[c:cor\]. The height of $W$ does not exceed $$\Psi(n,4n,l)+\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty {k\cdot s(k)}\leqslant \Psi(n,4n,l)+ 5s.$$ In the sequel, we consider only $f_i$ with $n_i \leqslant 2$. If $n_i = 1$ then put $f'_i := f_i$. If $n_i = 2$ then put $f'_i := f_i^{(j)}$ where $f_i^{(j)}$ is the word of maximal length between $f_i^{(1)}$ and $f_i^{(2)}$. Order the words $f'_i$ according to their distance from the beginning of $W$. We get a sequence $f'_{m_1},\ldots ,f'_{m_s}$ where $s'=s(1)+s(2)$. Put $f''_i := f'_{m_i}$. Suppose $f''_i = w'_i x_{i''}^{p_{i''}}w''_i$ where at least one of the words $w'_i, w''_i$ is empty. \[c:pr\] We may assume that at starting steps of algorithm \[c:al\] we have chosen all $f_i$ such that $n_i =1$. Now consider $z'_j$, the subwords in $W$ of the following form: $$z'_j = x_{(2j-1)''}^{p_{(2j-1)''}+\gimel}v_j, \gimel\geqslant 0, \|v_j\| = \|x_{(2j-1)''}\|,$$ here $v_j$ is not equal to $x_{(2j - 1)''}$, and the beginning of $z'_j$ coincides with the beginning of a periodic subword in $f''_{2j-1}$. We will show that $z'_j$ are disjoint. Indeed, if $f''_{2j-1} = f_{m_{2j-1}}$ then $z'_j=f_{m_{2j-1}}v_j$. If $f''_{2j-1}= f_{m_{2j-1}}^{(k)}$, $k = 1,2$, and $z'_j$ intersects $z'_{j+1}$ then $f''_{2j}\subset z'_i$. Since $x_{(2j)''}$ and $x_{(2j-1)''}$ are not cyclic, we have $\|x_{(2j)''}\| = \|x_{(2j-1)''}\|$. But then the period length in $z'_j$ is not less than $4n$, a contradiction with remark \[c:pr\]. Thus we have proved the following lemma: \[lThick\] In a word $W$ with height not greater than $(\Psi(n,4n,l)+ 5s')$ there exist at least $s'$ disjoint periodic subwords such that the period occurs in each of them at least $2n$ times. Furthermore between any two elements of this set of periodic subwords there is a subword with the same period length as the leftmost of these two elements. Completion of the proof for the main theorem \[c:main2\] and for theorem \[t1:log\_2\] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replace $s'$ in lemma \[lThick\] by $s$ from the proof of theorem \[ThThick\] to obtain that the height of $W$ does not exceed $$\Psi(n,4n,l)+ 5s < E_1 l\cdot n^{E_2+12\log_3 n} ,$$ where $E_1 = 4^{21\log_3 4 + 17}, E_2 = 30\log_3 4 + 10.$ Thus we have obtained [the assertion of the main theorem \[c:main2\]]{}. [Proof of theorem \[t1:log\_2\]]{} is completed similarly but we have to replace in part \[ThThick:end\] the sequence $$a_0 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 3^{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_3 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1$$ by the sequence $$a_0 = 2^{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner}, a_1 = 2^{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner-1},\ldots,a_{{\ulcorner \log_2 p_{n,d}\urcorner}} =1,$$ and to take the value of $\Psi(n,4n,l)$ from theorem \[t2:log\_2\]. Comments ======== The technique presented to the reader appears to enable improvement of the estimate obtained in this paper. However this estimate will remain subexponential. A polynomial estimate if it exists, requires new ideas and methods. At the beginning of the solution presented, subwords of a large word in the application of Shirshov theorem are used mainly as a set of independent elements, not as a set of closely related words. Further we use a coloring of letters inside subwords. Account of coloring of first letters only leads to an exponential estimate. Account of coloring of all letters in the subwords results in an exponent as well. This fact is due to constructing of a hierarchical system of subwords. A detailed investigation of the presented connection between subwords together with the solution presented above may improve the presented estimate up to a polynomial one. It is also of interest to obtain estimates for height of an algebra over the set of words whose degrees do not exceed the complexity of the algebra ($\PI$-degree in literature in English). The paper [@BBL97] presents exponential estimates, and for words that are not a linear combination of lexicographically smaller words, overexponential estimates were obtained in [@Bel07]. The deep ideas of original works by A. I. Shirshov [@Shirshov1; @Shirshov2] which stem from elimination technique in Lie algebras, may be highly useful, among other issues, for improvement of estimates, despite the fact that the estimates for height in these papers are only primitively recursive. [MH1]{} Shirshov A. I.[On some non-associative nilrings and algebraic algebras (Russian).]{} Matematichesky sbornik, 1957, Т. 41, No 3, pages 381–394. Shirshov A. I. [On rings with identical relations (Russian).]{} Matematichesky sbornik, 1957, T. 43, No 2, стр. 277–283. Zelmanov E. [On the nilpotency of nilalgebras.]{} Lect. Notes Math., 1988, vol 1352, pages 227–240. Belov, A. Ya., Borisenko, V. V., and Latyshev, V. N., [Monomial algebras.]{} Algebra 4, J. Math. Sci. (New York) 87 (1997), no. 3, 3463–3575. Kemer, A. R., [Comments on the Shirshov’s Height Theorem.]{} in book: selected papers of A.I.Shirshov, Birkhüser Verlag AG (2009), 41–48. in book: selected papers of A.I.Shirshov, Birkhüser Verlag AG (2009), 3–20. Ufnarovsky V. A. [Combinatorial and asymptotical methods in algebra (Russian).]{} Itogi nauki i tekhniki, Sovr. probl. math. Fundam. napravleniya, 1990, No. 57, pages 5–-177 Drensky V., Formanek E. [Polynomial identity ring.]{} Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona., Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 2004 Pchelintsev S. V. [The height theorem for alternative algebras (Russian).]{} Matematichesky sbornik, 1984, т. 124, No 4, pages 557–567. Mishchenko S. P. [A variant of the height theorem for Lie algebras.]{} Matematicheskiye zametki, 1990, т. 47, No 4, pages 83–89. Belov A. Ya. [On a Shirshov basis for relatively free algebras of complexity $n$ (Russian).]{} Matematichesky sbornik, 1988, т. 135, No 31, pages 373–384. Belov, A. Ya. and Rowen, L. H. [Computational aspects of polynomial identities.]{} Research Notes in Mathematics 9. AK Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 2005. Ciocanu, Gh. [Independence and quasiregularity in algebras. II.]{} Izv. Akad. Nauk Respub. Moldova Mat., 1997, No. 70, pages 70–77, 132, 134. Chekanu, Gh. [Local finiteness of algebras.]{} Mat. Issled., 1988, No. 105, Moduli, Algebry, Topol., pages 153–171, 198. Chekanu G. P.; Kozhukhar E. P. [Independence and nilpotency in algebras. (Russian. English, Russian, Moldavian summaries)]{} Izv. Akad. Nauk Respub. Moldova Mat., 1993, No 2, pages 51–62, 92–93, 95. Chekanu G. P. [Independence and quasiregularity in algebras]{} Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 1994, 337:3. V. A. Ufnarovsky. [An independence theorem and its consequences.]{} Matematichesky sbornik (Russian), 1985, No 128(170):1(9), pages 124–132 Ufnarovskii, V. A.; Chekanu, G. P. [Nilpotent matrices]{} Mat. Issled.,1985, No 85, Algebry, Koltsa i Topologii, pages 130–141, 155 Belov A. Ya.[Rationality of Hilbert series for relatively free algebras (Russian).]{} Uspekhi mat. nauk, 1997, т. 52, No 2, pages 153–154. Jean Berstel, Dominique Perrin. [The origins of combinatorics on words]{} European Journal of Combinatorics, 2007, No 28, pages 996–1022. M. Lothaire. [Combinatorics of words]{} Cambridge mathematical library, 1983. V. N. Latyshev. [Combinatorial generators of polylinear polynomial identities (Russian).]{} Fund. i prikl. matem., 12:2 (2006), pages 101–110. A. G. Kolotov [An upper estimate for height in finitely generated algebras with identities (Russian).]{} Sib. mat. zh., 1982, т. 23, N 1, pages 187–189. Belov, A. Ya., [Some estimations for nilpotency of nil-algebras over a field of an arbitrary characteristic and height theorem]{}, Commun. Algebra 20 (1992), no. 10, 2919–2922. Drensky, V., [Free Algebras and PI-algebras: Graduate Course in Algebra]{}, Springer-Verlag, Singapore (2000). M. I. Kharitonov, [Estimates for structure of piecewise periodicity in Shirshov height theorem (Russian),]{} Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, Ser. 1, Matematika. Mekhanika. (In print ). Abraham A. Klein. [Indices of nilpotency in a $PI$-ring.]{} Archiv der Mathematik, 1985, Volume 44, Number 4, pages 323–329. Abraham A. Klein. [Bounds for indices of nilpotency and nility.]{} Archiv der Mathematik, 2000, Volume 74, Number 1, pages 6–10. Ye. S. Chibrikov. [On Shirshov height of a finitely generated associative algebra satisfying an identity of degree four (Russian).]{} Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2001, No 1(19), pages 52–56. M I. Kharitonov. [Two-sided estimates for essential height in Shirshov height theorem (Russian)]{} Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, Ser. 1, Matematika. Mekhanika, 2012, No 2, pages 24–28. A. A. Lopatin. [On the nilpotency degree of the algebra with identity $x^n = 0$.]{} arXiv:1106.0950v1. page 73. I. I. Bogdanov. [Nagata-Higman theorem for semirings (Russian).]{} Fund. prikl. matem., 7:3 (2001), 651–658. Procesi C. [Rings with polynomial identities]{}, N.Y., 1973, page 189 A. Ya. Belov. [Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of relatively free associative algebras (Russian).]{} Matem. sb., 195:12 (2004), 3–26. Ye. N. Kuzmin. [On Nagata — Higman theorem (Russian).]{} Collection of papers dedicated to 60th birthday of acad. Iliev, Sofia, 1975, 101–107. Razmyslov Yu. P. [Identities of algebras and their representations (Russian).]{} [— М.: Nauka, 1989]{}, page 432. A. Ya. Belov. [Burnside-type problems, height and independence theorems (Russian).]{} Fund. prikl. matem., 13:5 (2007), 19–79. Mikhail Kharitonov. [Estimations of the particular periodicity in case of the small periods in Shirshov Height theorem.]{} arXiv: 1108.6295. , Cambridge mathematical press, 2002. Latyshev, V.N., On Regev’s theorem on indentities in a tensor product of PI-algebras. Uspehi Mat. Nauk., 27(1972), 213–214.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| One of the scientific goals of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is to measure the evolution of dark energy by measuring subtle distortions of galaxy shapes due to weak gravitational lensing caused by the evolving dark matter distribution. Understanding the point spread function (PSF) for LSST is a crucial step to accurate measurements of weak gravitational lensing. Atmospheric contributions dominate the LSST PSF. Simulations of Kolmogorov turbulence models are commonly used to characterize and correct for these atmospheric effects. In order to validate these simulations, we compare the predicted atmospheric behavior to empirical data.\ The simulations are carried out in GalSim, an open-source software package for simulating images of astronomical objects and PSFs. Atmospheric simulations are run by generating large phase screens at varying altitude and evolving them over long time scales. We compare the turbulence strength and temporal behavior of atmospheres generated from simulations to those from reconstructed telemetry data from the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI). GPI captures a range of spatial frequencies by sampling the atmosphere with 18-cm subapertures.\ The LSST weak lensing analysis will measure correlations of galaxy ellipticity, requiring very accurate knowledge of the magnitude and correlations of PSF shape parameters. Following from the first analysis, we use simulations and sequential short exposure observations from the Differential Speckle Survey Instrument (DSSI) to study the behavior of PSF parameters – e.g., ellipticity and size – as a function of exposure time. These studies could help inform discussions of possible variable exposure times for LSST visits — for example, to provide more uniform depth of visits. author: - 'Claire-Alice Hébert' - Bruce Macintosh - 'Patricia R. Burchat' bibliography: - 'report.bib' title: \| Characterization of atmospheric turbulence\ for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope --- INTRODUCTION ============ Among other scientific goals, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) aims to improve the precision of cosmic shear measurements. These measurements are performed by measuring spatial correlations among distortions of galaxy shapes that result from the bending of light as it travels through the mass distribution in the expanding universe. In order to make an unbiased measurement of cosmic shear, it is crucial to correct for correlated noise present in survey images. This motivates the need for a robust (i.e., unbiased) model of the LSST point-spread function (PSF), which encapsulates the effects of atmospheric seeing and optics. Both the magnitude and spatial correlations of the PSF shape parameters must be very accurately known. The dominant contribution to the single-exposure PSF for the LSST is atmospheric turbulence; as wind blows turbulent patches of air across the telescope aperture, it introduces spatial and temporal correlations in the PSF. It is important to model these contributions accurately, and current methods rely on simulations of atmospheric turbulence. Here we use data from the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI) to validate these simulations and explore the simulation input parameter space. The GPI instrument uses adaptive optics (AO) to successfully image exoplanets at Gemini South, less than 2km from the LSST site on the Cerro Pachón ridge in Chile. The signal from the GPI AO telemetry can be used to reconstruct wavefronts, which can then be compared to the simulation-based predictions. These data are described in Section\[sec:gpidata\]. Another important question pertains to the behavior of the atmospheric PSF with varying exposure time. At short exposures, the PSF exhibits a characteristic speckle pattern, and can be quite elliptical; however, as exposure time increases, these speckles average out to a smoother, more circular PSF. The magnitude of the ellipticity and spatial correlations among PSF shape parameters are expected to decrease as this averaging occurs, but how quickly they reach their asymptotic values is unknown. This time scale is particularly relevant for the LSST, which currently has a default plan of pointing the telescope at each patch of sky for 30s, split into two 15s exposures – much shorter, for example, than the 90s exposures for the Dark Energy Survey (DES), or the even longer exposures for Hyper-Suprime Cam (HSC). Is this default exposure time for LSST in the “long exposure time” regime? Moreover, the 30s exposure itself is under discussion; for example, LSST could use the full 30s for a single exposure, or forgo the fixed 30s exposure per visit in favor of variable exposure times. The time scales of atmospheric PSF variability can inform this discussion – in particular, the behavior of PSF shape and ellipticity, which are particular relevant for measurements of cosmic shear. The impact of exposure time is investigated using data from the Differential Speckle Survey Instrument (DSSI), also mounted on Gemini South. These data correspond to series of short-exposure images of stars, which are in essence movies of the PSF. We stack images to approximate PSF averaging in real data for different exposure times and use these to test the fidelity of simulations. We extract PSF parameters and compare the real and simulated behavior as a function of integrated exposure time. This process is described in Section\[sec:psf\]. The simulations used here are implemented in GalSim, a software package for simulating astronomical objects and PSFs, and are described in more detail in Section\[sec:sim\]. Results are presented and discussed in Section\[sec:wfresults\] and \[sec:psfparams\]. Data and Methods ================ AO telemetry from GPI {#sec:gpidata} --------------------- The GPI adaptive optics system consists of a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor and two microelectricalmechanical system (MEMS) deformable mirrors[@GPI]. Over a 60s GPI exposure, the wavefront sensor uses 2$\times$2 quad-cell centroiding to measure the slope of the wavefront on a 48$\times$48 grid of subapertures (18cm sampling). These measurements and corrections are performed at 1kHz speed in the AO control system. The phase of the wavefront is reconstructed in Fourier modes. High frequency and low frequency modes are separated and corrected by the tweeter and woofer deformable mirrors, respectively [@LisaP]. By saving the commands sent to these mirrors, one can later reconstruct the phase of the wavefront at the pupil[@Adam]. The reconstructed wavefront telemetry from GPI can provide information about the atmospheric conditions and parameters at Cerro Pachón. In particular, by comparing simulated wavefronts to these data, we can validate certain aspects of atmospheric simulations (e.g., in Galsim). In addition, the data can serve to inform the choice of input simulation parameters. To explore the effect of various parameters, we calculate the temporal power spectrum of the wavefront, as well as the variance of the phase across the pupil. The datasets used here are 20s or 30s long. Results are discussed in Section\[sec:wfresults\]. Fast speckle images {#sec:psf} ------------------- The DSSI camera is designed to take speckle images simultaneously in two colors [@dssi]. This is achieved by using a dichroic beamsplitter to split the light in two filters, which are then imaged on two independent electron-multiplying CCDs (EMCCDs). The data used in the following analysis was taken with a blue/red dichroic and filters with central wavelengths of 692nm and 880nm, and widths of 40 and 50nm, respectively. This simultaneous imaging improves signal to noise for astrometric measurements, and provides color information of the stars that DSSI images. In our context, it enables us to study the chromaticity of atmospheric seeing. \[ht\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![ \[fig:psf\] Snapshots of the integrated flux in a set of DSSI exposures. Each image has double the number of integrated exposures compared to the preceding image. The time given above each image is the total exposure plus readout time.](a_1039_accumulated.png "fig:"){height="9.5cm"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The instrument uses two EMCCDs with a 0.011arcsec pixel scale. A 256 pixel $\times$ 256 pixel subarray is read out from each CCD, yielding a 2.8arcsec field of view. Each dataset is composed of 1000 sequential images, each with an exposure time of 60ms. After each image is taken, the instrument takes roughly 2ms to read out the data. The integrated exposure time (i.e., the time over which photons are collected) is thus 60ms, and the elapsed time, which includes the 2ms readout, is slightly longer at 62ms. Nine data sets are analyzed here. All images were recorded when the star was close to zenith on nights with a range of seeing conditions. These data are accumulated to form a long-exposure PSF by simply stacking the short exposure images. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:psf\]. By eye, at the end of the 60s exposure, we see a smooth, if not circular, PSF with no visible speckles. The default LSST exposures of 15s and 30s also appear to be fairly smooth. For a quantitative assessment of the PSF, we must extract parameters by fitting a profile to these images. This is done using a Kolmogorov profile[@GalSim], which is the expected PSF shape for an infinite exposure time, with pure Kolmogorov turbulence. This profile is circularly symmetric, so we fit a shear to the profile to make an elliptical PSF. The best fit profile parameters are found by minimizing the $\chi^2$ between this elliptical Kolmogorov profile and each PSF image. Simulations {#sec:sim} ----------- The images described in the previous sections are compared with images generated with GalSim[@GalSim], an open-source package for simulating PSFs and astronomical objects. The simulation represents the 3D atmosphere as a series of 2D turbulence layers, which are free to translate due to wind as the simulation progresses. At each time step in the simulation, the wavefront at the telescope pupil is found by a two process. First, sum the contribution of turbulence from each layer (i.e. the projection of the telescope aperture through each layer), and then take the Fourier transform of this sum. The results discussed here are from simulations of three layers of atmosphere, each of which uses Von Kármán turbulence [@vonK] with an outer scale of L$_0 = 25$m. Unless specified, the simulations used Taylor’s frozen-flow hypothesis [@Taylor]. The parameters for the turbulence and wind for each layer are given in Table 1. The altitude and Fried parameter r$_0$ for each layer are taken from median seeing atmospheric measurements at Cerro Pachón[@Adam]. The wind speed for each layer is drawn randomly from a uniform distribution between 0 and the maximum wind speed, which increases with altitude as shown in the table. For comparison with the AO telemetry data, simulations were generated for continuous integrated exposures of 20 or 30 second, depending on the data of interest. The simulation time step used was 1ms, to match the cadence of the GPI AO system. To test dependence of wavefront variation on turbulence strength, a second set of simulations was generated with Fried parameters a factor of $2^{3/5}$ smaller than those listed in Table \[table:1\] (i.e., with turbulence strength $C_n^2$ a factor of 2 smaller). For a third set of simulations, we used the original values of $r_0$ shown in the table, but modified the “frozen-flow” hypothesis by introducing atmospheric boiling: every 10 time steps (i.e., every 0.01s), a small fraction $1-\alpha$ of the turbulence amplitude in the phase screens is replaced by a random realization of Van Kármán turbulence. The fraction used here is $\alpha = 0.99$, so that $1\%$ of the phase is replaced. In each of the three sets of simulations, wind directions were drawn randomly for each turbulence layer. The simulations were run with different numbers seeding the random generation of wind parameters/turbulence screens. Speckle simulations were generated to mimic the exposure and readout times during DSSI data collection – i.e., a series of 1,000 60ms exposures separated by 2ms of dead time, for a total simulation time of 62 seconds. After checking convergence of results, the simulation time step was set to 15ms. The wind directions were determined a bit differently for these simulations; instead of randomly drawing a direction for each layer, we first assign a primary direction for the particular simulation and then choose a small random deviation from this direction according to a centered normal distribution with $\sigma=5^\circ$ for each layer. To match the nine DSSI data sets used in the analysis, we ran nine simulations with different random seeds. Layer altitude \[km\] max wind speed \[m/s\] r$_0$ \[cm\] ----------------------- ------------------------ -------------- -- 0 10 19 0.5 20 43 7.6 30 36 : Simulation parameters for the three turbulence layers. The wind speed for each layer is drawn randomly from a uniform distribution between 0 and the maximum wind speed. \[table:1\] Results and Discussion ====================== Characterizing turbulence using wavefronts {#sec:wfresults} ------------------------------------------ The variance of the reconstructed wavefronts across the telescope pupil provides one measure of the strength of turbulence. For GPI AO wavefront data and for GalSim simulations, we compute the variance at each point in time and then histogram the variance for a set of time samples. The peak of such a histogram is a measure of the average turbulence strength, and the spread indicates how much the strength varies over the total time – 20s for this analysis. \[ht\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![ \[fig:var\] Histograms of the wavefront variance across the telescope aperture computed for each kHz sample for GPI data and two simulations with different Fried parameters (20,000 variances corresponding to 20s total time). The solid bold histogram corresponds to the average variance in each bin for 10 data sets or 100 simulations while the shaded region indicates the $\pm 1 \sigma$ spread.](wf_var_SPIE.png "fig:"){height="7cm"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Three variance histograms are plotted in Figure \[fig:var\]: for reconstructed GPI wavefront data, and for two simulations with turbulence strengths that are different by a factor of two, as described in Section\[sec:sim\]. The solid bold histogram of each color corresponds to the average variance in the bin for 10 datasets (gray) or 100 simulations (orange and red), and the shaded regions indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ (standard deviation) spread in the values of the variance in each bin. We see that in the simulations, the distribution of wavefront variance depends strongly on the value of $r_0$, and that the simulation with stronger turbulence (r$_0 \sim 10.2$cm) is a much better match to these datasets than (r$_0 \sim 14.3$cm). Rather than quote the $r_0$ values for each of the layers in the simulation, we report the effective Fried parameter. For a set of atmospheric layers indexed by i, the effective Fried parameter is given by: $(\sum_{i} r_{0,i}^{-5/3})^{-3/5}$. While r$_0$ is an important parameter in determining the turbulence strength, we see that in both the simulations (with fixed values of r$_0$) and the data the variance has a wide spread about the peak value. The amount of power at each temporal frequency – called the power spectral density (PSD) – is another way of characterizing turbulence[@Adam]. In particular, we can compare the slopes of the PSDs for data and simulations with the power law slope expected for a Kolmogorov turbulence model. As outlined in Ref , we decompose the wavefronts from reconstruction of GPI telemetry and from simulations into Zernike functions, a complete basis set of orthogonal functions describing optical aberrations. The PSDs are then computed for each Zernike coefficient. As an example, we plot in Figure \[fig:psd\] the PSD for the coefficient corresponding to $Z_6$, as smoothed periodograms. The dark and pale curves correspond to the mean and spread, respectively, for ten realizations of two simulations – boiling off ($\alpha = 1.0$) and boiling on ($\alpha = 0.99$) – and ten datasets. \[ht\] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:psd\] Temporal power spectral density for Zernike coefficient $Z_6$ for GPI data (gray) and two sets of simulations (boiling off in red; boiling on in purple). The slopes are extracted by fitting a power law to the approximately linear region of the curves between 2Hz and 40Hz. Each pale line is the PSD from one simulation/dataset, and the average of the ten is shown in bold. ](SPIE_PSD_boiling.png "fig:"){height="10cm"} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The expected slope of the power spectrum for spatial Kolmogorov turbulence is $-\frac{11}{3}\sim -3.67$. We expect the temporal power spectrum to have this same value due to the correspondence between spatial and temporal evolution of turbulence screens. We compare the Kolmogorov slope with those calculated from the PSDs in Figure \[fig:psd\], for data and for the two simulations. We fit the slopes from the middle region of the spectrum (2 to 40 Hz) where the curves are approximately linear. In this region, the simulation with no atmospheric boiling is the closest to Kolmogorov, but its slope is less steep than the $-\frac{11}{3}$ prediction – perhaps due the presence of an outer scale, or the finite nature of the 20-second interval. Either of these factors could suppress power at low frequencies, reducing the overall slope. The GPI data slope has an even weaker dependence on frequency than this first simulation. However, we find that adding atmospheric boiling to the simulation results in better agreement with the data. Varying the boiling parameter $\alpha$ could lead to a closer match, as could varying other parameters that influence the PSD slope – e.g. the outer scale. In the next section, we present results on the temporal evolution of atmospheric PSFs. The study of spatial characteristics of wavefronts in this section could be used to inform choices of parameters in those simulations. Evolution of PSF parameters {#sec:psfparams} --------------------------- As described in Section\[sec:psf\], short exposure speckle images from the DSSI camera are stacked to form an accumulating PSF (Figure \[fig:psf\]). These are fit to elliptical Kolmogorov profiles; sample fits are displayed in Figure \[fig:cross\], where we plot cross sections of both PSF images and models. Each panel shows a cross section – i.e., the pixel values – through the centroid of the image (determined from the fit to the PSF), as well as the cross section of the best fit model for that image. For both data (Figure \[fig:cross\]a) and simulation (Figure \[fig:cross\]b), we show results for a single 60ms exposure (top panels) as well as for the nominal LSST exposure time of 30s (bottom panels). We note that the spikes in the 60ms PSFs are not noise, but rather the speckles expected in these short exposures. We see that these almost completely disappear after 30s of integration, in data and simulations. \[ht\] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:cross\] Cross sections through the centroid of the PSF for (a) DSSI data images and (b) simulated PSFs. Top panels correspond to a single 60ms exposure, and bottom panels to a 30s integrated exposure. Left and right columns correspond to x and y cross sections, respectively, for the pixel values (colored curves) and best fit Kolmogorov models (black curves). ](cross_section.png "fig:"){height="8cm"} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We find that the Kolmogorov model captures much of the PSF shape in the DSSI image and in the simulated PSF once the speckles begin to average out, consistent with the long-exposure definition of the Kolmogorov profile. In the y cross section of the long-exposure DSSI image (lower right panel of \[fig:cross\]a.), we see the data is asymmetric compared to the fit so that the long-exposure image does not converge exactly to a Kolmogorov model. This is less obvious in the x cross section. A priori we do not expect the Kolmogorov profile to correctly model the speckles present in the short-exposure images, and therefore fit parameters may not be meaningful for these time scales. For example, the fits to the short-exposure simulated PSFs appear to systematically underestimate the pixel flux in the images, which leads to underestimated PSF size (half-light radius) for the speckle-dominated images. Nevertheless, we use the PSF parameters extracted from the fits to study the temporal behavior of the atmospheric PSF, keeping in mind that parameters extracted for short exposure times may not be meaningful. An important parameter in discussing PSFs for almost any application, including cosmic shear, is its size. Here we parametrize size with the half-light radius (${\rm HLR}$). In panels a and b of Figure \[fig:hlr\], we plot the ${\rm HLR}$ (extracted from the Kolmogorov fits described above) for one example of DSSI data images and for a simulated PSF, as a function of integrated exposure time, from 60ms to 60s. The sizes for data and simulation behave rather differently with exposure time, with the data PSF size increasing with exposure time while the simulated PSF size decreases; this is especially noticeable for short exposure times. The expected behavior is for the PSF size to increase with exposure time since the centroid of the PSF moves around with time. The behavior of the simulation may be due to the fit underestimating the size of the PSF in the presence of speckles as discussed earlier. In Figure\[fig:hlr\]a and b, we also show the ${\rm HLR}$ for two filters for DSSI data and for two wavelengths for the simulation ($\lambda_a$=692nm, $\lambda_b$=880nm), enabling an analysis of the color dependence of the PSF. We expect the PSF to be smaller for longer wavelengths than for shorter wavelengths, and indeed the data exhibits this dependence. The simulation also converges to this after $\sim10$s, but the sizes fluctuate significantly for shorter integration times. \[ht\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![ \[fig:hlr\] Top panels: Half-light radius (${\rm HLR}$) as a function of exposure time for (a) a single DSSI dataset and (b) a simulated dataset, in two filters. Bottom panels: Ratio of half-light radii in two filters, ${\rm HLR}(880\,{\rm nm})/{\rm HLR}(692\,{\rm nm})$, for (c) DSSI data and (d) simulation. The dark and pale curves correspond to the mean and spread, respectively, for nine DSSI datasets and nine simulated PSFs. The dashed lines in the lower panels correspond to the ratio of PSF sizes predicted by Kolmogorov turbulence evaluated for the mean wavelengths of the filters; see Eq.\[eq:kol\_color\]. ](hlr.png "fig:"){height="8cm"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The bottoms panels of Figure \[fig:hlr\] show the wavelength-dependent behavior for each of the nine DSSI data sets (c) and for nine simulated PSFs (d). Each line corresponds to the ratio of PSF size in the two filters (${\rm HLR}(880\,{\rm nm})/{\rm HLR}(692\,{\rm nm})$) for one dataset; the bold line shows the average ratio. As we might expect from the discussion of the single datasets in the top panels, the results for data are much smoother than for simulation. Only one dataset shows a ${\rm HLR}$ ratio greater than 1, indicating a PSF larger at longer wavelength, whereas the ratios for the simulations are mostly greater than 1 and exhibit significant fluctuations for exposure times less than a few seconds. The dashed line in each of these panels shows the expected ratio for a Kolmogorov model: $$\label{eq:kol_color} \frac{{\rm HLR}(880\,{\rm nm})}{{\rm HLR}(692\,{\rm nm})} \sim \left(\frac{880}{692}\right)^{-1/5} \sim 0.95\,.$$ The data exhibit a stronger wavelength dependence than this prediction, evidence again of non-Kolmogorov behavior, or of a potential systematic effect in the DSSI camera or readout. The simulations converge to the Kolmogorov prediction after an exposure time of about 15 seconds. \[ht\] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:g\_mag\] Magnitude of PSF ellipticity as a function of exposure time. Best fit ellipticities from the integrated exposure in DSSI data (top panels) and simulation (bottom panels). The columns show results for the blue ($\lambda_a=692$nm) and red ($\lambda_b=880$nm) filters. ](g_magnitude.png "fig:"){height="10cm"} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another important PSF parameter to consider for potential cosmic shear systematic biases is ellipticity. Figure \[fig:g\_mag\] shows the magnitude of PSF ellipticity in each filters for DSSI data (a) and for the simulation (b). As in the previous figure, each pale line is an individual dataset, and the bold lines show the behavior of the mean. We do not expect significant evidence of chromatic behavior for ellipticity. Just as we saw with the ${\rm HLR}$ results, the ellipticity measured for the data is more stable than for simulation. Focusing instead on the average behavior, the main difference between the data and simulation is the asymptotic behavior – the ellipticity in data plateaus at $\approx$ 15s exposure time, while the simulation appear to continue to decrease even at the end of the 60s integration time. Ellipticity can be parametrized in terms of two components, g$_1$ and g$_2$, where g$_1$ corresponds to stretch ($>0$) or compression ($<0$) along the x direction, and g$_2$ to the distortions in a direction 45$^\circ$ to the x axis. Plotting each of these components individually could give insight into the deviation in asymptotic behavior between the simulation and data – for example, directional systematic biases related to the rows and columns of pixels in the DSSI sensors or simulation. Figure \[fig:g1\] shows results for g$_1$. Similar to the ellipticity magnitude, we see that the mean value of g$_1$ over nine data sets has not reached 0 in data in 60 seconds. Results for g$_2$ are not shown, but do not have this behavior: the data average does not stray far from zero at any point in the exposure. In simulation, this g$_1$ component oscillates and is not as stable as data, but does not show the same overall negative trend. One hypothesis is that a prevailing wind might result in this type of persistent ellipticity direction. However, simulations using a prevailing wind direction, rather than a random direction for each realization, does not show this effect. A prevailing wind could move turbulence more quickly along a particular direction, but whether this would lead to more elliptical PSFs is not obvious. Alternate hypotheses are that the DSSI optics, sensors or electronics lead to a PSF that is broader in the y direction than the x direction. \[ht\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![\[fig:g1\] Similar to Figure\[fig:g\_mag\], but for the g$_1$ component of ellipticity instead of magnitude. DSSI data in the top panels; simulation in the bottom panels. ](g1.png "fig:"){height="10.2cm"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Future work =========== This study provides a framework for further investigation of atmospheric PSFs. The non-vanishing PSF ellipticity in data requires further study. Is it an atmospheric effect, or an optical or instrumental effect? Data are available to systematically analyze more stars – for example, stars of different magnitudes, with different seeing and different airmass. A significant concern in the comparison of data and simulation is the lack of knowledge about correct input parameters for the atmospheric simulations – e.g., wind speed, wind direction, variation with altitude, etc. GPI telemetry from a wider range of seeing conditions could potentially guide this choice, especially when combined with data from seeing monitors and wind information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) databases. In particular, these data could inform a realistic range of simulation inputs to improve the study of PSF parameter behavior. In general, a greater range of parameters in both observational datasets and simulations will enable a more systematic study of the simulation input parameters and the asymptotic PSF behavior. C.-A. Hébert is supported by the DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship (CSGF) program. The authors thank E.Horch and M.Everett (DSSI) for providing the speckle camera data, and the GPI survey team for the AO telemetry. In addition, we thank Joshua Meyers for his advice on the simulation of atmospheric PSFs in Galsim, and Adam Snyder and Aaron Roodman for valuable discussions and insights, and for sharing code for extracting Zernike coefficients.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The low-temperature thermal conductivity $\kappa_0/T$ of $d$-wave superconductors is generally thought to attain a “universal" value independent of disorder at sufficiently low temperatures, providing an important measure of the magnitude of the gap slope near its nodes. We discuss situations in which this inference can break down because of competing order, and quasiparticle localization. Specifically, we study an inhomogeneous BCS mean field model with electronic correlations included via a Hartree approximation for the Hubbard interaction, and show that the suppression of $\kappa_0/T$ by localization effects can be strongly enhanced by magnetic moment formation around potential scatterers.' address: - 'Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-8440, USA' - 'Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Universite Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay, France' author: - 'Brian M. Andersen' - 'P. J. Hirschfeld' title: 'Renormalization of thermal conductivity of disordered $d$-wave superconductors by impurity-induced local moments' --- and thermal conductivity,d-wave superconductivity,disorder ,antiferromagnetic correlations ,theory. Introduction ============ Thermal conductivity measurements at low temperatures $T$ in the superconducting state have played an important role in strengthening the case for a $d$-wave BCS-like description of quasiparticles in optimally doped cuprate superconductors. They are bulk probes of the superconducting state, unlike ARPES and STM, and can currently be performed at lower $T$ than microwave experiments. One drawback is the need to separate phonon and electron contributions, but in the cuprate superconductors an asymptotic linear term, $\kappa_0/T\sim {\rm const}$ which can be attributed solely to quasiparticles is almost always present at the lowest temperatures. After theoretical predictions of the universality of low-$T$ quasiparticle transport in nodal superconductors[@universal], experimental confirmation was obtained in a number of optimally doped materials[@universalexpt]. According to the theory, which relies on the disorder-averaged self-consistent $T$-matrix approximation (SCTMA), the low-$T$ thermal conductivity is given by $$~~~~~~~~~~~~~\kappa_{00}={\kappa_0\over T} \simeq {k_B^2\over 3} \left( {{v_F\over v_\Delta} + {v_\Delta\over v_F} }\right), \label{eq1}$$ where $v_\Delta$ is the gap slope at the node, and $v_F$ the Fermi velocity. This result has been shown to be insensitive to vertex corrections due to anisotropic scattering[@DurstLee]. Since $v_F$ is generally well-known, Eq.(\[eq1\]) has been used to extract the gap slope for a number of cuprates at lower doping as well[@exptlunderdoped], leading to the conclusion that $v_\Delta$ increases with underdoping[@exptlunderdoped]. This conclusion is in apparent contradiction to recent ARPES experiments[@ARPES], so it is worthwhile to examine physical effects outside the framework of the SCTMA which could lead to a suppression of $\kappa_0/T$ and thereby to the possible erroneous conclusion based on Eq. (\[eq1\]) that $v_\Delta$ was increasing. There are several effects known to lead to a suppression of $\kappa_0/T$. Localization effects were discussed in this context in Ref. [@Atkinson], and effects of bulk subdominant competing orders have been shown to suppress $\kappa_0/T$ but do not immediately eliminate it, despite the removal of the $d$-wave nodes[@Gusynin]. Here, we investigate the effects on $\kappa(T)$ by local impurity-induced moments relevant e.g. to the underdoped regime of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO)[@bella]. Magnetic correlations. {#correlations} ====================== The model used to study disordered $d$-wave superconductors with magnetic correlations is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{hamiltonian} \hat{H}= &-& t \sum_{\langle ij \rangle\sigma} \hat{c}_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{j\sigma} + \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} \left( \Delta_{ij} \hat{c}_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger} + \mbox{H.c.} \right) \nonumber\\ &-& \sum_{i\sigma} \mu \hat{n}_{i\sigma} + U\sum_{i\sigma} \hat{n}_{i\sigma} \langle \hat{n}_{i\overline{\sigma}} \rangle + \sum_{i\sigma} V_i \hat{n}_{i\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{c}_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ creates an electron of spin $\sigma$ on the site $i$ on a two-dimensional lattice, $\mu$ is the chemical potential and $\hat{n}_{i\sigma}=\hat{c}_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{i\sigma}$ is the particle number operator. In general, magnetic order induced by $U$ will compete with the superconducting order $\Delta_{ij}$ and lead to a bulk magnetic state above some critical $U_{c0}$. However, even for $U_c <U<U_{c0}$, disorder $V_i \neq 0$ caused by point-like impurities can induce localized $S=1/2$ states with staggered magnetization. Here, $U_c$ is the critical $U$ necessary for local moment formation, and will in general depend on the impurity strength. In this paper we study impurity configurations with 2% randomly positioned point-like impurities of strength $V_i=35t$ which is in the unitary limit. We have solved Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) selfconsistently on $40\times 40$ lattices with hole doping $\delta=12\%$, and calculated the electronic $\kappa(T)$ as outlined in Ref. [@Atkinson]. In Fig. \[kappafig\], we show the thermal conductivity averaged over 20 different random impurity configurations. For $U=0$ the results agree well with those obtained previously for the dilute impurity limit[@Atkinson]: $\kappa(T)/T = \kappa_{00} + \alpha T^2$, and the spatial inhomogeneity of $\Delta_{ij}$ only slightly modifies $\alpha$ as seen by comparing the SC and NSC results. For the bulk system we have $\Delta_{ij}=0.4t$ on each link resulting in the universal value $\kappa_{00}=1/3\left( {{v_F/v_\Delta} + {v_\Delta/v_F} }\right)=0.967$, which is nicely reproduced by the numerics. For $0 < U < U_c $, $\forall i: \langle n_{i\uparrow}\rangle=\langle n_{i\downarrow}\rangle$ and $U$ enters as a chemical potential shift which is compensated by a modified $\mu$ (to get $\delta =12\%$) and consequently $\kappa(T)$ is identical to the $U=0$ result. In the regime $U_c <U<U_{c0}$, local moments are formed and the corresponding thermal conductivity is also shown in Fig. \[kappafig\]. As seen, when $U$ increases, $\kappa(T)/T$ (and $\kappa_0/T$) is continuously suppressed, and $\kappa_0/T$ will eventually vanish in the bulk insulating state around $U \sim U_{c0}$. The origin of the suppressed thermal conductivity can be traced to a reduction of the low-energy density of states (DOS) by the local magnetic moments as shown in the inset in Fig. \[kappafig\]. Thus, impurity-driven local moment formation in the underdoped regime may explain the doping dependence of $\kappa_0/T$ measured in LSCO[@takeya]. In addition, since the low-$T$ thermal conductivity is severely suppressed, measured values of $\kappa_{00}$ and a naive use of the “universal” clean $d$-wave result in Eq. (\[eq1\]) would lead to an erroneous estimate the superconducting gap. ![$\kappa(T)/T\kappa_{00}$ versus $T$ for $2\%$ point-like impurities with $U=0$ (non-selfconsistent (NSC) ($\square$), selfconsistent (SC) ($\star$)), $U=3.2t$ ($\triangle$), and $U=3.4t$ ($\circ$). The finite system size restricts us to study the region $T/t \gtrsim 0.02$.\[kappafig\] Inset: Selfconsistent DOS for the cases $U=0.0$ ($\star$) and $U=3.2t$ ($\triangle$).](kappavsT_x0123_finiteU_2percent_new_revised.eps){width="7.5cm" height="6.0cm"} [Acknowledgements]{} This work is supported by ONR grant N00014-04-0060. [00]{} P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [71]{}, 1887 (1993); M. J. Graf [et. al.]{}, Phys. Rev. B [53]{}, 15147 (1996). L. Taillefer [et. al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [79]{}, 483 (1997). A. C. Durst and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [62]{}, 1270 (2000). M. Sutherland [et. al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [94]{}, 147004 (2005); X. F. Sun [et. al.]{}, [ibid]{} [96]{}, 017008 (2006). J. Mesot [et. al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [83]{}, 840 (1999); Z.-X. Shen, private communication. W. A. Atkinson and P. J. Hirschfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88]{}, 187003 (2002). V. P. Gusynin and V. A. Miransky, Eur. Phys. J. B [37]{}, 363 (2004). P. J. Hirschfeld and W. O. Putikka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 3909 (1996). B. Lake [et. al.]{}, Nature [415]{}, 299 (2002). J. Takeya [et. al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88]{}, 077001 (2002).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Advances in microgrids powered by Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) make them an attractive response capability for improving the resilience of electricity distribution networks (DNs). This paper presents an approach to evaluate the value of implementing a timely response using microgrid operations and DER dispatch in the aftermath of a disruption event, involving strategic compromise of multiple DN components. Firstly, we extend the resiliency assessment framework in [@part1] and develop a sequential (bilevel) model of attacker-operator interactions on a radial DN with one or more microgrids. Particularly, the operator response includes microgrid operations under various islanding configurations (regimes), and single- or multi-master operation of DERs in providing grid-forming services as well as frequency and voltage regulation. Secondly, we introduce a restoration problem in which the operator gradually reconnects the disrupted components over multiple periods to restore the nominal performance of the DN. The first problem, formulated as a bilevel mixed-integer problem, is solved using a Benders decomposition method. The second problem, formulated as a multi-period mixed-integer problem, can be solved using a greedy algorithm. Our results illustrate the benefit of using microgrids in reducing the operator’s losses, both immediately after the disruption event and during the restoration process.' author: - 'Devendra Shelar, Saurabh Amin, and Ian Hiskens [^1] [^2] [^3]' bibliography: - 'IEEEfull.bib' title: \| Resilience of Electricity Distribution Networks\ Part II: Leveraging Microgrids --- Cyber-physical systems, network security, smart grids, bilevel optimization, microgrids Introduction {#sec:introduction2} ============ Modern electricity Distribution Networks (DNs) are prone to risks of service interruptions due to the failures of unreliable, and often insecure, cyber and physical components. Recent disruptions caused by natural disasters [@microgridDisasterRecovery] and security attacks [@ukraine; @microgridSecurity] highlight the vulnerability of DNs to cyberphysical failures. In this article, we investigate the use of microgrid technologies such as microgrid islanding and dispatch of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) [@microgridEmergencyControl; @microgridReserveManagement; @microgridSecurity] toward improving DN resilience. Historically, the idea of DER-powered microgrids as a response mechanism has been considered for responding to reliability failures [@microgridReserveManagement; @microgridSecurity; @microgridsNikos]. Indeed, microgrids have been implemented to support the reliability targets of critical facilities such as hospitals, industrial plants, and military bases. However, their technological feasibility (and related operational aspects) in responding to security failures has received limited attention. We address this issue by building on our work in [@part1], and focus on evaluating the effectiveness of DER-powered microgrids in limiting post-contingency losses after a disruption. We model the sequential interaction between a DN operator and an external adversary as follows [@part1]: $$\begin{aligned} {10}\label{eq:maxMinGeneric2}\tag{P1} \lossMaxmin &\coloneqq\quad && \max_{\second\in\Second} &\min_{\third\in\Third[](\second)} &&\ \cost\left(\third,\xc{}{}\right) \qquad&\text{s.t.} ~\quad&& \xc{}{} \in \Xc{}{}\left(\third\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $\second\in\Second$ denotes an attacker strategy, $\third\in\Third(\second)$ an operator response strategy, $\xc{}{}\in \Xc{}{}$ the network state, and $\cost$ the composite loss function, the details of which are presented in \[sec:bilevel\]. In [@part1], we argued that cyberphysical disruptions to DNs can lead to operating bound violations and cause uncontrolled or forced disconnects of DN components. Specifically, we modeled the impact of attacker-induced disconnects of DN components as supply-demand disturbances, and the impact of TN-side disturbances as voltage deviations at the substation node. Then, we considered preemptive load control and component disconnects as operator response actions for the generic setting when the attacker’s (resp. operator’s) goal is to maximize (resp. minimize) the post-contingency losses. We introduced $\resilienceMaxmin \coloneqq 100\left(1-\lossMaxmin/\lcompleteShed\right)$ as a resilience metric of the DN, where $\lcompleteShed$ (chosen for sake of normalization) denotes the operator loss when all DN components are disconnected; see . Finally, we evaluated the value of optimal response as the total reduction in post-contingency losses relative to the case of autonomous (local protection driven) disconnections, i.e. $\resilienceMaxmin-\resilienceNoResponse$, where $\resilienceNoResponse = 100\left(1-\lossNoResponse/\lcompleteShed\right)$. In this article, we consider another bilevel formulation: $$\begin{aligned} {10}\label{eq:maxMinMicroGeneric}\tag{P2} \lossMicro &\coloneqq\quad && \max_{\second\in\SecondMicro} \ &\min_{\third\in\ThirdMicro(\second)} &&\ \costMicro\left(\third,\xc{}{}\right) \ \ &\text{s.t.} \ && \xc{}{} \in \Xcmicro{}{}\left(\third\right), \end{aligned}$$ where the network model $\Xcmicro{}{}$, and the loss function $\costMicro$ are extended to capture microgrid operations (\[sec:microgridModel\]) and DER dispatch and regulation aspects (\[sec:derModel\]); the set of attacker strategies $\SecondMicro$ and the set of operator strategies $\ThirdMicro$ are also modified to capture attacker-operator interactions for DNs with DER-powered microgrids (\[sec:bilevel\]). The maximin value of , $\lossMicro$, denotes the worst-case post-contingency loss incurred by the operator for the given microgrid and DER capabilities; see . Then, $\resilienceMicro \coloneqq 100\left(1-\lossMicro/\lcompleteShed\right)$ can be viewed as a resilience metric of the DN under microgrid-enabled operator response. Furthermore, the relative value of timely microgrid response (or equivalently, the improvement in DN resilience due to microgrids) can be evaluated as $(\resilienceMicro - \resilienceMaxmin)$. We posit that advances in DER-enabled microgrids and emergency control operations at the substation level can be leveraged to implement timely resiliency-improving response actions (less than a few seconds after a disturbance event). = \[font=,align=left\] = \[mfs,rotate=90\] = \[font=,align=left\] = \[draw,line width=2pt\] = \[draw,line width=2.2pt,red\] = \[draw,line width=1.2pt, blue\] = \[draw,line width=1.2pt, green\] = \[-latex,line width=1pt\] = \[gray,line width=0.6pt, dotted, opacity=0.8\] In [@part1], we considered three operator response models: - Remote control by the control center during normal conditions; - Autonomous (protection driven) disconnection of individual components (tripping of DGs or loads under nodal violations in operating conditions); and - Emergency control by a secure Substation Automation (SA) system. As in [@part1], it is assumed that the emergency control actions (c) subsume the autonomous actions (b) by making decisions that are coordinated across the SA system. Hence, (b) and (c) are never simultaneously active. Furthermore, in this paper, we consider the following extension of (c): - Emergency control by the SA involving microgrid islanding and DER dispatch. Analogous to [@part1], we consider that the SA system can detect the disrupted components from changes in measurements of net nodal consumption. By using knowledge of the attack the SA can compute and implement the operator response in a timely manner. For our purposes, response (d) is an optimal second-stage response in . Our analysis relies on the premise that such response can be implemented via modern SA systems during disruptions. Indeed, the continued improvements in SA system disturbance detection and control capabilities can further assist in restoration operations. The resiliency of a system also reflects how quickly it can rebound to its nominal state after a disruption [@part1; @resilienceDefnNIAC]. Microgrids can provide partial demand satisfaction during the system restoration process, especially during the time when the DN is fully disconnected from the TN. We consider an admittedly simple, but practically relevant, multi-period DN restoration problem in which the disrupted DN components are gradually restored over several periods; refer to “DN restoration” in . Our goal in this problem is to compute an operator strategy in each time period (roughly, on the order of a few minutes). Such a strategy is comprised of reconnecting disrupted components, modifying the microgrid islanding configuration, and dispatching the DERs within individual microgrids. Our modeling approach addresses some key issues regarding microgrid and DER operations. In particular, we allow for the formation of one or more microgrid islands in radial DNs. When all the microgrids are connected to the transmission network (TN), the DN is operating in the grid-connected regime. If none of the microgrids are connected to the TN, then the DN is operating in the fully-islanded regime. In our approach, the DN can also operate in a partially-islanded regime, in which some of the microgrids are connected to the TN while other microgrids are not. In both partially- and fully- islanded regimes, each microgrid can operate as an isolated microgrid or as part of a larger microgrid. To model power flows in each of the microgrids, we introduce a natural extension of the LinDistFlow equations. The resulting network model captures DN operations in all the above-mentioned regimes (\[sec:microgridModel\]). We limit attention to linear power flows mainly for the ease of exposition. Importantly, we consider the parallel operation of multiple DERs for the provision of grid-forming services, which involve providing voltage and frequency references, as well as maintaining voltage and frequency within operating bounds (i.e. regulation services). When a microgrid is connected to the TN, the bulk generators provide the grid-forming services. However, when a microgrid is disconnected from the TN, then at least one DER within that microgrid must provide the grid-forming services [@microgridEmergencyControl]. Depending on the number of grid-forming DERs within a microgrid, one can consider two modes of DER operation under islanded regimes, namely Single-Master Operation (with a single grid-forming DER) and Multi-Master Operation (with more than one grid-forming DER) [@microgridEmergencyControl]. Our model is sufficiently flexible to capture both the single- and multi-master modes of DER operation. In addition to voltage regulation, we also consider frequency regulation, which becomes important for microgrids due to the low inertia of the DERs. By using the appropriate droop control equations, we capture both frequency and voltage regulation aspects resulting from multiple DERs operating in parallel within a microgrid (\[sec:derModel\]). Our main contributions are as follows: - We capture the different microgrid regimes as well as DER operating modes by developing a new mixed-integer linear network model. This modeling approach enables us to formulate as a Bilevel Mixed-Integer Problem (BiMIP). In [@part1], we showed that is also a BiMIP, and can be solved using a Benders Decomposition (BD) algorithm. In \[sec:bilevel\], we show that this algorithm can be applied to the extended formulation . - Our network model is also well-suited for formulating a DN restoration problem as a multi-period Mixed-Integer Problem (MIP). In our restoration problem, the network state in any period only depends on the operator response actions in that period, and the network state in the previous period. We exploit this feature and propose a greedy heuristic that seeks to reconnect the disrupted components in each period such that the post-contingency losses for that period are minimized (\[sec:restoration\]). Multi-Microgrid DN model {#sec:microgridModel} ======================== In this section, we develop a model of a radial DN with one or more microgrids. This network model extends the LinDistFlow model [@lindist] to multi-microgrid settings. We distinguish between two operating stages $\pre$ and $\post$, which denote the pre- and post- contingency stage, respectively. The network is initially in $\pre$ stage, and after the disturbance event enters the $\post$ stage; see \[sec:bilevel\] for details on the disturbance model. Let $\state\in\{\pre,\post\}$ denote the operating stage of the network. We define the network state as $\xc{\state}{} \coloneqq \transpose{\left(\ptc{\state}{}, \qtc{\state}{}, \Pc{\state}{},\Qc{\state}{}, \nuc{\state}{}, \fc{\state}{}\right)}$, where each of these entries are themselves vectors of appropriate dimensions, and are described in \[tab:notationsTable2\]. In our DN model, we consider a radial network consisting of one or more microgrids. We refer to a distribution line $(i,j)\in\setMicrogrid\subseteq\E$ as a microgrid connecting line if it connects a microgrid to the TN or to other microgrids; see \[fig:systemStateDistribution2\]. Here $\setMicrogrid$ denotes a given fixed set of connecting lines. For a connecting line $(i,j) \in \setMicrogrid$, we use $\klinec{\state}{ij} = 0$ (resp. $\klinec{\state}{ij} = 1$) to indicate that it is in the closed (resp. open) state. The DN operating regimes are defined according to the states of the connecting lines: - Grid-connected regime when all connecting lines are closed (i.e $\klinec{\state}{ij} = 0 \quad \forall \ (i,j)\in \setMicrogrid$), - Fully-islanded regime when all connecting lines are open (i.e. $\klinec{\state}{ij} = 1 \quad \forall \ (i,j)\in \setMicrogrid$), or - Partially-islanded regime when there exists at least two connecting lines such that one of them is closed and the other is open (i.e. $\exists\ (i,j), (m,n) \in \setMicrogrid$ such that $\klinec{\state}{ij} = 0 \text{ and } \klinec{\state}{mn} = 1$). Let $\{ \N[1], \cdots, \N[\abs{\setMicrogrid}] \}$ denote the set of disjoint microgrid subnetworks of the DN, where each $\N[i]$ for $i \in \{1,\cdots,\abs{\setMicrogrid}\}$ denotes a connected subnetwork when all connecting lines are open, i.e. $\klinec{\state}{mn} = 1$ for all $(m,n) \in \M$. For each subnetwork $\N[i]$, let $\setMicrogrid_{i}\subseteq\setMicrogrid$ denote the set of connecting lines which need to be open for $\N[i]$ to be completely isolated (i.e. autonomously operating). A microgrid island is formed when an individual microgrid or a connected subnetwork of more than one microgrid no longer receives power supply from the TN. Also, let $\P_i$ denote the set of lines along the path connecting node $i$ to the substation node. For example, in \[fig:systemStateDistribution2\] the set of connecting lines for the subnetwork $\N[1] = \{1,2\}$ is $\setMicrogrid_1 = \{(0,1), (2,3), (2,5)\}$. For this example, $\P_5 = \{(0,1),(1,2),(2,5)\}$. Also, if $\klinec{\eta}{01} = 1$, $\klinec{\eta}{23} = 0$, and $\klinec{\eta}{25} = 1$, then the microgrid $\N[3]$ is operating as an isolated island, whereas microgrids $\N[1]$ and $\N[2]$ are operating together as part of one larger microgrid island. The smaller microgrids are typically used for supplying power to a critical facility (e.g. hospital, university, prison). In our model, these microgrids can be leveraged to supply power to the DN during emergency conditions (fully- or partially-islanded regimes). Now, we describe the constraints related to the power flows, nodal frequencies and load connectivity in microgrids. Unless explicitly stated, the following constraints are valid for either operating stage $\state \in\{\pre,\post\}$. 1. Power flows: A connecting line permits power flow through it if and only if it is closed. We model this constraint as follows: \[eq:islandingCapacity\] $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:islandingRealCap} \abs{\Pc{\state}{\edge}} & \le \left(1-\klinec{\state}{\edge}\right)\bigM \qquad && \forall\ (i,j)\in\M\\ \label{eq:islandingReacCap} \abs{\Qc{\state}{\edge}} & \le \left(1-\klinec{\state}{\edge}\right)\bigM \qquad && \forall\ (i,j)\in\M, \end{aligned}$$ where $\bigM$ is a large constant. This typical modeling trick to use a constraint of the type $\abs{a-c}\le y\bigM$ where $y\in\{0,1\}$, enforces an equality $a = c$ only when $y=0$; otherwise the equality is not binding. We use this trick repeatedly to model various other constraints of a similar type. 2. Voltage drop: The voltage drop along a non-connecting line $(i,j) \not\in \setMicrogrid$ is given by the standard voltage drop equation of the LinDistFlow model [@lindist]: $$\label{eq:voltageLindist} \nuc{\state}{j} = \nuc{\state}{i} - 2\resistance{\edge}\Pc{\state}{\edge} - 2\reactance{\edge}\Qc{\state}{\edge}\quad \forall\ (i,j)\in\E\backslash\setMicrogrid. $$ However, for a connecting line, the voltage drop constraint is active only if it is closed, and is inactive, otherwise, i.e. $$\small \label{eq:islandVoltConnected} \begin{split} \abs{\nuc{\state}{j} - \left(\nuc{\state}{i} - 2\resistance{\edge}\Pc{\state}{\edge} - 2\reactance{\edge}\Qc{\state}{\edge}\right)} \le \klinec{\state}{\edge} \bigM \ \ \ \forall \ (i,j) \in\M. \end{split}$$ 3. Nodal frequencies: In islanded regimes, the DER(s) must provide grid-forming and regulation services [@islandingControlStrategies; @microgridEmergencyControl]. Moreover, a microgrid island can have multiple DERs operating in parallel. We assume that DERs can rapidly synchronize their frequencies to a common value with the help of power electronics [@microgridEmergencyControl]. This value can be regarded as the island’s frequency. To model that the nodal frequencies within a microgrid island are identical in steady state, we can write: $$\fc{\state}{i} = \fc{\state}{j}\quad \forall \ i,j \in\N[k] \text{ and } \forall\ k=1,\cdots,\abs{\setMicrogrid},$$ which is equivalent to writing: $$\label{eq:islandFrequencyConnected} \fc{\state}{i} = \fc{\state}{j} \qquad \forall\ (i,j)\in\E\backslash\setMicrogrid,$$ because if a line $(i,j)$ is not a connecting line, i.e. $(i,j)\in\E\backslash\setMicrogrid$, then nodes $i$ and $j$ both belong to the same microgrid. Generically, frequency of every microgrid island can be different from the frequency of the TN-connected substation node. Moreover, the frequencies of any two microgrid islands that are not connected to each other can also be different. We model this constraint as follows: $$\label{eq:islandFrequencyNotConnected} \abs{\fc{\state}{i} - \fc{\state}{j}} \le \klinec{\state}{\edge} \bigM \qquad\forall\ (i,j)\in\setMicrogrid.$$ Finally, we model the constraint that the load gets disconnected (i.e. $\kcc{\state}{i} = 1$) when the nodal frequency violates the safe operating bounds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:frequencyDisconnectLoad} \hspace{-0.4cm} \begin{aligned} \kcc{\state}{i} &\ge \fcc{min}{i} - \fc{\state}{i}, \quad && \kcc{\state}{i} \ge \fc{\state}{i} - \fcc{max}{i} \quad && \forall\ i\in \N. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) {#sec:derModel} =================================== We now introduce a generic taxonomy of DERs that is relevant to microgrid operations (see [@microgridsManagement]) and a model which captures both single- and multi-master operating modes of DERs. Refer to \[fig:derClassification\] for DER categories and \[fig:derClassificationTab\] for a comparison of their capabilities. = \[draw,align=left,minimum width=4cm\] = \[mnode,minimum width=1.8cm\] = \[-,line width=2,>=latex\] = \[mcon,->\] ,[0.25]{} \ \ #### DER classification {#der-classification .unnumbered} Our classification is based on the output behaviour and service capabilities of DERs. First, we distinguish between grid-forming DERs (which provide voltage and frequency references) and DERs whose active (P) and reactive (Q) power output is controlled by PQ inverters. We denote the sets of grid-forming and PQ Inverter (PQI-) controlled DERs by $\setDERgf$ and $\setDERpq$, respectively. Then, there are a further two sub-categories of PQI-controlled DERs: those whose PQ setpoints can be remotely controlled (denoted by $\setDERpqvar$), and others whose PQ setpoints are fixed (denoted by $\setDERpqfixed$). Since the output of the DERs belonging to the set $\setDERpqfixed$ does not vary with the grid conditions, they can be considered as grid-noninteractive DERs. On the other hand, since the output of the DERs in the sets $\setDERgf$ and $\setDERpqvar$ can change with grid-conditions, we consider them as grid-interactive DERs (denoted by $\setDERgi$); see \[tab:interactive\]. In order to distinguish the DERs in set $\setDERpqfixed$, we refer to them as distributed generators (DGs). Since the output of these DGs cannot be changed, if operating bound violations occur, then they need to be disconnected either by remote means or through autonomous disconnections. In contrast, the grid-interactive DERs can stay connected to the DN as zero output sources even under fluctuations in the network state. Particularly, we assume that these DERs are fitted with low-voltage and low-frequency ride through (LVRT and LFRT) functionalities. This allows DERs to stay connected to the DN during temporary voltage and frequency bound violations at nodes. Furthermore, the output of grid-interactive DERs can be changed by two control mechanisms. In the case of grid-forming DERs ($\setDERgf$), droop-based primary control is activated under specific islanding conditions. In the case of DERs in the set $\setDERpqvar$, their active-reactive (PQ) setpoints can be controlled by the SA system; see \[tab:grid-forming\]. Let $\NI \subseteq N$ denote a microgrid island within the DN. Also, let $J(S)$ be the set of DN nodes where DERs in the set $S\subseteq\setDER$ are located, with $\derNode = i$ indicating that DER $\der$ is connected to node $i$. Recall from \[sec:microgridModel\] that a microgrid island can consist of one or more microgrids. Based on the number of DERs contributing to grid-forming services, a microgrid island can be in the following operating modes [@microgridEmergencyControl]: 1. Single-Master Operation (SMO): One DER operates as a single grid-forming DER (i.e. $\abs{J(\setDERgf)\bigcap\NI} = 1$), while all other DERs operate in the PQ mode. 2. Multi-Master Operation (MMO): More than one DER (but not necessarily all) operate as grid-forming DERs (i.e. $\abs{J(\setDERgf)\bigcap\NI} \ge 2$). In multi-master operation, the output of multiple grid-forming DERs changes based on nodal voltage and frequency values under the droop control constraints. These constraints ensure appropriate power sharing among DERs based on their capacities. The nodal frequencies (resp. voltages) are used for active (resp. reactive) power sharing. Our network model for radial DNs is sufficiently flexible to allow DN operations in both SMO and MMO modes. Finally, there are two sub-categories of grid-forming DERs, namely utility (or operator) owned grid-forming DERs and grid-forming DERs belonging to some facilities such as hospitals or other high priority loads. Each of these categories contributes to grid-forming services depending on the specific islanding conditions; see \[tab:acdc\]. Let $\krc{\state}{\der} = 1$ if the islanding condition for DER $\der\in\setDERgf$ is satisfied, and $\krc{\state}{\der} = 0$ otherwise. The two main islanding conditions of interest are as follows: 1. A utility grid-forming DER contributes to grid-forming services when the node to which it belongs becomes a part of a microgrid island (i.e. the node is not connected to the TN). Consider a DER $\der\in\setDERgfutil$ and a microgrid $\N[k]$ such that $\derNode = i \in\N[k]$. Then, DER $\der$ contributes to grid-forming if and only if $\N[k]$ is not connected to the TN, or equivalently, at least one connecting line along the path connecting node $i$ to the substation is open, i.e. $$\krc{\state}{\der} = 1 \iff \exists \ (m,n) \in \setMicrogrid \bigcap \P_i \ \text{ such that } \ \klinec{\state}{mn} = 1.$$ We formulate this condition using the following mixed-integer linear constraints: \[eq:islandConditionSyn\] $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:islandConditionSyn1} \krc{\state}{\der} &\ge \klinec{\state}{mn}\qquad \forall\ (m,n)\in \setMicrogrid\bigcap\P_i \\ \label{eq:islandConditionSyn2} \krc{\state}{\der} &\le \ssum_{(m,n)\in(\setMicrogrid\bigcap\P_{i})}\ \ \klinec{\state}{mn}. \end{aligned}$$ 2. The facility level DERs (denoted by $\setDERgffacility$) also contribute to grid-forming services when the microgrid to which they belong operates as an isolated island (i.e. not connected to the TN nor to any other microgrid). Consider a DER $\der\in\setDERgffacility$ and a microgrid $\N[i]$ such that $\derNode\in\N[i]$. Then, DER $\der$ contributes to grid-forming if and only if all the connecting lines connecting the microgrid $\N[i]$ to the TN and other microgrids are open, i.e. $$\krc{\state}{\der} = 1 \iff \klinec{\state}{mn} = 1\ \forall \ (m,n) \in \setMicrogrid_{i}.$$ We formulate this condition using the following mixed-integer linear constraints: \[eq:islandConditionVsi\] $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:islandConditionVsi1} \krc{\state}{\der} &\ge \big(\ssum_{(m,n)\in\setMicrogrid_{i}}\ \klinec{\state}{mn}\big) - (\abs{\setMicrogrid_{i}} - 1) \\ \label{eq:islandConditionVsi2} \krc{\state}{\der} &\le \klinec{\state}{mn} \qquad \forall\ (m,n)\in \setMicrogrid_{i}. \end{aligned}$$ #### DER output model {#der-output-model .unnumbered} Next, we describe the output model for the DERs. Each grid-forming DER $\der\in\setDERgf$ consists of a microsource and a storage device (batteries or flywheels) [@microgridEmergencyControl]. The microsource supplies active power (quadrants I or II) in all three regimes. Thus, the output of the microsource is constrained as follows: $$\label{eq:nominalGeneratorConstraint} \Gnc{\der} \transpose{[\pnc{\state}{\der}\quad \qnc{\state}{\der}]} \le \hnc{\der}\quad \forall\ \der \in \setDERgf,$$ where $\Gnc{\der}\in\R^{6\times 2}$ is a matrix and $\hnc{\der}\in \R^{6}$ is a vector that represents the polytope as shown in . For the sake of modeling simplicity, we assume that the storage device supplies active power only in the islanded regimes, whereas it consumes active power in the grid-connected regime (quadrants III and IV); see \[fig:resourceModel\]. One justification for this restriction is that the life of a storage device significantly degrades with frequent charging/discharging cycles [@microgridEmergencyControl]. Indeed, advances in storage technology make them viable sources of power supply even in the grid-connected regime. Still our modeling assumption is relevant to situations where fixed storage capacity is set aside as contingency reserve to be used in islanded regimes. Thus, the output of a storage device is constrained as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:emergenyGeneratorConstraint} \Gec{\der} \transpose{[\pegc{\state}{\der}\quad \qegc{\state}{\der}]} + \Hec{\der} \krc{\state}{\der} &\le \hec{\der}&&\quad \forall\ \der \in \setDERgf, \end{aligned}$$ where the $\Gec{\der},\Hec{\der}\in\R^{8\times 2}$ are matrices and $\hec{\der}\in\R^8$ is a vector such that the DER operates in quadrants III and IV when $\krc{\state}{\der} = 0$; and in quadrants I and II when $\krc{\state}{\der} = 1$; see \[fig:storageDeviceModel\]. The total output of the DER is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \prc{\state}{\der} &= \pnc{\state}{\der} + \pegc{\state}{\der} \quad&&\forall\ \der \in \setDERgf\\ \qrc{\state}{\der} &= \qnc{\state}{\der} + \qegc{\state}{\der}&&\forall\ \der \in \setDERgf. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, PQI-controlled DERs ($\setDERpq$) consist only of a microsource, and do not have a storage device. Thus, their output is constrained as in \[fig:microsourceModel\]. We can simply assume that $\forall\ \der \in \setDERpq, \ \pegc{\state}{\der} = \qegc{\state}{\der} = 0$. = \[align=left, font=\] = \[align=center, font=\] = \[thick,>=latex\] #### Droop control equations {#droop-control-equations .unnumbered} We model the regulation services provided by one or more grid-forming DERs using voltage and frequency droop control equations [@islandingControlStrategies]. This allows the DERs to adjust their active and reactive power outputs based on local voltage and frequency measurements, thus eliminating the need for explicit coordination among DERs (for the purpose of regulation). The output changes of a grid-forming DER $\der\in\setDERgf$ depend on whether or not it is contributing to regulation (i.e. $\krc{\state}{\der}$ = 1 or 0) based on the islanding conditions (see and ). Then, the classical voltage droop equation [@islandingControlStrategies] can be refined to model the reactive power output of a grid-forming DER as follows (see \[fig:droopVoltage\]): $$\label{eq:islandVoltDroop} \begin{split} \abs{\nuc{\state}{i} - \left(\nucref{\der} - \kqc{\der}(\qrc{\state}{\der} - \qrc{ref}{\der})\right)} \le \left(1-\krc{\state}{\der}\right) \bigM\\ \forall\ \der\in\setDERgf, i\in\N \ \text{ and } \ i= \derNode. \end{split}$$ \[eq:islandVoltDroop\] implies that when a DER provides regulation, it contributes more (resp. less) reactive power as the voltage drops (resp. rises) relative to a reference value. Similarly, the classical frequency droop control equation [@islandingControlStrategies] can be refined to model the active power output of a grid-forming DER as follows (see \[fig:droopFrequency\]): $$\label{eq:islandFrequencyDroop} \begin{split} \abs{\fc{\state}{i} - \left(\fc{ref}{\der} - \kpc{\der}\left(\prc{\state}{\der} - \prc{ref}{\der}\right)\right)} \le \left(1-\krc{\state}{\der}\right) \bigM\\ \forall\ \der\in\setDERgf, i\in\N \ \text{ and } \ i= \derNode. \end{split}$$ \[eq:islandFrequencyDroop\] ensures proper power sharing in the sense that DERs can adjust their active power contributions for frequency regulation depending on their individual capacities. The reference setpoints ($\fc{ref}{\der},\nucref{\der},\prc{ref}{\der},\qrc{ref}{\der}$) and the droop coefficients ($\kpc{\der},\kqc{\der}$) are given constants.[^4] As in [@part1], we assume that each node has a DG (i.e. a grid-noninteractive DER) without loss of generality. Then, similar to the loads, we model the dependence of DG connectivity on the nodal voltage and frequency as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:voltageDisconnectDG2} \kgc{\state}{i} &\ge \nugc{min}{i} - \nuc{\state}{i}, \quad && \kgc{\state}{i} &&\ge \nuc{\state}{i} - \nugc{max}{i} \quad && \forall\ i\in \N,\\ \label{eq:frequencyDisconnectDG} \kgc{\state}{i} &\ge \fgc{min}{i} - \fc{\state}{i}, \quad && \kgc{\state}{i} &&\ge \fc{\state}{i} - \fgc{max}{i} \quad && \forall\ i\in \N. \end{aligned}$$ Eqs. - imply that a DG will disconnect if the corresponding nodal voltage or frequency violates safe operating bounds. The net power consumed at a node $i$ is the power consumed by the load minus the power generated by the DGs and other grid-interactive DERs at that node, i.e. \[eq:netConsumptionIslanding\] $$\begin{aligned} {8} \ptc{\state}{i} & = \pcc{\state}{i} - \pgc{\state}{i} - \ssum_{\der \in\setDERgi \| \derNode = i} \ \ \prc{\state}{\der} \qquad && \forall\ i\in\N\\ \qtc{\state}{i} & = \qcc{\state}{i} - \qgc{\state}{i} - \ssum_{\der \in\setDERgi \| \derNode = i} \ \ \qrc{\state}{\der} && \forall\ i\in\N. \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we summarize the LinDistFlow and connectivity constraints described in [@part1] as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {4} \label{eq:conserveRealApprox2} \Pc{\state}{ij} &= \sum_{k:(j,k) \in\E} \Pc{\state}{jk} + \ptc{\state}{j} \qquad\qquad && \forall\ (i,j)\in\E \\ \label{eq:conserveReactiveApprox2} \Qc{\state}{ij} &= \sum_{k:(j,k) \in\E}\Qc{\state}{jk} + \qtc{\state}{j} && \forall\ (i,j)\in\E \\ \label{eq:dgConnectedConstraint2} \pgc{\state}{i} &= \left(1-\kgc{\state}{i}\right) \pgc{max}{i} && \forall\ i \in \N\\ \qgc{\state}{i} &= \left(1-\kgc{\state}{i}\right) \qgc{max}{i} &&\forall\ i \in \N\\ \label{eq:loadControlEquation2} \pcc{\state}{i} &= \lcc{\state}{i}\pcc{max}{i}, \quad \qcc{\state}{i} = \lcc{\state}{i}\qcc{max}{i} &&\forall\ i \in \N\\ \label{eq:loadControlParameterConstraint2} (1&-\kcc{\state}{i})\lcc{min}{i} \le \lcc{\state}{i} \le \left(1-\kcc{\state}{i}\right) &&\forall \ i\in\N \\ \label{eq:voltageDisconnectLoads2} \kcc{\state}{i} &\ge \nucc{min}{i} - \nuc{\state}{i}, \quad \kcc{\state}{i} \ge \nuc{\state}{i} - \nucc{max}{i} && \forall\ i\in \N. \end{aligned}$$ This completes the discussion of our multi-regime microgrid network model with parallel operation of DERs. Bilevel Optimization Problem {#sec:bilevel} ============================ In [@part1], we modeled the sequential interaction between the attacker and operator as a bilevel mixed-integer problem (BiMIP). We now extend this model to include microgrid operations and DER dispatch capabilities. Our revised BiMIP formulation considers multi-regime microgrid operations with multiple DERs/DGs. It also accounts for TN-side voltage and frequency disturbances as part of the overall disturbance model. #### TN-side disruption {#tn-side-disruption .unnumbered} We consider TN-side disturbance in our attack model because the DN can face significant loss if the attacker targets the DN during an active TN failure event. In general, a TN-side disturbance (e.g. failure of a transmission line or bulk generator) can impact the system frequency as well as the substation voltage of the DN, and this can influence the attacker’s strategy. We model the impact of a TN-side failure as a perturbation in the substation voltage and frequency, denoted $\vdc{}{0}$ and $\fdc{}{0}$, respectively. Then, the voltage and frequency at the substation node in the post-contingency stage can be written: $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:postContingencyVoltage} \nuc{\post}{0} &= \nuc{nom}{} - \vdc{}{0}, \\ \label{eq:postContingencyFrequency} \fc{\post}{0} &= \fcnom - \fdc{}{0}. \end{aligned}$$ #### DN-side disruption {#dn-side-disruption .unnumbered} For the sake of consistency, we consider the same model of DN-side disruption as in [@part1], i.e. an attacker-induced compromise of the DG management system (DGMS) results in simultaneous disruption of multiple DGs. We model this attack as follows: $$\label{eq:dgConnectivityPostContingency} \kgc{\post}{i} \ge \second_i \quad \forall\quad i\in \N.$$ Let $\arcm$ denote the maximum number of DGs that the attacker can disrupt. Then, the set of all possible attacker strategies, denoted $\SecondMicro$, is given by $$\SecondMicro = \{\second\in\{0,1\}^{\N} \ \|\ \ssum_{i\in\N} \second_i \le \arcm\}.$$ Unlike DGs (set $\setDERpqfixed$), the output of grid-interactive DERs (set $\setDERgi$) changes depending on the grid conditions. In particular, the DER output either changes autonomously based on the droop control equations, or the DERs are explicitly coordinated by the SA. The DERs are not vulnerable under our assumed disruption model because they are not affected by the compromised DGMS. Note that the above-mentioned disruption model can be extended to other types of attacks, including disruption of loads or circuit breakers. One can model such attacks as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \kcc{\post}{i}& \ge dc_i \quad &&\forall \ i \in\N\\ \klinec{\post}{ij} &\ge dl_{ij} \ &&\forall \ (i,j) \in\E, \end{aligned}$$ where $dc\in\{0,1\}^{\N}$ and $dl\in\{0,1\}^{\E}$ denote the corresponding attacks for loads and DN lines, respectively. Thus, despite its simplicity, our approach to modeling DN-side disruptions can be applied to capture the physical impact of a broad class of security failure scenarios. This class includes Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks on the power grid components that can result in simultaneous failures [@distributedAttackIOTDvorkin; @distributedAttackIOTSoltan; @loadDistributionAttack1]. Another relevant attack scenario is motivated by the vulnerabilities of Internet connected customer-side devices (e.g. smart inverters, air conditioners, water heaters), also known as Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices [@distributedAttackIOTDvorkin]. An adversary can hack into these components via a cyberattack, create an IoT botnet, and can access them via the internet. Indeed, recent work in cyber-security of power systems has identified risk of correlated failures (e.g. simultaneous on/off events) induced/caused by IoT botnets [@distributedAttackIOTSoltan]. In our disruption model, the impact of such an attack can be straightforwardly modeled by load/DG/line disconnects, leading to a sudden supply-demand disturbance. However, a single point of failure such as a cyberattack on the DGMS is perhaps a more critical threat to DNs with significant penetration of DGs. Another attack model that is well-studied in the literature considers false-data injection attacks to a (small) subset of sensors in order to inject biases in state estimates, while being undetected by anamoly detectors [@Liu09falsedata; @poolla; @tabuada]. Available results include identification and security of “critical” sensors and attack-resilient state estimation. However, a less commonly studied aspect is that of incorrect control actions that could be implemented as a result of biased state estimation. Based on our previous work [@shelarAminSunZonouz], one can argue that our disruption model can be tailored to capture the changes in supply/demand of network nodes due to disruption of DGs/loads and/or component disconnect actions that may be induced by successful false-data injection attacks on sensor data used by the control center. Our disruption model can be extended to the compromise of grid-interactive DERs as well; see, for example, [@shelarAminTCNS] in which DERs in $\setDERpqvar$ are compromised by setpoint manipulation. #### Operator response model {#operator-response-model .unnumbered} Recall the response capabilities (a), (b), (c) and (d) from \[sec:introduction2\]. Since our attack model is concerned with compromised DGMS, we rule out response (a) as an operator response. We considered (b) and (c) in [@part1]; see \[fig:resilienceDefinition2\]. Our underlying assumption is that (c) is not prone to cyberattacks, because distribution utilities are being regulated under NERC CIP standards [@nerccip], which provide specific guidelines for secure reperimeterisation of the substation cyber infrastructure. We consider the response (d) to be executed by the SA, and thus assume that it is also secure. The responses (b) and (c) do not consider grid-interactive DERs nor microgrid islanding capabilities. In contrast, (d) utilizes both these capabilities, in addition to load control and preemptive disconnection of components. Particularly, we model the operator response (d) as follows: $\third \coloneqq \left(\klinec{}{}, \krc{}{}, \prc{}{},\qrc{}{}, \lcc{}{}, \kcc{}{}, \kgc{}{}\right)$. Then, the set of all response strategies, denoted $\ThirdMicro$, can be defined as $\ThirdMicro \coloneqq \{0,1\}^{\setMicrogrid} \times\{0,1\}^{\setDERgf} \times (\R\times\R)^{\setDERgi}\times \setLoadControl \times \{0,1\}^{\N} \times \{0,1\}^{\N}$. Moreover, given the attacker-induced disruption $\second$, let the set $\ThirdMicro(\second) \coloneqq \{\third\in\ThirdMicro \ \| \ \eqref{eq:dgConnectivityPostContingency} \text{ holds}\}$ denote the set of feasible response strategies available to the operator after the disruption. For the sake of simplicity, we consider that in the pre-contingency stage, the DN is in the grid-connected regime and all components are connected. That is, there are no microgrid islands ($\klinec{\pre}{} = \zero$), and all the loads and DGs are connected to the DN ($\kcc{\pre}{} = \zero \text{ and } \kgc{\pre}{} = \zero$). Consequently, the grid-forming DERs are not contributing to regulation in the pre-contingency stage $\pre$, i.e. $\krc{\pre}{\der} = 0$ for all $\der\in\setDER$. We also assume the output of the grid-interactive DERs in mode $\pre$ to be zero, i.e. $\prc{\pre}{\der} = \qrc{\pre}{\der} = 0$ for all $\der\in\setDERgi$. These are not restrictive assumptions, however they allow us to straightforwardly compare the effectiveness of each of the response (b), (c) and (d). #### Post-contingency costs {#subsec:losses .unnumbered} The post-contingency loss incurred by the operator, denoted $\costMicro$, is the sum of the following costs: (i) cost due to loss of voltage and frequency regulation, (ii) cost of load control, (iii) cost of load shedding, and (iv) cost of islanding: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:costGCregime2} \begin{aligned} \costMicro = &\Clovr\linfinityNorm{\nuc{nom}{} - \nuc{}{}} + \Clofr\linfinityNorm{\fcnom - \fc{}{}} \\ &+ \Cload \ssum_{i\in\N}\ \left(\unity-\lcc{}{i}\right) \pcc{max}{i}\\ &+\left(\Cshed-\Cload\right) \ssum_{i\in\N}\ \kcc{}{i}\pcc{max}{i} \\ &+\Cmicro \ssum_{(i,j)\in\M} \klinec{}{ij}, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ where $\Cload \in \R_{+}$ denotes the cost of per unit load control, $\Cshed \in \R_{+}$ and $\Cshed \ge \Cload$ is the cost of per unit load shed, $\Cmicro$ is the cost of a single islanding control action, $\Clovr \in \R_{+}$ is the cost of the largest deviation of nodal voltage from the nominal value $\nuc{nom}{} = 1$ pu, and $\Clofr$ is the cost of the largest deviation of nodal frequency from the nominal value $\fcnom = 1$ pu. For a given operator response $\third\in\ThirdMicro$, let $\Xcmicro{}{}(\third)$ denote the set of post-contingency states $\xc{}{}$ that satisfy the constraints -. Then, we can restate our bilevel formulation as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Mm-Islanding}\tag{P-MG} \begin{aligned} \lossMicro\; \coloneqq\; &&& \max_{\second \in\SecondMicro} \; \min_{\third\in\ThirdMicro(\second)} \; \costMicro(\third,\xc{\post}{}) \\ &&& \hspace{1.2cm} \text{s.t. } \xc{\post}{} \in \Xcmicro{}{}(\uc{}{}). \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ Since is a BiMIP with the same mathematical structure as the BiMIP in [@part1], we solve it using the Benders Decomposition algorithm that we developed in [@part1]. Computational study =================== Now, we present computational results to: (i) compare the output value of our BD algorithm with the optimal value (generated for small networks by simple enumeration); (ii) compare the DN resilience under response capabilities (b), (c) and (d); and (iii) show the scalability of our approach to realistically large DN network sizes $\NN\in\{24,36,118\}$. #### Setup for computational study {#setup-for-computational-study .unnumbered} We consider three networks: modified IEEE 24-, 36-, and 118-node networks; see \[fig:testNetworks\] in the Appendix. The set of connecting lines $\setMicrogrid$ are shown with thick edges. The individual microgrid networks $\N[1],\cdots,\N[\abs{\setMicrogrid}]$ can be obtained by setting $\klinec{}{ij} = 1\ \forall\ (i,j)\in\setMicrogrid$. Each line $(i,j)\in\E[]$ has an identical impedance of $\resistance{ij} = 0.01, \reactance{ij} = 0.02$. Half of the nodes have a DG each and half have a load each. Consider a parameter $\hp = \frac{6}{\NN}$. Before the contingency, each DG has active power output of $\pgc{max}{i} = \hp$, and each load has a demand of $\pcc{max}{i} = 1.25\hp$. The voltage bounds are $\nucc{min}{i} = 0.9$, $\nucc{max}{i} = 1.1$, $\nugc{min}{i} = 0.92$ and $\nugc{max}{i} = 1.08$. The reactive power values are chosen to be exactly one third that of the corresponding active power value, i.e. a 0.95 lagging power factor for each load and DG. The values are chosen such that the total net active power demand in the DN is 0.75 pu, and the lowest voltage in the network before any contingency is close to $\nugc{min}{}$. The maximum load control parameter is $\lcc{min}{i} = 0.8$, i.e. at most 20% of each load demand can be curtailed. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that all DGs and loads are homogeneous. The values of cost coefficients are chosen to be ${\Cload} = 100/\pcc{max}{i}, \Clovr = 100, \Clofr = 100, {\Cshed} = 1000/\pcc{max}{i}, \Cmicro = 400$. Each microgrid has one utility grid-forming (GF) DER and one facility-GF DER. Consider a parameter $\gamma = (\sum_{i\in\N}\pcc{max}{i})/(8\abs{\setMicrogrid})$. Then, each facility level DER has the following parameters: $\forall \ \der\in\setDERgffacility, \pnc{max}{\der} = \pegc{max}{\der} = \qnc{max}{\der} = \qegc{max}{\der} = \gamma$, $\kpc{\der} = 0.02$, $\kqc{\der} = 0.04$; and, each utility-owned DER has the following parameters: $\forall \ \der\in\setDERgfutil,\ \pnc{max}{\der} = \pegc{max}{\der} = \qnc{max}{\der} = \qegc{max}{\der} = 2\gamma$, $\kpc{\der} = 0.1$, $\kqc{\der} = 0.2$. These parameters are chosen such that the total capacity of grid-noninteractive DGs is 80% of the total demand, whereas the total capacity of all grid-interactive DERs is 75% of the total demand of all loads. However, the total capacity of grid-interactive DERs may not be fully available to meet the demand because the microgrids are typically not of exact uniform size and topology, and the storage devices supply power only under the specific islanding configurations. #### Benders Decomposition vs. Simple Enumeration {#benders-decomposition-vs.-simple-enumeration .unnumbered} We evaluate the ability of our implementation of the BD algorithm to compute optimal attacks in the islanding regime for small ($\NN \in \{24,36\}$) networks. For each possible cardinality of attack we first compute the optimal attack with maximum loss using simple enumeration. Then we fix the maximum loss as $\ltarget$ for the BD algorithm. If the BD algorithm can find an attack with the same cardinality, then indeed the BD algorithm has computed the optimal attack. Otherwise, it has computed a suboptimal attack. The results of the BD algorithm implemented for solving are shown in . Naturally, the attack cardinality computed by BD algorithm is greater than or equal to the optimal min-cardinality computed using simple enumeration. In some cases, however, the BD algorithm does not obtain the optimal attack. The BD algorithm involves iteratively eliminating sub-optimal attacks using Benders cuts [@part1]. Each cut involved an $\epsilon$ which results in a tradeoff between the accuracy and computational time. For a very small choice of $\epsilon$, the BD algorithm eliminates exactly one sub-optimal attack in each iteration, and performs as worse as simple enumeration. For a large value of $\epsilon$, relatively more attacks, including optimal attacks are eliminated. Hence, the BD algorithm terminates faster although with some loss of optimality. Still, for both 24- and 36-node networks, the BD algorithm computes attacks whose cardinalities are at most 8-23% more than the cardinalities of the corresponding optimal attacks. #### Value of timely response {#value-of-timely-response .unnumbered} In [@part1], we used post-contingency loss to define the metric of resilience for autonomous disconnections ($\resilienceNoResponse$) and operator response without microgrid capabilities ($\resilienceMaxmin$). In \[sec:introduction2\], we introduced an analogously defined metric of resilience for operator response involving microgrid islanding and DER dispatch capabilities ($\resilienceMicro$). compares the resiliency values for the three cases for varying attack cardinalities, where computation of $\resilienceMicro$ and $\resilienceMaxmin$ involves using the BD algorithm to solve the corresponding BiMIPs, and $\resilienceNoResponse$ is computed using Algorithm “Uncontrolled cascade under autonomous disconnections (response (b))” in [@part1]. Indeed, under response (d), the SA triggers microgrid islanding and DER dispatch in a preemptive manner to reduce the impact of the attack. This leads to a smaller loss in comparison to using just load control and/or component disconnects (that is, response (c)). Indeed, our computational results validate that $\resilienceMicro \ge \resilienceMaxmin \ge \resilienceNoResponse$. The difference between the dashed (green) and solid (red) curves in indicate the value of response (d) relative to response (b). The difference between the dashed (green) and cross-marked (blue) curves indicate the relative value of timely response (d) over response (c). = \[inner sep=0, outer sep = 0\] #### Scalability of the BD algorithm {#scalability-of-the-bd-algorithm .unnumbered} We tabulate the performance of the BD algorithm in terms of its computational time and number of iterations to compute min-cardinality attacks for different network sizes and varying values of the resilience metric $\resilienceTarget = 100\left(1-\ltarget/\lcompleteShed\right)$; see . We also note the cardinalities of attacks output by the BD algorithm as well as the corresponding DN resilience. Note that the $\NN=118$ node network has $2^{118}$ possible configuration vectors. Still, with $\resilienceTarget = 80\%$, the BD algorithm computes an attack in $\approx$ 1 minute. In comparison, for the $\NN=36$ node network, the simple enumeration method took $\approx$ 6 hours. Multi-period DN restoration {#sec:restoration} =========================== We recall that the resilience of a system is related to its ability to not only minimize the impact of a disturbance, but also quickly recover from it; see \[fig:resilienceDefinition2\]. Our attack model assumes that a compromise of the DGMS leads to remote disconnection of multiple DGs. However, the actual functionality of disconnected DGs is not compromised. In response (d), we consider that the SA has the ability to detect and obtain knowledge of the complete attack. Moreover, the SA can also control DG connectivity. We now discuss how the SA can restore the disrupted DGs, and bring the DN back to its nominal performance. In this section, we present a simple MIP that models the process of restoring system performance. Our model of the DN restoration process entails progressively reconnecting the disrupted DGs, and eventually restoration to the grid-connected mode of DN operation. We consider a multi-period horizon $\setPeriods=\{0,1,\cdots,\nperiod\}$ where the end of the $0^{th}$ period coincides with the time when the restoration actions begin; see \[fig:resilienceDefinition2\]. Let a period be denoted by $\period\in\setPeriods$, where each period $\period$ is of fixed time duration (say, a few minutes). Furthermore, the operator response at period $\period$ is denoted by $\uc{\period}{}$. Let $\nperiod = \period_{\text{res}} + 1$, where $\period_{\text{res}}\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ denotes the earliest time period when all disrupted DGs can be restored. A TN-disturbance may clear any time, before or after the DG reconnections. However, since our analysis is focused on determining worst-case resilience of the DN, we assume that the TN-side disturbance clears after the disrupted DGs are fully reconnected, i.e. beyond time $\nperiod$. Under the assumed detection and response capabilities of the SA, the restoration action begins only after $\period = 0$. Thus, the operator control actions in the $0^{th}$ time period are the same as the initial contingency response, i.e. ${\uc{0}{} = \uc{\post}{}}$. Similarly, the operator control actions remain unchanged after the restoration actions are complete until just prior to the TN-disturbance clearing. Therefore, without loss of generality we can assume that $t_2 = \nperiod$, and restrict our analysis to the horizon $\setPeriods$. We consider two types of constraints to model the restoration actions of the operator across time periods: monotonicity constraints and resource constraints. Consider a period $\period \in \{1,2,\cdots,\nperiod\}$. The monotonicity constraints for period $\period$ are: \[eq:continuityConditions\] $$\begin{aligned} {8} \label{eq:lineRepairChange} \klinec{\period}{\edge} &\le \klinec{\period-1}{\edge} \quad\forall\ (i,j)\in\setMicrogrid,\\ \label{eq:dgrestoration} \kgc{\period}{i} &\le \kgc{\period-1}{i}\quad\forall\ i\in \N. \end{aligned}$$ \[eq:lineRepairChange\] implies that during the restoration process, once a connecting line is closed, it remains closed until the restoration process is completed. Similarly, implies that a disconnected DG becomes operational after being reconnected, and then remains operational until the restoration is complete. The monotonicity constraints can be justified based on the practical consideration that frequently changing the status of connecting lines can create large fluctuations in nodal voltages and frequencies of the microgrids due to the low inertia of DERs. Moreover, the battery life of storage devices would reduce due to frequent changes from charging modes (quadrants III and IV) to discharging modes (quadrants I and II), and vice versa; see \[fig:resourceModel\]. The resource constraint merely limits the number of DG reconnections. Specifically, we consider that during period $\period$, at most $\ngc{\period}{}$ DGs can be reconnected, where $\ngc{\period}{}$ denotes the restoration budget for that period: $$\label{eq:maxrestoreDG} \ssum_{i\in\setDERpqfixed} \kgc{\period}{i} \ge \ssum_{i\in\setDERpqfixed}\kgc{\period-1}{i} - \ngc{\period}{}.$$ Restrictions on the number of connecting line closing operations can be similarly considered. \[eq:maxrestoreDG\] can also be justified in a way similar to that of the monotonicity constraints. Naturally, the operator wants to avoid a large number of simultaneous DG reconnections as that could lead to large voltage and frequency fluctuations. We must choose $\nperiod$ large enough so that all disrupted DGs can be reconnected over the horizon $\setPeriods$. This implies $\nperiod = \min\{\period' \| \sum_{\period=1}^{\period'}\ngc{\period}{} \ge \arcm\} + 1$. Also, we assumed that the TN-side disturbance ceases to exist at the last time period. We model this as: \[eq:restorationTNconditions\] $$\begin{aligned} {8}\small \nuc{\period}{0} &= \begin{cases} \nuc{nom}{} - \vdc{}{} \quad& \text{if } \period \ne \nperiod\\ \nuc{nom}{} & \text{if } \period = \nperiod \end{cases} \\ \fc{\period}{0} &= \begin{cases} \fcnom - \fdc{}{} \quad& \text{if } \period \ne \nperiod\\ \fcnom & \text{if } \period = \nperiod. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Let $\Ycmicro{\period}{}(\uc{\period-1}{})$ denote the feasible set of response strategies for $\uc{\period}{}$, i.e. $\Ycmicro{\period}{}(\uc{\period-1}{}) = \{\uc{\period}{} \in \ThirdMicro\ \| \ \text{such that } \eqref{eq:continuityConditions}-\eqref{eq:maxrestoreDG} \text{ hold}\}$. Also, given an operator response $\third\in\ThirdMicro$, let $\Xcmicro{\period}{}(\third)$ denote the set of network states $\xc{\period}{}$ which satisfy the constraints - and . Hence, the restoration problem can be posed as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:restoration}\tag{P3}\small \begin{aligned} \hspace{-0.2cm}\lossres(\second) \coloneqq\; \min_{ \{\third^\period\}_{\period\in\setPeriods}} &&& \sum_{\period\in\setPeriods} \costMicro\left(\third^\period,\xc{\period}{}\right) \\ \text{s.t.} &&& \uc{0}{} \in \ThirdMicro(\second) \\ &&& \uc{\period}{} \in \Ycmicro{\period}{}(\uc{\period-1}{}) && \forall\ \period = 1,\cdots,\nperiod\\ &&& \xc{\period}{} \in \Xcmicro{\period}{}(\uc{\period}{}) && \forall\ \period = 0,\cdots,\nperiod.\\ \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ Problem is a Mixed-Integer Problem (MIP), and can be solved using off-the-shelf MIP solvers. However, due to the large number of binary variables, it can become computational expensive to solve for larger networks. In fact, we solve using a simple greedy algorithm; see \[algo:greedyAlgorithm\]. In each period, the operator simply chooses that response which minimizes the post-contingency loss during that time period subject to the monotonicity and resource constraints. \[algo:greedyAlgorithm\] is based on the feature that the network state in any period depends only on the operator actions in that period, and the network state in the previous period. The algorithm returns with the operator actions, resulting network state, and corresponding post-contingency loss for each time period. $\uc{0}{}, \xc{0}{} \gets \argmin\limits_{\third\in\ThirdMicro(\second)} \quad \costMicro(\third,\xc{}{}) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \xc{}{} \in \Xc{}{}\left(\third\right)$. $\uc{\period}{}, \xc{\period}{} \gets \argmin\limits_{\third\in \mathcal{Y}^\period_{\text{m}}(\uc{\period-1}{})} \quad \costMicro(\third,\xc{}{}) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \xc{}{} \in \Xcmicro{\period}{}(\third)$. $\cost^\period \gets \costMicro(\uc{\period}{},\xc{\period}{})$ $\{\uc{\period}{}, \xc{\period}{}, \cost^\period\}_{\period\in\setPeriods}$ \[algo:greedyAlgorithm\] shows the system performance during the restoration of the DN over multiple time periods for different resource constraints. For each system restoration curve, we chose $\ngc{\period}{}$ to be a constant for all time periods $\period\in\setPeriods$. One can see that after the TN-side and DN-side disturbances, the system performance drops. Then, as disrupted components are connected, the system performance progressively recovers. Also, the post-contingency losses are higher for larger TN-side disturbances. However, as the restoration budget increases, the system recovers faster. #### MIP vs. Greedy Recovery Algorithm {#mip-vs.-greedy-recovery-algorithm .unnumbered} shows the comparison of the system performance recovery curves obtained using \[algo:greedyAlgorithm\] and by directly solving the large-scale MIP for $\NN=24$ and $\NN=36$ node networks. The TN-side voltage disturbance for both the networks is set to $\vdc{}{} = 0.2$. In this experiment, we set the time limit of the (Gurobi) solver to 7200 seconds. While solving the large-scale MIP for $\NN=36$ and $\ngc{}{}=3$ we were able to achieve an optimality gap of 16.54% after 2 hours. However, \[algo:greedyAlgorithm\] was able to attain the same system performance recovery curve using the default solver settings (no presolve and Simplex method), and compute the near-optimal solution in approximately 10 seconds. In order to implement the response computed in , the SA may need to coordinate with the individual microgrid controllers. A detailed description of such a communication architecture is beyond the scope of this paper. We refer the reader to [@hierarchicalControl] for a hierarchical control architecture which can support the coordination between SA and individual microgrid controllers. Concluding remarks {#sec:conclusions2} ================== In this paper and its companion paper [@part1], we developed a quantitative framework to evaluate DN resilience, which is its ability to minimize the impact of a disturbance, and to restore the DN back to full load supply. It has been shown that the impact of a broad class of cyberphysical failure scenarios can be modeled as DN-side disruption of multiple components and/or disturbances in substation voltage and frequency. We developed a novel network model which captures operation of microgrid(s) under various regimes, and single-/multi-master operation of DERs. Various operator response strategies were considered: from load control and component disconnects to microgrid islanding and DER dispatch. Furthermore, we formulated the attacker-operator interactions as bilevel mixed-integer problems, and developed a computational approach to efficiently solve these problems using a Benders decomposition algorithm. Restoration of DN performance over multiple time periods was considered, and a greedy algorithm was presented for solving this problem. Our computational results show the value of timely response under varying operator capabilities in minimizing the impact of disruption. Even though a linear power flow was used and only basic aspects of microgrid operations have been considered, the paper provides a rich and flexible modeling framework for analyzing DN resilience for more sophisticated attack and response capabilities. Other cyber-physical security scenarios can be similarly analyzed by considering a clear demarcation between the vulnerable and the securely controllable DN components. The computational approach for solving the bilevel formulation arising from the linear power flow approximation can, in principle, be extended to convex (second-order cone) relaxations of the nonlinear power flow model. This approach may be useful for optimal resource allocation [@shelarAminHiskens] and security investments for DNs [@shelarAminTCNS]. The framework also provides the basis for resiliency assessment of other smart infrastructure networks. = \[draw,circle,inner sep=0,minimum width=0.55cm\] = \[ndc,fill,pattern=north west lines\] = \[ndc,fill,pattern=vertical lines\] = \[draw,line width=3\]\ \ [^1]: Manuscript submitted on April 10, 2019. This work was supported by NSF project “FORCES” (award $\#$: CNS-1239054), NSF CAREER (award $\#$: CNS-1453126), and NSF project “Modeling and Analysis of Load Ensembles” (award $\#$: ECCS-1810144). [^2]: Devendra Shelar and Saurabh Amin are with Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue 1-241, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (e-mail: `shelard,amins`@mit.edu, phone: 857-253-8964). [^3]: I. A. Hiskens is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). [^4]: The secondary control of voltage and frequency regulation could change the reference setpoints of the DERs, namely the voltage, frequency, active and reactive power setpoints [@hierarchicalSecondaryControl2]. Secondary control may also include changing the droop coefficients of the DERs [@secondaryControlDroopChange]. However, for the sake of simplicity, we consider primary (but not secondary) control in this paper.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper presents a variant of sparse representation modeling method, which has a promising performance of reconstruction of delay differential equation from measurement data. In the new method, a parameterized dictionary of candidate functions is constructed against the traditional expanded dictionary. The parameterized dictionary uses one function with variables to represent a class of functions. It has the ability to express functions in the continuous space so as to exponentially decrease the dimension of the dictionary. This property makes it possible to construct realisable dictionary associated with delay differential equation. Based on the parameterized dictionary, the reconstruction problem is rewritten and treated as mixed-integer nonlinear programming with both binary and continuous variables. Such optimization problem is hard to solve with the traditional mathematical methods while the emerging evolutionary computation provides competitive solutions. Experiments are carried out in 5 test systems including 3 well-known chaotic delay differential equations such as Mackey-Glass system. The results show the effectiveness of the new method in the reconstruction of delay differential equation.' address: 'School of Artificial Intelligence and Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China' author: - Yuqiang Wu bibliography: - 'arxivbib.bib' title: 'Data-driven Reconstruction of Delay Differential Equation using Evolutionary Computation' --- reconstruction ,delay differential equation ,mixed-integer nonlinear programming ,evolutionary computation ,parameterized dictionary Introduction ============ Reconstruction of system dynamics from measurement data is a longstanding interest topic in physics[@wang2016data]. Reconstruction problem, also known as the inverse engineering, exists in a wide range of physical systems. Time delay systems[@voss1997reconstruction; @PhysRevLett.81.558; @PhysRevE.64.056216; @wang2012reverse], stochastic systems[@PhysRevE.72.026202], partial differential equations systems[@rudy2017data; @li2019sparse] and networks[@PhysRevLett.114.028701]are some of the most significant and challenging ones. Various types of information are distilled from the unknown system, such as fractal dimensions, Lyapunov exponents, entropy and governing equations[@bradley2015nonlinear; @brunton2016discovering], aiming at describing and understanding the system. Many data-driven reconstruction methods have been applied in this field such as embedding[@kantz2004nonlinear], symbolic regression[@schmidt2009distilling], statistical inference[@PhysRevE.97.022301], etc. Among all these methods, sparse representation modelling is considered the most promising one because it brings simplicity and interpretability[@wang2011predicting; @wang2011network; @shen2014reconstructing]. In sparse representation modelling, dictionary of possible system dynamic items is constructed with prior knowledge and regularization is adopted to introduce sparsity. To establish such model, Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator(LASSO[@tibshirani2015statistical]), sparse Bayesian learning(SBL)[@pan2016sparse] and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms(MOEA[@li2014evolutionary]) are applied and proved effective. Although sparse representation modeling is the paradigm of the reconstruction problem, it fails in the reconstruction of delay differential equation(DDE) because there are two inevitable challenges as illustrated in the following: - The dictionary of candidate functions is hard to construct. The dictionary must be designed complete and accurate enough to contain the true dynamics items, especially the delay. For example, the dictionary of a simple system with the formulation of $\dot{x}(t)=x(t-1.5)+x^2$ is expected to be $\bm{\Theta}(x)=\begin{bmatrix} 1,x,x(t-0.1),\ldots,x(t-1.5),x^2,x^2(t-0.1),\ldots)\end{bmatrix}$, or more complicated. Obviously, enhancing the degree of discrete delay exponentially increases the dimension of the dictionary. As is known, high dimensional dictionary matrix is expensive in both hardware storage and software computation. Hence, it is unrealistic to construct an appropriate dictionary. <!-- --> - The level of sparsity is hard to determine in regularization. The right value of the sparsity controller, hyperparameter $\lambda$ could only be determined by brute-force search. If $\lambda$ is inappropriate, the exact reconstruction fails. To make matters worse, there may exists no right $\lambda$ if the right items is not included in the dictionary. Above obstacles make the reconstruction of DDE an unfinished question. Hence, aiming at exact reconstruction of DDE, a variant of sparse representation modeling method is proposed in this paper. A parameterized dictionary is novelly presented to express candidate functions in a low-dimensional space so as to overcome the curse of dimensionality. Reconstruction problem is then transformed into a mixed-integer nonlinear programming(MINLP) problem, which is finally efficiently solved by evolutionary computation(EC). To show the effectiveness, 5 reconstruction problems containing 3 well-known chaotic DDE are tested and the new method is analysed. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives the formulation of reconstruction problem. Section 3 introduces the details of the proposed method. Section 4 presents the experiments and the results. Section 5 provides a discussion of the new method. Section 6 concludes this paper. Problem Formulation =================== The proposed method is a variant of sparse representation modelling. Hence, sparse representation modelling is briefly reviewed in the beginning. Sparse representation modelling ------------------------------- Consider a system governed by delay differential equations(DDEs) as: $$\frac{d}{dt}\bm{x}(t)=\bm{f}[\bm{x}(t),\bm{x}(t-\bm{\tau})],$$ where $\bm{x}\in\mathds{R}^n$ is the system state, $\bm{f}$ means the unknown system dynamics and $\bm{\tau}$ stands for the time-delays. First, we collect the measurement data $\bm{x}(t)$ at the sampling times $t_1$ to $t_m$ and approximate $\bm{\dot{x}}(t)$ through numerical difference. Then, the dictionary $\bm{\Theta}(\bm{x})$ is constructed which contains possible items of $\bm{f}$ according to prior knowledge. For example, a dictionary may consist of constant, polynomial and time-delay items: $$\bm{\Theta}(\bm{x})=\begin{bmatrix} \bm{1} & \bm{x} & \bm{x}^2 & \bm{...} & \bm{x}(t-\tau_1) & \bm{x}(t-\tau_2) & \bm{...}\\ \end{bmatrix}.$$ After that, sparse coefficients matrix $\bm{\Xi}=\begin{bmatrix}\bm{\xi_1}\;\bm{\xi_2}\;\bm{...}\;\bm{\xi_n}\end{bmatrix}$ is defined in which $\bm{\xi_i}$ is a sparse vector. Then the sparse regression problem is formulated as: $$\bm{\dot{X}}=\bm{\Theta}(\bm{X})\bm{\Xi},$$ where $\bm{\dot{X}}$ and $\bm{X}$ are $m\times n$ matrix as: $$\bm{\dot{X}}\!=\!\begin{bmatrix} \dot{x}_1(t_1) & \cdots & \dot{x}_n(t_1)\\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \dot{x}_1(t_m) & \cdots & \dot{x}_n(t_m)\\ \end{bmatrix}, \bm{X}\!=\!\begin{bmatrix} x_1(t_1) & \cdots & x_n(t_1)\\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ x_1(t_m)& \cdots & x_n(t_m)\\ \end{bmatrix}.$$ This problem can be treated as $n$ optimization subproblems as: $$\bm{\xi_{i}}^=\arg\min\\|\bm{\Theta(X)\xi_{i}}-\bm{\dot{X_{i}}}\\|_{2}+\lambda\\|\bm{\xi_{i}}\\|_{0}\quad i=1,2,...,n,$$ where $\bm{\xi_{i}}$ and $\bm{X_{i}}$ are the $i$th column of $\bm{\Xi}$ and $\bm{X}$. $\lambda$ is the regularization hyperparameter and the subscript 2 and 0 stands for $L_2$ and $L_0$ norm. The solution of Eq.(5) is the sparse coefficients matrix $\bm{\Xi}^$, thus we obtain the sparse representation of the system and finish the reconstruction. Proposed method --------------- As illustrated in the introduction, sparse representation modelling has limitation in the reconstruction of DDE. A new method is proposed based on sparse representation modelling, which has a different formulation of the reconstruction problem. ### Parameterized dictionary A parameterized dictionary is novelly presented. Its definition and analysis are introduced in this section. $\bm{p_i}=[p_{i1},p_{i2},\ldots,p_{in_{p}}]^T$. $n_{p}$ is the dimension of $\bm{p_i}$. For $\bm{x}\in\mathds{R}^n$, $g(\bm{p_i})=x_{1}^{p_{i1}}(t-p_{i2})x_{2}^{p_{i3}}(t-p_{i4})\cdots x_{n}^{p_{i2n-1}}(t-p_{i2n})\cdots$. $\bm{p}=[\bm{p_1},\bm{p_2},\ldots,\bm{p_M}^T]$. $M$ is a given number which represents the max number of the reconstruction items. $\bm{p}$ is the parameters vector of the dictionary which satisfies $\bm{p}\in\mathds{R}^{Mn_{p}}$. The parameterized dictionary is constructed as: $$\bm{\Theta}(\bm{x,p})=\begin{bmatrix} g(\bm{p_1}),g(\bm{p_2}),\ldots,g(\bm{p_M}) \end{bmatrix}^T.$$ It is apparent that the key to construct a parameterized dictionary is to construct $g(\bm{p_i})$ and determine $M$. There are two advantages of the parameterized dictionary. - It avoids the expansion of the detailed candidate functions through compressing them into the parameters. As a consequence, the expressed space of the dictionary can be roughly large but still keep low-dimensional. In the meantime, the accuracy problem of the dictionary disappears because the parameters can be continuous. <!-- --> - Simplicity and interpretability of the reconstruction system is obtained without the introduction of sparsity because $M$ is an artificially given number and can be small or big as user’s wish. Since $M$ is the max number of the reconstruction items, it doesn’t need tuning once it is given. For better explanation of the parameterized dictionary, a system with the formulation of $\dot{x}(t)=x(t-1.5)+x^2$ is analysed as the example. Define $g(\bm{p_i})=x^{p_{i1}}(t-p_{i2})$. Its parameterized dictionary is expressed as $\bm{\Theta}(x,\bm{p})=[g(\bm{p_1}),g(\bm{p_2}),\ldots,g(\bm{p_M})]^T$, or expanded as $\bm{\Theta}(x,\bm{p})=\begin{bmatrix} x^{p_{11}}(t-p_{12}),\ldots,x^{p_{M1}}(t-p_{M2}) \end{bmatrix}^T.$ ### MINLP formulation Based on the parameterized dictionary, reconstruction problem can be formulated as: $$\{\bm{\xi_{i}}^,\bm{P_i}^\}=\arg\min\\|\bm{\Theta}(\bm{X,P_i})\bm{\xi_{i}}-\bm{\dot{X_{i}}}\\|_{2}\quad\, i=1,2,...,n,$$ where $\bm{P_i}$ is the $i$th column of the parameter variables matrix $\bm{P}$ and $\bm{P}\in\mathds{R}^{Mn_p\times n}$. Note that regularization is not used in Eq.(7), so the hyperparameter tuning problem no more exists. Eq.(7) is a non-convex optimization problem. A feasible idea is to reformulate it as mixed-integer nonlinear programming. Without loss of generality, consider an $n$-dimensional system, in which $\bm{\xi_i}$ is expanded as $\begin{bmatrix} \xi_{i1}\;\xi_{i2}\;0\;...\;\xi_{il}\;0\;...\;\xi_{iM}\end{bmatrix}^T$. The simplified coefficients vector $\bm{d_i}=\begin{bmatrix} 1,1,0,...,1,0,...,1\end{bmatrix}^T$ which satisfies $\bm{\xi_i}=\begin{bmatrix} \xi_{i1},\xi_{i2},0,...,\xi_{il},0,...,\xi_{iM}\end{bmatrix}^T\circ\begin{bmatrix} 1,1,0,...,1,0,...,1\end{bmatrix}^T$, where the operator “$\circ$” is the Hadamard product of matrix. 0 and 1 in $\bm{d_i}$ stands for the zero and non-zero items in $\bm{\xi_i}$ and the simplified coefficients Matrix $\bm{D}$ is defined as the combination of all $\bm{d_i}$. Hence, the reconstruction problem is transformed into mixed-integer nonlinear programming which is formulated as: $$\{\!\bm{d_i}^,\bm{P_i}^,\bm{\xi_i}^\}=\arg\min\\|\bm{\Theta}(\bm{X,P_i})(\bm{d_i}\circ\bm{\xi_i})-\bm{\dot{X}_i}\\|_2\ i=1,2,...,n.$$ The generation of an MINLP solution has three steps. Firstly, determine $\bm{d_i}$ which represents the trade-off of the dictionary items. Secondly, determine $\bm{P_i}$. Thirdly, perform least square method to obtain $\bm{\xi_i}$. Thus, the MINLP problem can be treated in a bi-level optimization framework. In detail, the outside optimization aims to find the optimal $\bm{d_i}$ while the inside optimization searches for the optimal $\bm{P_i}$ and its relating $\bm{\xi_i}$. It is clear that the outside optimizes the binary variables and the inside optimizes the continuous variables. Proposed Algorithm ================== Above bi-level optimization problem is an NP-hard problem with high nonlinearity. It cannot be efficiently solved by traditional mathematical methods. However, an emerging optimization method named evolutionary computation has the potential to obtain solutions with high quality and acceptable computation cost. Therefore, EC is adopted in both outside and inside optimization and it is introduced in the beginning as preliminary of the proposed algorithm. Evolutionary computation ------------------------ Evolutionary computation[@salcedo2016modern; @del2019bio; @fausto2020ants] represents a class of nature-inspired optimization algorithms. It aims at global optimization and works in the absence of explicit problem formulation and gradient information. As a consequence, it has a broad application in many scientific and engineering problems[@gotmare2017swarm; @darwish2019survey] where traditional mathematical methods fail. To emphasis, combinational optimization[@liefooghe2018evolutionary; @ramos2020metaheuristics] and multi-modal optimization[@das2011real; @li2016seeking] are some of the most important applications in EC field. A lot of evolutionary algorithms(EAs) have been presented and well studied. Among various algorithms, particle swarm optimization(PSO)[@shi1998modified; @bonyadi2017particle] gains special attention as it has strong global optimization ability and is easily realised. Hence, PSO is introduced here to explain the mechanism of EA. ![Flowchart of PSO.](fig0){width="6.5cm" height="10.5cm"} In PSO, particles (or individuals in other EAs) are the basic units of optimization. Each particle has two characteristics, which are position $\bm{x_i}$ and velocity $\bm{v_i}$. $\bm{x_i}$ represents the solution in optimization and $\bm{v_i}$ represents the search direction and step size. Firstly, $N$ particles are randomly initialized with $\bm{x_i^k}$ and velocity $\bm{v_i^k}$, in which $k$ means the iteration number. Then, the objective value of each particle is evaluated. $\bm{pbest_i}$ and $\bm{gbest}$ are defined which stand for the best position a particle find in its own search history and the best position the particle swarm find in the whole search history. Thus, $\bm{pbest_i}$ and $\bm{gbest}$ in the present iteration can be obtained after evaluation. Next, particles are updated with velocities and positions according to the rule as: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} \bm{v_i^{k+1}}=\omega\bm{v_i^k}+c_1\bm{r_1}\circ(\bm{pbest_i}-\bm{x_i^k})+c_2\bm{r_2}\circ(\bm{gbest}-\bm{x_i^k})\\ \bm{x_i^{k+1}}=\bm{x_i^k}+\bm{v_i^{k+1}} \end{array}, \right.$$ where $\omega$, $c_1$ and $c_2$ are the hyperparameters which are often defaults and $\bm{r_1}$ and $\bm{r_2}$ are random vectors uniformly distributed in \[0,1\]. The operator “$\circ$” is the Hadamard product of matrix. At this point, an iteration is over and the loop continues until the iteration comes to the max iteration as set. $\bm{gbest}$ in the last iteration is the best solution of the problem. Note that $\bm{gbest}$ is not equivalent to the global optimum although it is always a competitive solution. The flowchart of PSO is shown in Fig.1. An intuitive description of the optimization process is shown in Fig.2. It is worth noting that there are binary versions of PSO[@kennedy1997discrete; @khanesar2007novel; @mirjalili2013s] and many other EAs[@pampara2006binary; @rashedi2010bgsa; @mirjalili2014binary] for the optimization problem defined in binary space. Through adding a transfer function mapping the continuous and binary solution space[@mirjalili2013s], a continuous EA can be transferred into the binary version. Algorithm --------- Due to the property of the bi-level optimization, the binary EA and the continuous EA are respectively used in the outside and the inside optimization, which are denoted as $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$. The selection of $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$ is open. They can be the binary and the continuous version of the same EA or the combination of two different EAs. The whole algorithm is described as follow: Experiments and Results ======================= Experiment settings ------------------- To show the effectiveness, the proposed method is executed in 5 reconstruction problems. The characteristics of the test systems are listed in Table I. System 1 and 2 are governed by ordinary differential equations(ODEs). They can be treated as the simple version of DDEs with 0 delays. System 3-5 are well-known chaotic DDEs. Specifically, system 3 has two different delays, system 4 has a delay with high accuracy and system 5 has a fraction item. Data is collected in the simulation system with the sampling interval of 0.01s and is intercepted for reconstruction with the length of 20s in system 1-4 and 80s in system 5. The approximation of $\bm{\dot{x}}(t)$ is calculated by center difference. The construction of parameterized dictionary with the solution space of each system is shown in Table I. Note that the time series of a single time-delay item like $\bm{x}(t-\tau)$ is obtained from the entire sampling data, as a consequence of which, the real number field in the solution space of system 4 is actually realised with an accuracy of 0.01s. Binary PSO[@kennedy1997discrete] and couple-based PSO[@wu2019couple] are selected as $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$ in the experiment, which are respectively denoted as BPSO and CPSO. BPSO is the first version and the most widely used version of binary PSO. CPSO is a modified continuous PSO designed for multi-modal optimization problem. Their hyperparameter settings are listed in Table II, in which $M$ and $n_p$ are obtained directly from Table I. The hyperparameters are selected in a general way without tuning according to [@kennedy1997discrete] and [@wu2019couple]. Due to the stochastic nature of EAs, each test case is run 100 times independently. All experiments are realised with Matlab code. [p[30pt]{}<p[25pt]{}<p[25pt]{}<p[25pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<p[15pt]{}<]{} & $\bm{N_{out}}$ & $\bm{I_{max}^{out}}$ &$\bm{V_{lim}^{out}}$& & &\ & $M$ & $N_{out}^2$ & 4 & & &\ &$\bm{N_{in}}$ & $\bm{I_{max}^{in}}$ &$\bm{V_{lim}^{in}}$& $\bm{\omega_a}$ & $\bm{\omega_b}$ & $\bm{c_{1a}}$ & $\bm{c_{1b}}$& $\bm{c_{2a}}$ & $\bm{c_{2b}}$\ & $Mn_p$ & $N_{in}^2$ & 0.6 &0.2 &0.3 &0.9 &0.3 &1.5 &1.5\ Analysis of the results ----------------------- The reconstructed system formulation and the success ratio of each case are exhibited in Table III. The meaning of success is the exact reconstruction, which means any little deviation such as the time delay 1.58 in system 4 is considered fail. The optimal objective values in experiment 4 and 5 of 30 running times are shown in Table IV. [p[30pt]{}<p[220pt]{}<p[80pt]{}<]{} ID* & Reconstructed system &Success ratio\ 1 & $\frac{d}{dt}\begin{bmatrix} x\\ y\\z\\ \end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} -0.1000&1.9999&0\\ -1.9999&-0.1000&0\\0&0&-0.3000\\ \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} x\\ y\\z\\ \end{bmatrix}$ & 100/100\ 2 & $\left\{\begin{array}{lr}\dot{x}=10.0301y-10.0545x\\\dot{y}=28.1237x-1.0042xz-1.0537y\\\dot{z}=1.0006xy-2.6657z\end{array}\right. $ & 100/100\ 3 & $\left\{\begin{array}{lr}\dot{x}=-0.9998y-0.9996z+\\ \quad\quad0.1996x(t-1)+0.5000x(t-2)\\ \dot{y}=1.0000x+0.2000y\\\dot{z}=0.1931+0.9995xz-5.6958z\end{array}\right. $ & 85/100\ 4 & $\dot{x}(t)=-0.9999x(t)+5.9983\sin(x(t-1.59))$ & 55/100\ 5 & $\dot{x}(t)=-0.0999x(t)+0.1999\frac{x(t-20)}{1+x^{10}(t-20)}$ & 8/100\ Count System 4 System 5 Count System 4 System 5 ----------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- 1 0.0840 0.0262 16 0.0829 0.0237 2 0.2398 0.0318 17 0.2501 0.0201 3 0.0972 0.0274 18 0.2368 0.0278 4 0.1013 0.0044 19 0.2476 0.0288 5 0.2468 0.0220 20 0.2383 0.0323 6 0.2434 0.0257 21 0.1003 0.0294 7 0.0558 0.0384 22 0.2390 0.0272 8 0.2589 0.0046 23 0.2376 0.0047 9 0.2500 0.0254 24 0.2576 0.0193 10 0.2440 0.0190 25 0.2369 0.0249 11 0.0430 0.0110 26 0.2445 0.0287 12 0.1013 0.0309 27 0.2488 0.0218 13 0.2487 0.0276 28 0.1038 0.0292 14 0.2424 0.0219 29 0.2438 0.0183 15 0.2377 0.0199 30 0.2508 0.0314 From Table III, it is shown that all systems are able to be exactly reconstructed. ODE systems have the success ratio of 1 while DDE systems have a lower success ratio. Combining Table II and Table III, it is shown that the success ratio decreases with increase of the complexity of the dictionary and the solution space. In theoretical aspect, the nonlinearity of the optimization problem Eq.(8) becomes higher as the dictionary and the solution space become more complex, which enhances the difficulty of optimization. This means EAs may trap into local optima when the Eq.(8) becomes extremely multimodal. This problem could be moderated through enhancing the global search ability of the algorithm by tuning hyperparameters of $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$ or selecting other EAs. From Table IV, it is indicated that both successful and unsuccessful results have a good fitting accuracy. Due to the simplicity of the parameterized dictionary, the reconstructed governing equations must have a good generalization ability. Besides, an abnormality appears in Table IV. It is shown that the unsuccessful cases in system 4 even have a smaller optimal objective value. It means the algorithm finds the global optimum but the global optimum is not related to the true system dynamics. This is caused by the deviation of the center difference. If adopting an approximation method with higher accuracy or improving the accuracy of sampling, the approximation of $\bm{\dot{x}}(t)$ could be more accurate and further decrease the abnormality. A visualisation of experiment 1-4 with the comparison of the original and the reconstructed system is shown in Fig. 3. Discussion ========== A brief discussion of the proposed method is given in the following. - The total computational times of evaluation is ${N_{out}\!\cdot\! I_{max}^{out}\!\cdot \!N_{in}\!\cdot \!I_{max}^{in}}$. When they are set as in Table II, the computational times becomes $M\!\cdot \!M^2\!\cdot \!Mn_p\!\cdot \!(Mn_p)^2$. Hence, the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm is written as $O(n_p^3\!\cdot \!M^6)$. $M$ is a given constant. Therefore, the computational complexity can be rewritten as $O(n_p^3)$. $n_p$ is influenced by the construction of the parameterized dictionary which barely increases as the complexity of the dictionary grows. <!-- --> - The selection of $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$ is open. Although only PSO class of EAs is tested in the experiments, other EAs also work in theory aspect. <!-- --> - The hyperparameters of $EA_{out}$ and $EA_{in}$ need tuning in applications in order to obtain stronger global optimization ability. <!-- --> - Unsuccessful reconstruction is inevitable even when $N$ and $I_{max}$ are set big enough because the mechanism of EA is intrinsically stochastic search. Conclusion ========== In summary, this paper proposes a new data-driven method for reconstructing the system governing equation. The details of the method is illustrated. 5 systems are tested including 3 chaotic DDEs. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed method to reconstruct DDE dynamics. Last but not least, this method is a generic method that can be applied to find other governing equations like ODE and fractional differential equation(FDE).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - \| Zoltán Fodor\ Department of Physics, University of Wuppertal, Gauss Strasse 20, D-42119, Germany\ E-mail: - \| \ Department of Physics, University of the Pacific\ 3601 Pacific Ave, Stockton CA 95211, USA\ E-mail: - \| Julius Kuti\ Department of Physics 0319, University of California, San Diego\ 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093, USA\ E-mail: - \| Dániel Nógrádi\ Department of Physics 0319, University of California, San Diego\ 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093, USA\ E-mail: - \| Chris Schroeder\ Department of Physics 0319, University of California, San Diego\ 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093, USA\ E-mail: title: Probing technicolor theories with staggered fermions --- Introduction ============ The LHC will probe the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. A very attractive alternative to the standard Higgs mechanism, with fundamental scalars, involves new strongly-interacting gauge theories, known as technicolor [@Weinberg:1979bn; @Susskind:1978ms]. Such models avoid difficulties of theories with scalars, such as triviality and fine-tuning. Chiral symmetry must be spontaneously broken in a technicolor theory, to provide the technipions which generate the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z$ masses and break electroweak symmetry. Although this duplication of QCD is appealing, precise electroweak measurements have made it difficult to find a viable candidate theory. It is also necessary to enlarge the theory (extended technicolor) to generate quark masses, without generating large flavor-changing neutral currents, which is challenging. Technicolor theories have lately enjoyed a resurgence, due to the exploration of various techniquark representations [@Dietrich:2006cm]. Feasible candidates have fewer new flavors, reducing tension with electroweak constraints. If a theory is almost conformal, it is possible this generates additional energy scales, which could help in building the extended technicolor sector. There are estimates of which theories are conformal for various representations, shown in Fig. \[fig:window\]. For $SU(N)$ gauge theory, if the number of techniquark flavors is less than some critical number, conformal and chiral symmetries are broken and the theory is QCD-like. For future model-building, it is crucial to go beyond these estimates and determine precisely where the conformal windows are. There have been a number of recent lattice simulations of technicolor theories, attempting to locate the conformal windows for various representations [@Catterall:2007yx; @Appelquist:2007hu; @Shamir:2008pb; @Deuzeman:2008sc; @DelDebbio:2008zf]. ![The conformal window for $SU(N)$ gauge theories with $N_f$ techniquarks in various representations, from [@Dietrich:2006cm]. The shaded regions are the windows, for fundamental (gray), 2-index antisymmetric (blue), 2-index symmetric (red) and adjoint (green) representations.[]{data-label="fig:window"}](dietrich_sannino.eps){width=".4\textwidth"} Dirac eigenvalues and chiral symmetry ===================================== ![The integrated distribution of the two lowest eigenvalue quartets, from simulations of $n_s=2$ Asqtad staggered flavors. This is compared to RMT with $N_f=2$ and 8, corresponding to the strong and weak coupling limits.[]{data-label="fig:2stag"}](quartets_RMT_nX2_b3.9.eps){width=".7\textwidth"} The connection between the eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the Dirac operator and chiral symmetry breaking is succinctly given in the Banks-Casher relation [@Banks:1979yr], $$\Sigma = - \langle \bar{\Psi} \Psi \rangle = \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \lim_{m \rightarrow 0} \lim_{V \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\pi \rho(\lambda)}{V}. \label{eq:Banks}$$ To generate a non-zero density $\rho(0)$, the smallest eigenvalues must become densely packed as the volume increases, with an eigenvalue spacing $\Delta \lambda \approx 1/\rho(0) = \pi/(\Sigma V)$. This allows a crude estimate of the quark condensate $\Sigma$. One can do much better by exploring the $\epsilon$-regime: If chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken, tune the volume and quark mass such that $$\frac{1}{F_\pi} \ll L \ll \frac{1}{m_\pi}, \label{eq:epsilon}$$ so that the pion is much lighter than the physical value, and finite-volume effects are dominant [@Gasser:1987ah]. The chiral Lagrangian, $${\cal L} = \frac{F_\pi^2}{4} {\rm Tr}( \partial_\mu U \partial_\mu U^\dagger ) + \frac{\Sigma}{2} {\rm Tr} [ M(U + U^\dagger) ], \hspace{0.5cm} U = \exp \left[ \frac{i \pi^a T^a}{F_\pi} \right] \label{eq:chiral}$$ is dominated by the zero-momentum mode from the mass term and all kinetic terms are suppressed. In this limit, the distributions of the lowest eigenvalues are identical to those of random matrix theory (RMT), a theory of large matrices obeying certain symmetries [@Shuryak:1992pi]. To connect with RMT, the eigenvalues and quark mass are rescaled as $z = \lambda \Sigma V$ and $\mu = m \Sigma V$, and the eigenvalue distributions also depend on the topological charge $\nu$ and the number of quark flavors $N_f$. RMT is a very useful tool to calculate analytically all of the eigenvalue distributions. The eigenvalue distributions in various topological sectors are measured via lattice simulations, and via comparison with RMT, the value of the condensate $\Sigma$ can be extracted. This method has been successfully used in a number of lattice QCD studies, for example in dynamical overlap fermion simulations [@Fukaya:2007yv]. Simulations and analysis ======================== For $SU(3)$ gauge theory with quarks in the fundamental representation, various methods suggest that the critical number of flavors separating conformal and QCD-like behavior is between 8 and 12. In order to study this interesting region, we simulate $n_s=2$ and 3 staggered fermion flavors, corresponding to $N_f=8$ and 12 flavors in the continuum limit. (We do not take roots of the determinant of the staggered Dirac operator). We have also simulated $SU(3)$ gauge theory with $N_f=2$ flavors in the 2-index symmetric representation, using dynamical overlap fermions, which is described in [@Fodor:2S]. We use the Asqtad staggered action [@Orginos:1999cr], which includes improvements to reduce the violations of flavor symmetry (“taste breaking”) at finite lattice spacing. This action is very well tested and has been heavily used in large scale simulations of lattice QCD [@Davies:2003ik]. There have been detailed comparisons of staggered eigenvalues with the Asqtad action to RMT [@Follana:2005km], but only in the quenched approximation. ![The integrated distribution of the two lowest eigenvalue quartets, from simulations of $n_s=3$ Asqtad staggered flavors. This is compared to RMT with $N_f=3$ and 12, corresponding to the strong and weak coupling limits.[]{data-label="fig:3stag"}](quartets_RMT_nX3_b1.9.eps){width=".7\textwidth"} Because $n_s=2$ and 3 staggered flavors have not been simulated with this action before, a large scan of the parameter space of the bare couplings was required. Hence our first runs were on small volumes $10^4$, where we also gained experience on the dependence of the Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm [@Gottlieb:1987mq] on the quark mass and the discretization of the trajectory length. Once we generated large thermalized ensembles, we calculated the lowest eigenvalues of the Dirac operator using the PRIMME package [@primme]. In the continuum limit, the staggered eigenvalues form degenerate quartets, with restored flavor symmetry. In Figs. \[fig:2stag\] and \[fig:3stag\], we show the integrated distributions of the two lowest eigenvalue quartet averages, $$\int_0^{\lambda} p_k(\lambda') d\lambda', \hspace{0.5cm} k=1,2$$ for ensembles with $n_s=2$ and 3 staggered flavors respectively. Both simulations have quark mass $ma=0.01$, and the respective bare couplings are $\beta=3.9$ and 1.9. All low eigenvalues have small chirality, with no indication of non-zero topology. We see that the quark mass is less than the average smallest eigenvalue, which is necessary to probe the behavior of the eigenvalue distributions in the chiral limit. To compare with RMT, we vary $\mu=m \Sigma V$ until we satisfy $$\frac{\langle \lambda_1 \rangle_{\rm sim}}{m} = \frac{\langle z \rangle_{\rm rmt}}{\mu}, \label{eq:rmt}$$ where $\langle \lambda_1 \rangle_{\rm sim}$ is the lowest quartet average from simulations and the RMT average $\langle z \rangle_{\rm rmt}$ depends implicitly on $\mu$ and $N_f$. With this optimal value of $\mu$, we can predict the distributions $p_k(\lambda')$ and compare to the simulations. ![Comparison of different improvements of the staggered Dirac operator. The eigenvalues are calculated on the same ensemble of gauge configurations, which were generated using the Asqtad action.[]{data-label="fig:impstag"}](compare_degeneracy_asqtad_nx1_l10_b6.8.eps){width=".7\textwidth"} In both cases, we see quite good agreement between simulations and RMT with the corresponding number of flavors in the continuum limit i.e. $N_f=8$ and 12. This is somewhat surprising. From the eigenvalues themselves, one can directly see that flavor breaking is significant, since degenerate quartets are not yet formed. A previous eigenvalue study used unimproved staggered quarks in dynamical fermion simulations [@Damgaard:2000qt]. They found excellent agreement with RMT but only if $N_f$ had the same value as the number of staggered flavors $n_s$. We also find that, at strong coupling, RMT with the continuum value $N_f=4 n_s$ does not describe the data. On coarse lattices, the flavor breaking is very large and only one pion can be tuned to the $\epsilon$-regime for each staggered flavor. One has to go to weak coupling and finer lattices, where flavor breaking decreases, to recover the correct number of light pions. ![The lowest eigenvalues calculated on two ensembles with $n_s=1$ staggered flavor, with stout smearing used both in the sea and valence quark. The lattice volume is $12^4$.[]{data-label="fig:stout"}](stout_degeneracy_stout6x0.15_nx1_l12.eps){width=".7\textwidth"} These results indicate that both the $N_f=8$ and 12 flavor theories with fundamental quarks have a non-zero quark condensate $\Sigma$ i.e. chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken. If this conclusion holds against further studies of flavor breaking effects, our $N_f = 8$ result will lend considerable support to the findings of [@Appelquist:2007hu; @Deuzeman:2008sc], but the $N_f = 12$ spectrum would be inconsistent with the statement of [@Appelquist:2007hu] that this theory is conformal. Staggered improvement ===================== Since flavor breaking can have a dramatic effect on the eigenvalues, we are investigating various improvements of the staggered action, to bring the simulations closer to the continuum limit. In Fig. \[fig:impstag\], we compare mixed actions, with gauge configurations generated using the Asqtad action, while the eigenvalues are those of various improved staggered Dirac operators. This figure is for $n_s=1$ staggered flavor at $\beta=6.8$ and volume $10^4$. The appearance of eigenvalue quartets which are clearly separated is a clear indication of reduced flavor breaking. Both HYP-smearing [@Hasenfratz:2001hp] and stout-smearing [@Morningstar:2003gk] seem to bring significant improvement relative to the Asqtad operator, while HISQ fermions [@Follana:2006rc] do not show as clear an improvement. We also show in Fig. \[fig:stout\] the effect of using stout-smearing both in the sea and valence quark. As we go to weaker coupling towards the continuum limit, the eigenvalue quartet structure emerges clearly. Comparison of the improved eigenvalues with RMT is ongoing. Conclusions =========== Knowledge of the conformal window is essential to build viable candidates of strongly interacting physics beyond the Standard Model, and lattice simulations will play a crucial role. Our technique of studying the eigenvalue properties complements other lattice approaches, such as calculating the beta function of the renormalized coupling, looking for finite-temperature transitions, or extracting the mass spectrum. This will hopefully lead to consensus about the nature of these new theories. Our first study gives an indication that $SU(3)$ gauge theory with $N_f=8$ and 12 flavors are both QCD-like, non-conformal theories. We are investigating various improvements to reduce flavor-breaking lattice artifacts and allow us to reach a stronger conclusion. Acknowledgments =============== We thank Poul Damgaard for very helpful discussions, and Urs Heller who stressed the importance of reaching the quartet degeneracy limit. This research was supported by the DOE under grants DOE-FG03-97ER40546, DE-FG02-97ER25308, by the NSF under grant 0704171, by the DFG under grant FO 502/1 and by SFB-TR/55. [99]{} S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [19]{}, 1277 (1979). L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [20]{}, 2619 (1979). D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [75]{}, 085018 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0611341\]. S. Catterall and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [76]{}, 034504 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.1664 \[hep-lat\]\]; S. Catterall, J. Giedt, F. Sannino and J. Schneible, arXiv:0807.0792 \[hep-lat\]. T. Appelquist, G. T. Fleming and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [100]{}, 171607 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.0609 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Shamir, B. Svetitsky and T. DeGrand, Phys. Rev. D [78]{}, 031502 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.1707 \[hep-lat\]\]. A. Deuzeman, M. P. Lombardo and E. Pallante, arXiv:0804.2905 \[hep-lat\]. L. Del Debbio, A. Patella and C. Pica, arXiv:0805.2058 \[hep-lat\]. T. Banks and A. Casher, Nucl. Phys. B [169]{}, 103 (1980). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B [188]{}, 477 (1987). E. V. Shuryak and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Nucl. Phys. A [560]{}, 306 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9212088\]. H. Fukaya [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. D [76]{}, 054503 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.3322 \[hep-lat\]\]. Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, D. Nogradi and C. Schroeder, PoS [LAT2008]{}, 058 (2008). K. Orginos, D. Toussaint and R. L. Sugar \[MILC Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [60]{}, 054503 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-lat/9903032\]. C. T. H. Davies [et al.]{} \[HPQCD Collaboration and UKQCD Collaboration and MILC Collaboration and\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [92]{}, 022001 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0304004\]. E. Follana, A. Hart, C. T. H. Davies and Q. Mason \[HPQCD Collaboration and UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [72]{}, 054501 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0507011\]. S. A. Gottlieb, W. Liu, D. Toussaint, R. L. Renken and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D [35]{}, 2531 (1987). A. Stathopoulos and J. R. McCombs, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., Vol. [29, No. 5]{}, 2162 (2007). P. H. Damgaard, U. M. Heller, R. Niclasen and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Lett. B [495]{}, 263 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0007041\]. A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev. D [64]{}, 034504 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0103029\]. C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D [69]{}, 054501 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0311018\]. E. Follana [et al.]{} \[HPQCD Collaboration and UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [75]{}, 054502 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0610092\].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In this paper an emergence of leader-following model based on graph theory on the arbitrary time scales is investigated. It means that the step size is not necessarily constant but it is a function of time. We propose and prove conditions ensuring a leader-following consensus for any time scales using Grönwall inequality. The presented results are illustrated by examples.\ Keywords Time scales, graph theory, leader-following problem, Grönwall inequality, multi-agent systems.\ AMS Subject classification 34N05, 34D20, 93C10. author: - 'Urszula Ostaszewska[^1], Ewa Schmeidel[^2], Małgorzata Zdanowicz[^3]' title: 'Exponentially stable solution of mathematical model based on graph theory of agents dynamics on time scales' --- Introduction ============ The aim of this paper is to propose the conditions ensuring the consensus of multi-agent system over the arbitrary time scale. We consider continuous-time and discrete-time models and also models on time scales consisting of the both kinds of points: right-dense and right-scattered simultaneously. Under some assumptions, we prove that consensus can be achieved exponentially if the graininess function is bounded. All theorems are still true if graininess function approaches zero. Some existing results of discrete-time consensus are special cases of results presented in this paper. The leader-following problem has been investigated since 1970s. In 1974 [@DG1974], DeGroot studied explicitly described model that resulted in the consensus. In 2000, Krause [@Krause2000; @HK2002] discussed the model of a group of agents who have to make a joint assessment of a certain magnitude. The coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents based on the nearest neighbor rules was considered by Jadbabaie et al. in [@Jadbabaie]. Blondel et al. [@Blondel2009; @Blondel2010], took into account Krause’s model with state-dependent connectivity. Girejko et al. [@GMMM; @GMSZ2016], examined Krause’s model on discrete time scales. In 2007 there were published two important articles written by Cucker and Smale [@CS2007_1; @CS2007_2]. The authors considered an emergent behavior in flocks. Cucker-Smale model on isolated time scales was in the area of interests of Girejko et al. [@GMSZ2016]. Last year, Girejko, Machado, Malinowska and Martins [@GMMM2018] investigated the sufficient conditions for consensus in the Cucker-Smale type model on discrete time scales. In 2015, Wang et al. [@Wang] published some results for the leader-following consensus of discrete time linear multi-agent systems with communication noises. Presented here results generalize and improve results obtained by the authors in [@OSZAIP2018] and [@osz2019]. In [@osz2019] consensus on different types of discrete time scales is considered under assumption that feedback control gain $\gamma$ is constant. The background of time scales theory is given in Bohner and Peterson books [@bookBohner2001; @bookBohner2003]. Mathematical model of agents dynamics ===================================== We consider a multi-agent system consisting of $N$ agents and the leader. The leader, labeled as $i=0$, is an isolated agent with the given trajectory $x_0 \colon \mathbb{T}\to \mathbb{R}^N$. The dynamics of agents is described by the following equation $$\label{eq5} (x(t)-x_0(t))^\Delta(t)= F(t,x(t))-F(t,x_0(t)\mathds{1})- \gamma(t) B (x(t)-x_0(t)),$$ with initial condition $x(T_0)=x_{T_0}$. Here $x \colon \mathbb{T}\to \mathbb{R}^N$ is unknown vector which represents the state of agents $x(t)=(x_1(t), \cdots, x_N(t))$ at time $t \in \mathbb{T}$, $F \colon \mathbb{T}\times\mathbb{R}^N \to \mathbb{R}^N$, $\mathds{1}$ is the vector $(1,\ldots,1)^T$, $\gamma\colon \mathbb{T} \to \mathbb{R}$ is the feedback control gain at time $t$, and $B$ is the symmetric matrix (for details see [@S2019]). Notice that this model, based on the graph theory, was studied by many authors including Yu, Jiang and Hu [@YJH2015]. Let us denote by $\varepsilon_i(t)=x_i(t)-x_0(t)$ the distance between the leader and the $i$-th agent. If $(-\gamma(t) B)$ is regressive, then by $e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_0)$ we denote a solution of initial value problem $$\varepsilon^\Delta(t)=- \gamma(t) B \varepsilon(t), \,\,\, \varepsilon(T_0)=\mathds{1}.$$ By variation of constants (see [@bookBohner2001]), the unique solution of equation is given by $$\label{e2} \varepsilon(t)= e_{-\gamma B}(t, T_0)\varepsilon_{T_0} +\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}e_{-\gamma B}(t, \sigma(\tau))\big(F(\tau,x_0(\tau)\mathds{1})-F(\tau,x(\tau))\big) \Delta \tau.$$ Function $F$ fulfills Lipschitz condition with respect to the second variable if there exists a positive constant $\mathcal{L}$ such that $$\label{Lip} \Vert F(t,x)-F(t,y) \Vert \leq \mathcal{L} \Vert x - y \Vert, \,\,\, t \in \mathbb{T}.$$ We say that equation , where $T_0 \geq 0$, $\varepsilon_{T_0}=\varepsilon(T_0) \in \mathbb{R}^N$, is exponentially stable if there exist a positive constants $c$ and $d$ such that for any rd-continuous solution $\varepsilon(t, T_0, \varepsilon_{T_0})$ of equation holds $$\lim\limits_{t \to \infty}\Vert \varepsilon(t, T_0, \varepsilon_{T_0} )\Vert = \colon\lim\limits_{t \to \infty}\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq c \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \lim\limits_{t \to \infty} e_d(t, T_0) =0.$$ For some relevant result for exponential stability in the discrete case see [@bms2016] and [@Elaydi]. In 2005 [@PR2005], Peterson and Raffoul investigated the exponential stability of the zero solution to systems of dynamic equations on time scales. The authors defined suitable Lyapunov-type functions and then formulated appropriate inequalities on these functions that guarantee that the zero solution decay to zero exponentially. For the growth of generalized exponential functions on time scales see Bodine and Lutz [@BL2003]. Main results ============ Through this paper we assume that $$\inf \mathbb{T} = T_0 \geq 0 \,\, \mbox{ and } \,\,\sup \mathbb{T} = \infty.$$ It implies that $\mathbb{T}^\kappa = \mathbb{T}$. Assume that function $F$ satisfies Lipschitz condition with respect to the second variable. Let $\lambda_i$, $i=1,2,\dots,N$ denote the eigenvalues of matrix $B$. By $\mathbb{T}^s$ and $\mathbb{T}^d$ we mean the set of right-scattered and right-dense points of $\mathbb{T}$, respectively. Notice that, since we assumed $\sup\mathbb{T}= \infty$, at least one of sets $\mathbb{T}^s$ or $\mathbb{T}^d$ must be unbounded. Next, we rewrite time scale $\mathbb{T}$ in the useful way for estimation of norm of solution of initial value problem on a time scale consisting of right-scattered as well as right-dense points. To avoid confusion we underline that any interval throughout this paper is an interval on the time scale, i.e. any interval contains only points of the time scale. Set $$T_1 = \min\{t \colon t \in [T_0, \infty) \cap \mathbb{T}^d \mbox{ and } [T_0,t) \subset \mathbb{T}^s \}$$ $$T_{2i} = \inf \{t \colon t \in [T_{2i-1}, \infty) \cap \mathbb{T}^s \mbox{ and } [T_{2i-1},t) \subset \mathbb{T}^d\}$$ $$T_{2i+1} = \min\{t \colon t \in [T_{2i}, \infty) \cap \mathbb{T}^d \mbox{ and } [T_{2i},t) \subset \mathbb{T}^s\}$$ for $i=1,2, \dots$. In case of $[T_{2i-1}, \infty) \cap \mathbb{T}^s = \emptyset$ for some $i \in \mathbb{N}$ we take $T_{2i}=\infty$ (see Example \[Ex9\]). If $[T_{2i-1}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^d = [T_{2i-1}, T_{2i-1}) =\emptyset$ for some $i \in \mathbb{N}$ we also take $T_{2i}=\infty$ (see Example \[Ex2\]). Analogously, if $[T_{2i}, \infty) \cap \mathbb{T}^d = \emptyset$ for some $i \in \mathbb{N}$, then $T_{2i+1}=\infty$. If $T_j = \infty$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N}_0$, then we take $T_{j+i}=T_j$ for $i \in \mathbb{N}$ and $[T_{j+i}, T_{j+i+1}) = (T_{j+i}, T_{j+i+1}]=\emptyset$ (see Example \[Ex6\]). We see if $\sigma(T_0)=T_0$, then $T_1=T_0$. Let $\mathbb{T}= \{1\} \cup [2,3] \cup [6, \infty)$. Here $T_0=1$, $T_1=2$, $T_2=3$, $T_3=6$ and $T_4=\infty$. We underline that $T_{2i+1} \in \mathbb{T}^d$ for any $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$ while it is possible $T_{2i} \notin \mathbb{T}^s$ for some $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$. Let $\mathbb{T}= \bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}[2i-1, 2i] \cup \{4i + \frac{1}{j+1} \colon i, j \in \mathbb{N}\}$. Here $T_0=1$, $T_1=T_0$, $T_{i}=i$ for $i \in \{2,3, \dots \}$. We see $T_1=T_0 \in \mathbb{T}^d$, $T_{2i+1} \in \mathbb{T}^d$, $T_{4i} \in \mathbb{T}^d$, $T_{4i+2} \in \mathbb{T}^s$ for $i \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $\mathbb{T}= \bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}[2i-1, 2i] \cup \{4i+1 - \frac{1}{j+1} \colon i, j \in \mathbb{N}\}$. Here $T_{0}=1$, $T_{i}=i$ for $i \in \mathbb{N}$ and $T_{2i-1} \in \mathbb{T}^d$ and $T_{2i} \in \mathbb{T}^s$ for $i \in \mathbb{N}$. We can write $$\mathbb{T}= \{T_0\}\cup \bigcup\limits_{j=0}^{\infty}(T_j, T_{j+1}]= \{T_0\}\cup\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}(T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}] \cup (T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}]$$ wherein $(T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}) \subset \mathbb{T}^s$ and $(T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}) \subset \mathbb{T}^d$. In the next lemma, for any $i \in \mathbb{N}$, the estimations of the norm of matrices $e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) $ where $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$, and $e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i+1})$ where $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$ are presented. \[L1\] If for $i = 1,2, \dots, N$ the following conditions are satisfied $$\label{ewa13_61} \gamma(t)\lambda_i \in (0, \infty) \mbox{ for }t \in \mathbb{T},$$ $$\label{ewa13_7} 0< \delta \leq \mu(t) \gamma(t) \lambda_i <1 \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}^s, \mbox{ where }\delta \mbox{ is a constant, }$$ then there exists a positive real number $\mathcal{M}<1$ such that $$%begin{equation}\label{ewa12} \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) \Vert \leq \prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i}, t)} \mathcal{M} \mbox{ for }t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}),\,\,i \in \mathbb{N}_0,$$$$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i+1}) \Vert \leq \mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds } \mbox{ for }t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}), \,\,i \in \mathbb{N}_0,$$ where $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ denotes the spectral norm of considered matrix at the point $t$. Obviously, $\mathbb{T}^s \cup \mathbb{T}^d =\mathbb{T}$. We consider two cases: - $t\in \mathbb{T}^s$; - $t\in \mathbb{T}^d$. In case $(i)$, notice that since matrix $B$ is symmetric, then $I- \mu(t)\gamma(t) B$ is a symmetric matrix at the point $t$, too. Therefore $\Vert I- \mu(t)\gamma(t) B \Vert$ equals the maximum of the absolute value of eigenvalues of matrix $I- \mu(t)\gamma(t) B$. It means $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) \Vert = \prod\limits_{s \in (T_{2i}, t]} \!\!\! \Vert I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B \Vert= \!\!\! \prod\limits_{s \in (T_{2i}, t]} (\max\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}}\{\vert 1- \mu(s)\gamma(s) \lambda_i \vert \})$$ for $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$. Because of positivity of $\mu$ on $\mathbb{T}^s$ and condition , we have $\vert \mu(s)\gamma(s) \lambda_i \vert = \mu(s)\gamma(s) \lambda_i $. Moreover, by , $\mu(s)\gamma(s) \lambda_i \in (0,1)$ for $i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}$. We can conclude $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) \Vert = \prod\limits_{s \in (T_{2i}, t]}(1-\min\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}}\{ \mu(s)\gamma(s) \lambda_i \}).$$ Again by , we have $$-1< -\min\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}} \mu(s) \gamma(s) \lambda_i \leq -\delta <0.$$ From above $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) \Vert \leq \prod\limits_{s \in (T_{2i}, t]}(1-\delta) = \prod\limits_{s \in (T_{2i}, t]} \mathcal{M}^* = \prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i}, t)} \mathcal{M}^* \mbox{ for }t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}),$$ where $\mathcal{M}^* \colon = 1-\delta \in (0,1)$.\ Case $(ii)$. Condition implies $(1^o)$ $\lambda_i>0$ for any $i=1,2,\dots, N$ and $\gamma(t)>0$ for any $t \in \mathbb{T}^d$ or $(2^o)$ $\lambda_i<0$ for any $i=1,2,\dots, N$ and $\gamma(t)<0$ for any $t \in \mathbb{T}^d$.\ If $(1^o)$, then $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i+1}) \Vert=\Vert e^{ B }\Vert^{-\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds} = (\max\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}} \{e^{ \lambda_i }\})^{ - \int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds }$$ $$= (\mathcal{M}^{})^{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds }= (\mathcal{M}^{})^{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t} \vert \gamma(s) \vert ds }$$ for $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$, where $\mathcal{M}^{}\colon = (\max\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}} \{e^{ \lambda_i }\})^{ - 1} \in(0,1)$.\ If $(2^o)$, then $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i+1}) \Vert=\Vert e^{ B }\Vert^{-\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds} = (\max\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}} \{e^{ \lambda_i }\})^{ - \int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds }$$ $$= (\mathcal{M}^{})^{-\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds }= (\mathcal{M}^{})^{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds }$$ for $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$, where $\mathcal{M}^{}\colon = \max\limits_{i \in \{1,2, \dots, N\}} \{e^{ \lambda_i }\} \in(0,1)$. Set $\mathcal{M}\colon= \max\{\mathcal{M}^{}, \mathcal{M}^{}\}$. Obviously $\mathcal{M}\in(0,1)$.\ Hence $\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i}) \Vert \leq \prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i}, t)} \mathcal{M}$ for $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$\ and $\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{2i+1}) \Vert \leq \mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds }$ for $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$. Next, we find the estimations of the norm of matrix $e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_0) $ in two cases: $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$ and $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$. \[L3\] If conditions - are satisfied, then $$\label{t1} \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}\big) \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)$$ for $ t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$, and $$\label{t2} \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)\big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)$$ for $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$, where $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$. Let us rewrite function $e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0})$ in the following form $$e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0})= \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_1)}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_1}^{T_2}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_2,T_3)}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_3}^{T_4}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdots$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i-2},T_{2i-1})}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_{2i-1}}^{T_{2i}}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i},t]}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \mbox{ for }t \in [T_{2i},T_{2i+1})$$ or $$e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0})= \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_1)}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_1}^{T_2}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_2,T_3)}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_3}^{T_4}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdots$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i-2},T_{2i-1})}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_{2i-1}}^{T_{2i}}\gamma(s)ds} \big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i},T_{2i+1)]}}( I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B )\big) \big( e^{ -B \int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\gamma(s)ds} \big) \mbox{ for }t \in [T_{2i+1},T_{2i+2}).$$ By submultiplicativity of the norm, for $t \in [T_{2i},T_{2i+1})$ we estimate the norm of matrix $ e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0})$ $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_1)}\Vert I- \mu(s) \gamma(s) B \Vert \big) \big(\Vert e^{ B }\Vert^{-\int_{T_1}^{T_2} \vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}\big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_2,T_3)}\Vert I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B \Vert \big) \big(\Vert e^{ B }\Vert^{-\int_{T_3}^{T_4} \vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}\big)$$ $$\cdots$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i-2},T_{2i-1})}\Vert I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B \Vert \big) \big( \Vert e^{ B }\Vert^{-\int_{T_{2i-1}}^{T_{2i}} \vert \gamma(s) \vert ds} \big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i},t)}\Vert I- \mu(s)\gamma(s) B \Vert \big)$$ $$\leq \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_1)} \mathcal{M} \big) \big(\mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_1}^{T_2}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds }\big) \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_2,T_3)} \mathcal{M} \big) \big(\mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_3}^{T_4}\vert \gamma(s)\vert ds}\big) \dots$$ $$\cdot \big(\mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_{2i-1}}^{T_{2i}}\vert \gamma(s)\vert ds}\big) \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_{2i},t)} \mathcal{M} \big)$$ $$= \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)\big(\mathcal{M}^{\int_{T_1}^{T_2}\vert \gamma(s)\vert ds + \int_{T_3}^{T_4}\vert \gamma(s)\vert ds + \dots + \int_{T_{2i-1}}^{T_{2i}}\vert \gamma(s)\vert ds }\big)$$ $$= \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}} \big) \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)$$ Analogously, for $t \in [T_{2i+1},T_{2i+2})$, we get $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)\big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big).$$ \[R1\] If conditions - are satisfied, then $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big) \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}.$$ Since $\mathcal{M} \in (0,1)$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds \geq 0$, thus $$\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}} \leq 1 \mbox{ for }t \in \mathbb{T}.$$ From the above, inequalities and imply $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big) \mbox{ for } t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}),$$ $$\Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t,T_{0}) \Vert \leq \big( \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big) \mbox{ for } t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}),$$ where $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$. This is our claim. The following result concerns of scalar case of exponential function on arbitrary time scale. \[L4\] Let $e_{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}}( \cdot, T_0) \colon \mathbb{T} \to \mathbb{R}$. There hold $$e_{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}}( t, T_0) = e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(1+ \mu(s)\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1})$$ for $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$, and $$e_{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}}( t, T_0) = \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \prod\limits_{s \in [T_0,T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! (1+ \mu(s)\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1})\cdot e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}(\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})+(t-T_{2j+1}))}$$ for $t \in [T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2})$, where $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$. We are now in a position to present the main theorem of this paper. \[C2\] If conditions - are satisfied, and for any $t \in \mathbb{T}$ $$\label{C2e1} \mbox{ there exists a positive constant }\mu^ \mbox{ such that } \mu(t) \leq \mu^,$$ $$\label{e_11} \lim\limits_{t \to \infty} e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})=0$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{e_21} \lim\limits_{t \to \infty} & e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}(\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})+(t-T_{2j+1}))}\\ \nonumber & \cdot \mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})=0,\end{aligned}$$ then equation is exponentially stable. Taking the norm of the both sides of equation , we obtain $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert= \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, T_0)\varepsilon_{T_0} +\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}e_{-\gamma B}(t, \sigma(\tau))\big(F(\tau,x_0(\tau)\mathds{1})-F(\tau,x(\tau))\big) \Delta \tau \Vert.$$ Using properties of the norm, we get $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, T_0)\Vert \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert + \Vert\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}e_{-\gamma B}(t, \sigma(\tau))\big(F(\tau,x_0(\tau)\mathds{1})-F(\tau,x(\tau))\big) \Delta \tau \Vert,$$ and consequently $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, T_0)\Vert + \int\limits_{T_0}^{t} \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, \sigma(\tau)) \Vert \Vert \big(F(\tau,x_0(\tau)\mathds{1})-F(\tau,x(\tau))\big)\Vert \Delta \tau.$$ By condition , we obtain $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, T_0)\Vert + \mathcal{L} \int\limits_{T_0}^{t} \Vert e_{-\gamma B}(t, \sigma(\tau)) \Vert \Vert \varepsilon(\tau) \Vert \Delta \tau.$$ For $t \in [T_{2i}, T_{2i+1})$, using , we estimate $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big) \big(\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big)$$ $$+ \mathcal{L} \int\limits_{T_0}^{t} \big(\mathcal{M}^{\int_{\sigma(\tau)}^{T_{2i}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in [\sigma(\tau), t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M} \big) \Vert \varepsilon(\tau) \Vert \Delta \tau.$$ Multiplying the both sides of the above inequality by $$\big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big),$$ we obtain $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big)$$ $$\leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \mathcal{M} +\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}\mathcal{L}\Vert \varepsilon(\tau) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-(\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds + \int_{T_{2i}}^{\sigma(\tau)}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds})}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_0, \tau]\cap \mathbb{T}^s}{\mathcal{M}^{-1}} \big) \Delta \tau.$$ Since $\mathcal{M}^{-\int_{T_0}^{T_0}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}=1$, $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big)$$ $$\leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \mathcal{M}^{-\int_{T_0}^{T_0}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds} \cdot \mathcal{M}$$ $$+\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}\mathcal{L}\Vert \varepsilon(\tau) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-(\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds + \int_{T_{2i}}^{\sigma(\tau)}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds})}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_0, \tau]\cap \mathbb{T}^s}{\mathcal{M}^{-1}} \big) \Delta \tau.$$ Using $\sigma(\tau)= \tau$, we get $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big)$$ $$\leq \Vert\varepsilon_{T_0}\Vert \mathcal{M}^{-\int_{T_0}^{T_0}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds} \cdot \mathcal{M}$$ $$+\int\limits_{T_0}^{t}\mathcal{L}\Vert \varepsilon(\tau) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-(\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds + \int_{T_{2i}}^{\tau}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds})}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_0, \tau]\cap \mathbb{T}^s}{\mathcal{M}^{-1}} \big) \Delta \tau.$$ By Grönwall Lemma (see [@bookBohner2001 p. 257]), it leads to inequality $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big) \leq \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \mathcal{M} e_{\mathcal{L}\mathcal{M}^{-1}}(t, T_0).$$ Using Lemma \[L4\] $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \big(\mathcal{M}^{-\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\prod\limits_{s \in (T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \mathcal{M}^{-1} \big)$$ $$\leq \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \mathcal{M} \big(e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\big)\big(\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(1+ \mu(s)\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1})\big).$$ Hence $$\Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert \leq \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \big(e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\big)$$ $$\cdot \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu(s)\mathcal{L})\big).$$ By , $$\begin{aligned} \label{e_1} \Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert &\leq \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \big(e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\big)\\ \nonumber &\cdot \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\big).\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, for $t \in (T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}] $ $$\begin{aligned} \label{e_2} \Vert \varepsilon(t) \Vert & \leq \Vert \varepsilon_{T_0} \Vert \big(e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})} \big) \\ \nonumber & \cdot \big(\mathcal{M}^{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\big)\big(\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Set $$\textup{sum}(i) \colon = \sum_{j=1}^{i} \Big({\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1}) + \textup{ln} \mathcal{M} {{\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}} \Big)},$$ $$e^{}_d(t, T_0) \colon =e^{\textup{sum}(i)}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, t) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L}) \mbox{ for }t\in (T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}],$$ $$e^{}_d(t, T_0) \colon =e^{\textup{sum}(i)+{\int_{T_{2i+1}}^{t}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds}}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i+1}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\mbox{ for }t\in (T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}]$$ for $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$, and $$e_d(t, T_0) \colon = \begin{cases} e^{}_d(t, T_0) &\mbox{ for }t\in (T_{2i}, T_{2i+1}], \\ e^{}_d(t, T_0) &\mbox{ for }t\in (T_{2i+1}, T_{2i+2}]. \end{cases}$$ By and , inequalities and imply the thesis. \[C1\] If conditions - and are satisfied, $$\begin{aligned} \label{e100} &\mbox{ for any }t \in \mathbb{T}^s \mbox{ there exists } \tilde{t} \in \mathbb{T}^d \mbox{ such that } \tilde{t}>t \mbox{ and }\\ \nonumber &\mbox{ for any }t \in \mathbb{T}^d \mbox{ there exists } \tilde{t} \in \mathbb{T}^s \mbox{ such that } \tilde{t}>t,\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{e1} \mathcal{M}+ \mu^ \mathcal{L} < 1,$$ and $$\label{e_7} \lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\textup{sum}(i)} < \infty, %\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})=0,$$ then equation is exponentially stable. By we get, $t \to \infty$ iff $i \to \infty$. Since $0<\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L} <1$ and $\mathcal{M} \in (0,1)$, by properties of functions $\mathcal{M}^t$ and $e^t$, condition implies conditions and . Hence assumptions of Theorem \[C1\] are satisfied. So, the thesis holds. \[Ex1\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=\bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} \left[\frac{i}{2}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i^3}\right].$$ Here $\mathbb{T}^d=\bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} \left[\frac{i}{2}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i^3}\right)$ and $\mathbb{T}^s=\{\frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i^3} \colon i \in \mathbb{N}, i \geq 3\}$, $$T_0=T_1=1.500, \,\, T_2\approx 1.537, \,\, T_3 = 2.000, \cdots,\mu^=0.500.$$ Moreover, let $$F(t,x)= 0.100\frac{x}{t^2}, \,\, \gamma(t)\equiv 0.500(t-1)$$ and $$\label{M} B= \left( {\begin{array}{rrrr} 2 & 0 & -1 & -1\\ 0 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 3 & -1\\ -1 & 0 & -1 & 3\\ \end{array} } \right)$$ in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.100$, $\lambda_1= 2 - \sqrt{2}$, $\lambda_2=2$, $\lambda_3= 3$ and $\lambda_4= 2 + \sqrt{2}$. It follows from these that $\lambda_{\min}=\min\{\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\lambda_3, \lambda_4\}\approx 0.585$ and $$\max\{ 1-0.462 \cdot 0.250 \cdot 0.585, e^{-0.585}\} \leq \max\{0.933, 0.557\} = 0.933 = \colon \mathcal{M}.$$ From the above $$\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} (\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\approx\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s}0.983=0$$ and $$%\mathcal{L}\mathcal{M}^{-1}+ \gamma \textup{ln}\mathcal{M} \approx 0.063, \,\, \lim\limits_{i \to \infty}e^{\textup{sum}(i)} \approx \lim\limits_{i \to \infty}e^{ {\sum_{j=3}^{i}(0.108j^{-3}-0.070 \cdot 0.250 (i^{-2}-2i^{-3}+i^{-6}))}} < \infty.$$ All assumptions of Corollary \[C1\] are satisfied, thus equation is exponentially stable. System achieves consensus exponentially. In Example \[Ex1\] there is $$\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})} \approx \lim\limits_{i \to \infty}e^{ 0.108{\sum_{j=3}^{i}j^{-3}}}<\infty,$$ but this condition is not required for exponential stability of (see Example \[Ex5\]). \[R41\] If conditions -, and are satisfied, and $$\label{es71} \gamma(t)\equiv \gamma \in \mathbb{R},$$ and $$\label{es72} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1} + \gamma\textup{ln} \mathcal{M} <0,$$ then equation is exponentially stable. If condition holds, then $$\textup{sum}(i) = \sum_{j=1}^{i} \Big({\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1}) + \gamma(T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})\textup{ln} \mathcal{M} \Big)}$$ $$= ({\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1} + \gamma \,\,\textup{ln} \mathcal{M}}) \sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1}).$$ By , we see that $\textup{sum}(i)< 0$ for any $i \in \mathbb{N}$, and $e^{\textup{sum}(i)}$ is a positive, decreasing function of variable $i\in \mathbb{N}$. Here $\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s}(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^* \mathcal{L})$ as well as $e^{\textup{sum}(i)}$ for any $i \in \mathbb{N}$, are bounded. If the cardinality of set $\mathbb{T}^s$ is infinity, then $\lim\limits_{s \to \infty}\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s}(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^* \mathcal{L})=0$. If the cardinality of set $\mathbb{T}^d$ is infinity, then $\lim\limits_{i \to \infty}e^{\textup{sum}(i)}=0$. Thus, by Theorem \[C2\], we obtain the thesis. \[Ex5\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=\bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} \left[\frac{i}{2}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i}\right].$$ Here $\mathbb{T}^d=\bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} \left[\frac{i}{2}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i}\right)$ and $\mathbb{T}^s=\{\frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i} \colon i \in \mathbb{N}, i \geq 3\}$, $$T_0=T_1=1.500, \,\, T_2\approx 1.833, \,\, T_3= 2.000, \cdots, \,\,$$ $$\mu(t)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{t}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{t^2-2} \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}^s, \,\, \mu^=0.500.$$ Moreover, let $$F(t,x)= \frac{0.250}{t^2} \left(\sin x_1, \sin x_2, \sin x_3, \sin x_4 \right), \,\, \gamma(t)\equiv 2.000,$$ and matrix $B$ is given by in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.250$, $\lambda_{\min} \approx 0.585$, $$\max\{ 1-0.333 \cdot 2.000 \cdot 0.585, e^{-0.585}\} \leq \max\{0.390, 0.557\} = 0.557 = \colon \mathcal{M}.$$ Finally, $$\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1} + \gamma\textup{ln} \mathcal{M} \approx 0.449-1.170=-0.721 <0.$$ All assumptions of Remark \[R41\] hold, thus equation is exponentially stable. In Example \[Ex5\] there is $$\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\approx \lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{0.449\sum_{j=1}^{i} \frac{1}{i}}=\infty,$$ even that system achieves consensus exponentially. \[R4\] If conditions - and are satisfied, and $$\label{es7} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}(T_{2i+2}-T_{2i+1}) < \infty,$$ then equation is exponentially stable. Since holds, $$e^{\textup{sum}(i)}=constant.$$ Hence, reminding that cardinality of the set $\mathbb{T}^s$ is infinity, by , we obtain $$\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\textup{sum}(i)}\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})$$ $$=\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} c^* \big(\!\!\!\prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\big)$$ $$= c^\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} (\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})=0,$$ where $c^=e^{\textup{sum}(i)}$. For two possible cases of carrying out of assumption see Example \[Ex1\] and Example \[Ex6\]. Theorem \[C2\] generalize Theorem 2 [@osz2019]. The following example presents an equation on time scale for which Theorem 2 [@osz2019] can not be applicable, but our Corollary \[R4\] of Theorem \[C2\] can be. \[Ex2\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=\{i \colon i \in \mathbb{N}\} \cup \{i+\frac{1}{j+1} \colon i,j \in \mathbb{N}, j\geq2\}.$$ Here $\mathbb{T}^d=\{i \colon i \in \mathbb{N}\}$ and $\mathbb{T}^s=\{i+\frac{1}{j+1} \colon i,j \in \mathbb{N}, j\geq2\}$, $$T_0=1, \,\, T_1=\infty, \,\, \mu(t)=\frac{(t-i)^2}{1+t-i} \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}^s, \,\, \mu^=0.500.$$ Set $F(t,x)=0.250 x$, $$\gamma(t)= \begin{cases} \frac{1}{\mu(t)} &\mbox{ for }t \in \mathbb{T}^s\\ 0 &\mbox{ for }t \in \mathbb{T}^d, \end{cases}$$ and $B$ is given by in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.250$, $\lambda_{\min}= 0.585$, $$\max\{ 1-1 \cdot 0.585, e^{-0.585}\} \leq \max\{0.515, 0.557\} = 0.557 = \colon \mathcal{M}.$$ Hence $$\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} (\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\approx\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} 0.682=0.$$ All assumptions of Corollary \[R4\] are satisfied, thus equation is exponentially stable. Since $\liminf_{t \to \infty}\mu(t) = 0$ results obtained in [@osz2019] can not be applied. The following examples show two different situations concerning time scale in which condition is satisfied. In the first example, $\mathbb{T}^d$ is a bounded set. In the second one, set $\mathbb{T}^d$ is unbounded. \[Ex6\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=[1,2] \cup [3,7] \cup \{n \colon n \in \mathbb{N}, n\geq 8 \}.$$ Here $\mathbb{T}^d=[1,2] \cup [3,7]$ is bounded and $\mathbb{T}^s=\{n \colon n \in \mathbb{N}, n\geq 8 \}$. We see that $$T_0=1, \,\, T_1=T_0=1, \,\, T_2=2, \,\, T_3=3, \,\, T_4=7, \,\, T_5=8, \,\,T_6=\infty,$$ $$\mu(t)=1 \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}^s, \,\, \mu^=1.$$ Let also $$F(t,x)=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{t}} \left(\sin x_1, \sin x_2, \sin x_3, \sin x_4 \right), \,\, \gamma(t)= 2+\cos t,$$ and matrix $B$ is given by in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.250$, $\lambda_{\min}= 0.585$, $$\mathcal{M}\colon = \max\{ 1-1 \cdot 1 \cdot 0.585, e^{-0.585}\}\approx 0.557 <1.$$ In consequence $$\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} (\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\approx \prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} 0.807=0.$$ All assumptions of Corollary \[R4\] are satisfied, thus equation is exponentially stable. \[Ex8\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=\bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} [\frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i+1}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i}].$$ Here either $\mathbb{T}^d = \bigcup\limits_{i=3}^{\infty} [\frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i+1}, \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i})$ or $\mathbb{T}^s=\{ \frac{i}{2}+\frac{1}{i} \colon i \in \mathbb{N}, i \geq 3 \}$ are unbounded sets. We see that $$T_0=T_1=1.750, \,\, T_2\approx 1.833, \,\, T_3=2.200, \,\, T_4=2.250,\cdots,$$ $$\mu(t)=\frac{1}{2} - \frac{2}{(t+\sqrt{t^2-2})(2+t+\sqrt{t^2-2})} \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{T}^s, \,\, \mu^=0.500.$$ Moreover $$F(t,x)=\frac{x}{4 t}, \,\, \gamma(t)=\frac{1}{4}t^2,$$ and matrix $B$ is given by in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.250$, $\lambda_{\min}= 0.585$, $$\max\{ 1-0.366 \cdot 0.765 \cdot 0.585, e^{-0.585}\} < 0.836 = \colon \mathcal{M}.$$ Hence $$\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} (\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})\approx\prod\limits_{s \in \mathbb{T}^s} 0.961=0.$$ All assumptions of Corollary \[R4\] are satisfied, thus equation is exponentially stable. Notice that in Example \[Ex8\] there is $$\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}= \lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{0.299\sum_{j=1}^{i} \frac{1}{i(i+1)}}=e^{0.299}<\infty.$$ \[R5\] If conditions - are satisfied, $$\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} {\int_{T_{2j-1}}^{T_{2j}}\vert \gamma(s) \vert ds} < \infty,$$ and $$\lim\limits_{i \to \infty} e^{\mathcal{L} \mathcal{M}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{i} (T_{2j}-T_{2j-1})}\cdot \!\!\! \prod\limits_{s \in [T_{0}, T_{2i}) \cap \mathbb{T}^s} \!\!\!(\mathcal{M}+ \mu^\mathcal{L})=0,$$ then equation is exponentially stable. (See Example \[Ex1\]) \[R6\] Let conditions - be satisfied. If the cardinality of the set $\mathbb{T}^s$ is finite and $sum(i)<0$ for any $i \in \mathbb{N}$ then equation is exponentially stable. \[Ex9\] Let $$\mathbb{T}=\{1\} \cup \{11\} \cup [12, \infty).$$ Here $\mathbb{T}^d=[12, \infty)$ is unbounded set whereas $\mathbb{T}^s=\{1\} \cup \{11\}$ is bounded, and $$T_0=1, \,\, T_1=12, \,\, T_2=\infty, \,\, \mu(1)=10, \,\, \mu(11)=1, \,\, \mu^=10.$$ Let $$F(t,x)=0.1 x, \,\, \gamma(t)=1,$$ and matrix $B$ is given by in equation . There is $\mathcal{L}= 0.100$, $\lambda_{\min} \approx 0.585$, $$\max\{ 1- 0.585, e^{-0.585}\} < 0.557 = \colon \mathcal{M}.$$ Hence $$\textup{sum}(i) \approx 0.180 (T_{2}-T_1) -0.585 {{\int_{T_1}^{T_2} ds}}=-0.405 (T_{2}-T_{1}) = -\infty <0.$$ All assumptions of Remark \[R6\] are satisfied, thus equation is exponentially stable. Notice that in Example \[Ex9\] condition does not hold. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The second author was supported by the Polish National Science Center grant on the basis of decision DEC-2014/15/B/ST7/05270. [99]{} [M. H. DeGroot]{}, [Reaching a consensus]{}, [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.]{}, (1974), [69]{}, [118–121]{} [U. Krause]{}, [Gordon and Breach Publ.]{}, [A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation]{}, [Comunications in Difference Equations]{}, 2000, [ICDEA]{}, [1998]{}, [Poznań]{} [R. Hegselmann and U. Krause]{}, [Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis, and simulation]{}, [J. Artificial Societies and Social Simulations]{}, (2002), [5]{}, [1–33]{} [A. Jadbabaie and J. Lin and A. S. Morse]{}, [Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules]{}, [IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control]{}, 2003, [48]{}, [6]{}, [988–1001]{} [V. D. Blondel and J. M. Hendrickx and J. N. Tsitsikli]{}, [On [K]{}rause’s multi-agent consensus model with state-dependent connectivity]{}, [IEEE Transactions on automatics control]{}, (2009), [54]{}, [11]{}, [2586–2597]{} [V. D. Blondel and J. M. Hendrickx and J. N. Tsitsikli]{}, [Continuous-time average-preserving opinion dynamics with opinion-dependent communications]{}, [SIAM J. Control Optim.]{}, (2010), [18]{}, [8]{}, [5214–5240]{} [E. Girejko and L. Machado and A. B. Malinowska and N. Martins]{}, [Krause’s model of opinion dynamics on isolated time scales]{}, [Math. Methods Appl. Sci.]{}, (2016), [39]{}, [18]{}, [5302–5314]{} [E. Girejko and A.B. Malinowska and E. Schmeidel and M. Zdanowicz]{}, [IEEExplore]{}, [The emergence on isolated time scales]{}, [21st International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR)]{}, 2016 [F. Cucker and S. Smale]{}, [On the mathematics of emergence]{}, [Japan. J. Math.]{}, (2007), [2]{}, [1]{}, [197–227]{} [F. Cucker and S. Smale]{}, [Emergent behavior in flocks]{}, [IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control]{}, (2007), [52]{}, [7]{}, [852–862]{} [Y. Wang and L. Cheng and H. Wang and Z. G. Hou and M. Tan and H. Yu]{}, [IEEE]{}, [Leader-following consensus of discrete-time linear multi-agent systems with communication noises]{}, [Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 407]{}, 2015, [Control Conference (CCC) 34th]{}, [2015]{}, [Hangzhou, China]{} [E. Girejko and L. Machado and A. B. Malinowska and N. Martins]{}, [On consensus in the [C]{}ucker-[S]{}male type model on isolated time scale]{}, [Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B ]{}, (2018), [11]{}, [1]{}, [77–89]{} [U. Ostaszewska and E. Schmeidel and M. Zdanowicz]{}, [American Institute of Physics]{}, [Leader-following consensus on discrete time scales]{}, [AIP Confonference Proceedings]{}, [2018]{}, [ICNAAM 2017]{}, [2017]{}, [Thessaloniki, Greece]{} [U. Ostaszewska, E. Schmeidel, M. Zdanowicz]{}, [Emergence of consensus of multi-agents systems on time scales]{}, [Miskolc Math. Notes]{}, [(to appear)]{} , [Dynamic equations on time scales]{}, [2001]{}, [Birkhäuser]{}, [Boston]{} , [Advances in dynamic equations on time scales]{}, [2003]{}, [Birkhäuser]{}, [Boston]{} , [Leader-following consensus of fractional-order multi-agent systems under fixed topology]{}, [Neurocomputing]{}, (2015), [149]{}, [613–620]{} [E. Schmeidel]{}, [The existence of consensus of a leader-following problem with [C]{}aputo fractional derivative]{}, [Opuscula Math.]{}, (2019), [39]{}, [1]{}, [77–89]{} , [Some stability conditions for scalar Volterra difference equations]{}, [Opuscula Math.]{}, (2016), [36]{}, [4]{}, [459–470]{} , [An Introduction to Difference Equations]{}, [2005]{}, [Springer]{}, [New York]{} , [Exponential stability of dynamic equations on time scales]{}, [Adv. Differ. Equ.]{}, (2005), [1–13]{} , [Exponential functions on time scales: their asymptotic behavior and calculation]{}, [Dynam. Systems Appl.]{}, (2003), [12]{}, [1–2]{}, [23–43]{} [^1]: University of Bialystok, Poland, email: [email protected] [^2]: University of Bialystok, Poland, email: [email protected] [^3]: University of Bialystok, Poland, email: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The dominated convergence theorem implies that if $(f_n)$ is a sequence of functions on a probability space taking values in the interval $[0,1]$, and $(f_n)$ converges pointwise a.e., then $(\int f_n)$ converges to the integral of the pointwise limit. Tao [@tao:08] has proved a quantitative version of this theorem: given a uniform bound on the rates of metastable convergence in the hypothesis, there is a bound on the rate of metastable convergence in the conclusion that is independent of the sequence $(f_n)$ and the underlying space. We prove a slight strengthening of Tao’s theorem which, moreover, provides an explicit description of the second bound in terms of the first. Specifically, we show that when the first bound is given by a continuous functional, the bound in the conclusion can be computed by a recursion along the tree of unsecured sequences. We also establish a quantitative version of Egorov’s theorem, and introduce a new mode of convergence related to these notions.' author: - 'Jeremy Avigad, Edward Dean, and Jason Rute' title: Metastable convergence theorems --- Introduction {#introduction:section} ============ If $(a_n)$ is a nondecreasing sequence of real numbers in the interval $[0,1]$, then $(a_n)$ converges, and hence is Cauchy. Say that $r(\varepsilon)$ is a bound on the rate of convergence of $(a_n)$ if for every $\varepsilon > 0$, $\|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon$ whenever $n$ and $n'$ are greater than or equal to $r(\varepsilon)$. In general, one cannot compute a bound on the rate of convergence from the sequence itself: such a bound is not even continuous in the data, since the sequence $(a_n)$ can start out looking like a constant sequence of $0$’s and then increase to $1$ unpredictably. But suppose that instead of a bound on the rate of convergence, we fix a function $F : {\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{N}}$ and ask for an $m$ such that $\|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon$ for every $n$ and $n'$ in the interval $[m,F(m)]$. Since the sequence $(a_n)$ cannot increase by $\varepsilon$ more than $\lceil 1 / \varepsilon \rceil$ times, at least one element of the sequence $0, F(0), F(F(0)), \ldots, F^{\lceil 1 / \varepsilon \rceil + 1}(0)$ has the desired property. Hence there is always such a value of $m$ less than or equal to $F^{\lceil 1 / \varepsilon \rceil + 1}(0)$. Now notice that not only is this bound on $m$ easily computable from $F$ and a rational $\varepsilon > 0$, but it is, moreover, entirely independent of the sequence $(a_n)$. What has happened is that we have replaced the assertion $${\forall \varepsilon > 0 \;} {\exists m \;} {\forall n, n' \geq m \;} \|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon$$ by a “metastable” version, $${\forall \varepsilon > 0, F \;} {\exists m \;} {\forall n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon.$$ The two statements are logically equivalent: an $m$ as in the first statement is sufficient for any $F$ in the second, and, conversely, if the first statement were false for some $\varepsilon > 0$ then for every $m$ we could define $F(m)$ to return a value large enough so that $[m,F(m)]$ includes a rogue pair $n, n'$. But whereas one cannot compute a bound on the $m$ in the first statement from $\varepsilon$ and $(a_n)$, one can easily compute a bound on the second $m$ that depends only on $\varepsilon$ and $F$. If $(a_n)$ is any sequence, say that $M(F)$ is a bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(a_n)$ if the following holds: > For every function $F : {\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{N}}$ there is an $m \leq M(F)$ such that for every $n,n' \in [m,F(m)]$, $\|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon$. Then what we have observed amounts to the following: - There is a bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(a_n)$ if and only if there is an $m$ such that $\|a_n - a_{n'}\| < \varepsilon$ for all $n, n' \geq m$. Hence, a sequence $(a_n)$ is Cauchy if and only if there is a bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(a_n)$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$. - For every $\varepsilon > 0$ the function $M(F) = F^{\lceil 1 / \varepsilon \rceil + 1}(0)$ is a bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of any nondecreasing sequence $(a_n)$ of elements of the real interval $[0,1]$. Thus there is a sense in which the second statement provides a quantitative, uniform version of the original convergence theorem. This transformation is an instance of Kreisel’s “no-counterexample” interpretation [@kreisel:51; @kreisel:59], which is, in turn, a special case of Gödel’s Dialectica interpretation [@avigad:feferman:98; @goedel:58; @kohlenbach:08]. The particular example above is discussed by Kreisel [@kreisel:52 page 49]. Variations on this idea have played a role in the Green-Tao proof [@green:tao:08] that there are arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions in the primes, and in Tao’s proof [@tao:08] of the convergence of certain diagonal averages in ergodic theory. In these instances the Kreiselian trick takes the form of an “energy incrementation argument”; see also [@tao:06] and [@tao:08b Sections 1.3–1.4]. The Birkhoff and von Neumann ergodic theorems and generalizations have also been analyzed in these terms [@avigad:et:al:10; @kohlenbach:leustean:09; @kohlenbach:10; @kohlenbach:unp:e]. Here we are concerned with measure-theoretic facts such as the dominated convergence theorem, which relate one mode of convergence to another. Inspired by Tao [@tao:08], our goal will be to show that from a suitable metastable bound on the first type of convergence, one can obtain a suitable metastable bound on the second; and that, moreover, the passage from the first to the second is uniform in the remaining data. For example, if $(f_n)$ is a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space ${\mathcal{X}} = (X, {\mathcal{B}}, \mu)$, then $(f_n)$ is said to converge almost uniformly if for every $\lambda > 0$, there is a set $A$ with measure at most $\lambda$ such that $(f_n(x))$ converges uniformly for $x \not\in A$. This is equivalent to saying that for every $\lambda > 0$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ there is an $m$ such that $\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\exists n, n' \geq m \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda$, since for a fixed $\lambda' > 0$ we can choose a sequence $(\varepsilon_i)$ decreasing to $0$ and then, for each $\varepsilon_i$, apply this last statement with $\lambda = \lambda'/2^{i+1}$. Thus the fact that $f_n$ converges almost uniformly can be expressed as follows: $$\label{au:eq} {\forall \lambda > 0, \varepsilon > 0 \;} {\exists m \;} \mu(\{ x {\; : \;}{\exists n, n' \geq m \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon \}) < \lambda. \tag{$\mathsf{AU}$}$$ By manipulations similar to the ones above, (\[au:eq\]) has the following metastable equivalent: $$\label{mau:eq} {\forall \lambda > 0, \varepsilon > 0, F \;} {\exists m \;} \mu(\{ x {\; : \;}{\exists n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda. \tag{$\mathsf{AU^}$}$$ As above, say that $M(F)$ is a bound on the $\lambda$-uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(f_n)$* if the following holds: > For every $F$, there is an $m \leq M(F)$ such that $$\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\exists n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda.$$ In other words, fixing $\lambda$ and $\varepsilon$, $M(F)$ provides a bound on a value of $m$ asserted to exist by (\[mau:eq\]). Egorov’s theorem asserts that if ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a probability space and $(f_n)$ converges pointwise almost everywhere, then it converges almost uniformly. In Section \[convergence:section\], we obtain the following quantitative version. Say that $M(F)$ is a $\lambda$-uniform bound for the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of $(f_n)$ if the following holds: > For every $F : {\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\forall m \leq M(F) \;} {\exists n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda.$$ In other words, for every $F$, $M(F)$ provides a uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable bound for the convergence of each sequence $(f_n(x))$ outside a set of measure at most $\lambda$. Compare this to the previous definition: if $M(F)$ is a bound on the $\lambda$-uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(f_n)$, then $M(F)$ provides a bound on a single $m$ that works outside a set of measure at most $\lambda$. With this terminology in place, we can state our quantitative version of Egorov’s theorem: given $\varepsilon > 0$, $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and a $\lambda'$-uniform bound $M_1(F)$ on the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of $(f_n)$, there is a bound $M_2(F)$ on the $\lambda$-uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(f_n)$; and moreover $M_2(F)$ depends only on $\varepsilon$, $\lambda$, $\lambda'$, and $M_1(F)$, and not on the underlying probability space or the sequence $(f_n)$. In fact, we provide an explicit description of $M_2(F)$ in terms of this data, and explicit bounds on the complexity of $M_2$ when $M_1$ is a computable functional that can be defined using Gödel’s schema of primitive recursion in the finite types. The proof relies on a combinatorial lemma, presented in Section \[combinatorial:section\], whose proof can be veiwed as an energy incrementation argument that is iterated along a well-founded tree. It is easy to show that if $(f_n)$ is a sequence of functions taking values in $[0,1]$ and $(f_n)$ converges almost uniformly, then the sequence $(\int f_n)$ converges. Thus the dominated convergence theorem follows easily from Egorov’s theorem in the case where ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a probability space and the sequence $(f_n)$ is dominated by a constant function. In a similar way, we show in Section \[convergence:section\] that our quantitative version of Egorov’s theorem implies a quantiative version of the dominated convergence theorem, a mild strengthening of a Theorem A.2 of Tao [@tao:08], again with an explicit description of the computation of one metastable bound from the other. The notion of a $\lambda$-uniform bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of a sequence gives rise to a new mode of convergence that sits properly between pointwise convergence and almost uniform convergence. In Section \[new:convergence:section\], we explore the relationships between these notions. We are grateful to Ulrich Kohlenbach and Paulo Oliva for advice and suggestions. A combinatorial fact {#combinatorial:section} ==================== This section is devoted to establishing a key combinatorial fact that underlies our quantitative convergence theorems. As a warmup, consider the following: \[warmup:prop\] Let $(A_n)$ be a sequence of measurable subsets of a probability space ${\mathcal{X}} = (X, {\mathcal{B}}, \mu)$. Then the following are equivalent: 1. There is an $M$ such that $\mu(\bigcup_{n \geq M} A_n) < \lambda$. 2. There is an $M$ such that for every function $F(m)$, $$\mu \left(\bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n \right) < \lambda.$$ 3. There is a $\lambda' < \lambda$ such that for every $F$ there is an $M$ such that $$\mu \left(\bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n \right) < \lambda'.$$ \(1) clearly implies (2) because $$\bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n \subseteq \bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \geq m} A_n = \bigcup_{n \geq M} A_n,$$ and (2) clearly implies (3). To show (3) implies (1), fix $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$ and for each $m$, let $F(m)$ be large enough so that $$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n \geq m} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right) < (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1}.$$ By hypothesis, for this $F$, there is an $M$ such that $\mu(\bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n) < \lambda'$. Then $$\begin{gathered} \bigcup_{n \geq M} A_n = \bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \geq m} A_n \subseteq \\ \left(\bigcap_{m \leq M} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right) \cup \bigcup_{m \leq M} \left(\bigcup_{n \geq m} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right),\end{gathered}$$ whose measure is at most $\lambda' + \sum_{m \leq M} (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1} < \lambda$. Hence $\mu (\bigcup_{n \geq M} A_n) < \lambda$, as required. In particular, if (3) holds, there is an $n$ such that $\mu(A_n) < \lambda$. Now suppose we are given a functional $M(F)$ witnessing (3). The main result of this section, Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\], shows that there is a bound on $n$ that depends only on $M(F)$, $\lambda$, and $\lambda'$. In particular, the bound is independent of ${\mathcal{X}}$ and the sequence $(A_n)$. \[combinatorial:thm\] For every functional $M(F)$ and $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, there is a value $M'$ with the following property. Suppose $(A_n)$ is a sequence of measurable subsets of a probability space ${\mathcal{X}}$ with the property that for every function $F$, $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq M(F)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right) < \lambda'.$$ Then there is an $n \leq M'$ such that $\mu(A_n) < \lambda$. A functional $M$ is said to be continuous if the value of $M(F)$ depends on only finitely many values of $F$. Say that two functions $F$ and $F'$ agree up to $k$ if $F(j) = F'(j)$ for every $j \leq k$. If $M$ is continuous, a functional $k(F)$ with the property that $M(F) = M(F')$ whenever $F$ and $F'$ agree up to $k(F)$ is said to be a modulus of continuity for $M$. The next lemma shows that, without loss of generality, we can assume the functional $M$ in the hypothesis of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] is continuous, because one can always replace it by a suitable continuous version, ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$. \[combinatorial:lemma\] Given any functional $M$, there is a continuous functional ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ with the following property: for every $F$, there is an $F'$ such that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) = M(F')$ and $F$ and $F'$ agree up to ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$. Given $M$, define $${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) = \min \{ M(F') {\; : \;}\mbox{$F$ and $F'$ agree up to $M(F')$} \}.$$ The last set is nonempty since it contains $M(F)$ itself. Clearly ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$ satisfies the stated condition, so we only need to show that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ is continuous. In fact, we claim that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ is its own modulus of continuity. To see this, suppose $F$ and $F''$ agree up to ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$. We need to show ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) = {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F'')$. By the definition of ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$, there is an $F'$ such that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) = M(F')$ and $F$ and $F'$ agree up to $M(F')$. But then $F''$ and $F$ agree up to $M(F')$, and so ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F'') \leq M(F') = {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$. Since $F$ and $F''$ agree up to ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$, a fortiori, they agree up to ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F'')$. But now the symmetric argument shows that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) \leq {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F'')$. So ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) = {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F'')$. The condition on ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ imposed by Lemma \[combinatorial:lemma\] ensures that any sequence $(A_n)$ of a measure space ${\mathcal{X}}$ satisfying $${\forall F' \;} \mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq M(F')} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F'(m)]} A_n\right) < \lambda'$$ also satisfies $${\forall F \;} \mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right) < \lambda'$$ and so it suffices to prove Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] for ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ in place of $M$. By similar machinations, we could arrange that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F) \leq {\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(G)$ whenever $F$ is pointwise less than or equal to $G$, and that ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ is determined by the values it takes on nondecreasing $F$. However, we will not need these additional conveniences below. Notice that the passage from $M$ to ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}$ is noneffective; in general it will not be possible to “compute” ${\mkern 3mu\overline{\mkern-3muM\mkern-1mu}\mkern 1mu}(F)$ from descriptions of $M$ and $F$. We will show, however, that in the case where $M$ is continuous, the $M'$ in the conclusion of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] can be computed from a suitable description of $M$. To explain our algorithm, we need to establish some background involving computation on well-founded trees. If $\sigma$ is a finite sequence of natural numbers, we index the elements starting with $0$ so that $\sigma = (\sigma_0, \ldots, \sigma_{{{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma) - 1})$, and write $\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n$ to denote the sequence extending $\sigma$ with an additional element $n$. If $\tau$ is another finite sequence of natural numbers, write $\sigma \subseteq \tau$ to indicate that $\sigma$ is an initial segment of $\tau$. By a tree on ${\mathbb{N}}$, we mean a set $T$ of finite sequences of natural numbers that is closed under initial segments. Think of the empty sequence, $()$, as denoting the root, and the elements $\sigma{\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n$ as being the children of $\sigma$ in the tree. Identify functions $F$ from ${\mathbb{N}}$ to ${\mathbb{N}}$ with infinite sequences, and write $\sigma \subset F$ if $\sigma$ is an initial segment of $F$. A tree $T$ on ${\mathbb{N}}$ is said to be well-founded if it has no infinite branch, which is to say, for every function $F$ there is a $\sigma \subset F$ such that $\sigma$ is not in the tree. One can always carry out a proof by induction on a well-founded tree: if $P_\sigma$ is any property that holds outside a tree $T$ and moreover has the property that $P_\sigma$ holds whenever $P_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n}$ holds for every $n$, then $P_\sigma$ holds for every $\sigma$; otherwise, one could successively extend a counterexample $\sigma$ to build an infinite branch $F$ that never leaves the tree. By the same token, one can define a function on finite sequences of natural numbers by a schema of recursion: $$G(\sigma) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} H(\sigma) & \mbox{if $\sigma$ is not in $T$} \\ K(\sigma, {\lambda n. \;} G(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n)) & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ where ${\lambda n. \;} G(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n)$ denotes the function which maps $n$ to $G(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n)$. Using induction on $T$, one can show that $G$ is well-defined. Moreover, if $T$ and the functions $H$ and $K$ are computable, so is $G$. For example, the computation of $G$ on the empty string requires recursive calls to $G((n))$, for various $n$; these, in turn, require recursive calls to $G((n,n'))$, for various $n'$, and so on. The well-foundedness of $T$ guarantees that every branch of the computation terminates. Now suppose $M(F)$ is a continuous functional. Say that a finite sequence $\sigma$ is unsecured if there are $F_1, F_2$ extending $\sigma$ such that $M(F_1) \neq M(F_2)$. In words, $\sigma$ is unsecured if it does not provide sufficient information about a function $F$ to determine the value of $M$. Let $T = \{ \sigma {\; : \;}\mbox{$\sigma$ is unsecured} \}$. Then it is not hard to see that $T$ is a tree, and the continuity of $M$ implies it is well-founded. Suppose moreover that $k(F)$ is a modulus for $M$. For any finite sequence $\sigma$ of natural numbers, use $\hat \sigma$ to denote the function $$\hat \sigma(n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sigma_n & \mbox{if $n < {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$} \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right.$$ One can check that the set $T' = \{ \sigma {\; : \;}{\forall \tau \subseteq \sigma \;} k(\hat \tau) \geq {\mathrm{length}}(\tau) \}$ is again a well-founded tree that includes $T$. In the next proof, given a continuous functional $M$, we will define a function $N(\sigma)$ by recursion on any well-founded tree that includes the tree of sequences that are unsecured for $M$. When this tree is given by a modulus of continuity, $k(F)$, as above, this amounts to the principle of bar recursion, due to Spector [@spector:62] (see also [@avigad:feferman:98; @kohlenbach:08]). We now turn to the proof of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\]. By Lemma \[combinatorial:lemma\], we can assume without loss of generality that $M$ is continuous. Fix $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and let $T$ be any well-founded tree that includes all the sequences that are unsecured for $M$. We will define a function $N(\sigma)$ by recursion on $T$, and simultaneously show, by induction on $T$, that $N(\sigma)$ satisfies the following property, $P_\sigma$, for every $\sigma$: whenever ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $(A_n)$ satisfy $$\tag{$Q_\sigma$} {\forall F \supset \sigma \;} \mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq M(F)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,F(m)]} A_n\right) < \lambda' \\$$ and $$\tag{$R_\sigma$} {\forall m < {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma) \;} \mu \left(\bigcup_{n \in [m,N(\sigma)]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,\sigma_m]} A_n\right) \leq (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1},$$ there is an $n \leq N(\sigma)$ such that $\mu(A_n) < \lambda$. In that case, $N(())$ is the desired bound, since $Q_{()}$ is the desired hypothesis, and $R_{()}$ is vacuously true. In the base case, suppose $\sigma$ is not in $T$, and hence secured for $M$. Define $N(\sigma) = M(\hat \sigma)$. To see that $N(\sigma)$ satisfies $P_\sigma$, suppose ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $(A_n)$ satisfy $Q_\sigma$ and $R_\sigma$. Define $\tilde \sigma$ to be the function $$\tilde \sigma(n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sigma_n & \mbox{if $n < {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$} \\ N(\sigma) & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right.$$ Since $\sigma$ is secured and $\tilde \sigma \supset \sigma$, $M(\tilde \sigma) = M(\hat \sigma) = N(\sigma)$, and $Q_\sigma$ implies $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq N(\sigma)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,\tilde \sigma(m)]} A_n\right) < \lambda'.$$ Similarly, $R_\sigma$ implies $${\forall m \leq N(\sigma) \;} \mu\left(\bigcup_{n \in [m,N(\sigma)]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,\tilde\sigma(m)]} A_n\right) \leq (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1},$$ since for $m \geq {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$, $\tilde\sigma(m) = N(\sigma)$. We now use a calculation similar to that of Proposition \[warmup:prop\], with $N(\sigma)$ now playing the role of infinity. $$\begin{gathered} A_{N(\sigma)} = \bigcap_{m \leq N(\sigma)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,N(\sigma)]} A_n \subseteq \\ \left(\bigcap_{m \leq N(\sigma)} \bigcup_{n \in [m,\tilde \sigma(m)]} A_n\right) \cup \bigcup_{m \leq N(\sigma)} \left(\bigcup_{n \in [m,N(\sigma)]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,\tilde \sigma(m)]} A_n\right).\end{gathered}$$ As before, the measure of this set is at most $\lambda' + \sum_{m \leq M} (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1} < \lambda$, and so $N(\sigma)$ itself satisfies the conclusion of $P_\sigma$. In the inductive case where $\sigma$ is not in $T$, we can assume that we have already defined $N(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n)$ for every $n$ so that $P_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n}$ is satisfied. Define the sequence $n_i$ by setting $n_0 = 0$ and $n_{i+1} = N(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_i)$, set $\bar m = {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$, and set $N(\sigma) = \max_{i \leq \lceil 2^{\bar m + 1} / (\lambda - \lambda') \rceil} n_i$. To show that $N(\sigma)$ satisfies $P_\sigma$, fix ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $(A_n)$ satisfying $Q_\sigma$ and $R_\sigma$. We need to show that there is an $n \leq N(\sigma)$ satisfying $\mu(A_n) < \lambda$. By the definition of $N(\sigma)$, this is the same as showing that for some $i \leq {\lceil 2^{\bar m + 1} / \lambda \rceil}$, there is an $n \leq n_i$ with this property. Start by trying $i = 1$. Suppose the conclusion fails, that is, there is no $n \leq n_1$ satisfying $\mu(A_n) < \lambda$. Since $n_1 = N(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0)$ satisfies $P_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0}$, this implies that either $Q_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0}$ or $R_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0}$ fails. But we are assuming $Q_\sigma$, and that implies $Q_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0}$, so $R_{\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0}$ fails. This means that there is an $m < {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0) = {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma) + 1$ such that $$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n \in [m,N(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0)]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [m,(\sigma {\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0)_m]} A_n\right) > (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{m+1}.$$ But our assumption of $R_\sigma$ implies that this does not hold for $m < {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$, since $N(\sigma{\mathord{\hat{\;}}}n_0) = n_1 \leq N(\sigma)$. So the only possibility is that it holds for $m = \bar m = {{\mathrm{length}}}(\sigma)$; in other words, we have $$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n \in [\bar m,n_1]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [\bar m,n_0]} A_n\right) > (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{\bar m+1}.$$ Now repeat this argument for $i = 2, 3, \ldots, \lceil 2^{\bar m + 1} / (\lambda - \lambda') \rceil$. If the conclusion fails each time, then for each $i$ we have $$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n \in [\bar m,n_i]} A_n \setminus \bigcup_{n \in [\bar m,n_{i-1}]} A_n\right) > (\lambda - \lambda') / 2^{\bar m + 1}.$$ This implies $\mu(\bigcup_{n \in [\bar m,N(\sigma)]} A_n) > 1$, a contradiction. Notice that the value of $M'$ in the theorem depends on the values of $\lambda$, $\lambda'$, and the functional $M$. It is therefore somewhat difficult to make sense of the question as to whether the bound computed in the proof is, in some sense, asymptotically sharp. Given $M$, $\lambda$, $\lambda'$, one can effectively determine whether or not a putative value of $M'$ works; so given any bound, one can also compute the least value of $M'$ that satisfies the conclusion. So at issue is not whether we can compute the precise bound, but, rather, come up with a perspicuous characterization of the rate of growth. One can easily use recursion along fairly simple trees to define functions that grow astronomically fast. Nonetheless, there are some things we can say about the complexity of $M'$ in terms of $M$. It is well known that Gödel’s system $T$ of primitive recursive functionals of finite type can be stratified into levels $T_n$. At the bottom level, $T_1$, primitive recursion is restricted in such a way that the only functions from natural numbers to natural numbers that are definable in the system are primitive recursive. The functionals of $T_1$ are said to be primitive recursive functionals in the sense of Kleene, in contrast to the functionals of $T$, which are are said to be primitive recursive functionals in the sense of Gödel (see [@kleene:59; @avigad:feferman:98; @kohlenbach:10]). The results of Howard [@howard:81] show the following: \[complexity:thm\] In the previous theorem, if $M$ is definable in Gödel’s $T_n$ for some $n \geq 1$, then, as a function of $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$, $M'$ is definable in $T_{n+1}$. (See also [@kreuzer:kohlenbach:unp Section 10], which relates Howard’s results explicitly to the fragments $T_n$.) Theorem \[complexity:thm\] implies that if $M$ is a primitive recursive functional in the sense of Kleene, then $M'$ is of level $T_2$ (which is to say, roughly Ackermannian). The results of Kreuzer [@kreuzer:unp] provide even more information: In Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\], if $M$ is definable in the calculus ${\mathsf{G_\infty A^\omega}}$ (see, for example, [@kohlenbach:08 Section 3]), then $M'$ is primitive recursive. It would be interesting to know whether these results can be improved. Alternatively, one can consider Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] for particular functionals $M(F)$. One can show, for example, that with $M(F)=F(0)+n$, the smallest value of $M'$ that works is roughly $n/(\lambda - \lambda')$. Using the algorithm given in the proof of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] yields the bound $M'=n \cdot \left\lceil 2/(\lambda-\lambda')\right\rceil$, but this can be improved to $n \cdot \left\lceil 1/(\lambda-\lambda')\right\rceil$ by tinkering with the values $(\lambda-\lambda')/2^{m+1}$ in the right hand side of condition $R_\sigma$. An explicit construction gives a lower bound of $n \cdot \left(\left\lceil \frac{1-\lambda'}{\lambda - \lambda'} \right\rceil- 1 \right)$. However, even for simple functionals like $M(F)=F(F(0))+n$, the combinatorial details quickly become knotty. In this particular case our algorithm gives an $M' = m_{\lceil 2 / (\lambda - \lambda') \rceil}$, where $m_0 = n$ and $m_{i+1} = n \cdot \lceil 2^{m_i+1} / (\lambda - \lambda') \rceil$. This is an iterated exponential in $n$, where the depth of the stack depends on $\lambda - \lambda'$; but we do not know whether such a rate of growth is necessary. Metastable convergence theorems {#convergence:section} =============================== We can now prove our metastable version of Egorov’s theorem. \[metastable\_egorov\] For every $\varepsilon > 0$, $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and functional $M_1(F)$, there is a functional $M_2(F)$ with the following property: for any probability space ${\mathcal{X}} = (X, {\mathcal{B}}, \mu)$ and sequence $(f_n)$ of measurable functions, if $M_1(F)$ is a $\lambda'$-uniform bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of $(f_n)$, then $M_2(F)$ is a bound on the $\lambda$-uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(f_n)$. In other words, if for every $F_1$ $$\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\exists m \leq M_1(F_1) \;} {\forall n, n' \in [m,F_1(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| < \varepsilon\}) > 1 - \lambda',$$ then for every $F_2$ there is an $m \leq M_2(F_2)$ such that $$\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\forall n, n' \in [m,F_2(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| < \varepsilon\}) > 1 - \lambda.$$ Fix $\varepsilon > 0$, $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and $M_1$. Given $F_2$, define $$M(F) = M_1\left({\lambda m. \;} \max_{n \in [m,F(m)]} F_2(n)\right),$$ and let $M_2(F_2)$ be the value $M'$ given by Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\]. Let $$A_n = \left\{ x {\; : \;}\exists k,k'\in[n,F_{2}(n)]\,\|f_{k}(x)-f_{k'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon \right\}.$$ We wish to show $\mu(A_{n})< \lambda $ for some $m \leq M_2(F_2)$. By the definition of $M_2(F_2)$, it is enough to show that for every function $F(m)$, $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m\leq M(F)}\bigcup_{n\in[m,F(m)]}A_{n}\right)<\lambda'.$$ For each $m \leq M(F)$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \bigcup_{n\in[m,F(m)]}A_n & =\bigcup_{n\in[m,F(m)]}\bigcup_{k,k'\in[n,F_{2}(n)]}\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{k}(x)-f_{k'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\right\} \\ & \subseteq\bigcup_{k,k'\in[m,\max_{n \in [m,F(m)]} F_{2}(n)]}\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{k}(x)-f_{k'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon \right\} \end{aligned}$$ Taking $F_{1}(m)=\max_{n \in [m,F(m)]} F_{2}(n)$ in the hypothesis of the theorem gives the desired conclusion. This straightforwardly yields our quantitative version of the dominated convergence theorem. \[metastable\_dct\] For every $\varepsilon>0$, $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and $M_1(F)$, there is an $M_2(F)$ such that, for any probability space ${\mathcal{X}}$ and sequence $(f_n)$ of nonnegative measurable functions dominated by the constant function $1$, if $M_1(F)$ is a $\lambda'$-uniform bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of $(f_n)$, then $M_2(F)$ is a bound on the $(\varepsilon + \lambda)$-metastable convergence of $(\int f_n)$. In other words, if for every $F$ $$\mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\exists m \leq M_1(F) \;} {\forall n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| < \varepsilon\}) > 1 - \lambda',$$ then for every $F$ there is an $m \leq M_2(F)$ such that $${\forall n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \left\| \int f_n - \int f_{n'} \right\| < \varepsilon + \lambda.$$ From the hypotheses, Theorem \[metastable\_egorov\] yields an $M_2(F)$ that is a bound on the $\lambda$-uniform $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of $(f_n)$. Thus, for all $F$, there is $m\leq M_2(F)$ such that $$\mu\left(\{x \mid {\forall n,n'\in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x)-f_{n'}(x)\| < \varepsilon \}\right) > 1-\lambda.$$ Call the set just indicated $A$. From our choice of $\lambda$ and the definition of $A$, it follows that for all $n,n'\in [m,F(m)]$, $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\int f_n - \int f_{n'}\right\| & \leq & \int \|f_n - f_{n'}\| \\ & = & \int_A \|f_n - f_{n'}\| + \int_{X \setminus A} \|f_n - f_{n'}\| \\ & < & \varepsilon + \lambda.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $M_2(F)$ provides a bound on the $(\varepsilon + \lambda)$-metastable convergence of $(\int f_n)$ as desired. Theorem \[metastable\_dct\] strengthens Tao’s Theorem A.2 [@tao:08] in three ways. First, we formulate convergence in terms of the Cauchy criterion, rather than referring to a fixed limit, as Tao does. This is more natural in the context of metastability, and our result implies Tao’s, since one can always consider a sequence $f_0, f, f_1, f, f_2, f, \ldots$ in which a fixed limit $f$ has been interleaved. Second, Tao used the stronger hypothesis that $M_1(F)$ provides a bound that works almost everywhere, rather than outside a set of measure at most $\lambda'$. Finally, and most importantly, our proof of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] provides an explicit description of the bound, $M_2(F)$. Tao also stated his theorem for the convergence of nets indexed by the directed set ${\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{N}}$, as was needed in his application. But as he himself noted, the extension to arbitrary countable nets is straightforward. Given any countable net $(f_i)_{i \in I}$, one can define an increasing cofinal sequence $(a_i)_{i \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ of elements of the directed set $I$. To adapt Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\], for example, suppose we are given a sequence $(A_n)$ of measurable subsets of a probability space ${\mathcal{X}}$ with the property that for every function $F$, $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m \leq M(F)} \bigcup_{n \in [a_m,a_{F(m)}]} A_n\right) < \lambda',$$ where the notation $[a,b]$ denotes $\{ i {\; : \;}a \leq i \leq b \}$. Define the sequence $(A'_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ by $A'_n = \bigcup_{i \in [a_n,a_{n+1}]} A_i$. Then $(A'_n)$ satisfies the requirements of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\], and hence there is an $i \leq a_{M'}$ such that $\mu(A_i) < \lambda$. Notice that the expression $\int \| f_n - f_{n'}\|$ in the proof of Theorem \[metastable\_dct\] is the $L^1$ norm of $f_n - f_{n'}$. In fact, the same argument shows the following: \[Lp\_gen\] For every $\varepsilon>0$, $\lambda > \lambda' > 0$, and $M_1(F)$, there is an $M_2(F)$ such that, for any probability space ${\mathcal{X}}$ and sequence $(f_n)$ of nonnegative measurable functions dominated by the constant function $1$, if $M_1(F)$ is a $\lambda'$-uniform bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable pointwise convergence of $(f_n)$, then for every $F_2$ there is an $m \leq M_2(F_2)$ such that for every $p \geq 1$, $${\forall n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \left\\| f_n - f_{n'} \right\\|_p < \sqrt[p]{\varepsilon^p + \lambda}.$$ We have considered a metastable version of the dominated convergence theorem where ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a probability space and the sequence $(f_n)$ is uniformly dominated by the constant function $1$. The dominated convergence theorem itself is usually stated more generally where ${\mathcal{X}}$ is an arbitrary measure space, and the sequence $(f_n)$ is dominated by an arbitrary integrable function $g$. The general case can be reduced to the one we have considered, taking into account that given an integrable function $g$ and any $\delta_1, \delta_2$ greater than $0$, there is a set $A$ with finite measure such that $\int_{X \setminus A} g < \delta_1$, and a $K$ sufficiently large so that $\int_A (g - \min(g,K)) < \delta_2$. The bound $M_2$ in the conclusion, however, now depends on bounds on $K$ and the size of $A$, for certain $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ depending on $\varepsilon$. A new mode of convergence {#new:convergence:section} ========================= Recall that a sequence $(f_n)$ of measurable functions converges pointwise a.e. if for almost every $x$, $$\label{ae:eq} {\forall \varepsilon > 0 \;} {\exists m \;} {\forall n, n' \geq m \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| < \varepsilon, \tag{$\mathsf{AE}$}$$ and we noted in Section \[introduction:section\] it converges almost uniformly if $${\forall \lambda > 0, \varepsilon > 0 \;} {\exists m \;} \mu(\{ x {\; : \;}{\exists n, n' \geq m \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon \}) < \lambda. \tag{$\mathsf{AU}$}$$ Each of these has an equivalent expression in terms of metastable convergence. Our formulation of Egorov’s theorem provides yet another mode of convergence, which we will call almost uniform metastable pointwise convergence: $$\begin{gathered} \label{aum:eq} {\forall \lambda > 0, \varepsilon > 0, F \;} {\exists M \;} \\ \mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\forall m \leq M \;} {\exists n, n' \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f_{n'}(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda. \tag{$\mathsf{AUM}$}\end{gathered}$$ In other words, $M$, as a function of $F$, provides a bound on the $\varepsilon$-metastable convergence of the sequences $(f_n(x))$ that is uniform in $x$, and valid outside a set of measure at most $\lambda$. Recall that if ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a probability space, or if the sequence $(f_n)$ is dominated by an $L^p$ function, then a.e. convergence and almost uniform convergence coincide. More generally, we have the following relationships between these three modes of convergence: \[mode:prop\] Let $(f_{n})$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space ${\mathcal{X}} = (X, {\mathcal{B}}, \mu)$. 1. $\mathsf{AU} \rightarrow \mathsf{AUM} \rightarrow \mathsf{AE}$. (Hence, if ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a probability space or the sequence $(f_n)$ is dominated, the three notions coincide.) 2. If $\mu(\{x:\|f_{n}(x)-f_{n'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\})<\infty$ for all $\varepsilon>0$, $n$, and $n'$, then $\mathsf{AE}$ implies $\mathsf{AUM}$. (In particular, the conclusion holds if for some $p \geq 1$, $f_n \in L^p$ for every $n$.) 3. In general, the implications in (1) do not reverse. For (1), note that $\mathsf{AU}$ is equivalent to its metastable version, $\mathsf{AU^}$, which clearly implies $\mathsf{AUM}$. Similarly, $\mathsf{AUM}$ implies, in particular, that for almost every $x$ the sequence $(f_n(x))$ is metastably convergent, and hence convergent. For (2), prove the contrapositive. Suppose $\mathsf{AUM}$ fails. Then there are $\varepsilon,\lambda,F$ such that for all $M$, $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m\leq M}\bigcup_{n,n'\in[m,F(m)]}\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{n}(x)-f_{n'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\right\} \right)\geq\lambda.$$ By the assumption that each $\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{n}(x)-f_{n'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\right\} $ has finite measure, we can take the limit as $M\rightarrow\infty$ to get $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m}\bigcup_{n\in[m,F(m)]}\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{n}(x)-f_{n'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\right\} \right)\geq\lambda.$$ Further, removing $F$ gives, $$\mu\left(\bigcap_{m}\bigcup_{n\geq m}\left\{ x {\; : \;}\|f_{n}(x)-f_{n'}(x)\|\geq\varepsilon\right\} \right)\geq\lambda.$$ Hence, $(f_{n})$ is not a.e. Cauchy. For (3), $f_{n}=\chi_{[n,n+1]}$ converges $\mathsf{AUM}$ by part (2), but it is easily shown that $f_{n}$ does not converge $\mathsf{AU}$. Last, $g_{n}:=(-1)^{n}\chi_{[n,\infty)}$ converges only $\mathsf{AE}$. There is also a non-Cauchy version of $\mathsf{AUM}$, which refers to a limit function $f$: $$\begin{gathered} \label{aumm:eq} {\exists f \;} {\forall \lambda > 0, \varepsilon > 0, F \;} {\exists M \;} \\ \mu(\{x {\; : \;}{\forall m \leq M \;} {\exists n \in [m,F(m)] \;} \|f_n(x) - f(x)\| \geq \varepsilon\}) < \lambda. \tag{$\mathsf{AUM'}$}\end{gathered}$$ It is easy to see that $\mathsf{AUM'}$ implies $\mathsf{AUM}$, but the converse need not hold; for example, $h_{n}=\chi_{[n,\infty)}$ converges $\mathsf{AUM}$, but not $\mathsf{AUM'}$. Moreover, the analogue of Proposition \[mode:prop\] holds when $\mathsf{AUM}$ is replaced by $\mathsf{AUM'}$. Thus we have the following implications, $$\mathsf{AU}\rightarrow\mathsf{AUM'}\rightarrow\mathsf{AUM}\rightarrow\mathsf{AE},$$ none of which can be reversed in general. Final comments ============== As noted in Section \[combinatorial:section\], it would be interesting to know the extent to which the bounds we obtain are sharp. For example, can one show that there are functionals $M$ that are primitive recursive in the sense of Kleene for which the $M'$ in Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] is not primitive recursive? When Tao [@tao:06] presented his quantitative version of the dominated convergence theorem, he observed that the bound $M'$ can be computed in principle. > In practice, though, it seems remarkably hard to do; the proof of the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, if inspected carefully, relies implicitly on the infinite pigeonhole principle, which is notoriously hard to finitize. He went on to note that since the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem is equivalent, in the sense of reverse mathematics, to the arithmetic comprehension axiom ${(\mathsf{ACA})}$ [@yu:94], the dependence of $M'$ on the parameters is likely to be “fantastically poor.” The dependence we have obtained is, indeed, rather poor, but it is at least explicit and comprehensible. In fact, the axiomatic strength of the dominated convergence theorem is sensitive to the way in which it is formulated. Elsewhere [@avigad:dean:rute:unp] we have shown that the formulation of the dominated convergence theorem that corresponds to Tao’s quantitative version is strictly weaker than ${(\mathsf{ACA})}$. It is possible, however, that the quantitative version, which quantifies over continuous functionals, is axiomatically stronger than the original. In fact, we suspect that each of Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\], \[metastable\_egorov\], and \[metastable\_dct\] is equivalent to ${(\mathsf{ACA})}$. This is reminiscent of Gaspar and Kohlenbach [@gaspar:kohlenbach:10], which provides a sense in which a quantitative version of the infinitary pigeonhole principle is axiomatically stronger than the non-quantitative version. The results here can be viewed as instances of “proof mining,” which aims to extract quantitative and computationally meaningful information from nonconstructive results in analysis; see [@kohlenbach:08] and [@avigad:et:al:10; @kohlenbach:leustean:09; @kohlenbach:10; @kohlenbach:unp:e]. In particular, the passage from Proposition \[warmup:prop\] to Theorem \[combinatorial:thm\] can be seen as an instance of the general method of eliminating a choice principle in favor of bar recursion, described in [@kohlenbach:08 Section 11.3]. We are grateful to Paulo Oliva for pointing this out to us. [10]{} Jeremy Avigad, Edward Dean, and Jason Rute. Algorithmic randomness, reverse mathematics, and the dominated convergence theorem. Submitted. Jeremy Avigad and Solomon Feferman. G[ö]{}del’s functional (“[D]{}ialectica”) interpretation. In S. Buss editor, [Handbook of proof theory]{}, pages 337–405. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998. Jeremy Avigad, Philipp Gerhardy, and Henry Towsner. Local stability of ergodic averages. , 362(1):261–288, 2010. Jaime Gaspar and Ulrich Kohlenbach. , 75(1):355–371, 2010. Kurt G[ö]{}del. ber eine bisher noch nicht ben[ü]{}tzte [E]{}rweiterung des finiten [S]{}tandpunktes. , 12:280–287, 1958. Reprinted with English translation in Feferman et al., eds., Kurt G[ö]{}del: Collected Works, volume 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, pages 241–251. Ben Green and Terence Tao. The primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. , 167(2):481–547, 2008. W. A. Howard. Ordinal analysis of simple cases of bar recursion. , 46(1):17–30, 1981. Stephen Cole Kleene. Recursive functionals and quantifiers of finite types, [I]{}. , 91:1–52, 1959. Ulrich Kohlenbach. . Springer, Berlin, 2008. Ulrich Kohlenbach. On quantitative versions of theorems due to [F]{}. [E]{}. [B]{}rowder and [R]{}. [W]{}ittmann. , 226(3):2764–2795, 2011. Ulrich Kohlenbach. A uniform quantitative form of sequential weak compactness and Baillon’s nonlinear ergodic theorem. , to appear. Ulrich Kohlenbach and Laurentiu Leuştean. A quantitative mean ergodic theorem for uniformly convex Banach spaces. , 29:1907–1915, 2009. Georg Kreisel. On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs, part [I]{}. , 16:241–267, 1951. Georg Kreisel. On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs, part [II]{}: [I]{}nterpretation of number theory, applications. , 17:43–58, 1952. Georg Kreisel. Interpretation of analysis by means of constructive functionals of finite type. In A. Heyting, editor, [Constructivity in Mathematics]{}, pages 101–128. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1959. Alexander P. Kreuzer. Primitive recursion and the chain antichain principle. To appear in the [Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic]{}. Alexander P. Kreuzer and Ulrich Kohlenbach. Term extraction and Ramsey’s theorem for pairs. Preprint. Clifford Spector. Provably recursive functionals of analysis: a consistency proof of analysis by an extension of principles formulated in current intuitionistic mathematics. In J. C. E. Dekker, editor, [Recursive Function Theory*]{}, pages 1–27. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1962. Terence Tao. A quantitative ergodic theory proof of [S]{}zemer[é]{}di’s theorem. , 13(1):Research Paper 99, 49 pp. (electronic), 2006. Terence Tao. Norm convergence of multiple ergodic averages for commuting transformations. , 28(2):657–688, 2008. Terence Tao. . American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 2008. Xiaokang Yu. Lebesgue convergence theorems and reverse mathematics. , 40(1):1–13, 1994.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - '$\mbox{Marco Mackaay}^{1,3}$' - '$\mbox{Roger Picken}^{2,3}$' date: 'April 30, 2001' title: '2-Categories, 4d state-sum models and gerbes[^1]' --- In this article we focus on the third word in the title of our talk and on our motivation for getting involved with it. The simplest state-sum model is the Dijkgraaf-Witten (DW) model [@DW90]. In its most elementary form the DW-model associates to a smooth closed connected finite-dimensional manifold $M$ the following number: $$\#\Hom\left\{\pi_1(M),G\right\},$$ where $G$ is a finite group. If we want to understand the differential geometry behind the DW-model we have to give up the finiteness of $G$ of course. If $G$ is a Lie group, we can ask ourselves what geometric objects correspond to smooth homomorphisms from $\pi_1(M)$ to $G$ (we will not explain here what we mean by smoothness exactly). The answer is well known: [principal $G$-bundles with flat connections]{}. We explain this in some more detail. Let $\left\{U_i\right\}$ be a covering of $M$ by open sets such that all intersections $U_{i_1\ldots i_p}=U_{i_1}\cap\cdots\cap U_{i_p}$ are contractible. We present a principal $G$-bundle, $P$, by its transition functions $g_{ij}\colon U_{ij}\to G$, which satisfy $g_{ji}=g_{ij}^{-1}$ and the cocycle condition $$g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ik}^{-1}=1\quad\mbox{on}\ U_{ijk}.$$ A connection, $\cal A$, in $P$ can be defined in terms of local 1-forms, $A_i$ on $U_i$, with values in the Lie algebra of $G$, which satisfy $$A_j-g_{ij}^{-1}A_ig_{ij}=g_{ij}^{-1}dg_{ij}\quad\mbox{on}\ U_{ij}.$$ Given a loop $\ell$ in $M$ one can define the [holonomy]{}, $\H(\ell)\in G$, of $\cal A$ around $\ell$. In general the holonomies around two homotopic loops are different. However, if the two loops are [thin homotopic]{}, then the holonomies are equal, as was first remarked by Barrett [@Ba91]. There are several ways to define thin homotopy mathematically [@Ba91; @CP94]. For the purpose of this article it suffices to give the intuitive idea: [(sketch)]{} Two loops are thin homotopic if there exists a homotopy between them whose image has no area. All homotopies involved in the standard proof that $\pi_1(M)$ is a group are thin as a matter of fact, so we can define the [thin fundamental group]{} of $M$, denoted $\pi_1^1(M)$, by dividing out the set of loops only by thin homotopies. Note that $\pi_1(M)$ is a quotient of $\pi_1^1(M)$. Thus $\cal A$ gives rise to a [holonomy homomorphism]{} $$\H\colon \pi_1^1(M)\to G,$$ which is smooth in a technical sense [@Ba91; @CP94]. Barrett [@Ba91] (see [@CP94] for a proof of the analogous statement using a different definition of thin homotopy) proved that there is a converse statement: Given a smooth homomorphism $\H\colon \pi_1^1(M)\to G$, there is a principal $G$-bundle with connection, unique up to equivalence, whose holonomy homomorphism is equal to $\H$. A connection is flat precisely when the corresponding $\H$ factors through the ordinary $\pi_1(M)$. Let us now assume that $\pi_1(M)=0$. The next state-sum model that we consider associates to $M$ the number $$\#\Hom\left\{\pi_2(M),H\right\},$$ where $H$ is a finite Abelian group. This is a special case of the Yetter model [@Ye93], which involves the homotopy 2-type of $M$. The right algebraic framework for the Yetter model is that of 2-categories, which is how the first word in the title of our talk enters the picture. For more information about 2-categories and 4-dimensional state-sum models see the two papers [@Ma99; @Ma00] by the first author and references therein. The question now arises whether we can understand the maps $\pi_2(M)\to H$ in an analogous differential geometric way. Let $H=U(1)$. We see immediately that the answer cannot be found in the framework of bundles and connections, because we need some geometric structure that gives rise to holonomy around surfaces rather than loops. It is known (well-known would be an over-statement) that [gerbes]{} with [gerbe-connections]{} give rise to such holonomies [@Bry93]. A gerbe, $\cal G$, can be defined by functions on triple intersections, $h_{ijk}\colon U_{ijk}\to U(1)$, which satisfy $h_{\sigma(i)\sigma(j)\sigma(k)}=h_{ijk}^{\epsilon(\sigma)}$, for any $\sigma\in S_3$, and the next order cocycle condition: $$h_{ijk}h_{ijl}^{-1}h_{ikl}h_{jkl}^{-1}=1\quad\mbox{on}\ U_{ijkl}.$$ A gerbe-connection, $\cal B$, in $\cal G$ can be defined by $1$-forms, $A_{ij}$ on $U_{ij}$, and $2$-forms, $F_i$ on $U_i$, all with values in $i\mathbb{R}$, such that $A_{ji}=-A_{ij}$ and $$A_{ij}+A_{jk}-A_{ik}=h_{ijk}^{-1}dh_{ijk}\quad\mbox{on}\ U_{ijk},$$ $$F_j-F_i=dA_{ij}\quad\mbox{on}\ U_{ij}.$$ Gerbes were first defined by Giraud [@Gi71]. The standard reference nowadays is Brylinski’s book [@Bry93]. The properties of gerbes and gerbe-connections are analogous to those of line-bundles; e.g. the curvature of a gerbe-connection, $\Omega\vert_{U_i}=dF_i$, is a closed integral 3-form, the cohomology class of which classifies the gerbe up to equivalence, and every closed integral 3-form is the curvature of a certain gerbe-connection in a certain gerbe. One can define the gerbe-holonomy [@Bry93], $\H(s)$, of $\cal B$ around any smooth map $s\colon S^2\to M$, henceforth referred to as a [ $2$-loop]{}. As for ordinary connections one can show [@MP01] that the gerbe-holonomies around two thin homotopic $2$-loops are equal. [(sketch)]{} We say that two $2$-loops are thin homotopic if there exists a homotopy between them whose image has no volume. The higher dimensional thin homotopy groups were first defined by Caetano and Picken in [@CP98], where one can find the technical definition. Thus $\cal B$ gives rise to a smooth [gerbe-holonomy homomorphism]{} $$\H\colon\pi_2^2(M)\to U(1),$$ where $\pi_2^2(M)$ is the [thin second homotopy group]{}. In [@MP01] we proved that there is a converse statement: \[ge\] Assume that $M$ is simply-connected. Given a smooth homomorphism $\H\colon\pi_2^2(M)\to U(1)$, there exists a gerbe with gerbe-connection, unique up to equivalence, whose holonomy map is equal to $\H$. A gerbe-connection is flat precisely when its holonomy map factors through the ordinary $\pi_2(M)$, so we have achieved our goal of understanding the differential geometry of the Yetter model. The proof of Thm. \[ge\] is fairly straightforward. If one does not assume that $M$ is simply-connected the analogous statement and its proof involve the less familiar mathematics of Lie (2-)groupoids. We believe that this case is very interesting because it fuses ideas from category theory and geometry into something that can best be called [categorical geometry]{}. 0.2cm Acknowledgements This work was supported by [Programa Operacional “Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação”]{} (POCTI) of the [Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia]{} (FCT), cofinanced by the European Community fund FEDER. The first author is presently on leave from the Universidade do Algarve and working with a postdoctoral fellowship from FCT at the University of Nottingham (UK). [10]{} J. W. Barrett. Holonomy and path structures in general relativity and [Y]{}ang-[M]{}ills theory. , 30(9):1171–1215, 1991. J-W. Brylinski. , volume 107 of [Progress in Mathematics]{}. Birkhauser, 1993. A. Caetano and R. F. Picken. An axiomatic definition of holonomy. , 5(6):835–848, 1994. A. Caetano and R. F. Picken. On a family of topological invariants similar to homotopy groups. , 30(1-2):81–90, 1998. R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten. Topological gauge theories and group cohomology. , 129(2):393–429, 1990. J. Giraud. , volume 179 of [Grundl.]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971. M. A. Mackaay. Spherical 2-categories and 4-manifold invariants. , 143(2):288–348, 1999. M. A. Mackaay. Finite groups, spherical 2-categories, and 4-manifold invariants. , 153(2):353–390, 2000. M. A. Mackaay and R. F. Picken. Holonomy and parallel transport for Abelian gerbes. Preprint available as math.DG/0007053. D. N. Yetter. ’s from homotopy 2-types. , 2(1):113–123, 1993. 1\. Dep. de Matemática, Univ. do Algarve, Faro, Portugal. [Email]{}: [email protected].\ 2. Dep. de Matemática, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal. [Email]{}: [email protected].\ 3. Centro de Matemática Aplicada, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal. [^1]: Talk presented by the first author at III Encontro Fórum Internacional de Investigadores Portugueses, Faro, April 7-10, 2001.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The abundance of Li in stars formed within the past 5 Gyr is logN(Li) = 3.2($\pm$0.2),while the corresponding value for the oldest stars in the Galaxy is logN(Li) = 2.2($\pm$0.2).The global evidence suggests that the latter represents the full, or the major part of the primordial abundance, so that the difference of an order of magnitude is due to Li produced in the Galaxy. It is well known that spallation of insterstellar CNO by $^{4}$He and protons in galactic cosmic rays (GCR) can produce Li,but models yield a shortfall of almost an order of magnitude compared with the current observed abundance range.Another GCR reaction, $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion has been invoked to explain some Li production in the early Galaxy,but application of this to the disk yielded too much early Li or too little current Li.These failures led to a search for alternative mechanisms,essentially stellar, at particular phases of evolution:the helium flash phase in AGB stars,in novae,and during supernova. Here we stress the importance of the observed upper envelope in the plot of Li v. Fe in stars as a constraint on any mechanism in any model aiming to account for disk Li. We show that a good can be found assuming that low energy GCRs produce the Li,with the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ reaction as the key mechanism although production in supernovae cannot at this stage be excluded.There is an apparent time delay in the Li production, relative to O and Fe, which if confirmed could be explained by the origin of a low energy $\alpha$-particle component in processes associated with stars of intermediate and low mass.The $\alpha$ flux at a given epoch would then be proportional to the amount of gas expelled by low and intermediate mass stars in the Galaxy, though the acceleration of these alphas could still be linked to more energetic events as SN explosions. The present scenario appears to account coherently for the closely related observations of the temporal evolution in the Galaxy (Halo+Disk) of abundances of $^{12}$C,$^{13}$C,$^{14}$N,$^{16}$O,$^{26}$Fe, the two main peaks (one in the Halo and one in the Disk) in the G-dwarf stellar frequency distribution, and the evolution of $^{9}$Be and $^{10}$B+$^{11}$B via GCR spallation reactions without requiring the very high local cosmic-ray fluxes implied by the spallation close to SN (Casuso $\&$ Beckman 1997).Adding a natural mechanism of differential depletion in red supergiant envelopes, we can explain the observed time evolution of the abundance of D and that of the isotopic ratios $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li and $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B (Casuso $\&$ Beckman 1999) starting from an SBBN model with baryon density $\sim$0.05. Our model also predicts the second Li-“plateau” found for \[Fe/H\] between -0.2 and +0.2, due to the “loop back” implied for Li (also for $^{9}$Be and B) because of the required infall of low metallicity gas to the disk. Without ruling out other mechanisms for the main production of Li in the Galactic Disk, the low-energy $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction in the ISM offers a promising contribution.' author: - 'E. Casuso$^{1}$' - 'J. E. Beckman$^{1,2}$' title: 'PRODUCTION OF LITHIUM IN THE GALACTIC DISK.' --- . Introduction and observational base =================================== A few seconds after the Big Bang, four light isotopes were produced: D,$^{3}$He,$^{4}$He and $^{7}$Li (see eg. Walker et al. 1991,Copi et al. 1995,Shramm and Turner 1998); all of these warrant careful study, and here we are focusing on $^{7}$Li.The importance of understanding the evolution of the Galactic abundance of Li was highlighted in the key discovery by Spite $\&$ Spite (SS) (1982) that the observed abundance of Li in Galactic stars does not continue to fall uniformily with decreasing iron abundance below \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$-1, but levels off to a “plateau” at a level of logN($^{7}$Li)$\simeq$2, which SS interpreted as corresponding to the abundance produced by big bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN).Spite and Spite measured the $^{7}$Li abundance as a function of metallicity (iron abundance) and surface temperature.They found that the $^{7}$Li abundance is flat for surface temperatures greater than about 5600K, and further, it is also flat for the stars with the lowest iron abundance.The first plateau suggests that the stars with the highest surface temperatures are not destroying their $^{7}$Li by convection (the depth of the convective zone depends on surface temperature and is shallowest for stars with the highest surface temperatures).The second plateau indicates that any post-big-bang production must be insignificant for the most metal-poor stars because the $^{7}$Li abundance does not increase with iron abundance.The case against major depletion (and hence for a plateau abundance that reflects the primeval abundance) was strengthened by the observation of $^{6}$Li in certain population II stars (Smith et al. 1993, Hobbs and Thorburn 1994).Big-bang production of $^{6}$Li is negligible; the $^{6}$Li seen was probably produced by cosmic-ray processes (along with beryllium and boron).Because $^{6}$Li is much more fragile than $^{7}$Li and yet still survived with the abundance relative to Be and B expected from cosmic-ray production, depletion of of $^{7}$Li cannot have been very significant (Steigman et al. 1993). Using this interpretation the primordial abundance is given by logN$_{P}$($^{7}$Li)=2.2($\pm$0.2), a value confirmed in detailed work by a succession of authors (Rebolo,Beckman $\&$ Molaro 1987,Hobbs $\&$ Thorburn 1991,Spite 1991,Thorburn 1994) which can be combined with the SBBN produced abundance of $^{4}$He (see e.g. Pagel et al. 1992), to infer basic cosmological parameters: the universal baryon density $\Omega$$_{b}$, and the number of massless two-component neutrino types N$_{\nu}$.To be sure that the population II abundance of $^{7}$Li is a largely undepleted SBBN abundance, entails two essential steps: showing that population II stars (with T$_{eff}$$\geq$5500 K) have not depleted or barely depleted their $^{7}$Li, and showing that most of the $^{7}$Li in population I stars is of Galactic origin.The first step has already been accomplished via the theoretical work of the Yale group, who showed (Pinsonneault, Deliyannis $\&$ Demarque 1992) that sub-surface convective transport, and hence $^{7}$Li depletion is strongly suppressed at low metallicities.As a result of this, and of steadily accumulating observations, opinion (see Spite $\&$ Spite 1993) has swung strongly behind the view that logN($^{7}$Li)$\simeq$2.2 is the SBBN value.Thorburn’s (1994) refined work on the “plateau”, has brought out a scatter in the $^{7}$Li v. \[Fe/H\] plot below \[Fe/H\]=-1.5, which is incompatible with zero production of $^{7}$Li in the halo, but in practice strongly supports a primordial value for $^{7}$Li not far above logN$_{P}$($^{7}$Li)$\simeq$2. The second step is quite complicated, because during the disk lifetime there may have been a number of significant production processes for Li, and also a number of destruction, or depletion processes.The initial primordial abundance masks any Li evolution in the halo, so we concentrate our attention in the present paper on production in the disk and its interpretation. The evolution of the lithium abundance in the Galactic disk can be followed via observations which define the upper envelope of the lithium abundance in stars over the range of iron metallicity, -1.5${\leq}$\[Fe/H\]${\leq}$0.1, which characterizes the disk population.The underlying assumption is that while lithium is in general depleted within stars, for a given value of metallicity the highest observed abundance value for a set of stars will correspond to minimum depletion, and hence to an optimum approximation to the Galactic interstellar lithium abundance at the epoch when the stars were formed.Following the evolution of lithium should give similar insight into the processes which form it to that which we can obtain by following the evolution of any other element.The rise in the ratio O/Fe with decreasing Fe, for example, gives the key to understanding the origin of a major fraction of Galactic oxygen in supernovae of type II, whereas iron is formed in all stars with masses greater than or equal to 1 solar mass. Although the general trend in Galactic Li evolution can be followed via the Li-Fe envelope, the effect of depletion imposes the need for the greatest care when interpreting the observed abundance in any single object.Depletion is well-known to occur in cool stars (see e.g. Pinsonneault et al. 1992,Deliyannis et al. 1990): those with T$_{eff}$ less than the solar value, and occurs also in the “[lithium gap]{}” (Cayrel et al. (1984), Boesgaard (1987)) in the middle-F range of spectral classes.Stellar depletion renders lithium particularly interesting as a probe of stellar structure (Steigman et al. 1993),but makes it more difficult to interpret measured abundances in terms of production processes. However, if we are not able to account adequately for the present-day and post-solar system abundance values: logN(Li)$\geq$3, there must remain some room for doubt about the BBN value.For this reason, as well as for its intrinsic importance as a test of Galactic evolution models, the source(s) of Galactic lithium continue to be of considerable research interest.A number of production mechanisms have been proposed: cosmic ray spallation of CNO (Reeves,Fowler & Hoyle (1970), Meneguzzi,Audouze & Reeves (1971), Walther,Mathews & Viola (1989)), nucleosynthesis in novae (Arnould & Norgaard (1979), Starrfield et al. (1978)), in the atmospheres of red giants (Cameron & Fowler (1971)), in supernovae (Dearborn et al. 1989,Woosley et al. 1990), and in AGB stars and carbon stars (D’Antona and Matteucci (1991)) and in black hole binaries (Martin et al. (1994)).It is well accepted that processes in the interior of normal stars not only fail to yield lithium, but tend to deplete it.In spite of the detection of individual lithium rich objects which might be characteristic sources, models which incorporate such sources into a Galactic evolution scheme (Audouze et al. (1983), Abia & Canal (1988), D’Antona & Matteucci (1991)) do not give good agreement with the observed lithium-iron envelope.Further, the spatial homogeneity of the Fe-Li curve points against sparse sets of point sources, even distributed sources, and in favour of a more diffuse origin for the lithium. Recent detailed models of Li production assumed in carbon stars, massive AGB stars,SNII and novae (Romano 1999), do not give fair fits to the very high slope of the Li abundance vs. \[Fe/H\] near \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$-0.3 (see Fig. 1 of Romano 1999). The light nuclide $^{6}$Li is not produced dignificantly in SBBN and is expected to be produced over the lifetime of the Galaxy in Galactic cosmic ray spallation as well as $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reactions.Its high fragility to stellar processing makes it a less useful tool than $^{7}$Li to constrain big bang nucleosynthesis, but many authors have modelled $^{6}$Li time evolution due to the assumed conexion with the $^{9}$Be and B abundances (Yoshii et al. 1997,Lemoine et al. 1997,Vangioni-Flam et al. 1999,Fields and Olive 1999, Ryan et al. 1999). It has been suggested (see,e.g.,Steigman et al. (1993)) that since (due to dust grain depletion, and ionization equilibrium uncertainly) isotope ratios can be determined more reliably in the interstellar medium than absolute abundances or ratios of different elements, the interstellar isotope ratio $^{6}$Li/$^{7}$Li might offer a better parameter to test source models than the absolute lithium abundance estimated directly in the ISM.However, measurements of the local interstellar $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li ratio (e.g. Lemoine et al. (1993),Meyer,Hawkins & Wright (1993)) show major variations, with differences of up to an order of magnitude from one IS cloud to another.Further, given the extreme difficulty of the ratio measurement in a stellar atmosphere and the consequent extreme paucity of such data as a function of metallicity together with the difficult interpretation of these data in terms of differential stellar depletion as a function of stellar surface temperature, it would be especially risky to attempt to draw conclusions at this stage by using a chemical evolution model to predict the evolution of the isotope ratio against, say, iron abundance.Because of the apparent spatial inhomogeneity it is not even safe to place too much emphasis on the well measured solar system $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li ratio of 12.5 (Mason (1971)).These considerations have led us to the present approach of concentrating on the overall Li abundance envelope as a key model constraint. In this paper we adopt the technique we were the first to use in Rebolo et al. (1988) of assuming that the upper envelope of lithium vs. iron abundance plot is at least a close approximation to the undepleted curve.We do in fact examine the alternative hypothesis: that this envelope represents a depletion curve, and show that this interpretation is quantitatively improbable, so leaving the way clear for the use of the lithium vs. iron envelope as a test of lithium production processes.The purpose of the paper is to show, using this envelope, which types of production processes are excluded, and which permitted.Without going into any numerical detail it is evident from inspection (see Fig. 1) that the rise in the lithium abundance towards the values found in objects close to solar (iron) metallicity occurs relatively late in the Galactic disk evolution time scale; the lithium rise lags the rise in iron, precisely the opposite case to that of oxygen (see Fig. 3).A direct implication is that processes associated with type II supernovae could, but with difficulty, yield the observed lithium production.This consideration not only covers hypothetical processes within the supernovae, but interactions of the energetic particles which they produce in processes occurring in the interstellar medium (ISM).This is just an example of how we can hope to constrain the Galactic lithium production process using the available observational data.Below we will use quantitative modelling (both analytical and numerical) with the aim of reproducing the Li-Fe envelope, thereby eliminating processes which predict significantly different envelopes.What remains will be candidate material for the process (or processes) which gave rise to some 90$\%$ of the lithium we can observe today. In section 2 we show, using simplified analytical models, how the overall shape of the lithium-iron curve for the Galactic disk can be reproduced on the assumptions of delayed production of lithium and increasing infall of gas to the disk.In section 3 we describe briefly a numerical chemical evolution model used to handle the detailed evolution of lithium.In section 4 we examine quantitatively the problem of the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux as a candidate source for lithium.In section 5 we compare some of the suggested production mechanisms for lithium.Finally we draw some conclusions about the primordial abundance of lithium. Analytical and semi-analytical models for the temporal evolution of Li: comparison with data and with previous modelling. ========================================================================================================================= Numerical modelling of Galactic chemical evolution, which we consider in section 3, offers the advantage of being able in principle to match with realism the physical variables which have driven it, in other words given correct assumptions to give exact fits to the relevant observations.However, without descriptions of inordinate length and including full listing of complete codes, such numerical models are not as transparent as desired.While analytical models are inevitably too simple to reproduce most data sets, their use is more didactic, enabling the underlying physics to be better demonstrated.For this reason we have chosen first to show analytical models which illustrate the physical requirements of any scheme that predicts the observed lithium-iron relation, before presenting our numerical models.The analytical models are designed according to standard methodology, which is based on the paradigmatic work of Tinsley (1980). As the observations give us directly the evolution of the abundance of one element vs. that of another, and because the analytical treatment predicts the evolution of abundances vs. time, we adopt hereafter our well tested (see Figs. 2a,2b) numerical results for the translation from the metallicity (taken as \[Fe/H\] or \[O/H\]) plane to the time plane and vice versa. Firstly, in the volume under consideration, we set the star formation rate, SFR, proportional to the gas fraction ${\sigma}_{g}$, following Schmidt (1959), so that $$SFR(t)={\gamma}{\cdot}{\sigma}{_{g}}(t)$$ and the time evolution of the star formation rate is given by $${\frac{dSFR(t)}{dt}}=-{\gamma}{\cdot}SFR(t)+{\gamma}{\cdot}E(t)$$ where E(t) is the gas acquired by the zone per unit time due to expulsion by stars plus any net infall of gas to the volume , and SFR(t) is the rate of conversion of gaseous mass into stellar mass.Integrating equation (2) gives $$SFR(t)={\gamma}{\cdot}e{^{{\gamma}(-t+{\int}G(t)dt)}}$$ where $$G(t)=\frac{E(t)}{SFR(t)}$$ To simplify the treatment we will first approximate E(t) to SFR(t); this is the case, for example, where the star forming process has efficiency close to 100$\%$ and rapidly consumes all the available gas in the volume so that in each time interval new star formation uses only gas expelled from existing stars.This is akin to the assumption of instantaneous recycling.In this case G(t)$\sim$1 and SFR(t)$\sim$$\gamma$.A similar expression would be obtained if the infalling mass of gas added to the gas expulsion by stars, at time t, were comparable to the gas consumption by star formation at the same time t.The first assumption to test is that lithium is produced either in SNe of type II or by processes in the interstellar medium caused by energetic particles expelled from type II supernovae.In this case the rate of lithium production will be proportional to the star formation rate, which gives $${\frac{dLi(t)}{dt}}{\propto}SFR(t){\propto}{\gamma}$$ which integrating and translating from the time plane to the metallicity plane through simple parabolic fit (of the form \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$-(1-$\frac{t}{15}$)$^{2}$ with t in Gyr.) to the data of Fig.2a, gives $$Li(t){\simeq}Li(0)+{\gamma}(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}})$$ where Li(0) is the initial lithium abundance.From this we can deduce that models in which the bulk of Galactic Li is produced in processes involving type II SNe could satisfy the observational requirements, but with some degree of difficulty (see Fig.3). One can obtain an approximation to the effects of infall in this type of models in a less direct way, but which serves to illustrate the principle.Here we must refer ahead to a numerical model developed in Section 3, from which we take an approximate time-dependence of the rate of SNeII.It turns out to be approximately parabolic (see Fig. 5) centered at t=80 in unit model steps of 100 Myr, and we fit $$\frac{dLi(t)}{dt}{\propto}1.5{\cdot}10{^{-8}}(t-80){^{2}}+5{\cdot}10{^{-5}}$$ which gives on integration $$Li(t){\propto}0.5{\cdot}10{^{-8}}(t-80){^{3}}+5{\cdot}10{^{-5}}t+Li(0)$$ The numerical coefficients show that for all times of interest (t$\geq$5Gyr) up to the present age of the disk,the cubic term can in fact be neglected, and the lithium abundance grows essentially as $$Li(t){\propto}5{\cdot}10{^{-5}}t+Li(0)$$ which shows the same behaviour than that of eq. (6) in the metallicity plane. Thus processes whose rate is proportional to the number of SNII in the disk (either in stars or in the ISM) are not ruled out by the lithium-iron envelope test, in all scenarios, with or without infall of gas. Processes which depend on the SNII rate included among current explanations for lithium production in the ISM (see e.g. Ramaty et al. 1997): spallation of CNO by highly energetic alphas, has been adduced to account for the major fraction of the lithium produced.An alternative non-stellar mechanism is the interaction of moderate energy alphas with the existing abundant He nuclei in the ISM, producing lithium via the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction.The sources of these low energy alphas can be the winds of normal stars (see section 4).In this case an additional IS acceleration mechanism is required to give the alphas sufficient energy, at least a few MeV, required for the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction.One could assume that the effects of the presence of supernovae on the ISM can produce the required acceleration (but, we have shown, using simple calculations, that the same results would follow using the acceleration in wind termination shocks of stars of all masses as proposed by Rosner $\&$ Bodo (1996)).The lithium production rate at a given epoch will then be proportional to the mass outflow from stellar winds multiplied by the supernova rate.We can approximate the latter as constant (cf. above) and the mass outflow rate from stars of a given mass will be proportional to the number of stars of that mass; for low mass stars (those with masses less than 1M$_{\odot}$, and hence supplying gas only via winds because their lifetimes are greater than the life of the disk) this number is fully cumulative, and we have approximately (integrating in time SFR(t)=constant) $$N{_{stars}}(t){\propto}t$$ and so $$\frac{dLi(t)}{dt}{\propto}t$$ hence, integrating, and translating from the t-plane to the metallicity plane through the same fit to data than was taken for eq. (6), one has: $$Li(t){\simeq}Li(0)+{\gamma}'(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}}){^{2}}$$ with $\gamma$’ a constant; see Fig. 3 to compare the predictions of eq. (12) with data. Now, considering intermediate mass stars (those with masses 1M$_{\odot}$$\leq$m$\leq$3M$_{\odot}$, which supply gas mainly via processes in their late evolutionary stages) as the main producers of Li, because of their fairly long lifetimes, their expulsion of gas accumulates over times long after their birth, and for the lower part of this mass range, keeps accumulating until the present epoch.We may approximate analytically the collective gas expulsion rate by an exponential, while SN(t) can be taken as approximately constant, as above.In this case one has $$\frac{dLi(t)}{dt}{\propto}e{^{kt}}$$ and integrating and translating to the metallicity plane as above, we have $$Li(t){\simeq}{\gamma}''(1+e{^{k'(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}})}})$$ with $\gamma$” and k’ constants. In Fig. 3 we can see the fit of this expression to the observations. One can go further and analyze in more detail the time dependence of the Li abundance on the properties of stellar mass ranges as follows: Assuming an SFR approximately constant, and assuming that the produccion of Li is associated with the gas expulsion by stars of all masses one has $$\frac{d(Li(t))}{dt}{\propto}{\int_{m_{t}}^{m_{u}}}m{^{-2.35}}R(m)dm$$ Taking an analytical approximation for R(m) in the form m$^{0.2}$-0.58 (based on the numerical values of Renzini and Voli (1981)) and integrating, one has $$\frac{d(Li(t))}{dt}{\propto}-0.005+{\frac{m{_{t}}{^{-1.15}}}{1.15}}-{\frac{0.58}{1.35}}m{_{t}}{^{-1.35}}$$ Using the approximation relating the mass of a star and its lifetime as m${_{t}}{\simeq}(11.7){^{1/2}}t{^{-1/2}}$, translating to the metallicity plane as below, and integrating one has, neglecting the first term which has a very low value compared with the other two: $$Li(t){\simeq}Li(0)+k''(-0.005(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}})-0.049(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}}){^{1.675}}+0.13(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}}){^{1.575}})$$ where k” is a constant; see Fig. 3.If we place an upper limit on the mass range of stars contributing to the gas which yields Li, this analytical approximation leads to a sharp increase from zero Li production on short timescales to a high value when times reach the scale of lifetime of the stars whose masses are those of the upper limit.For example for an upper mass limit of 1M$_{\odot}$ the Li production will be zero until the time is near 12Gyr or \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$0.0 (see Fig. 3).Thus we can see, in general terms, that using a gas expulsion timescale and modulating the upper mass limit, we can find solutions leading to late-time production of Li, as apparently required by the observations. For comparison one can set out a similar formulation using the assumption that Li production is proportional to the cumulative number of stars of all masses at a given time, which implies production within the stars or in their envelopes, rather than in the ISM via expelled gas: $$\frac{d(Li(t))}{dt}){\propto}{\int_{m_{L}}^{m_{t}}}m{^{-2.35}}dm$$ Performing these integrals with the same approximation for the mass-time and time metallicity dependences as before, and taking m$_{L}$=0.1M$_{\odot}$, one has $$Li(t){\simeq}Li(0)+k'''(-0.084(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}}){^{1.675}}+16.58(1-(-[Fe/H]){^{1/2}}))$$ where k”’ is a constant. A comparison of these stylized models: with Li production proportional to the cumulative numbers of moderate mass stars or alternatively to the cumulative flux of expelled gas, is given in Fig. 3. In all the approximations based on proportionality of Li production rate to the gas expulsion rate by stars of low or intermediate masses (equations (12), (14)) one can see considerable resemblance to the observed lithium growth profile.The reason for the importance of intermediate mass stars, rather than high mass stars, as producers of alpha particles leading to Li production is that the former turn out to be particularly efficient in expelling He. For stars with masses greater than 3M$_{\odot}$ the central temperature becomes high enough for the ignition of the triple-alpha reaction (which transforms He to C) before the giant stage is reached.At the moderate densities of the central regions, this nuclear process gains importance in a gradual manner.On the other hand for stars with masses between 0.5M$_{\odot}$ and $\sim$3M$_{\odot}$ the central regions become degenerate and the triple-alpha reaction ignites via the violent [helium flash]{}. Although we would certainly not wish at this stage to exclude the SNe as key producers of Li in the Galactic Disk, to be coherent with our general scenario of chemical evolution for the Galaxy, we have used the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process in the ISM as illustrative of processes which follow the behaviour of stars of intermediate and low masses, those whose lifetimes are long, and whose numbers in the disk have therefore grown cumulatively with time.Any process with equivalent time-dependent characteristics might, in general terms, satisfy this global observational constraint.Production of Li in novae (Arnould $\&$ Norgaard 1979,Starrfield et al. 1978), or in SN type I, might also satisfy the criterion of delayed production because there the rate of production would be proportional to the number of stars with intermediate masses at each time (cumulative as their lifetimes are long).But, as one can see in Fig. 4, where we plot the results from different numerical models in the case of GCR flux proportional to the cumulative number of stars with masses less than or equal to 1M$_{\odot}$ (for upper mass limits greater than 1M$_{\odot}$ the increase in the number of stars with time is proportionally less and less), the prediction, although not bad, is clearly inferior in fit to that obtained using gas expulsion by stars of masses less than or equal to 3M$_{\odot}$ (and is in fact also worse than that obtained using gas expulsion of stars with masses less than or equal to 2M$_{\odot}$). Another possibility which has been discussed is the production of Li in compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes, but the time evolution of the numbers of compact objects would be proportional to the rate of gas expulsion by all stars (which is mainly that of SNI+SNII).This production is shown in Fig. 1 from our numerical modelling.In fact, as one would expect,the curve is similar to that for the model in which Li production is proportional to the SFR, also shown in Fig. 1. Further possibilities for the production of Li, such as those in AGB stars or carbon stars (Matteucci et al. (1995)) are unable to satisfy the detailed observational constraints, as will be seen in Fig. 5. The aim of this section has been to show those categories of models, and hence of lithium sources, which can best account for the lithium-iron envelope observations.However for a valid test of any process which is a candidate to have produced the observed disk lithium we have no choice but to use quantitative, numerical, modelling methods. Numerical evolutionary models: the basic formalism. =================================================== The model we have used for the evolution of the disk in the solar neighborhood empoys the formalism already explained in Casuso & Beckman (1997),which embodies a numerical rather than an analytical approach,in order to take all the relevant physics adequately into account.The model allows us to follow the evolution,within a fixed volume of space,of the gaseous mass fraction $\sigma_g$ and the abundances X$_i$ of 6 nuclides:$^{4}$He,$^{12}$C,$^{13}$C,$^{14}$N,$^{16}$O, and $^{56}$Fe,selected because observations of their evolutionary abundance behaviour are available.The set of basic equations employed,in which the units are mass fraction per unit time interval,are: $$d{\sigma_g} = -SFR(t) + E(t)$$ $$d({\sigma_g}X{_i})={\int_{m_{t}}^{m_{u}}}SFR(t-t{_m}){\phi}(m)(Q{_i}(m)+X{_i}(t-t{_m})(R(m)-Q{_i}(m))-R(m)X{_i}(t))dm+J(t)$$ with $$J(t) = P(t)(X{_i}'(t)-X{_i}(t))$$ with $$E(t) = {\int_{m_{t}}^{m_{u}}}SFR(t-t{_m}){\phi}(m)R(m)dm + P(t)$$ in which t$_m$ is the lifetime of a star of mass m,X$_i$’(t) is the halo abundance,P(t) is a term which represents net inflow of material to the volume under study, SFR(t) is the star formation rate,and $\phi$(m) the initial mass function (IMF) of the stars.Within this volume there is a population of stars whose lifetimes t$_m$,for a mass m$\geq$m$_t$ (where m$_t$ is the mass of a star which has a lifetime t),are less than or equal to the value of the time variable t,and which eject the products of their internal nucleosynthesis at a rate proportional to SFR(t-t$_m$),the star formation rate at their birth.We term the fraction of its mass which a star ejects during its lifetime R(m),and Q$_i$(m) is the yield of nuclide i from a star of mass m.The total mass which has been added to the ISM,either by stellar evolution or by net inflow into the volume under consideration,is called E(t).All relevant stages of stellar evolution have been taken into account, including post-main-sequence phases (e.g. AGB-stars, planetary nebulae and other gas ejection stages) and explosive processes. We have used a simple proportionality law for the dependence of the star formation rate on the gas fraction,viz. SFR(t)=$\gamma\sigma_g$$^k$(t) where,following the classical approach of Schmidt (1959) we have used k=1,and the value of $\gamma$ is 0.11 Gyr$^{-1}$.The observed parameters of chemical evolution for the solar neighborhood are reasonably reproduced.As a suitable approximation to the IMF we have used the Salpeter (1955) law,i.e. $\phi$(m) $\propto$ m$^{-(1+x)}$ with x=1.35,between 73 M$_\odot$ and 0.5 M$_\odot$,and have approximated the flattening observed at low masses (see e.g. Scalo (1986),Kroupa et al. (1993)) with a plateau of value $\phi$(0.5) between 0.5M$_\odot$ and 0.1M$_\odot$.This approximation is convenient for computations,and represents a reasonable fit to the observations.Slightly better but more complicated fits to the observations would not affect any of the conclusions reached here.Finally we approximated the stellar lifetime t$_m$ as a function of mass m,following Arimoto $\&$ Yoshii (1986) by t$_m$=11700/m$^{2}$ in units of Myrs for t,and solar masses for m. We have shown that our model can reproduce the well established observed chemical abundance parameters of the galactic disk in the solar neighborhood, the $^{9}$Be/H and $^{10+11}$B/H temporal evolution (see Casuso & Beckman (1997)), as well as that of D/H, $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li and $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B (see Casuso& Beckman 1999). It is well known that closed box models (with P(t)=0),of galactic chemical evolution fail to reproduce several of the disk constraints,most notably the metallicity distribution in the disk,characterized by the low numbers of G dwarfs with low metallicities.They also fail to reproduce the disk evolution of Be and B vs. Fe, and models which give adequate fits to these observed data sets require increasing infall to the disk of metal-free or metal-poor gas (Casuso & Beckman (1997)).We have therefore adopted the same representation of the infall as was used in that paper: $$P(t) = \frac {e{^{\lambda t}}}{M(t)}$$ where M(t) is the total mass of the zone at time t,and $\lambda^{-1}$ is a time constant which must be in the range of a few Gyr.It is notable that recent observations of abundances in the local interstellar medium (Fitzpatrick (1996)) showing undepleted elements with abundances significantly below solar, give support to the idea of steady dilution by infall of non-enriched gas to the disk. Including the global effect of depletion as in the model of Casuso and Beckman (1999) does not in practice yield significant improvements in the data fit compared to non-depleted models, within the limits of error. Application of numerical modelling: incorporation of $\alpha$+$\alpha$ by GCR in the ISM. ========================================================================================= A seminal early paper describing the physics of light element production by spallation and fusion reactions,authored by Meneguzzi,Audouze and Reeves (1971) has been the basis of much of the intervening work in the field.These authors showed that nuclides of light elements can be produced by spallation during collisions of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) protons and alpha particles with nuclei of C,N and O in the interstellar medium (ISM),and also by CNO in the GCR colliding with protons and alphas in the ISM.The contribution of the latter set of reactions to the production of Li,Be and B nuclides by spallation has been estimated to be some 20$\%$ of the former (Meneguzzi and Reeves 1975),and this should not have been very different in the past,assuming that the cosmic ray composition reflects that of the ISM.This has meant that as far as spallation is concerned we needed to calculate in detail only the former reactions,taking the latter into account by proportion.A further source of light element nuclides,whose importance has been recognized more recently,is the production of $^{6}$Li and $^{7}$Li by fusion reactions between GCR alpha particles and those of the ISM.The relative importance of this mechanism may have declined somewhat,as the abundaces of CNO in the ISM have grown relative to that of $^{4}$He (although the abundance of the latter is still overwhelmingly greater), but in the early phases of the disk it was certainly an important mechanism (Montmerle,1977,Steigman $\&$ Walker,1992),and as we will see,it must still play a major role today. In this work we have used the standard expression for the production of light element nuclides by GCR protons and alphas in the ISM: $$\frac {dY{_k}}{dt} = {\sum}Y{_j^{ISM}}(t){\sum\int}F{_i^{GCR}}(E,t){\sigma_{ij}^k}(E)dE$$ where Y$_j$(t) are the abundances,by number,of the various species,and j refers to $^{12}$C,$^{13}$C,$^{14}$N,$^{16}$O or $^{4}$He,k refers to $^{6,7}$Li and $^{9}$Be,$^{10}$B or $^{11}$B,and the variable i refers to GCR protons or alphas.F$_i^{GCR}$(E,t) is the interstellar GCR flux spectrum,and $\sigma_{ij}^k$(E) is the cross-section for each reaction i+j$\longrightarrow$k,which has a corresponding energy threshold E$_T$.The quantities Y$_j^{ISM}$(t) are computed from the galactic chemical evolution models described in section 3.They are thus observationally constrained,and we have reasonably good estimates of their evolution with t during the disk lifetime.The spallation and fusion cross sections $\sigma_{ij}^k$(E) are also well-known (see Read $\&$ Viola 1984, Mercer,Austin and Glagola 1997) within narrow limits of error.These cross sections show rather similar global behaviour,starting from thresholds E$_T$ close to 10-20 MeV/nucleon,peaking somewhere between 20 and 70 MeV/nucleon,and declining rapidly to a plateau above $\sim$100MeV/nucleon.There is,however,a key difference between the $\alpha$+$\alpha\longrightarrow$$^{6,7}$Li reaction cross-sections and the remaining cross-sections:while the peak value for the former is some 500 times that of the plateau value,for the latter the corresponding ratio is only 5 to 10.This implies that while for the processes that can give rise to $^{9}$Be,$^{10}$B and $^{11}$B the whole of the energy spectrum of the GCR,up to the GeV range,comes into play,for the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process only the lowest energy particles,those with less than 100 MeV/nucleon,yield significant $^{6,7}$Li.(Of course a fraction of $^{6,7}$Li is indeed formed by spallation in the higher energy range,but none of the $^{9}$Be or $^{10,11}$B can be formed via the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process).This dichotomy has important consequences for the observationally very different time dependence,and hence the metallicity dependence,of $^{6,7}$Li on the one hand,and $^{9}$Be/$^{10,11}$B on the other. In order to try to reproduce the evolution of the light elements it is clear that we need estimates of the current energy spectrum of the GCR component,of its flux,and of how these parameters have varied with time.For the present epoch the magnitude and spectral shape of the flux of GCR particles reaching the earth are fairly well determined by direct experiment for particles with energies higher than a few hundred MeV/nucleon:those which are directly observed at the earth’s orbit. For these particles a spectrum of form F(E,t$_0$)$\propto$E$^{-2.2}$ is found,up to a few GeV/nucleon and F(E,t$_0$)$\propto$E$^{-2.6}$ at higher energies (Ip and Axford 1985).However at lower energies the GCR spectrum must be demodulated to take into account the blocking effects of the heliosphere.This has been a well-known cause of difficulties for light nuclide production theory(Meneguzzi et al. 1971;Meneguzzi $\&$ Reeves 1979;Reeves $\&$ Meyer 1978),and the problem of determining the spectral dependence and the amplitude of the unmodulated interstellar component of the GCR spectrum below 100 MeV/nucleon still lacks an entirely acceptable solution.In the present modelling exercise we follow Reeves $\&$ Meyer (1978) in taking a most probable value for solar demodulation of 5,for the whole GCR spectrum,and supplement this with a further mean factor of 15 for the particles with energies having energies E$\leq$100MeV/nucleon,which is consistent with the estimates made by McDonald et al. (1990) and McKibben (1991) from observations of the low energy component of $\alpha$ particles out to a heliocentric distance of 43 a.u. with Pioneer 10 and 11.More recent studies do not claim major improvements here,because no direct measurement beyond the heliopause has yet been made.To summarize,we take the spectral dependence of the flux to be proportional to (E+E$_0$)$^{-\lambda}$,where E$_0$ is the rest energy of the proton,and $\lambda$ takes values of 2.6 below 0.1GeV/nucleon,2.2 between 0.1 GeV/nucleon and 1GeV/nucleon,and again 2.6 at energies higher than this,and in these we follow previous studies on light nuclide production by Walker et al. (1985) and by Steigman $\&$ Walker (1992).Finally we normalized the flux to match the constraint imposed by the measured GCR proton flux for energies greater than 0.1 GeV/nucleon:12.5 cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$GeV$^{-1}$nucleon$^{-1}$ (Gloeckler $\&$ Jokipii 1967),together with a ratio of the $\alpha$/p fluxes of 0.15,consistent with the observations of Gloeckler $\&$ Jokipii (1967) as re-examined by Webber $\&$ Lezniak (1974).Of course, one must invoke (as must all models invoking GCR reactions to produce the light elements) effective magnetic confinement of GCR’s in the Galaxy in order to obtain the required high absolute fluxes of GCR protons and alphas. In the present work we are concerned with Li production, but in the models we have included depletion for the gas which has been processed into stars (we have assumed here that stars which expel their gas into the ISM have completely depleted their Li so that this expelled gas has zero Li abundance), and the “[impoverishment]{}” due to the infall of gas to the disk from the halo: we assume that this gas has the initial,i.e. the primordial, Li abundance.However the inclusion, or not, of these effects, influences the model results, i.e. the effective production curve, significantly only in the range -0.2$\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$+0.2, where the effect of infall has been to cause a slight fall in the observable Li abundance. One of the arguments of the present paper rests on a correct understanding of how the low energy GCR particle flux has developed with time.Specialists in cosmic ray physics have previously proposed that, since the measured abundances of GCR nuclides show a dependence on the first ionization potentials of the parent atoms,the principal sources of these particles must be the atmospheres of relatively low mass,relatively cool stars (see Cass$\acute{e}$ $\&$ Goret (1978),Meyer (1985,1993)).The consequences of this for the time dependence of the galactic GCR flux in the range of energies required to produce the light element nuclides,and specifically for those below 100 MeV/nucleon which participate in the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction,is an increase of the flux at later times due to the accumulation of stars with lifetimes comparable to that of the disk.In the seminal study of Meneguzzi,Audouze $\&$ Reeves (1971) and also in the careful re-examination of light element abundance production by Walker et al. (1985),the zero-order assumption was made of a GCR flux constant with time.A number of other workers in the field (Reeves $\&$ Meyer 1978,Mathews et al.1990) used a time-varying scheme in which the GCR flux F(E,t) is proportional to the supernova rate,SNR(t),which in turn was set proportional to the star formation rate SFR(t),in their models. In their study Prantzos,Cass$\acute{e}$ $\&$ Vangioni-Flam (1993) were well aware of the importance of the time-dependence of the GCR flux,and also assumed that it followed the supernova rate.However,in the present study we use the assumption that this flux follows the expulsion rate of gas from stars,and we have in fact varied the upper limit of the mass range from which expulsion is considered.The delay entailed allows the model predictions to avoid one of the main difficulties encountered by Prantzos et al.:that without this delay there would have to have been an early sharp increment in the disk of Li (in particular) against Fe,in the range of \[Fe/H\] between -2.0 and -1.0,an increment which is not observed.This delay is due to the fact that although in the early disk there would have been a high SN rate,required to accelerate the GCR particles,the cumulative number of low and intermediate mass stars required to inject major quantities of He nuclei (Meyer 1985) was still low.Both injection and secondary acceleration are required to yield MeV range GCR,and these conditions have been fulfilled simultaneously with increasing effect in the later disk,which explains the observed delay in the onset of disk Li production, even with respect to Fe (and [a fortiori]{} with respect to O). In Fig 1 we contrast the evolution of the Li abundance in a typical model in which the GCR flux is proportional to the SFR,with that in models chosen from those we have applied in the present paper,in which the flux is proportional to the gas expulsion rate from the stellar population at a given epoch.The qualitative difference is evident,and the relative reduction of the GCR flux in the early disk,compared with more recent epochs,is clear.There are two further points about the acceleration and propagation of the GCR which we should make here.As a result of many studies over the past 30 years it is now a widely accepted possibility that the majority of the observed particles in the GCR flux have been accelerated in collisionless mode by shock waves which originate in supernova explosions and propagate through the dilute interstellar plasma (Lagage $\&$ Cesarsky 1983,Blandford $\&$ Eichler 1987).In the model of GCR propagation by Prantzos et al. (1993) the high energy part of the GCR flux spectrum is modulated according to the escape length of the particles as a function of their energy;this effect has changed with epoch,in such a way that the current spectrum has a greater slope than the spectrum at early Galactic epochs.The low energy fraction of the GCR flux has remained,however,virtually unaffected by this change,suggesting that the evolution of the Li production rate has been due rather to the time variation of alpha-particle density than to the variation of the spectral index.Secondly we must emphasize that provided there has been [ sufficient]{} volume occupied by SN-affected ISM,the flux of low energy $\alpha$-particles will depend principally on the population density of the injectors:low-mass stars,rather than the SN remnants which accelerate them.A final point here is that low energy GCR’s may in fact be accelerated by wind termination shocks due to stars of the full mass range.This process has been invoked by Rosner and Bodo (1996) to explain the diffuse non-thermal Galactic radio emission.Clearly acceleration via this process is not proportional to the SN rate but to the cumulative gas expelled by all stars present at a given epoch.Although taken alone it does not lead to sufficient delay to explain the abrupt rise in the Li-Fe envelope it is, a promising mechanism for $\alpha$ acceleration in the context of the Li abundance observations. Here we should allude to the as yet not fully resolved question of the origin of cosmic rays.In early models of SN shock theory, the thermal gas in the ISM was regarded as the reservoir of seed particles which can became cosmic-ray nuclei.But this clashes with the source composition of the GCR (Meyer 1985).To solve this problem one needs to invoke an injection of suprathermal ions.There are two main types of scenario here: one assumes that the observed local flux of GCRs has its origin in supernovae accelerating their own ejecta, and the other assumes an origin in the atmospheres of intermediate and low mass stars (for discussions see Meyer et al. 1997,Ellison et al. 1997,Ramaty et al. 1997,Ramaty et al. 1998, Higdon et al. 1999).While the early Galactic beryllium data suggest production by cosmic rays originating from SN accelerating their own ejecta, the observed composition of the cosmic-ray source material reflect a correlation with first ionization potentials, leading to the suggestion that cosmic-ray source material originates in the atmospheres of stars.As evidence for this, we know that the abundances of elements with low first-ionization potentials are enhanced in the solar corona and in solar energetic particles, suggesting that similar shock acceleration in low-mass, cool stars could provide a particle injection source for acceleration by supernova shocks in the ISM.Both origins (SN or low-mass stars) have many problems as complete explanations of the origin of GCRs with energies greater than 1 GeV per nucleon (see Ramaty et al. 1998). We cannot consider as coincidental the similarity between the GCRS composition and that of the solar corona which is biased according to first ionization potential, and we must take very seriously the asertion of Ellison et al. (1997) that “in the outer solar atmosphere the solar coronal gas, the solar wind, and the $\sim$MeV solar energetic particles have undoubtedly a composition biased according to FIP”, together with the fact that the hydrogen and precisely helium are not well fitted by the alternative model of Meyer et al. (1997) and Ellison et al. (1997) based on volatility and mass to charge to explain the GCRS.Also, we must note that the cosmic-ray electrons have very different spectra from that of the nuclear species at GeV energies, and may, in fact, have entirely different origins (Berezinskii et al. 1990).In addition, atomic collisions of low-energy ions (corresponding to a distinct low-energy cosmic-ray component) produce characteristic nonthermal X-ray emission.On this point Tatischeff et al. (1999) have shown that a distinct Galaxy-wide low energy cosmic-ray component could account for the hard component of the Galactic ridge X-ray emission in the 0.5-10 keV energy domain.Also, one must note the different behaviour of helium and hydrogen data with respect to the other GCR nuclei when the energy of these particles is increased , as inferred from the observations in the solar corona, in the solar wind, in the solar energetic particles and in the GCR (see Meyer 1985, Meyer 1993).One can see how He and H abundances decrease systematically as the energy increases, while the abundances of the other nuclei remain invariant.All these considerations point to an origin for the low-energy $\alpha$ particles which optimize Li production, which could be quite different from that for the GCR nuclei at higher energies.In our coherent scenario of chemical evolution for the Galaxy, we point to the origin in low-mass stars of the low-energy (those below 0.1 GeV per nucleon) $\alpha$-particles of GCRs, consistent with the fact that the Li production cross section for the $\alpha$-$\alpha$ fusion reaction falls very steeply outside the energy range between 0.01GeV/nucleon and 0.1 GeV/nucleon (see e.g. Ramaty et al. 1997). In order to quantify our model, we will account for the energy needed for the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction be coherent with the energy supplied by the intermediate mass stars in a range when the Li production is efficient.Because our concern is essentially with alphas, and because the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction which yields Li has a distribution of measured cross sections which is very low outside the 10-100 MeV/nucleon range, we calculate the energy budget by integrating the flux in that range.So, the energy per SNII will be the total GCR energy in this range during e.g. 10$^{8}$yr., taking 0.1 cm$^{-3}$ as an average current He abundance in GCRs , and a section corresponding to the 500pc radius taken here as the size of the selected circumsolar volume, all divided by the number of SNII needed by our numerical model ($\sim$13000 during each 10$^{8}$ yr.): $$Energy/SNII=5{\cdot}15{\cdot}{\int_{0.01}^{0.1}}E(E+E{_{0}}){^{-2.6}}k{\cdot}dE{\cdot}10^{8}{\cdot}0.1{\cdot}{\pi}500{^{2}}/13000$$ with E$_{0}$=0.938GeV, 5 is the solar demodulation factor and 15 a factor required to give a good fit to the data, and k is the normalization constant which is obtained fitting the observed GCR flux of alphas at energies above 0.1GeV: $$0.15{\cdot}12.5cm{^{-2}}s{^{-1}}GeV{^{-1}}n{^{-1}}={\int_{0.1}^{1}}k{\cdot}(E+E{_{0}}){^{-2.2}}dE+{\int_{1}^{\inf}}k{\cdot}(E+E{_{0}}){^{-2.6}}dE$$ From this one obtains the energy per SNII needed for our model to produce the Li observed in the disk by alphas, of 2$\cdot$10$^{50}$ ergs. which is in very reasonable agreement for energy available from SN model estimates.Taking the IMF used here, we also obtain that the energy per star of intermediate mass (1-3 M$_{\odot}$) needed for the alphas produced in this stars, is of 10$^{49}$ ergs, very reasonable for the helium flash or coronal mass injections. The net accelerating power of the OB star enviroment in the local spiral arm has not,in this model, varied by more than a moderate fraction during the disk lifetime. The fact that the model produces some twice as much local GCR flux at the present epoch as at the begining of the disk is due entirely to the accumulation of particles (H,He,C,N,O) emitted at low energies from low mass stars,and not to any substantial change in the net efficiency of the SN mechanism which subsequently accelerates them,and which has been present constantly throughout the disk lifetime. This scenario is consistent with other parameters such as the lifetimes of $\alpha$-particles in the ISM.First we must note that due to the very high temperatures needed to deplete $^{4}$He, efficient destruction occurs in stellar interiors.However, the $\alpha$-particles can also disappear in principle due to fusion reactions with other $\alpha$s,$^{12}$C,$^{14}$N and $^{16}$O in the ISM, leading to $^{6}$He,$^{6}$Li,$^{7}$Li,$^{7}$Be,$^{9}$Be,$^{10}$Be,$^{10}$B,$^{11}$B,$^{10}$C and $^{11}$C.These latter reactions have cross sections below 100mb, and so, taking densities of the ISM below 10$^{5}$cm$^{-3}$, the lifetimes are greater than 10$^{12}$ yr, i.e. greater than the age of the Universe. On the other hand, the flux of $\alpha$-particles in the range of energies concerned here, i.e. between 10MeV/n and 100 MeV/n, could comes from the $\alpha$-particles produced in later type stars at energies below 2.5MeV/n. In the mass range 0.5M$_{\odot}$$\leq$M$\leq$3M$_{\odot}$ the central regions become degenerate and the triple-alpha reaction ignites via the violent [helium flash]{}.The central energy-generation rate at the peak of this helium flash exceeds 10$^{13}$ times that in the center of the Sun causing the well attested expansion to the giant phase before the bulk of the He has been consumed.For these stars the expulsion of He nuclei into the ISM occurs with much greater efficiency than for the less accelerated transformation to the giant phase accompanied by the burning of the He which occurs in stars with higher masses.Another realistic possibility to explain the required low energy alpha flux is that the ions can be injected (at MeV energies) via coronal mass injections (mainly from the coronae of dMe and dKe dwarfs, by far the most numerous stars in the Galaxy) (Shapiro 1999). One way of seeing the problem is via a two-stage scenario similar to that of Meyer (1985), which assumes the OB associations as the best sites of production of $\alpha$-particles of GCRs; there, a large number of later type stars are being formed together with a few short-lived massive stars; the former have a very high surface activity owing to their youth and should emit lots of suprathermal particles, while the latter provide stellar wind and SN shock waves within their few 10$^{6}$ yr lifetime; so injectors and high energy accelerators are closely linked in space and time.Energies as low as 0.01-0.1MeV/n are sufficient for suprathermal particles to be accelerated much more efficiently than the thermal gas.Particles with energies below 2.5MeV/n undergo significant coulomb energy losses, which brake and thermalize the particles, impeding $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion production of Li.However, the time for thermalization is inversely proportional to the density of the medium in which suprathermal particles propagate.The $\alpha$-particles propagating in dense clouds, thermalize within 10$^{4}$ yr, but in the diffuse hot interstellar medium (HIM) where n$_{H}$$\sim$3.10$^{-3}$cm$^{-3}$, the thermalization time is several times 10$^{6}$ yr.We can then assume that the mechanisms already proposed by Meyer (1985) can operate.Ionized media confine energetic particles, so that suprathermal particles emitted in the HIM will not in general traverse any neutral, dense medium.In dense cloud complexes later type stars can form continuously while OB star formation will disperse the complex rapidly; and Meyer (1985) brings out the possibility of reacceleration of suprathermal particles emitted by young late type stars having migrated into the HIM just nearby the cloud complex. But one might not in fact need a two-stage scenario if the intermediate stars produce and also accelerate alphas to energies in the range 10-100MeV/n, where the coulomb energy losses are not so efficient. Another possibility is that the $\alpha$-particles needed come from the so called “anomalous” component of He nuclei which is observed precisely at the range of low energies here considered (below 100 MeV/n).These He nuclei had reported as an unusually flat helium spectrum, apparently unrelated with GCR spectrum (Webber 1989).In fact, the solar modulation effects on this helium anomalous component, as observed on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at $\sim$40 AU from the sun, between 1985 and 1987 (when the solar modulation reached its minimum) show a change of a factor $\sim$100 in the intensity of these particles between 10 and 20 MeV/n as they rapidly emerge from the background of low energy GCRs (Webber 1989), in good agreement with this work where we need a total modulation of 5$\cdot$15=75 over the “normal” GCRs. We can now summarize the reasons why the present family of models gives an adequate prediction of the observed Li vs. Fe evolution curve.In those older models where a constant GCR flux was used (e.g. Walker et al. 1985) which is in fact not too bad a first-order approximation to the time-delayed evolution for the low energy flux which we obtain here,the importance of the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction was not realized.In more recent models,on the other hand,where $\alpha$+$\alpha$ reactions have been well included (Steigman $\&$ Walker (1992),Steigman (1993),Prantzos et al. (1993)), sophisticated time-evolution schemes for the GCR have been used, which unfortunately do not explore the delayed contribution of lower mass stars to the low energy GCR spectrum.In the former models normalized to give the correct Li abundance at, say, \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$-1.5, there was simply not enough contemporary Li produced and in the latter,while it would be feasible to attain the contemporary abundance value: log N (Li) $\sim$ 3,this would entail abundances of Li at \[Fe/H\] $\sim$ -1 which are too high by more than half an order of magnitude.In the next section we show that our models yield results in much better agreement with the observations. Predictions of the family of numerical models: comparison with observations. ============================================================================ In the present section we present the results of our modelling exercises.We have already shown in Fig. 1 the observations that we have set out to model.We began with data which we ourselves reported (Rebolo,Molaro $\&$ Beckman 1988) because of the ready availability of the complete data set, to which we have added a newer and extensive set of results from Spite (1996).In Fig 1 we show observations of Li vs. Fe abundances over a wide range of surface temperatures and metallicities.The assumption we will make in interpreting these data is that the upper envelope shows,essentially,the evolution of Li with Fe,while the points which fall below the envelope refer to Li depleted in the individual objects observed. In Fig 1 we see that the Li abundance remained essentially constant during the halo period (in which the Fe abundance was evolving from its lowest values to around -1.5) and then began to rise.The approximate plateau at low \[Fe/H\],the “[Spite]{}” plateau,corresponds roughly to primordial Li,while the later rise represents the presence of galactic Li production modulated by any averaged depletion which may take place.A key observational result is the rather abrupt rise of the Li envelope at \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-0.2, to an essentially constant value between -0.2 and +0.2.This second “[plateau]{}”, although it is not as clear as the “[Spite plateau]{}” appears to be consistent with our general model predictions as one can see in Fig. 1.This plateau is a natural consequence of the “[loop back]{}” in abundance of Li already shown in Casuso & Beckman (1997) to occur for the Be and B disk abundances (where it appears more distinctly because stellar depletion is much less important than for Li), and is due to the increase with time in the infall of gas to the disk, which dilutes the Li abundance and more so the Fe abundance, reducing the latter in recent epochs from a broad peak attained several Gyr ago. The model shown in Fig 1,in which the GCR flux was held proportional to the gas expulsion rate from the whole stellar population represents a first approach using delayed $\alpha$+$\alpha$ as the principal source of Li,and its relative success is encouraging,but in using gas expelled from the whole stellar mass range it does not try to take into account the fact that the low energy component of GCR,responsible for the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process which we are postulating as the principal source of Li, may well originate mainly in lower mass stars.The most direct way to do this is to place upper stellar mass limits on the expulsion rate of gas for which the GCR flux,at each epoch,is deemed proportional.Curves (ii) and (iii) show the results of allowing the GCR flux which enters the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ reaction to be proportional to the gas expelled per unit time from stars of all masses and up to mass limit of 3M$_\odot$ respectively.It is clear that the model with the upper limit of 3M$_\odot$ gives a much better fit to the observed envelope shown here, and goes far in demonstrating the need to include the implied time delay in the build-up of the GCR flux in the relevant energy range.The curve for the 2M$_\odot$ upper limit shows a good fit to the form of the observations but yields rather low Li production. Even given the observational uncertainties in the Li-Fe dependence we can use these data and these models to constrain broadly the stellar mass range which serves as a significant source of low energy GCR $\alpha$ particles.The fact that models with an upper mass restriction give better fits to the data is itself an argument in favour of intermediate and lower mass stars as the principal sources of the GCR flux at low energies. One further note should be added.Our evolutionary models were designed to account for the G-dwarf metallicity distribution, and B and Be evolution in the disk.In fact the latter data begin to be very weak statistically for \[Fe/H\] greater than +0.1, which is where the previous model predictions terminate.In Fig. 6 we show the result of a modified model where the upper limiting Fe abundance is +0.3.This is an $\alpha$+$\alpha$ model with the relevant GCR flux proportional to the gas expelled from stars with masses $\leq$3M$_{\odot}$, and it also accounts well for the observations.We must note, however, that the systematic uncertainties admitted by the observers for the stars with high Li abundances and high Fe abundance, are in the sense of requiring lower \[Fe/H\] (0.1 instead of 0.3 or 0.4) (see e.g. Boesgaard & Tripicco (1986)). Discussion: alternative sources of disk lithium. ================================================ We have used evolutionary models for the galactic disk in the solar neighborhood to re-examine the theme of Li production.In the first part of this paper we presented analytical and semi-analytical models, with their simplifying assumptions and limitations, and showed that models incorporating a delay in Li production compared with that of Fe give a fair description of the observed evolutionary history of Li,using the Fe abundance as a reference parameter.In the subsequent sections we showed that numerical models with infall of non-enriched gas during the disk lifetime give good fits to the observations, the best fits coming from models where the infall has shown a tendency to increase (see Fig.5).One consequence of this has been the non-monotonic evolution of the metallicity with time:\[Fe/H\] has grown to somewhat greater than solar values,and then fallen back slowly.This circumstance yields metal-metal plots with a characteristic fold-back close to solar metallicities.The Li production depends in fine detail,but not in principle or in broad trend on this form of the infall model. Applying this general evolutionary scheme to Li production we have introduced one novel assumption which proves capable of resolving the hitherto difficult to reproduce Li-Fe curve.This assumption is that the part of the GCR flux responsible for the production of $^{7}$Li and $^{6}$Li by the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion process:the low energy flux (at least) is emitted principally by intermediate mass stars,an assumption well supported in the literature on GCR production (see e.g. Meyer 1985,Meyer 1993 and references therein).The novelty which this introduces into the models is that the production rate of $^{7}$Li and $^{6}$Li is then constrained to follow not the SFR,but the rate of net expulsion of gas from stars within a mass range whose upper limit becomes an independent variable in the modeling scheme.This assumption leads to the delayed production of Li in the models,in good agreement with the observations. The concept of late-time production of Li is not,of course,newly introduced within the present model,even though its use with a GCR source here is original.Other mechanisms for producing Li associated predominantly with lower mass objects might in principle be able to satisfy the observational constraints of the Li-Fe envelope of Fig. 1,and a number of these have been suggested.Sites which have been put forward as serious candidates for a major fraction of galactic Li production include novae,neutron stars,stellar mass black holes, red giants, AGB stars, and carbon stars,all of which might satisfy the constraint of delaying the Li production with respect to that of Fe and also processes in supernovae,which satisfy this condition with greater or lesser degree of difficulty.It is not possible to dismiss these sources but the fact that they each fare some difficulty:theoretical or observational,tends to reinforce our view that GCR rather than stellar production of Li has in fact predominated. Results of earlier work by Arnould $\&$ Norgaard (1975) on novae,followed by the more detailed study of Starfield et al. (1978) have been more recently called into question by Boffin,Paulus $\&$ Arnould (1993) using new reaction cross-sections.The latter authors conclude that it is much more difficult to produce a significant quantity of Li in novae than previously predicted.A search for lithium in late-type companions of several dwarf and classical novae has not yielded detections (Martin et al. (1995)) Measurements of Li in the youngest stars,in some of whose atmospheres production has been postulated to occur,tend to yield abundances close to the “[canonical]{}” value for moderately young stars,of log N (Li) $\simeq$ 3.2 or 3.3,and do not seem to show sufficient Li to be strong candidates for major galactic production.Martin et al. (1992) showed that in some cool companions of hot (i.e. young) stars,where simple atmospheric model analysis could appear to show Li abundances of up to 3.7,a more careful NLTE study yields upper values of 3.4,with most objects falling below this.Similar results have been obtained by Duncan (1991),by Magazzu et al. (1992) and by Martin et al. (1992) for T Tauri stars.Here again careful analysis reduced apparently very high values of the Li abundance in some objects to values well within the range of the normal young stellar population. There do appear to be giants especially over-abundant in Li,notably a sub-set of the C-stars (Abia et al. (1991)),and a fraction of normal K-giants (De la Reza & Da Silva (1992)).Observations here are still few,and conclusions made somewhat more difficult by the convective tendency of giants to deplete Li (this of course strengthens any argument in favor of such stars being Li sources if strong Li absorption lines are seen in their spectra).In the most extensive sets of observations of field giants,however,very few indeed have particularly strong Li abundances (Brown et al. 1989).Thus if certain types of giants are important Li producers,since they are few,and therefore need to be strong sources,while sparsely distributed,one might expect more scatter in population I Li than is observed.Nevertheless production in giants remain a possible source,and the main argument we offer against its being the main source can only be that the GCR model presented is able to account for the relevant observations without a major extra Li contribution. Similar consideration may be given to the postulated importance of Li production in late-type companions to neutron stars and black-hole candidates.In a paper on these objects by Martin et al. (1994),Li abundances ranging up to 3.3 for Cen X-4 are detected which might be increased if there is substantial overionization of LiI due to UV and X-ray flux coming from the compact object.These authors claim that since Li undergoes depletion by convection in late-type stars,the presence of relatively high Li abundances in these objects marks them as Li producers,and therefore candidates for major enrichment of the galactic disk.Here again while we see no immediate argument which can rule out this possibility one may doubt that there are sufficient such sources.Martin et al. (1994) put forward the idea that there may well have been more X-ray binaries,especially high-mass binaries,in the past but the curve of Li as a function of Fe implies that the production mechanism should not be associated with high mass objects.Nevertheless we are not in a position here to claim that processes in X-ray binaries cannot be responsible for a significant part of galactic Li production,only that these appears to be no requirement for this as a major source. In all the analytical approximations based on proportionality of Li production rate to the gas expulsion rate by stars of low or intermediate masses (equations (12) (14)) one can see considerable resemblance to the observed lithium growth profile in the zone of interest, i.e., with metallicities \[Fe/H\] between -1.0 and 0.0 (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3). We have used the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process in the ISM as illustrative of processes which follow the behaviour of stars of intermediate and low masses, those whose lifetimes are long, and whose numbers in the disk have therefore grown cumulatively with time.Any process with equivalent time-dependent characteristics could, in general terms, satisfy this global observational constraint.Production of Li in flares of red giants (Cameron $\&$ Fowler 1971), or in novae (Arnould $\&$ Norgaard 1979,Starrfield et al. 1978), could also satisfy, in principle, the criterion of delayed production because there the rate of production would be proportional to the number of stars with intermediate masses at each time (cumulative because of their long lifetimes) and not to the gas expulsion rate.But, as one can see in Fig. 4, where we plot the results from numerical model in the case of GCR flux proportional to the cumulative number of stars with masses less than or equal to 1M$_{\odot}$ (increasing this limit yields a decreasing rate of accumulation of Li producers), the prediction, although not too bad, is by no means as good as that obtained using gas expulsion by stars of masses less than or equal to 3M$_{\odot}$, and is also in fact worse than that obtained using gas expulsion of stars with masses less than or equal to 2M$_{\odot}$ (see Fig. 4). As far as mechanisms which depend on the presence of SNI are concerned, two arguments appear to weaken their claims.One is that the Li-Fe envelope in Fig. 1 is not linear, which would be the dependence if the Li were either produced directly by the impact of SNIe on their immediate surroundings, or by processes involving GCR in a wider volume of space, produced by SNIe.The other is that the locally measured GCR abundances favour an origin, for the lower energy particles at least, in the thermal equilibria pertaining in the atmospheres of stars of moderate mass, rather than in the extreme conditions of a supernova.However here again we argue in terms of probabilities rather than claming that this mechanism is excluded. Another possibility is the production of Li in compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes, but the time evolution of compact objects would be proportional to the gas expulsion rate from all stars (which is mainly that of SNI+SNII).This production is shown in Fig. 1 from numerical modelling, and one can see how this implies overabundance of Li with respect to the observational constraints; in fact its tendency is not too different from that of those GCR models where the flux is proportional to the SFR. Other possibilities for production of Li, such as in AGB stars or carbon stars (Matteucci et al. (1995), Romano (1999)) are shown not to reproduce the observations really as well as the delayed models, as one can see, for example, in Fig. 4. Conclusions. ============ We have surveyed mechanisms of Li production in the disk, and confronted them with the upper envelope of the Li-Fe observations, which we have taken to represent the Li-Fe evolution curves in the absence of stellar depletion for the individual objects observed.As a result we can conclude that: 1)Mechanisms relying on SNIIe to produce Li cannot be excluded in at least an approximate explanation of the observations.This is true for production within the SNe themselves, but also holds for GCR fluxes originating in SNIIe. 2)Mechanisms whose time dependence is that of the SFR give either too much Li in the early disk or too little in the later disk. 3)Mechanisms which rely on SNIe to produce the Li (again either in the immediate surroundings of the SNa or via a more generally dissipated GCR flux originating in SNIe) predict that the disk Li should grow proportionally to Fe, which does not appear to fit the observations. 4)An attempt to reproduce the results on the assumption that the contemporary maximum abundance, logN(Li)$\simeq$3.4 is the true primordial abundance, and that the Li-Fe envelope is a pure depletion curve also fails by a wide margin. 5)Mechanisms which produce an increase in disk Li significantly delayed with respect to that of Fe can explain the observations very well. We have in this article explored one such mechanism: the production of Li via $\alpha$+$\alpha$ fusion reaction in the ISM due to low energy cosmic rays whose source of origin is the atmospheres of low and intermediate mass stars.This mechanism has the virtue that these stars have lifetimes comparable with that of the disk, so that their collective gas expulsion rate has accumulated progressively throughout the disk lifetime, leading automatically to a delay with respect to Fe in the Li production curve.We have explained that even if the acceleration of the GCR is due to SNe envelopes, the product of injection rates and acceleration rates retains the delay implied by the observations (further work on acceleration mechanisms such as that due to stellar wind termination shocks is, however, well worth exploring in this context).Support for the possibility of this mechanism is provided by the observed similarity between the GCRS composition and that of the solar corona which is biased according to the first ionization potential, and we note in this context the statement of Ellison et al. (1997) that “in the outer solar atmosphere the solar coronal gas, the solar wind, and the $\sim$MeV solar energetic particles have undoubtedly a composition biased according to FIP”, together with the fact that the hydrogen and precisely helium are not well fitted by the alternative model of Meyer et al. (1997) and Ellison et al. (1997) based on volatility and mass to charge to explain the GCRS.These considerations permit an origin in an environment close to thermal equilibrium, i.e. typical of stars of moderate mass.We have incorporated the mechanism in an evolutionary model of the disk previously demonstrated to be capable of accounting well for the Be and B vs. Fe observations (Casuso & Beckman (1997)), and which gives a particularly good account of the G-dwarf metallicity distribution in the solar neighborhood.The resulting Li-Fe plots include very fair fits to the observed Li-Fe envelope. We have included in this scenario a natural mechanism of differential depletion (Casuso & Beckman 1999) operating within red supergiant envelopes, which can account for the observed D/H v. time and isotopic ratios of $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li and $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B v. time. However we would not at this stage wish to rule out the possibility of other mechanism or mechanisms for disk lithium production.The observational weight of the stellar Li abundances, as we have shown, does place some strong constraints on Li-production models.One of the clearest conclusions we can draw is that the “high” value log N(Li)$\simeq$3.4 for the primordial Li abundance can be quantitatively rejected using the Li-Fe observational constraint.The assignation of a value close to the “Spite plateau” (Spite & Spite (1982)) value: log N(Li)$\simeq$2.2 as primordial is thereby strengthened.In this context the comprehensive study by Thorburn (1994) of Li in halo stars, in which a contribution to the plateau produced by the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ reaction due to the halo GCR flux is shown to account well for the observed scatter and slight rise in the Li abundance below \[Fe/H\]=-1.5, makes a suggestive link with the disk model tested in the present paper.The importance of the $\alpha$+$\alpha$ process has almost certainly been previously underestimated in the disk, and the powerful constraint on evolutionary processes and models implied by the Li vs. Fe observations has not been adequately taken into account; it is these aspects of the lithium puzzle which the present paper has been designed to expose. [Note added in Proof:]{} Newly observations of Li and $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li in ISM (toward o Per and $\zeta$ Per) by Knauth, Federman, Lambert, Crane (Nature in press), give a variation in $^{7}$Li/$^{6}$Li ratio (from near 2 which is the expected for Li production from spallation or alpha-alpha fusion reactions purely, to near 11 which is very similar than that of solar value), together with very similar reported values for Li/H abundance (near 11x10$^{-10}$) for the two clouds in contrast with the solar value of 20x10$^{-10}$).Also, the two clouds are near the star forming region IC 348. All of these data agree very well with our picture of production of light elements in the ISM via GCRs (Be,B) (Casuso and Beckman 1997) and via alphas of low-energy (Li).We explained this variation (in fact a fall off) via a model in which the envelopes of red-supergiant stars (so, star forming region) deplete differentially $^{6}$Li and $^{7}$Li , and the increasing infall of non-depleted gas with time (Casuso and Beckman 1999).And also, we explained in the present article the decay on Li/H abundance from solar to actual ISM due precisely to the depletion in star forming regions in addition with the infall of non-enriched gas (see Fig. 4).So, we can explain these data without the problem inh erent to the explanation by Knauth et al., which point to the differential production of Li in the o Per direction and in the $\zeta$ Per direction because of the higher flux of cosmic rays in the o Per direction, while observations point to almost the same total Li/H abundance. We are happy to thank F. Spite for supplying his lithium abundance data compilation, and for helpful suggestions, and E.L. Martin for useful discussions.The anonymous referee made a number of valuable suggestions which led to significant improvements in the paper.This research was supported in part by grant PB97-0219 of the Spanish DGICYT. [99]{} Abia,C.Boffin,H.M.J.,Isern,J.,Rebolo,R.:1991,A&A 15,337. Abia,C.,Canal,R.:1988,A&A 189,55. Arimoto,N.,Yoshii,Y.:1986,A&A 164,260. Arnould,M.,Norgaard,H.:1979,A&A 42,55. Audouze,J.,Boulade,O.,Martinie,G.,Poilane,Y.:1983,A&A 127,164. Berezinskii,V.S.,Bulanov,S.V.,Dogiel,V.A.,Ginzburg,V.L.,Ptuskin,V.S.:1990, Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays (Amsterdam: North Holland). Blandford,R.,Eichler,D.:1987,Phys. Rep. 154,1. Boesgaard,A.M.,Tripicco,M.J.:1986, ApJ. 303,724. Boesgaard,A.M.:1987, ApJ. 321,907. Boffin,H.M.J.,Paulus,G.,Arnould,M.:1993,in Origin and Evolution of the Elements,eds. N. Prantzos,E. Vangioni-Flam,M. Casse,(C.U.P.),p. 344. Brown,J.A.,Sneden,C.,Lambert,D.L.,Dutchover,E.Jr.:1989,Ap.J.Suppl.Ser. 71,293. Cameron,A.G.W.,Fowler,W.A.:1971,Ap.J. 164,111. Casse,M.,Goret,P.:1978, ApJ. 221,703. Casse,Lehoucq,Vangioni-Flam:1995, Nature 373,318. Casuso,E.,Beckman,J.E.:1997, ApJ. 475,155. Casuso,E.,Beckman,J.E.:1999, AJ. 118,Nov. Copi,Schramm, Turner:1995, Science 267,192. De la Reza,R.,Da Silva,L.:1993,in Origin and Evolution of the Elements,N. Prantzos,E. Vangioni-Flamm,M. Casse,eds.,(C.U.P.),p. 216. D’Antona,F.,Matteucci,F.:1991,A&A 248,62. Dearborn,D.S.P.,Schramm,D.N.,Steigman,G.,Truran,J.W.:1989,Ap.J. 347,455. Deliyannis,C.P.,Demarque,P.,Kawaler,S.D.:1990,Ap.J.Suppl. 73,21. Digel,S.W.,Hunter,S.D.,Mukherjee,R.:1995, ApJ. 441,270. Duncan,D.K.:1991,Ap.J. 373,250. Ellison,D.C.,Drury,L.,Meyer,J.P.:1997, ApJ. 487,197. Fields, Olive: 1999, New Astron. 4, 255. Fitzpatrick,E.L.:1996, ApJ. 473,L55. Gloeckler,G.,Jokipii,J.R.:1967,Ap.J. 148,141. Higdon et al. :1999, ApJ. 509, L33. Hobbs,L.M.,Thorburn,J.A.:1991,ApJ. 375,116. Hobbs,L.M.,Thorburn,J.A.:1994,ApJ. 428, L25. Ip,W.,Axford,W.I.:1985,A&A 149,7. Israelian,G.,Garcia-Lopez,R.,Rebolo,R.:1998, ApJ. 507,805. Kozlovsky,B.,Ramaty,R.,Lingenfelter,R.E.:1997, ApJ. 484,286. Kroupa,P.,Tout,Ch.A.,Gilmore,G.:1993,M.N.R.A.S. 262,245. Lagage,P.O.,Cesarsky,C.:1983,A&A 122,129. Lemoine,M.,Ferlet,R.,Vidal-Madjar,A.,Emerich,C.,Bertin,P.:1993,A&A 269,469. Lemoine,M.,Schramm,D.N.,Truran,J.W.,Copi,C.J.:1997, ApJ. 478,554. Magazzu,A.,Rebolo,R.,Pavlenko,Ya.V.:1992,ApJ. 392,159. Martin,E.L.,Magazzu,A.,Rebolo,R.:1992,A&A 297,180. Martin,E.L.,Rebolo,R.,Casares,J.,Charles,P.A.:1994,Ap.J. 435,791. Martin,E.L.,Casares,J.,Charles,P.A.,Rebolo,R.:1995,A&A 303,785. Mason,B.:1971,Handbook of Elemental Abundances in Meteorites (N. York,Gordon & Breach). Mathews,G.,Alcock,C.,Fuller,G.:1990,Ap.J. 348,449. Matteucci,F.,D’Antona,F.,Timmes,F.X.:1995, in “The Light Element Abundances”,P.Crane ed., ESO Astrophysics Symp. (Springer),p. 319. McDonald,F.B.,Lal,N.,Trainor,J.H.,Van Hallenbeke,M.A.I.,Webber,W.R.:1977,Ap.J. 216,930. McDonald,F.B.,Lal,N.,McGuire,R.,von Rosenvinge,T.T.:1990,in “Proc. XXI Int’s Cosmic Ray Conference”,(Adelaide),6,144. McDonald,F.B.,von Rosenvinge,T.T.,Lal,N.,Trainor,J.H.,Schuster,P.:1988,in “Proc. XX Int’l Cosmic Ray Conference” (Moscow),3,397. McKibben,R.B.:1991,in “Physics of the outer Atmosphere (S. Grzedzielsnij & D. Page eds.) Pergamon,p. 107. Meneguzzi,M.,Reeves,H.:1975,A&A 40,110. Meneguzzi,M.,Audouze,J.,Reeves,H.:1971,A&A 15,337. Mercer,D.J.,Austin,S.M.,Glagola,B.G.:1997, Phys. Rev. C 55,946. Meusinger,H.,Reimann,H.,Stecklum,B.:1991, A&A 245,51. Meyer,D.M.,Hawkins,I.,Wright,E.:1993,Ap.J. 411,L61. Meyer,J.P.:1985,Ap.J.Suppl. 57,173. Meyer,J.P.:1993,in ”Origin and Evolution of the Elements“,N. Prantzos,E. Vangioni-Flam,M. Casse eds. (C.U.P.),p.26. Meyer,J.P., Drury,L.,Ellison,D.C.:1997, ApJ. 487,182. Montmerle,T.:1977,Ap.J. 217,878. Nissen,P.,Gustafsson,B.,Edvardsson,B.,Gilmore,G.:1994,A&A 285,440. Pagel,B.E.J.,Simonson,E.A.,Terlevich,R.,Edmunds,M.G.:1992,M.N.R.A.S. 255,325. Pinsonneault,M.,Deliyannis,C.,Demarque,P.:1992,Ap.J.Suppl. 78,179. Pinsonneault,M., et al.:1999 astro-ph/9803073. Prantzos,N.,Casse,M.,Vangioni-Flam,E.:1993,Ap.J. 403,630. Ramaty,R., et al.:1995, ApJ. 438,L21. Ramaty,R., et al.:1996, ApJ. 456,525. Ramaty,R.,Kozlovsky,B.,Lingenfelter,R.E.,Reeves,H.:1997, ApJ. 488,730. Ramaty,R.,Kozlovsky,B.,Lingenfelter,R.:1998, Physics Today, April,p. 30. Read,S.,Viola,V.:1984,Atomic Data & Nuclear Data 31,359. Rebolo,R.,Beckman,J.E.,molaro,P.:1987,A&A,L17. Rebolo,R.,Molaro,P.,Beckman,J.E.:1988,A&A 192,192. Rebolo,R.,Garcia-Lopez,R.J,Perez del Taoro,M.R.:1995,in ”The Light Element Abundances“,P. Crane Ed. (Springer),p. 420. Reeves,H.,Meyer,J.P.:1978,Ap.J. 266,613. Reeves,H.,Fowler,W.,Hoyle,F.:1970,Nature 226,727. Renzini,A.,Voli,M.:1981,A&A 94,175. Romano,D.:1999, in ”LiBeB, Cosmic Rays and Related X- and Gamma-Rays“,A.S.P. Conf. Series, Vol. 171,55. Rosner,R.,Bodo,G.:1996, ApJ. 470,L49. Ryan,S.G. et al. :1999, astro-ph/9905211. Salpeter,E.E.,Ap.J. 121,161. Scalo,J.M.:1986,Fund. Cosmic Phys. 11,1. Schmidt,M.:1959,Ap.J. 129,243. Schramm,Turner:1998, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70,303. Shapiro,M.M.:1999,in ”LiBeB, Cosmic Rays and Related X- and Gamma-Rays“,A.S.P. Conf. Series, Vol. 171,138. Smith,V.V.,Lambert,D.L.,Nissen,P.E.:1993, ApJ. 408,262. Spite,M.,Spite,F.:1991,A&A 252,689. Spite,F.,Spite,M.:1982,A&A 115,357. Spite,F.,Spite,M.:1993,in ”Origin and Evolution of the Elements“,N. Prantzos,E. Vangioni-Flam,M. Casse eds. (C.U.P.),p.202. Spite,F.:1996, private communication. Starrfield,S.,Truran,J.W.,Sparks,W.M.,Arnould,M.:1978,Ap.J. 222,600. Steigman,G.:1993,Ap.J. 413,L73. Steigman,G. et al.:1993, ApJ. 415,L35. Steigman,G.,Walker,T.:1992,Ap.J. 385,L13. Tatischeff,V.,Ramaty,R.,Valinia,A.:1999, in ”LiBeB, Cosmic Rays and Related X- and Gamma-Rays“,A.S.P. Conf. Series, Vol. 171,226. Thorburn,J.A.:1994,Ap.J. 421,318. Tinsley,B.M.:1980,Fund. Cosmic Phys. 5,287. Twarog,B.A.:1986,Ap.J. 242,242. Vangioni-Flam et al.:1999, New Astron. 4,245. Walker,T.P.,Steigman,G.,Schramm,D.N.,Olive,K.A.,Kang,H.S.:1991,Ap.J. 376,51. Walker,T.P.,Mathews,G.,Viola,V.:1985,Ap.J. 299,745. Webber,W.R.,Lezniak,J.A.:1974,Astrophys. Space Sci. 30,361. Webber,W.R.,:1989, in ”Cosmic Abundances of Matter", ed. C. Jake Waddington, AIP Conference Proceedings 183, p. 100. Woosley,S.F.,Hartmann,D.H.,Hoffman,D.,Harton,W.C.:1990,Ap.J. 356,272. Yoshii,Y.,Kajino,T.,Ryan,S.G.:1997, ApJ. 485,605. [Figure Captions]{} [Fig. 1]{} a) Abundance of Li v. iron metallicity \[Fe/H\] in the solar neighborhood.Compilation from the work of the group of the present authors (Rebolo,Beckman,Molaro,1987,Rebolo,Molaro and Beckman,1988), and from Spite (1996).A conservative error bar is shown in the left upper corner.The upper envelope characterizes the stars least depleted in Li at the epochs implied by each value of metallicity.Stars below the upper envelope have suffered notable internal Li depletion. In the present article we model only the envelope for the disk,i.e. for \[Fe/H\] $\geq$ -1.5. b) Disc production curves of Li for three models in which the low energy GCR flux responsible for the Li,via $\alpha$+$\alpha$,is proportional to:(i)The star formation rate (dotted line),(ii)The gas expulsion rate for the population of stars with all masses (dashed line),(iii)The gas expulsion rate for the population of stars with masses $\leq$ 3M$_\odot$ (full line).Each curve is normalized to give the observed Li abundance of 2.4 at \[Fe/H\]=-1.3.The curves are shown in comparison with the data.The axes in this figure, and in Figs. 3, 4 and 6, are: for \[Fe/H\] the logarithmic abundance with the solar value \[Fe/H\]$_{\odot}$=0, for Li the logarithmic abundance where logN(H)=12.\ \ [Fig. 2]{} a) Iron metallicity in the solar neighborhood as a function of age.The curve show the prediction of our model.Observation comparison points with error bars are from: Meusinger et al. (1991) (crosses) and Twarog (1986) (crossed circles).b) The ratio oxygen/iron as a function of the iron abundance.\[O/Fe\] v. \[Fe/H\] data are from: Rebolo et al. (1994),Nissen et al. (1994),Israelian et al. (1998).The full line corresponds to our chemical evolution model using the yields of Fe theoretically calculated for stars with very low metallicities, and the dotted line is for yields from stars with intermediate metallicities.However, in the present paper we are critically concerned with iron metallicities greater than -1.5 where there are no major problems with the dispersion of data.\ \ [Fig. 3]{} Normalized plots based on models embodying analytical schematic approximations to Li production rates and their evolution with Fe, to illustrate how some selected scenarios for the evolution of disk Li are much less in agreement with the form of the observations (the upper envelope of the points in Fig. 1a), than are others.Points are the data as in Fig. 1.All curves are from analytic approximations by mathematical functions with two free parameters which are constrained to match the data envelope at \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$-1.0 (where the full disk initiates) and at \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$0.0.Long dashed line: from eq. (17).Full line: from eqs. (6) and (19) which give a very similar result.Dashed line: from eq. (14).Dotted line: from eq. (12).\ \ [Fig. 4]{} a) through d).Observations of Li vs. Fe compared with the predictions of models taken from the literature, with parameters described in the text, and also with models developed in the present paper.Graphs common to all panels: Model due to Prantzos et al. (1993): dashed plus dotted line.Model due to Matteucci et al. (1995): dotted line.Halo model due to Casuso & Beckman (1997): solid line for \[Fe/H\]$\leq$-1.3 only.Differential curves: a) $\alpha$+$\alpha$ model with GCR flux $\propto$ gas expulsion rate by stars of masses $\leq$3M$_{\odot}$ (full line); model with GCR flux $\propto$ gas expulsion rate by stars of masses $\leq$2M$_{\odot}$ (dashed line). b) $\alpha$+$\alpha$ model with GCR flux $\propto$ gas expulsion rate by stars with masses $\leq$3M$_{\odot}$, with exponentially increasing infall (full line), with no infall (dashed line). c) $\alpha$+$\alpha$ model with GCR flux $\propto$ gas expulsion rate by stars with masses $\leq$3M$_{\odot}$ (full line); with GCR flux $\propto$ cumulative [number]{} of stars with masses $\leq$1M$_{\odot}$ (long dashed + dotted line). d) $\alpha$+$\alpha$ model with GCR flux $\propto$ gas expulsion rate by stars with masses $\leq$3M$_{\odot}$ (full line); model with no disk production but with linearly time-dependent stellar depletion from a “primordial” value of log N(Li)$\simeq$3.5 (long and short dashed line).\ \ [Fig. 5]{} Example showing the essential difference in GCR flux as a function of time for two key models: proportional to SFR(t) (full line) and proportional to the gas expulsion rate by stars with masses less than or equal to 3M$_{\odot}$ (dotted line) against time, from our numerical model with increasing infall of gas to the solar neighborhood.The steps in the curves are unsmoothed constructs of the model due to the finite time intervals employed.\ \ [Fig. 6]{} Extrapolated model curve which can account for Li abundances observed with \[Fe/H\] greater than 0.1.\ \ \[(\]a) \[(\]b) \[(\]a) \[(\]b) \[(\]a) \[(\]b) \[(\]c) \[(\]d)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Highly porous dust aggregates can break through the radial drift barrier, but previous studies assumed disks in their later stage, where the disks have a very small mass and low temperature. In contrast, dust coagulation should begin in the very early stage such as the disk formation stage because the growth timescale of dust is shorter than the disk formation timescale if there is no process to suppress the collisional growth of dust. We investigate the possibility of planetesimal formation via direct collisional growth in the very early stage of a protoplanetary disk. We show that, in the very early stage of protoplanetary disks, icy dust aggregates suffer radial drift and deplete without forming planetesimal-sized objects. This is because as the disk temperature easily increases by the viscous heating in the disk formation stage, the area where the dust can break through the radial drift barrier is restricted only to the inside the snowline. This suggests that in the disk formation stage, icy planetesimal formation via direct collisional growth of dust is difficult.' author: - Kenji Homma and Taishi Nakamoto bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'Collisional growth of icy dust aggregates in disk formation stage: difficulties for planetesimal formation via direct collisional growth outside the snowline' --- Introduction ============ Planets are thought to be formed through collisions of objects called “planetesimals” in a protoplanetary disk. Planetesimals are formed from dust particles in the disk, though their formation processes are still under debate. Some proposed planetesimal formation mechanisms include the gravitational instability of the dust layer [@goldreich1973], streaming instability [e.g., @johansen2007b], and the successive growth of dust particles by mutual collisions [@okuzumi2012; @arakawa2016]. These planetesimal formation processes are confronted with some problems. Turbulence in the disk stirs the dust and prevents dust from sufficiently settling to cause a gravitational instability [e.g., @cuzzi1993]. A streaming instability needs an enhancement in the dust-to-gas mass ratio [@johansen2009]. In planetesimal formation via direct collisional growth, the radial inward drift of macroscopic dust aggregates due to the gas drag in protoplanetary disks [@adachi1976; @weidenschilling1977] is a serious problem called the “radial drift barrier." In any mechanism, the collisional growth of dust particles may play an important role. Recent theoretical studies show that the evolution of the internal structure of dust aggregates is key for dust aggregate growth. For example, $N$-body simulations [e.g., @wada2008; @suyama2008; @suyama2012] reveal the evolution of the internal structure and the strength of aggregates for collisional compression. The strength of highly porous aggregates for static compression was investigated by [@kataoka2013a]. These studies show that aggregates do not have a compact structure but become a fluffy structure with their growth. These studies have helped in forming planetesimals via direct collisional growth. [@okuzumi2012] investigated the collisional growth of icy dust aggregates and their porosity evolution using the recipe of [@suyama2012] including collisional compression. They showed that aggregates have a very high porosity by growing with a similarly sized collision, which is called ballistic cluster–cluster aggregation (BCCA). They also showed that highly porous icy dust aggregates can grow to planetesimals without radial drift inside $10 \ {\rm AU}$ via direct collisional growth because the highly porous aggregates have a higher collision rate than compact aggregates. [@kataoka2013b] showed that icy aggregates can grow to planetesimals by collisional growth even if aggregates suffer static compression (i.e., gas compression in protoplanetary disks and the self-gravity of aggregates). These studies [@okuzumi2012; @kataoka2013b], however, assumed disks in their later stage, where the disks have a very small mass and low temperature, and set the initial condition that all icy dust particles are present as micron-sized dust particles with a dust-to-gas mass ratio of 0.01 in the entire disk. In contrast, dust coagulation should begin at the same time as disk formation if there is no process to suppress the collisional growth of dust. If dust grows and radial drift occurs in the disk formation stage, the dust will be depleted, and it will be difficult to form planetesimals after that. It seems that the possibility of planetesimal formation via direct collisional growth at a very early phase of a protoplanetary disk should be examined, and that is the purpose of this study. In order to simplify the problem, in the same way as [@okuzumi2012], we ignore some processes that suppress the collisional growth of aggregates including bouncing [e.g., @zsom2010; @zsom2011], collisional fragmentation [e.g., @birnstiel2009; @birnstiel2010; @birnstiel2012], erosion [e.g., @krijt2015], and the Coulomb interaction [e.g., @okuzumi2009a; @okuzumi2011a; @okuzumi2011b]. Although bouncing is often observed in laboratory experiments, $N$-body numerical experiments show that bouncing is unlikely to occur when aggregates have porosity [@wada2011]. Collisional fragmentation is serious when we consider rocky dust particles, but it is considerably relieved in the case of icy dust. In the case of rocky dust, the impact velocity experiencing catastrophic fragmentation is estimated to be a few ${\rm m \ s^{-1}}$ from both laboratory and $N$-body experiments [@blum2008; @wada2009]. However, for icy dust, it is up to $35-70 \ {\rm m \ s^{-1}}$ estimated from $N$-body simulations [@wada2009] assuming a $0.1$-${\rm \mu m}$-sized icy monomer. For this reason, in this study, we focus on the collisional growth of icy dust outside the snowline instead of ignoring collisional fragmentation. [ Dust aggregates can also lose mass through erosion which is caused by high-velocity collisions with small dust particles/aggregates [e.g., @schrapler2011; @seizinger2013]. The critical velocity for the erosion, however, is suggested to be 100 m s$^{-1}$ or higher if monomers are 0.1 $\mu$m-sized icy particles [@gundlach2015]. Thus, we ignore this process as well as catastrophic fragmentation for simplicity. We will discuss the validity of this assumption in Section \[sec:possibility\]. ]{} The Coulomb force cannot be ignored for negatively charged dust, and the Coulomb interaction can slow the initial dust growth, which is called the “charge barrier" [@okuzumi2009a]. However, this process is very complicated and is not clearly understood yet; thus, for the sake of simplicity, we ignore the Coulomb interaction in this study, but we discuss the importance of this process in Section \[sec:possibility\]. The formation of protoplanetary disks has been studied by hydrodynamical simulations [e.g., @yorke1993; @machida2010] and cylindrical 1-D simulations of the disk evolution [e.g., @nakamoto1994; @hueso2005]. Such disks have a mass supply of gas and dust from the envelope, and their lifetime is considered to be approximately 0.5 Myr. An important feature in such a stage is that the disk becomes heavier to show the gravitational instability due to the mass supply from the envelope [e.g., @nakamoto1994; @tsukamoto2015]. In addition, the high disk mass accretion rate to the central star makes viscous heating more effective, and the temperature of the disk becomes sufficiently high such that the snowline reaches $10 {\rm AU}$ [@zhang2015]. The increases in the mass and temperature of the disk may affect the behavior of gas drag to dust and the radial drift speed of dust. Therefore, the disk in the formation stage is greatly different from the disk that [@okuzumi2012] assumed. There are some studies that investigated the collisional growth of dust in the disk formation stage. [@birnstiel2010] investigated the gas and dust evolution including the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core and showed that no planetesimal forms in the disk formation stage. However, they assumed that dust has a compact structure and did not consider the internal density evolution of aggregates, although dust aggregates with a high porosity increase the collisional growth rate. In a complementary work, [@tsukamoto2017] investigated the highly porous dust growth in gravitationally unstable disks with mass accretion from the envelope. However, they did not consider the gas drag law for dust aggregates with a high Reynolds number, although macroscopic dust has a large Reynolds number in the disks that they used as the model. They may have overestimated the growth rate of dust since the growth rate with dust at a high Reynolds number gives the maximum value of the growth rate [@okuzumi2012]. In addition, they did not solve the evolution of the dust size distribution; thus, the internal density of dust was treated as a model parameter. The supply of dust from the envelope affects the dust size distribution, and the internal density evolution of the aggregate may be different from BCCA. In this study, we simulate the evolution of the radial size distribution of dust and the gas surface density in a disk simultaneously considering the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core. Unlike previous studies [@birnstiel2010; @tsukamoto2017], we also calculate the internal density evolution of aggregates from the size of the colliding aggregates. We use the method used in [@nakamoto1994] and [@hueso2005] as the gas disk evolution. In addition, we use the method developed by [@okuzumi2009; @okuzumi2012], which allows for the calculation of the radial size evolution of dust and the evolution of the average volume of aggregates at each orbital radius and size. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], the models of the gas and dust disk evolution are described. Our calculation results are presented in Section \[sec:result\]. A semianalytical understanding of the results, the validity of our model, and future prospects are discussed in Section \[sec:discussion\], and a summary of this study is presented in Section \[sec:sum\]. MODEL {#sec:model} ===== In this study, the coagulation of icy dust aggregates and their radial transport in a protoplanetary disk is investigated, taking into account the mass accretion to the disk from the collapsing molecular cloud core. First, the gas disk evolution model including the infall from the molecular cloud core is introduced in Section \[sec:gas\]. Then, the dust evolution model including the collisional growth, the global transport in the protoplanetary disk, and the internal density evolution of dust aggregates is described in Section \[sec:dust\]. Dust particles generally influence the dynamics of the gas in the disk through the dust–gas interaction due to the gas drag force, especially when the dust spatial mass density is close to or larger than that of the gas. Moreover, the size evolution of dust aggregates affects the opacity of the disk, and the opacity may influence the disk temperature. In our model, however, these effects on the gas disk are ignored for simplicity. Cylindrical coordinates $(r, \phi, z)$ are used to describe the phenomena in a disk. The central star is located at the origin, and the disk midplane is in the $z=0$ plane. It is also assumed that the system is axially symmetric. Disk Model {#sec:gas} ---------- Our model of the gas disk evolution follows the models described by [@nakamoto1994] and [@hueso2005]. ### Molecular Cloud Core Collapse The evolution of a disk depends on the initial infall phase associated with the molecular cloud core collapse. This phase is still not clearly understood; therefore, in order to simplify the problem, the infall model by [@shu1977], in which the molecular cloud core is assumed to be isothermal and spherically symmetric, is adopted in this study. It was shown that the molecular cloud core undergoes inside-out collapse and the mass accretion rate from the molecular cloud core $\dot{M}$ is given by$ \dot{M}=0.975 \frac{c_{\rm s,cd}^3}{G} $, where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $c_{\rm s,cd}=(k_{\rm B}T_{\rm cd}/m_{\rm g})^{1/2}$ is the isothermal sound speed in the molecular cloud core, $T_{\rm cd}$ is the temperature of the molecular cloud core, $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $m_{\rm g}$ is the mean mass of a gas molecule [@shu1977]. The temperature of the cloud core, $T_{\rm cd}$, is typically $10-20$ K [@van1993], and it is regarded as a model parameter in this study. The infall materials in a spherical shell in the molecular cloud core fall inside the centrifugal radius $r_{\rm c}$. The place on the disk where the infalling material lands depends on the specific angular momentum of the infalling material. Assuming that the molecular cloud core initially rotates as a rigid body and assuming the conservation of the angular momentum, the balance between gravity and the centrifugal force leads to the centrifugal radius at $t$, $r_{\rm c}(t)$, as $r_{\rm c}(t)={l(t)^4 \omega_{\rm cd}^2}/\{{GM(t)}\}$, where $l(t)$ is the distance from the origin to the initial position in the molecular cloud core of the material, which reaches the disk at $t$; $\omega_{\rm cd}$ is the initial angular velocity of the molecular cloud core; and $M(t)$ is the total mass of star–disk system at the time $t$. The angular velocities of molecular cloud cores are estimated from the observations of velocity gradients in clouds [@goodman1993], and their typical values range from $10^{-15} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$ to $10^{-13} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$. In this study, $\omega_{\rm cd}$ is regarded as a model parameter. The collapse solution yields $l(t)=c_{\rm s,cd}t/2$, and [@hueso2005] wrote the centrifugal radius $r_{\rm c}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq6} r_{\rm c}(t)=53\biggl(\frac{\omega_{\rm cd}}{10^{-14}{\rm s^{-1}}}\biggr)^2\biggl( \frac{T_{\rm cd}}{10 {\rm K}}\biggr)^{-4} \biggl( \frac{M(t)}{1M_{\odot}} \biggr)^3 \ {\rm AU}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the infalled materials are adopted by the disk at the orbital radius where their specific angular momentum corresponds to the angular momentum of the circular Kepler motion (this picture slightly differs from those of [@cassen1981] and [@nakamoto1994]), the mass accretion rate from the molecular cloud core to the unit surface area of the disk, $S_{\rm g}(r,t)$, is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq7} S_{\rm g}(r,t)= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\dot{M}}{8 \pi r_{\rm c}^2} \biggl(\frac{r}{r_{\rm c}} \biggr)^{-3/2} \biggl[1- \biggl( \frac{r}{r_{\rm c}} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggr]^{-1/2} & (r<r_{\rm c}) \\ 0 & (r>r_{\rm c}) . \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ ### Viscous Evolution of the Gas Disk Protoplanetary disks are geometrically thin; therefore, the temporal and spatial evolutions of the disk surface density are examined, and the structure in the disk along the $z$ direction is not solved directly but is assumed to be in the equilibrium state. The time evolution of the gas surface density is described by the equation of continuity: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq1} \frac{\partial \Sigma_{\rm g}(r)}{\partial t}=-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r v_{\rm g, r}(r) \Sigma_{\rm g}(r) )+S_{\rm g}(r),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma_{\rm g}$ is the gas surface density at the radius $r$, and $v_{\rm g}$ is the radial velocity of the gas. The second term on the right-hand side, $S_{\rm g}$, is the source term that includes the infall materials from the molecular cloud core. The radial velocity $v_{\rm g}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq2} v_{\rm g, r}=-\frac{3}{\Sigma_{\rm g}\sqrt{r}} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\Sigma_{\rm g} \nu_{\rm g} \sqrt{r}),\end{aligned}$$ and $\nu_{\rm g}$ is the gas viscosity. The gas viscosity is assumed to be caused by the turbulence in the disk to explain the mass accretion to the central star. In this case, using the non dimentional parameter $\alpha$, the gas viscosity is described as $\nu_{\rm g}=\alpha c_{\rm s}^2 \Omega$ [@shakura1973], where $\Omega$ is the Kepler angular velocity, and $c_{\rm s}$ is the isothermal sound velocity given by $c_{\rm s}=(k_{\rm B}T/m_{\rm g})^{1/2}$, where $T$ is the gas temperature of the disk. The mean molecular mass is $m_{\rm g}=3.9 \times 10^{-24} \ {\rm g}$ when the mixing of ${\rm H}_2$ and He gases is taken into consideration. Although the value of $\alpha$ is not clear, the accretion rates of T Tauri stars are compatible with $\alpha \simeq 10^{-2} $ [@hartmann1998]. If the disk is gravitationally unstable, large-scale angular momentum transport due to the formation of spiral arms may occur. The stability of the disk is measured by Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value defined by ${\cal Q}={c_{\rm s}\Omega}/ \{{\pi G \Sigma_{\rm g}}\}$ [@toomre1964]. Gravitationally stable disks have a larger ${\cal Q}$, and disks become marginally unstable when ${\cal Q} \simeq 2$. To take into account this angular momentum transport by the gravitational instability, using the recipe of [@armitage2001] the parameter $\alpha$ is modified as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:alpha} \alpha(r)=\alpha_{\rm turb} + 0.01\Biggl( \biggl(\frac{{\cal Q}_{\rm cr}}{{\rm min}({\cal Q}_{\rm cr},{\cal Q}(r))}\biggr)^2-1 \Biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm turb}$ is the turbulence parameter and treated as a model parameter in our study, and ${\cal Q}_{\rm cr} = 2$. Note that $\alpha_{\rm turb}$ and $\alpha$ are defined differently in general. Eq. (\[eq:alpha\]) includes the turbulence viscosity $\alpha_{\rm turb}$ and the gravitational torque, but the motion of dust induced by turbulence is considered to be related only to $\alpha_{\rm turb}$. ### Disk Temperature It is supposed that the heating sources for the disk are viscous heating and the radiation from the envelope. The irradiation from the central star is not taken into consideration because a sufficient amount of infalling matter is present around the disk to absorb and scatter the radiation from the central star to the disk in the disk formation stage. The viscous heating rate per unit area of the disk is given by $\dot E_{\rm v}=\frac{9}{4} \nu_{\rm g} \Sigma_{\rm g} \Omega^2$. When the heating by the radiation from envelope $\sigma T_{\rm cd}^4$ and the viscous heating come into balance with the cooling by the radiation from the disk surface, the temperature of the disk surface $T_{\rm s}$ is given by $\sigma T_{\rm s}^4=\frac{1}{2}\dot E_{\rm v}+\sigma T_{\rm cd}^4$. Since the temperature of the disk midplane $T_{\rm mid}$ is the focus, where the collisional growth of dust aggregates mainly takes place, an equation that relates the disk surface temperature, $T_{\rm s}$, to the disk midplane temperature, $T_{\rm mid}$, for both optically thick and thin disks, is used. The equation is given as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:midtemp} \sigma T_{\rm mid}^4=\frac{1}{2} \biggl(\frac{3}{8}\tau_{\rm R}+\frac{1}{2 \tau_{\rm P}} \biggl) \dot E_{\rm v}+\sigma T_{\rm cd}^4 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{\rm R}=\kappa_{\rm R} \Sigma _{\rm g}/2$ and $\tau_{\rm P}=\kappa_{\rm P} \Sigma_{\rm g}/2$ are the optical depths with the Rosseland mean $\kappa_{\rm R}$ and Planck mean $\kappa_{\rm P} $ opacities, respectively. The Rosseland mean opacity used in this study is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:opacity} \kappa_{\rm R}= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 4.5 \left( \frac{T_{\rm m}}{170 \mbox{ K}} \right)^2 \ {\rm cm^2 \ g^{-1}} & (0 \mbox{ K} < T_{\rm m} <170 \mbox{ K}) \\ 4.5 \ {\rm cm^2 \ g^{-1}} & (170 \mbox{ K} < T_{\rm m} <1500 \mbox{ K}), \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and the Planck mean opacity is $\kappa_{\rm P} =2.4\kappa_{\rm R}$ [@nakamoto1994]. In this study, it is assumed that $T=170 \ {\rm K}$ is the evaporation temperature of ice. Dust Model {#sec:dust} ---------- In this study, the size distribution evolution of the dust aggregates in the disk is examined using the method described by [@brauer2008], [@birnstiel2010], and [@okuzumi2012]. Moreover, the porosity evolution of the dust aggregates is calculated. The calculation method for the porosity evolution is similar to those described by [@okuzumi2012] and [@kataoka2013b]. ### Evolution of the Dust Size Distribution {#sec:secevodustdis} When the sedimentation of dust aggregates and their turbulent stirring in the vertical direction are in equilibrium, the vertical number density distribution of aggregates is given by a Gaussian $({\cal N}/\sqrt{2\pi}h_{\rm d})\exp(-z^2/2h_{\rm d}^2)$, where ${\cal N}(r,m)$ is the column number density of aggregates per unit mass at $r$ with the mass $m$, and $h_{\rm d}(r,m)$ is the scale height of aggregates having the mass $m$. The temporal evolution of ${\cal N}(r,m)$ is driven by the collisional growth, advection, and diffusion in the radial direction and the input from the molecular cloud core due to the infall. The evolution of the size distribution by collisional growth is given by the vertically integrated Smoluchowski equation as [@birnstiel2010] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq8} \frac{\partial {\cal N}(r,m)}{\partial t}&=&\frac{1}{2} \int^m_0 K(r,m',m-m') {\cal N}(r,m') {\cal N}(r,m-m')dm' \nonumber \\ &&-{\cal N}(r,m) \int^{\infty}_0 K(r,m,m') {\cal N}(r,m')dm' ,\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the vertically integrated collision rate coefficient between colliding aggregates having the masses with $m_1$ and $m_2$ given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq9} K(r,m_1,m_2)=\frac{\sigma_{\rm coll}}{2 \pi h_{\rm d,1} h_{\rm d,2}} \int^\infty_{-\infty} \Delta v \exp \biggr(- \frac{z^2}{2 h_{\rm d,12}^2} \biggl) dz,\end{aligned}$$ and $h_{\rm d,12}=(h_{\rm d,1}^{-2}+h_{\rm d,2}^{-2})^{-1/2}$, where $h_{\rm d,1}$ and $h_{\rm d,2}$ are the scale heights of the colliding aggregates. Assuming perfect sticking for icy dust, the collisional cross section $\sigma_{\rm coll}$ is given by $\sigma_{\rm coll} = \pi(a_1+a_2)^2$ except when the hydrodynamic flow hinders collision between the dust aggregates [@sekiya2003]. When the sedimentation and stirring of aggregates are in an equilibrium state, the dust scale height is analytically obtained as [@youdin2007] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq10} h_{\rm d} = h_{\rm g} \biggl(1 + \frac{\Omega t_{\rm s}}{\alpha_{\rm turb}} \frac{1+2\Omega t_{\rm s}}{1+\Omega t_{\rm s}} \biggr)^{-1/2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\rm s}$ is the stopping time of the aggregates expressed as [@weidenschilling1977]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq11} t_{\rm s}= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{ 3m }{4 \rho_g c_t A} & (a<\frac{9}{4}\lambda_{\rm mfp}) \\ \frac{4a}{9\lambda_{\rm mfp}} t_s^{\rm (ep)} & (a>\frac{9}{4}\lambda_{\rm mfp}, \ Re_{\rm p}<1) \\ \frac{2m}{24 Re^{-0.6} \rho_{\rm g} \|v_{\rm g}-v_{\rm d}\| A}& (a>\frac{9}{4}\lambda_{\rm mfp}, \ 1<Re_{\rm p}<800)\\ \frac{2m}{0.44 \rho_{\rm g} \|v_{\rm g}-v_{\rm d}\| A }& (a>\frac{9}{4}\lambda_{\rm mfp}, \ 800<Re_{\rm p}) , \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $A$ are the radius and projected area of a porous dust aggregate, $c_{\rm t}=\sqrt{8/\pi}c_{\rm s}$ is the thermal velocity, $\lambda_{\rm mfp} = m_{\rm g}/ \sigma_{\rm moll} \rho_{\rm g}$ is the mean free path of a gas molecule, and $\sigma_{\rm moll}= 2 \times 10^{-15} \ {\rm cm^2}$ is the collisional cross section of the gas molecules. The relation between $a$ and $A$ is given by the same expression as Eqs. (45) - (47) in [@okuzumi2009]. The particle Reynolds number of a dust aggregate, $Re_{\rm p}$, is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:prey} Re_{\rm p} = \frac{4 a v_{\rm rel}}{\lambda_{\rm mfp}c_{\rm t} },\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{\rm rel}$ is the relative velocity between the gas and the dust aggregate. The relative velocity for collision of two aggregates $\Delta v$ are driven by Brownian motion, the radial and azimuthal drift motions, vertical settling, and the gas turbulence. The relative velocity of aggregates induced by the gas turbulence is a dominant term for collision velocity, and derived analytically for Kolmogorov turbulence [@ormel2007], which has three limiting cases: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eqdelvt} \Delta v_t\approx \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \delta v_{\rm g} Re_t^{1/4} \Omega \|t_{\rm s,1}-t_{\rm s,2}\| & (t_{\rm s,1} \ll t_\eta ) \\ (1.4...1.7) \times \delta v_{\rm g} \sqrt{\Omega t_{\rm s,1}} & (t_\eta \ll t_{\rm s,1} \ll \Omega^{-1})\\ \delta v_{\rm g} \biggl(\frac{1}{1+\Omega t_{\rm s,1}}+\frac{1}{1+\Omega t_{\rm s,2}} \biggr)^{1/2} &(\Omega t_{\rm s,1} \gg 1), \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta v_g=\sqrt{\alpha_{\rm turb}} c_s$ is the random velocity of the largest eddies, $Re_t=D_g/\nu_{\rm mol}$ is the turbulent Reynolds number, where $D_g=\alpha_{\rm turb} c_{\rm s}^2/\Omega$ is the diffusion coefficient for the gas and $\nu_{\rm mol}= c_{\rm t} \lambda_{\rm mfp}/2$ is the molecular viscosity, $t_\eta=Re_t^{-1/2} \Omega^{-1}$ is the turnover time of the smallest eddy, and the numerical coefficient (1.4...1.7) which takes taking a numerical value of roughly 1.4–1.7, is given by the ratio of the stopping times of two colliding aggregates. The integrand in Eq. (\[eq:eq9\]) depends on the vertical height $z$. However, the dust coagulation mainly occurs at the disk midplane. Hence, the stopping time of the dust aggregate is evaluated at the midplane. Then, Eq. (\[eq:eq9\]) can be integrated analytically, and one obtains $$\begin{aligned} K(r,m_1,m_2)=\frac{\sigma_{\rm coll} \Delta v}{\sqrt{2 \pi} } (h_{\rm d,1}^2 + h_{\rm d,2}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The evolution of the size distribution caused by advection, diffusion, and the infall is written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eqaddiff} \frac{d \Sigma_{\rm d}(r,m)}{dt} = -\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} [r (F_{\rm adv}+F_{\rm diff})] +S_{\rm d}(r,m) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma_{\rm d} (r,m) = m {\cal N}(r,m)$ is the dust aggregate surface density per unit mass, $F_{\rm adv}$ and $F_{\rm diff}$ are the fluxes of advection and diffusion, and $S_{\rm d}(r,m)$ is the source term of dust particles. The advection flux is given by $ F_{\rm adv} = v_{\rm r}(r,m) \Sigma_{\rm d}(r,m)$, where $v_{\rm r}$ is the velocity of dust aggregates in the radial direction. The diffusion flux is written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eqfdiff} F_{\rm diff} &=& -D_{\rm d}(r,m) \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \biggl(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm d}(r,m)}{\Sigma_{\rm g}} \biggr) \Sigma_{\rm g},\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{\rm d}$ is the diffusion coefficient for dust. The velocity of aggregates in the radial direction, $v_{\rm r}(r,m)$, is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq12} v_{\rm r}=-\frac{\Omega t_{\rm s}}{1+ (\Omega t_{\rm s})^2} 2\eta v_{\rm k}+\frac{v_{\rm g}}{1+(\Omega t_{\rm s})^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $2\eta$ is the ratio of the pressure gradient force to the stellar gravity force in the radial direction, and $\eta$ is given by $\eta= -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{c_{\rm s}}{v_{\rm K}} \right)^2 \frac{\partial \ln(\rho_{\rm g}c_{\rm s}^2)}{\partial \ln r}$, where $v_{\rm K}=r \Omega$ is the Kepler velocity. Note that the order of $\eta$ is determined by $\left(\frac{c_{\rm s}}{v_{\rm K}} \right)^2$ since $\frac{\partial \ln(\rho_{\rm g}c_{\rm s}^2)}{\partial \ln r} \sim {\cal O}(1)$. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:eq12\]) expresses the radial drift velocity caused by the disk gas, which has sub-Keplerian motion, and its absolute value has the maximum $\eta v_{\rm K}$ when $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. The second term represents the motion induced by the radial flow of the disk gas. The diffusion coefficient for the dust is given by $D_{\rm d}= D_{\rm g}/[1+(\Omega t_{\rm s})^2]$ [@youdin2007], where $D_{\rm g}$ is the diffusion coefficient for the gas. It is assumed that $D_{\rm g}$ is equal to the turbulent gas viscosity $\nu_{\rm g}$. The third term in Eq. (\[eq:eqaddiff\]) shows the source term of dust including the infall of dust from the molecular cloud core and the condensation of water vapor that originates from the snowline. The details of the source term will be described in the next section. In this study, the evolution of the dust aggregate volume $V(r,m)$ is also considered using the method described by [@okuzumi2009]. In this method, the temporal evolution of the quantity $V{\cal N}$ is calculated, and the average volume of the dust aggregate at each orbital radius $r$ with aggregate mass $m$ is obtained. Its collisional term is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eq14} \frac{\partial (V{\cal N})}{\partial t}&=&\frac{1}{2} \int^m_0 [V_{1+2}K](r,m',m-m') {\cal N}(r,m') {\cal N}(r,m-m')dm' \nonumber \\ &&-V(r,m){\cal N}(r,m) \int^{\infty}_0 K(r,m,m') {\cal N}(r,m')dm' .\end{aligned}$$ The function $[V_{1+2}K](r, m_1, m_2)$ is written as $$\label{eq:eqvkernel} [V_{1+2}K](r,m_1,m_2)=\frac{\sigma_{\rm coll} \Delta v V_{1+2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi} } (h_{\rm d,1}^2 + h_{\rm d,2}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ and $V_{1+2}$ is the volume of merged aggregates. The function of $V_{1+2}$ will be given in Section \[sec:secvevo\]. The evolution of $(V{\cal N}) (r,m)$ by advection, diffusion, and the source is calculated in the same manner as ${\cal N}(r,m)$. ### Source Term of Dust The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:eqaddiff\]), the source term, includes the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core and the condensation of icy dust from the water vapor that is supplied from inside the snowline. The size of the infall dust is assumed to be $a_0=0.1 \ {\rm \mu m}$, which is the monomer size in our calculations. Assuming that the dust-to-gas mass ratio is 0.01 in the molecular cloud core, the source term due to the infall is given by $S_{\rm d, infall}=\delta[m-m_0] \times 0.01 S_{\rm g}$. The condensation of icy dust particles close to the snowline is also the mechanism that prompts the increase in the dust surface density and the growth of dust particles [@ros2013]. However, the size of the condensed particles is uncertain because it depends on the cooling rate, pressure, and so on. The size of the condensed monomer particle may influence the collisional growth of porous dust aggregates [@arakawa2016]. In this study, however, to simplify the calculation, the size of condensed monomers is assumed to be the same as the size of the infall dust. We calculate the mass flux of water vapor across the snowline by advection and diffusion, and we assume that the vapor condenses as icy monomers. For example, if the snowline migrates inward, all the water vapor in the region that was $T > 170$ K condenses as icy monomers. Then, the abundance of condensed icy dust near the snowline is calculated and added to the source term in Eq. (\[eq:eqaddiff\]). ### Porosity Change {#sec:secvevo} The evolution of the aggregate porosity, i.e., $V_{1+2}$ in Eq. (\[eq:eq14\]), is taken into consideration. The collisional compression of aggregates depends on the rolling energy between two contacting monomers $E_{\rm roll}$ and the impact energy of the two aggregates $E_{\rm imp}=m_1 m_2 \Delta v^2/2(m_1+m_2)$. When $E_{\rm imp} \ll E_{\rm roll}$, collisional compression is not effective. This case is called a hit-and-stick collision, and the volume of the aggregate after collision is given by $V_{1+2} =V_1 +V_2 + V_{\rm void} \ \ \ (E_{\rm imp} \ll E_{\rm roll})$, where $V_{\rm void} ={\rm min} \biggl\{0.99-1.03 \ln \biggl(\frac{2}{V_1/V_2+1} \biggr), 6.94 \biggr\} V_2$ is the volume of the void formed after the collision of two aggregates [@okuzumi2009]. In contrast, when $E_{\rm imp} \gg E_{\rm roll}$, collisional compression becomes effective. In this case, the porosity of aggregates no longer increases owing to the compression of the void by collision, and the internal density of the aggregate remains nearly constant with collisional growth (Sec 3.2.2 in [@okuzumi2012]). Thus, the volume evolution is given by a simple equation: $$\label{eq:eqvevo2} V_{1+2} =V_1 +V_2 \ \ \ (E_{\rm imp} \gg E_{\rm roll}).$$ Note that the formula for the volume evolution that takes collisional compression into account should actually depend on the two volumes of colliding aggregates and the impact energy. In fact, the recipe obtained from numerical experiments is a function of the impact energy [@suyama2012]. However, these numerical experiments only examined collisions between aggregates having similar sizes, and there is no recipe for different-sized collisions. In the present study, as will be shown later, both similar-sized and different-sized collisions need to be considered. Thus, the volume evolution by collisional compression is assumed to be described by the simple expression shown here. The effect of this volume evolution on the results will be discussed later. Aggregates also suffer the static compression by the gas pressure and self-gravity. [@kataoka2013a] investigated the strength of highly porous aggregates against static compression and gave the compressive strength of the aggregates, $P$, as $P=\frac{E_{\rm roll}}{a_0^3} \biggl( \frac{\rho_{\rm int}}{\rho_0} \biggr)^3$. When the aggregate suffers a pressure higher than the compressive strength, the aggregate is compressed until its strength becomes equal to the static pressure. The volume of a dust aggregate of which the compressive strength equals the pressure $P$ is given by $$V=\left( \frac{a_0^3}{E_{\rm roll}} P \right) ^{-1/3} \frac{m}{\rho_0}. \label{eq:internaldensity}$$ Further, the static compression due to the gas pressure $P_{\rm gas}$ and the pressure caused by the self-gravitational force $P_{\rm grav}$ are given by $P_{\rm gas}=\frac{m v_{\rm rel}}{\pi r^2} \frac{1}{t_{\rm s}}$ and $P_{\rm grav}=\frac{Gm^2}{\pi r^4}$, respectively. Numerical Method ---------------- In this study, Eqs. (\[eq:eq1\]), (\[eq:eq8\]), and (\[eq:eq14\]) are solved numerically with an explicit time-integration scheme. The advection terms for the gas and dust are calculated by a first-order upwind scheme. The inner and outer boundaries are set to not influence the region where the icy dust particles are present for each model parameter. The dust coagulation terms are calculated using the method given by [@okuzumi2009]. At the center of each radial cell, the bins of the dust aggregate mass are set as $m_{\rm k}=k m_0$ for $k \leq N_{\rm bd}$ and $m_{\rm k}=m_{\rm k-1} 10 ^{1/N_{\rm bd}}$ for $k \geq N_{\rm bd}+1$, where $m_0$ is the monomer particle mass, $k$ and $N_{\rm bd}$ are positive integers, and $N_{\rm bd}=40$, as used by [@okuzumi2012]. The time increment $\Delta t $ is decided at every time step so that the fractional decreases in ${\cal N}$ and $V{\cal N}$ remain lower than 0.5 at all bins. RESULTS {#sec:result} ======= Steady Disk Model ----------------- First, the results of the steady disk model are shown to compare it with the disk formation and evolution models, which will be shown later. Moreover, it will be shown that our results using the coagulation equation well-reproduce the results obtained analytically [@kataoka2013b]. The minimum-mass solar nebula (MMSN) model [@hayashi1981] for the gas radial distribution with a central star having a solar mass, is employed. Thus, the gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g}$ is given by $\Sigma(r)=1700(r/1 {\rm AU}) \ {\rm g \ cm^{-2}}$. The disk midplane temperature $T$ is given by $T(r)=137(r/1 {\rm AU}) \ {\rm K}$ [@chiang2001]. The initial dust-to-gas mass ratio is assumed to be 0.01, and the initial size of all dust particles is set to be $a_0=0.1 \ {\rm \mu m}$, which is the monomer size. This disk model corresponds to the model taken by [@kataoka2013b]. ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at $t= 10^{-3}$ and $0.1 \ {\rm Myr}$ for the steady disk model as a function of the orbital radius $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The colored dashed curve shows the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. Red, yellow, and blue lines indicate Allen, Stokes, and Epstein’s laws, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](steady001distr-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at $t= 10^{-3}$ and $0.1 \ {\rm Myr}$ for the steady disk model as a function of the orbital radius $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The colored dashed curve shows the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. Red, yellow, and blue lines indicate Allen, Stokes, and Epstein’s laws, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](steady01distr-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} Figure \[fig:fig1\] shows the radial size distribution at $t=10^{-3} $ and $0.1\ {\rm Myr}$ for the steady disk model. Aggregates grow to a larger size than the size of the radial drift barrier at $\Omega t_{s}=1$ (dashed curve in Figure \[fig:fig1\]) in the inner region of the disk ($r < 5 \ {\rm AU}$). In the middle region ($5 \ {\rm AU} < r < 30 \ {\rm AU}$), aggregates drift inward, while in the outer region ($30 \ {\rm AU} < r$) aggregates do not drift considerably. This is because aggregates in the outer region are small and the Stokes number of them is much smaller than unity. In the outer region, the dust growth timescale becomes long so 0.1 Myr is not enough for aggregates to grow. Figure \[fig:fig2\] shows the evolution of the aggeregate internal density $\rho_{\rm int} $ at $r=5 \ {\rm AU}$. When the aggregate mass is small ($m < 10^{-5} \ {\rm g}$), the internal density evolution is almost equal to that of fractal aggregates with the fractal dimension $d_{\rm f} \simeq 2$ because the aggregates grow mainly through collisions with similarly sized aggregates. For larger sizes ($10^{-5} \ {\rm g} < m < 10^{12} \ {\rm g}$), gas compression becomes effective, and the aggregate internal density increases with the mass in accordance with the equations for $V$ and $P_{\rm gas}$. In much larger size ranges ($10^{12} \ {\rm g}< m$), self-gravitational compression becomes effective, as described by the equations for $V$ and $P_{\rm grav}$. It is noted that these results are consistent with the results by [@kataoka2013b], who investigated the growth and radial drift of dust aggregates in the same gas disk used in our steady disk model. It is important to determine the size during collision that contributes to the growth of the aggregate the most because the size of the (projectile) aggregate with the highest contribution influences the porosity and growth rate of the (target) aggregate. To see the contribution, the projectile mass distribution function [@okuzumi2009] is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} C_{m}(m_{\rm p})=\frac{m_{\rm p} K(m_{\rm p}, m) {\cal N}(m_{\rm p})}{\int^m_{m_0} m_{\rm p}' K(m_{\rm p}', m) {\cal N}(m_{\rm p}') dm_{\rm p}' },\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\rm p} < m$ is the projectile aggregate mass, $m$ is the target aggregate mass, and $m_{\rm p} < m$. Figure \[fig:figs-prodis\] shows the projectile mass distribution per unit $\ln m_{\rm p}$ for different targets with mass $ \left< m \right>_m$ at $r=5 \ {\rm AU}$ for the steady disk model. The weighted average mass $ \left<m \right >_m$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \left<m \right>_m = \frac{\int m^2 {\cal N} dm}{\int m {\cal N} dm} .\end{aligned}$$ The weighted average mass approximately corresponds to the aggregate mass at the peak of the mass distribution (see, e.g., [@okuzumi2012]). In Figure \[fig:figs-prodis\], it is seen that the growth of the target with mass $\left<m \right >_m$ is dominated by projectiles with a similar mass as the target for each target size. For $m<10^{-5} \ {\rm g}$, this similarly sized aggregation results in the high porosity evolution with $d_{\rm f} \simeq 2$ (Figure \[fig:fig2\]). ![Evolution of the internal density $\rho_{\rm int} $ at $r=5 {\rm AU}$ for the steady disk model as a function of the aggregate mass $m$. []{data-label="fig:fig2"}](steady5aurhoint2.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Projectile mass distribution per unit logarithmic projectile mass: $m_{\rm p}C_{m}(m_{\rm p})$ for different targets with mass $\left<m \right >_m$. The circles show the points of equally sized aggregation (i.e., $m_{\rm p} = m$). []{data-label="fig:figs-prodis"}](s-prodis5aump-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} Evolutionary Disk: Fiducial Model {#sec:resultedisk} --------------------------------- Next, the results of the evolutionary disk models described in Section \[sec:gas\] are presented and how disk evolution affects the growth of icy dust aggregates is shown. We calculated with four different parameters, and the model parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:tab1\]. Model $\omega_{\rm cd}$ $\alpha_{\rm turb} $ $T_{\rm cd} $ ---------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------ Typical values $10^{-15} \ - 10^{-13} \ {\rm s^{-1}} \ ^{\rm [1]}$ $10^{-5} \ - 10^{-1} \ ^{\rm [2]}$ 10 - 20 K $^{\rm [3]}$ Fiducial $2 \times 10^{-14} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$ $10^{-3}$ 15 K A $2 \times 10^{-14} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$ $10^{-4}$ 15 K B $2 \times 10^{-14} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$ $10^{-3}$ 20 K C $5 \times 10^{-15} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$ $10^{-3}$ 15 K : Model parameters in our study \[tab:tab1\] [[@goodman1993], \[2\] [@van1993], \[3\] [@hartmann1998]]{} ### Gas Disk Evolution {#sec:secgasresult} The gas surface density evolution of the fiducial model is displayed in Figure \[fig:fig3\]. The gas surface density at each orbital radius is an increasing function of the time during the infall stage when the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core continues ($t< 0.38 \ {\rm Myr}$), while it decreases after the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core ceases ($0.38 \ {\rm Myr} < t < 1 \ {\rm Myr}$) because of the diffusive mass flow in the radial direction in the disk. Note that once the gas surface density becomes very high, the gas disk undergoes gravitational instability; then, the gas surface density does not increase further owing to the angular momentum transport by the gravitational torque even if the mass accretion from the molecular cloud core continues. Figure \[fig:figQ\] shows Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value [@toomre1964] at different times, which is the measure of the gravitational stability of the gas disk. It is seen that the outer region (6-90 AU) of the disk becomes gravitationally unstable at 0.38 Myr. ![Gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g }$ at different times for the fiducial model as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The dashed line shows that of the MMSN model.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](gsden.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Disk temperature $T_{\rm mid}$ at the disk midplane at each time as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The horizontal solid line shows the ice evaporation temperature $T= 170 \ {\rm K}$. The gray dashed and dotted lines show the analytical solutions of the midplane temperature at 0.38 Myr with ${\dot M}_{\rm star}=10^{-6} \ M_{\rm \odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$.[]{data-label="fig:figatemp"}](a-temp.eps){width="45.00000%"} Figure \[fig:figatemp\] shows the disk midplane temperature at different times. The dominant heating source for the disk is viscous heating at the disk midplane; thus, the temperature is an increasing function of the surface gas density. After the infall stage, the midplane temparature decreases with the time, and the snowline migrates to 3 AU at 1 Myr. The disk temperature influences the viscous evolution of the gas disk, the collision rate of the aggregates, and so on. In particuar, the location of the snowline, which is mainly determined by the disk temperature, plays an important role in the growth of icy dust aggregates. Outside the snowline, icy dust aggregates can be present and grow by mutual collisions. In contrast, inside the snowline, H$_2$O molecules exist as water vapor, and no icy solid particles would be present. It is seen that the snowline reaches about 12 AU at 0.38 Myr, and this is the maximum radius of the snowline location because no material falls from the molecular cloud core after this. The gray dashed and dotted lines in Figure \[fig:figatemp\] show the analytical solutions of the midplane temperature for $T<170 \ {\rm K}$ and $T>170 \ {\rm K}$, respectively, which are derived as follows. The heating rate per unit area with the steady accretion rate ${\dot M} = 2 \pi r v_{g, r} \Sigma_{\rm g}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:eq2\]) and $\dot E_{\rm v}=\frac{9}{4} \nu_{\rm g} \Sigma_{\rm g} \Omega^2= {\rm constant}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:heatrate} \dot E_{\rm v}=\frac{3GM{\dot M}}{4 \pi r^3}. \end{aligned}$$ In the optically thick region, by the assumption that $\tau_{\rm R} \gg 1$, the midplane temperature is given by Eqs. (\[eq:midtemp\]) and (\[eq:heatrate\]) as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:anatemp} \sigma T_{\rm mid}^4=\frac{9GM{\dot M}}{128 \pi r^3} \kappa_{\rm R} \Sigma_{\rm g}. \end{aligned}$$ Using the opacity by Eq. (\[eq:opacity\]), the midplane temperature is approximately given as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:anatemp2} T_{\rm mid} \simeq 170 \biggl(\frac{r}{14 \ {\rm AU}} \biggr)^{-3q} \biggl(\frac{{\dot M}_{\rm star}}{10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}} \biggr)^{q} \biggl(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm g}}{10^{3} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-2}}} \biggr)^{q} \biggl(\frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \biggr)^{q} \mbox{ K}, \end{aligned}$$ where the constant value $q$ is given as $q =\frac{1}{2} \ (0 \mbox{ K} < T_{\rm m} <170 \mbox{ K})$ or $q=\frac{1}{4} \ (170 \mbox{ K} < T_{\rm m} <1500 \mbox{ K)}$. Figure \[fig:mdot\] shows the mass accretion rate of the gas in the disk toward the central star ${\dot M}_{\rm star} = -2 \pi r v_{r} \Sigma_{\rm g}$ at different times. It seems that steady accretion is achieved inside 10 AU at 0.38 Myr with the accretion rate ${\dot M}_{\rm star}\sim 10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$. By using the appropriate ${\dot M}_{\rm star}$, we can see that the analytical solution well-reproduces the numerical results. ![Mass accretion rate in the disk toward the central star ${\dot M}_{\rm star} = -2 \pi r v_{r} \Sigma_{\rm g}$ at each time.[]{data-label="fig:mdot"}](a-mdot.eps){width="45.00000%"} Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value is displayed in Figure \[fig:figQ\]. This shows that the gas disk is gravitationally unstable in the outer region ($r>6 \ {\rm AU}$). In this region, large-scale angular momentum transport occurs and value of the gas surface density reaches upper limit. Figure \[fig:figaeta\] shows $\eta$, which is related to the ratio of the pressure gradient force to the stellar gravity force in the radial direction. The value of $\eta$ influences the radial drift velocity of the aggregate. The dashed curve in Figure \[fig:figaeta\] shows $2\times c_{\rm s}^2/v_{\rm K}^2$ at 0.38 Myr. We can see that the order of $\eta $ is determined by the square of the ratio of the sound speed at each orbit to Kepler’s velocity, except for areas where the spatial density gradient is steep. The growth conditions for aggregates using $\eta$ will be discussed in Section \[sec:secgcon\]. ![Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value [@toomre1964] at different times for the fiducial model as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The dashed line shows ${\cal Q}_{\rm cr} = 2 $.[]{data-label="fig:figQ"}](a-toomreq.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![The ratio of the pressure gradient to the gravity $\eta$ at each time as a function of the orbital radius $r$(solid curves). The dashed curve shows $2\times c_{\rm s}^2/v_{\rm K}^2$ at 0.38 Myr.[]{data-label="fig:figaeta"}](a-eta.eps){width="45.00000%"} ### Dust Disk Evolution The evolution of icy dust aggregates for the fiducial model is shown here. Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows snapshots of the size distribution of the aggregates at different times. At each radius in the disk, as the aggregates reach $\Omega t_{\rm s} \simeq 1$, the radial drift overcomes the growth; therefore, no aggregate exceeds the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s} \simeq 1$. Figure \[fig:figdsden\] shows the dust-to-gas mass ratio $\Sigma_{\rm d,tot}/\Sigma_{\rm g}$ at different times as a function of orbital radius $r$, where $\Sigma_{\rm d,tot} = \int \Sigma_{\rm d}(r,m) dm$ is the dust surface density. Just outside the snowline, there is a pile-up of icy aggregates. This is caused by the inward radial drift of icy dust aggregates outside the snowline and the newly formed icy monomers caused by condensation of water vapor coming from inside the snowline due to diffusion. On the other hand, it can be seen that the dust-to-gas ratio decreases in the outer part of the disk because the gas spreads outward by viscous evolution, while the dust aggregates drift toward the center star. A similar effect was described by [@birnstiel2014]. This decrease of the dust-to-gas mass ratio is caused because the radial drift timescale of dust aggregates is much shorter than the gas flow timescale in the disk. Our numerical results show a contrast to observational results by [@ansdell2016]. According to their observations, young disks (estimated ages are $1-3$ Myr old) are enriched in dusts relative to the interstellar medium. We speculate that the dust-to-gas mass ratio would be caused by some mechanisms including the photoevaporation, the disk wind, and so forth, in addition to the dust growth and the radial drift. Those gas dispersal effects may increase the dust-to-gas mass ratio in the disk. Since those effects are not taken into account in out current study, they should be examined in the future. The radial drift of dust aggregates in the disk formation stage causes the depletion of dust after the infall phase. Time evolution of the gas and icy dust disk masses is displayed in Figure \[fig:figdiskevo\]. Note that icy dust disk mass is multiplied by 100 to make it easy to compare with the gas disk mass. We can see that icy dust depletes more quickly than gas from the end of infall because the drift timescale of dust is smaller than viscous timescale of gas. This shows that no planetesimal forms after the infall phase if the dust aggregates coagulate and drift in the disk formation stage and dust-to-gas ratio becomes one or more orders of magnitude smaller than solar abundance at 1 Myr. ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for the fiducial model as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The vertical dashed line shows the snowline. The colored dashed line shows the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. The red, yellow, and blue lines indicates Allen’s, Stokes’s, and Epstein’s laws, respectively, at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fiducial02distr-low.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for the fiducial model as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The vertical dashed line shows the snowline. The colored dashed line shows the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. The red, yellow, and blue lines indicates Allen’s, Stokes’s, and Epstein’s laws, respectively, at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fiducial03distr-low.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for the fiducial model as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The vertical dashed line shows the snowline. The colored dashed line shows the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. The red, yellow, and blue lines indicates Allen’s, Stokes’s, and Epstein’s laws, respectively, at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fiducial038distr-low.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Dust-to-gas ratio $\Sigma_{\rm d,tot}/\Sigma_{\rm g}$ at different times as a function of the orbital radius (gray curves). The blue vertical lines show the orbital radii of the snowline at each time. The horizontal dotted line show the initial dust-to-gas mass ratio in the molecular cloud core.[]{data-label="fig:figdsden"}](d-gratio.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Gas (gray) and icy dust (black) disk masses as a function of the time. Note that icy dust disk mass is the mass outside the snowline and multiplied by 100.[]{data-label="fig:figdiskevo"}](timeevo_disk.eps){width="45.00000%"} ### Internal Density Evolution Figure \[fig:fig5\] shows the internal density of the aggregates at $r= 15 \ {\rm AU}$ at $t = 0.2$ and $3.8 \ {\rm Myr}$. It is seen that the internal density of the aggregates corresponds to that of a BCCA model (dashed line) for very small sized aggregates ($m<10^{-12} \ {\rm g}$). However, for larger sized aggregates ($10^{-12} \ {\rm g} < m < 10^{-5} \ {\rm g}$), the internal density is higher than that of the BCCA model because the contribution to the growth in this size range is dominated by monomer particles. When the aggregate size reaches $m > 10^{-5} \ {\rm g}$, the internal density is almost independent of the aggregate mass because collisional compression becomes effective. ![Internal density $\rho_{\rm int} $ at $r=5 {\rm AU}$ at 0.2 and 0.38 Myr for the evolutionary disk fiducial model as a function of the aggregate mass $m$ (solid curves). The dashed line shows the internal density of the BCCA model without compression.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](a-rhoint0.3.eps){width="45.00000%"} ### Projectile Mass Distribution Figure \[fig:figprodis\] shows the projectile mass distribution per unit $\ln m_{\rm p}$ for different targets with mass $m$ at $r=15 \ {\rm AU}$ and $t= 0.3 \ {\rm Myr}$. When the target mass $m < 10^{-5} \ {\rm g}$, the growth of the target receives contribution from aggregates with a similar mass $m$ and monomer particles with the mass $m_{0}$ (corresponding to the lower mass limit of Figure \[fig:figprodis\]). This is because there is a sufficient supply of monomers from the molecular cloud core in this stage. When the target mass $m > 10^{0} \ {\rm g}$, a variety of aggregates with various masses contribute to the growth of the target aggregates, but projectile aggregates with similar mass are the dominant contributors. ![Projectile mass distribution per unit logarithmic projectile mass: $m_{\rm p}C_{m}(m_{\rm p})$ for different targets with mass $m$ at $r=15 \ {\rm AU}$ and $t= 0.3 \ {\rm Myr}$. The circles show the points of equally sized aggregation (i.e., $m_{\rm p} = m$). []{data-label="fig:figprodis"}](a-prodis15au3-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} Other Models: Effects of the Model Parameters --------------------------------------------- To see the physical conditions of the forming and evolving disks for the growth of icy dust aggregates, the results of other models with different parameters are presented here. The explored physical conditions include the strength of the turbulence in the disk (turbulence parameter $\alpha_{\rm turb}$); the initial angular velocity of the molecular cloud core ($\omega_{\rm cd}$), which controls the size of the disk; and the initial temperature of the molecular cloud core ($T_{\rm cd}$), which alters the mass accretion rate from the molecular cloud core. The model parameters examined here are listed in Table \[tab:tab1\]. Model A is a weaker turbulence model ($\alpha_{\rm turb} = 10^{-4}$). The weaker turbulence leads to a lower mass accretion rate of the disk to the central star. Hence, the gas surface density is likely to be higher than that of a strong turbulence model. However, when the disk surface density is sufficiently high or the temperature is too low, the disk becomes gravitationally unstable, and large-scale angular momentum transport occurs. The gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g }$, the temperature $T_{\rm mid}$ at the midplane, and Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value at different times for model A are displayed in Figures \[fig:figa-gsden\], \[fig:figa-temp\], and \[fig:figa-toomeq\], respectively. ![Gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g }$ at different times for model A as a function of the orbital radius $r$. []{data-label="fig:figa-gsden"}](b-gsden.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Midplane temperature $T_{\rm mid}$ at each time as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The horizontal dashed line shows $T= 170 \ {\rm K}$. The gray dashed and dotted curves show the analytical solutions of the midplane temperature at 0.38 Myr with ${\dot M}_{\rm star}=10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$.[]{data-label="fig:figa-temp"}](b-temp.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Toomre’s ${\cal Q}$ value at different times for model A as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The dashed line shows ${\cal Q}_{\rm cr} = 2 $.[]{data-label="fig:figa-toomeq"}](b-toomreq.eps){width="45.00000%"} In Figure \[fig:figa-gsden\], the surface density of the gas is higher than that of the fiducial model (see Figure \[fig:fig3\]) in the inner region of the disk ($r<6 \ {\rm AU}$), but in the outer region ($6 \ {\rm AU} <r$), the surface density is almost the same as that of the fiducial model because the outer regions of the fiducial model and model A are both gravitationally unstable (see Figures \[fig:figQ\] and \[fig:figa-toomeq\]). This result means that the gas surface density of the fiducial model reaches its maximum in the region where the disk is gravitationally unstable, and even if the turbulence is weak in the disk formation stage, the gas surface density does not reach the higher value of the fiducial model in the region where icy dust can exist (i.e., $T_{\rm mid}<170 \ {\rm K}$, see Figures \[fig:figa-temp\] and \[fig:figa-distr\]). The growth conditions strongly depend on the dust surface density. However, as shown above, the gravitationally unstable disk has the maximum gas and dust surface density. ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for model A as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. The dash-dot line shows the snowline.[]{data-label="fig:figa-distr"}](a038distr-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} In Model B, the temperature of the molecular cloud core is $T_{\rm cd} = 20 \ {\rm K}$, which is higher than that in the fiducial model, and the higher temperature of the molecular cloud core leads to a higher mass accretion rate from the molecular cloud core. In this case, the mass accretion lasts about 0.24 Myr, and the centrifugal radius is reduced. This means that most of the matter from the molecular cloud core falls intensively on a smaller disk. As a result, the region with accretion from the molecular cloud core is heated more by viscous heating, the temperature there exceeds 170 K, and all materials fall toward the inside of the snowline (Figures \[fig:figb-gsden\] and \[fig:figb-temp\]). ![Gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g }$ at different times for model B as a function of the orbital radius $r$. []{data-label="fig:figb-gsden"}](c-gsden.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Midplane temperature $T_{\rm mid}$ at each time as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The horizontal dashed line shows $T= 170 \ {\rm K}$. The gray dashed and dotted curves show the analytical solutions of the midplane temperature at 0.24 Myr with ${\dot M}_{\rm star}=10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$.[]{data-label="fig:figb-temp"}](c-temp.eps){width="45.00000%"} The results for Model C are similar to those for Model B. In Model C, the initial angular velocity of the molecular cloud core is $\omega_{\rm cd}=5 \times 10^{-15} \ {\rm s^{-1}}$, which is slower than that of the fiducial model. The lower angular velocity leads to a smaller centrifugal radius, and as a result, most of the matter falls to the smaller disk (Figures \[fig:figc-gsden\] and \[fig:figc-temp\]). ![Gas surface density $\Sigma_{\rm g }$ at different times for model C as a function of the orbital radius $r$. []{data-label="fig:figc-gsden"}](d-gsden.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Midplane temperature $T_{\rm mid}$ at each time as a function of the orbital radius $r$ (solid curves). The horizontal dashed line shows $T= 170 \ {\rm K}$. The gray dashed and dotted curves show the analytical solutions of the midplane temperature at 0.38 Myr with ${\dot M}_{\rm star}=10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$.[]{data-label="fig:figc-temp"}](d-temp.eps){width="45.00000%"} Figures \[fig:figc-distr\] and \[fig:figd-distr\] show the size distribution of the aggregates for Models B and C at the end of the mass accretion from the molecular core. In these cases, there are no aggregates exceeding the size of $\Omega t_{\rm ts} =1$. ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for Model B as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. []{data-label="fig:figc-distr"}](b024distr-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} ![Aggregate size distribution $m^2 {\cal N}$ at different times for model C as a function of the orbital radius (from 7 AU to 100 AU) $r$ and aggregate mass $m$. []{data-label="fig:figd-distr"}](c038distr-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} The results with these different parameters (Models A, B, and C) indicate that it is difficult for icy dust aggregates to grow to the size of the planetesimal via direct coagulation in a range of reasonable parameters in the disk formation stage. DISCUSSION {#sec:discussion} ========== Difficulties in Breaking Through the Radial Drift Barrier in the Disk Formation Stage {#sec:secgcon} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, comparing the timescales of aggregate growth and radial drift, we explore the reason why icy aggregates cannot break through the radial drift barrier in the disk formation stage. When growth occurs mainly through collisions with similarly sized aggregates, the growth rate of an aggregate with mass $m$ at the midplane is given by $\frac{dm}{dt} = \frac{\Sigma_{\rm d}}{\sqrt{2 \pi} h_{\rm d}} \sigma_{\rm coll} \Delta v$. Then, the timescale of the aggregate growth is written as $t_{\rm grow} \equiv \frac{m}{dm/dt} = \sqrt{2 \pi} \frac{h_{\rm d}}{\Delta v} \frac{m/ \sigma_{\rm coll}}{\Sigma_{\rm d}}$. Using $m=(4 \pi/3) \rho_{\rm int} a^3$ and $\sigma_{\rm coll} = \pi a^2$, we have $$t_{\rm grow} = \frac{4 \sqrt{2 \pi}}{3} \frac{h_{\rm d}}{\Delta v} \frac{\rho_{\rm int} a}{\Sigma_{\rm d}}.$$ Now, we focus on aggregates of the size corresponding to $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ because the radial drift velocity reaches the maximum value at this size. For dust aggregates with this size, the scale height of the dust disk is given by $h_{d\rm } \approx \sqrt{\alpha_{\rm turb}}h_{\rm g} $ according to Eq. (\[eq:eq10\]), and we set the relative velocity $\Delta v \approx \sqrt{\alpha_{\rm turb}} c_{\rm s}$ because the collisional velocity is dominated by the turbulence-driven velocity described by Eq. (\[eq:eqdelvt\]) at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$. Then, we can write the growth timescale at $\Omega t_{\rm s} =1$ as $$t_{\rm grow}\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1} = \frac{4 \sqrt{2 \pi}}{3}\frac{(\rho_{\rm int} a)_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1}}{\Sigma_{\rm d}\Omega} = \frac{4 }{3 \sqrt{2 \pi}}\frac{(\rho_{\rm int} a)_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1}}{\Sigma_{\rm d}} t_{\rm K},$$ where $h_{\rm g} = c_{\rm s}/\Omega$ and the Kepler orbital period $t_{\rm K} = 2 \pi /\Omega$ are used. When the dust aggregates are influenced by the Stokes law ($Re_{\rm p} < 1$), the timescale for the aggregate at $\Omega t_{\rm s} =1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eqt1} t_{\rm grow}\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1}^{({\rm St})} &=& 1.2 \times 10^2 \biggl( \frac{\rho_{\rm int}}{10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}}\biggl)^{\frac{1}{2}} \biggl( \frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \biggr)^{-\frac{3}{4}} \\ \nonumber &&\times \biggl( \frac{ T_{\rm mid}}{170 \ {\rm K}} \biggr)^{\frac{1}{4}} \biggl( \frac{r}{15 {\rm AU}} \biggr)^{\frac{9}{4}} \biggl( \frac{\Sigma_{\rm d}/{\Sigma_{\rm g}}}{0.01}\biggr)^{-1} \biggl( \frac{\Sigma_{\rm g}}{10^{3} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-2}}}\biggr)^{-1} \ {\rm yr} , \end{aligned}$$ and when the aggregates are controlled by the Allen law ($1 < Re_{\rm p} < 800$), it is given by $$\begin{aligned} t_{\rm grow}\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1}^{({\rm Al})} &=& 1.8 \times 10^2 \biggl( \frac{\rho_{\rm int}}{10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}}\biggl)^{\frac{3}{8}} \biggl(\frac{\eta}{5\times10^{-3}} \biggr)^{\frac{1}{4}} \nonumber \\ &&\times \biggl( \frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \biggr)^{-\frac{9}{16}} \biggl( \frac{ T_{\rm mid}}{170 \ {\rm K}} \biggr)^{\frac{1}{16}} \biggl( \frac{r}{15 {\rm AU}} \biggr)^{\frac{31}{16}} \biggl( \frac{\Sigma_{\rm d}/{\Sigma_{\rm g}}}{0.01}\biggr)^{-1} \biggl( \frac{\Sigma_{\rm g}}{10^{3} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-2}}}\biggr)^{-\frac{3}{4}} \ {\rm yr}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the radial drift timescale at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eqtdr} t_{\rm drift}\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1} &=& \frac{r}{\|v_r\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1}} =\frac{1}{2 \pi \eta} t_{\rm K} \nonumber \\ &=&1.9 \times 10^3 \biggl(\frac{\eta}{5\times10^{-3}} \biggr)^{-1} \biggl( \frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \biggr)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \biggl( \frac{r}{15 {\rm AU}} \biggr)^{\frac{3}{2}} \ {\rm yr}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\|v_r\|_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1} = \eta v_{\rm K}$ is used. We adopt the growth condition given by [@okuzumi2012]: $$\label{eq:eqgcon} \biggl( \frac{t_{\rm grow}}{t_{\rm drift}} \biggr)_{\Omega t_{\rm s}=1} < \frac{1}{30},$$ which was derived from the results of numerical calculations. Now, we consider the steady accretion disk because the results show an almost constant accretion rate ${\dot M} \sim 10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ in the region on which we focus. Considering an optically thick disk with steady accretion and a dust-to-gas mass ratio $\Sigma_{\rm d}/{\Sigma_{\rm g}}=0.01$, the analytical solutions of the temperature of the disk midplane are given by Eq. (\[eq:anatemp\]) using Eqs. (\[eq:midtemp\]) and (\[eq:opacity\]). If we use the appropriate ${\dot M}$, this analytical solution is a good result of the numerical calculation. Using Eqs. (\[eq:anatemp\]) and (\[eq:eqgcon\]), we investigate the region where dust can increasingly grow to the size of a planetesimal, breaking through the radial drift barrier in the $ r - \Sigma_{\rm g}$ space, and show it in Figure \[fig:growthcon\], where we use ${\dot M} \sim 10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$, $\eta=2\times c_{\rm s}^2/v_{\rm K}^2$, $\Sigma_{\rm d}/{\Sigma_{\rm g}}=0.01$, and $M = 1M_{\odot}$. The panel A shows the case of $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$ based on our numerical calculation results. We can see that the region where the dust aggregates can grow by breaking through the radial drift barrier at the size of $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ (blue colored region) only exists inside the snowline. This result indicates that there is no icy dust that can grow to planetesimals beyond the radial drift barrier via direct collisional growth in the disk, where mass accretion to the central star is large, and viscous heating is sufficiently effective. The panel B of Figure \[fig:growthcon\] shows the case of $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$, which is the internal density achieved at $\Omega_{t_{\rm s}}=1$ with aggregates composed of 0.1-${\rm \mu m}$ icy monomers when static gas compression is effective [@kataoka2013b]. Even in this case, as in the case of $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$, the area where icy dust can grow to planetesimals is limited inside the snow line. Although our model of internal density evolution by collisional compression is very simple, as can be seen from these analytical estimates, the internal density of the aggregates does not affect our calculation results. ![Growth condition diagram at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ with an accretion rate of $10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ and an internal density of dust aggregates $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$ (panel A) and $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$ (panel B). The blue region shows cases where $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm drift}<1/30$, and planetesimal formation is expected to take place. The horizontal axis is the orbital radius, and the vertical axis is the gas surface density. The red solid line shows $T=$170 K, and the gray solid curves show the boundaries among the gas drag laws.[]{data-label="fig:growthcon"}](mdot6_rho2-low.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Growth condition diagram at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ with an accretion rate of $10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ and an internal density of dust aggregates $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-2} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$ (panel A) and $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$ (panel B). The blue region shows cases where $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm drift}<1/30$, and planetesimal formation is expected to take place. The horizontal axis is the orbital radius, and the vertical axis is the gas surface density. The red solid line shows $T=$170 K, and the gray solid curves show the boundaries among the gas drag laws.[]{data-label="fig:growthcon"}](mdot6_rho4-low.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} Comparison with Tsukamoto et al. (2017) --------------------------------------- The previous section showed the difficulty of ice planet formation at the disc formation stage. On the other hand, [@tsukamoto2017], which can be cited as a similar study to our study, assumed that the gas disk is gravitationally unstable in the disk formation stage and investigated the collisional growth of icy dust in a gravitationally unstable steady accretion disk. One of their results is that the maximum orbital radius within which icy planetesimals form via the coagulation of porous icy dust aggregates becomes $r \sim 20$ AU in the gravitationally unstable disk around a solar mass star. As we have seen from the previous section, our results show that it is difficult to form icy planetesimals, although our model using disk evolution including mass accretion from a molecular cloud core also shows a gravitationally unstable disk. This difference comes from the difference in the models of the gas friction law of an aggregate with a high Reynolds number. When the particle Reynolds number becomes larger than unity, the aggregate suffers gas friction, which is called Allen’s law, and when it becomes nearly $10^3$, the gas friction follows Newton’s law. However, these friction laws are not considered in [@tsukamoto2017]. Figure \[fig:growthcon2\] is a diagram of the growth conditions under the same conditions the panel B of Figure \[fig:growthcon\], except that it only considers the gas friction law as Stokes law. As we can see in Figure \[fig:growthcon2\], if we do not consider Allen’s law and Newton’s law, the region that can avoid the radial drift barrier (blue colored region) extends to the outer region of the snow line. The green curve in Figure \[fig:growthcon2\] is the gas surface density when $Q = 2$, which indicates a gravitationally unstable disk. Comparing the blue region and green line in Figure \[fig:growthcon2\], it is found that the maximum orbital radius of the formation of planetesimals reaches approximately 20 AU, and this estimate is consistent with the result of [@tsukamoto2017]. Comparing our results and those obtained by [@tsukamoto2017], we can find that it is very important to consider the friction law for a high particle Reynolds number when we consider a heavy disk and highly porous aggregates since the particle Reynolds number is proportional to the radius of the aggregate and the gas density. ![Growth condition diagram at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ with an accretion rate of $10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ and an internal density of dust aggregates $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-2}}$. The blue region shows $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm drift}<1/30$. Note that we do not consider the gas drag laws for a high Reynolds number. The horizontal axis is the orbital radius, and the vertical axis is the gas surface density. The red solid line shows $T=$170 K, the gray solid line shows the boundary between Stokes law and Epstein’s law, and the green solid curve shows the gas surface density with $Q=2$. []{data-label="fig:growthcon2"}](noalmdot6_rho4-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} Possibilities for Icy Planetesimal Formation {#sec:possibility} -------------------------------------------- Our results show that the icy dust aggregates suffer radial drift to the central star when they reach $\Omega t_{\rm s}\sim 1$ in the disk formation stage. Once the radial drift of aggregates is dominant, the dust supply and radial drift are balanced and no icy planetesimal is formed. In this section, we discuss the possibilities for icy planetesimal formation. One possibility is the process of keeping the icy dust small without growing to a large size during the disk formation stage. A second possibility is that the temperature becomes lower than the model we are considering owing to the decrease in the opacity with the dust size evolution. The last one is that planetesimals are formed by processes other than direct coagulation, such as the streaming instability. We will discuss these possibilities in the following. ### Processes Keeping the Dust Small in a Protoplanetary Disk As we saw in the previous section, the reason why it is difficult for icy dust to grow into planetesimals is that the snow line reaches about 10 AU by viscous heating, and the area where dust can grow beyond the radial drift barrier is limited inside the snow line. Figure \[fig:growthcon3\] shows the growth condition diagram when the mass accretion rate toward the central star is $10^{-9} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ and the internal density of the aggregate is $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$. In this cace, the snow line is located closer to the central star, and the area where dust can grow into planetesimals extends outside the snow line. This means that it is necessary to keep the dust close to the monomer size during the disk formation stage in order to form planetesimals by direct coagulation. ![Growth condition diagram at $\Omega t_{\rm s}=1$ with an accretion rate of $10^{-8} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$ and an internal density of dust aggregates $\rho_{\rm int} = 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$. The blue region shows $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm drift}<1/30$. The horizontal axis is the orbital radius, and the vertical axis is the gas surface density. The red solid line shows $T=$170 K, and the gray solid curves show the boundaries among the gas drag laws.[]{data-label="fig:growthcon3"}](mdot8_rho4-low.eps){width="45.00000%"} One powerful process that inhibits dust particles from growing to millimeter size is the charge barrier [@okuzumi2009a]. The charge barrier is a process in which dust particles are negatively charged by capturing the electrons of an ionized gas, and collisional growth for small dust particles is suppressed. [@okuzumi2011a] found the region where the negative charging stalls dust collisional growth at the fractal growth stage of coagulation, which is called the “frozen” zone. [@okuzumi2011b] also showed that the global transport of macroscopic aggregates from outside the frozen zone can lead to the removal of frozen aggregates and estimated that the removal timescale reaches $10^6$ yr. This time scale is longer than that of disk formation ($\sim10^5$ yr); hence, the charge barrier can be a process that keeps the dust particles very small during the disk formation stage. Collisional fragmentation is also a process that inhibits dust growth. Collisional fragmentation is generally recognized as a serious barrier to planetesimal formation. Assuming icy monomers of $ 0.1 \ {\rm \mu m} $, $ N $-body numerical experiments suggest that the aggregate suffer from catastrophic fragmentation at the collision velocity $\Delta v = 35 - 70 \ {\rm m \ s^{- 1}} $[@wada2009]. On the other hand, the relative collisional velocity $v_{\rm coll}$ driven by turbulence reaches the maximum when the dust aggregates have $\Omega t_{\rm s}\simeq 1$, and it is roughly given by $v_{\rm coll} \sim \sqrt{\alpha_{\rm turb}} \times c_{\rm s}.$ Then the maximum collisional velocity induced by turbulence in the region outside the snowline is about $ 24 \ {\rm m \ s^{-1}}$ with $T_{\rm mid} = 170 {\rm \ K}$ and $\alpha_{\rm turb} = 10^{-3}$. This implies that the catastrophic fragmentation can be ignored in this model. Erosion, a process in which the target loses mass through many high-velocity collisions with small projectiles, is another process that hinders the dust growth. The radial drift velocity depends on the size of dust aggregates, and the relative radial velocity between dust aggregates having $\Omega t_{\rm s} = 1$ and much smaller ones is given by $\eta v_{\rm K}$. The value of $\eta$ in our model is about $10^{-2}$ outside the snowline, so the relative velocity can be up to 77 m s$^{-1}$ at 15 AU. It is suggested, however, that the critical velocity for erosive mass loss is 100 m s$^{-1}$ or higher when the monomer is ice and its size is 0.1 $\mu$m [@gundlach2015]. Thus, the mass loss due to the erosion can be ignored in our model as well. For the mass loss processes, such as the fragmentation and the erosion, the monomer size of dust aggregates plays an important role. The sticking efficiency between monomers depends on the monomer size: the larger the monomer size is, the lower the sticking efficiency becomes. When the size of icy monomer is 10 $\mu$m, the critical velocities for fragmentation and for erosion become as low as a few m s$^{-1}$ [@wada2013; @gundlach2015]. Such large monomers, which may be formed by condensation of water vapor at around the snowline [@johansen2009], may lead to an effective destruction of dust aggregates and the depletion of dust due to the radial drift. These effects should be examined in the future work. ### Influence of the Opacity In our model, in order to simplify the calculations, we used the properties of interstellar dust and fixed the dust-to-gas ratio to determine the opacity. However, in reality, the size of dust particles changes owing to collisional growth, and the opacity may differ from that of the interstellar one. From the results of our calculations, icy dust grows quickly to a macroscopic size; thus our calculations may overestimate the opacity in a protoplanetary disk. As discussed in the previous section, the reason why icy dust drifts to the central star is that the disk is warmed by viscous heating, the snow line spreads outward, and the area where dust can grow to a planetesimal size is limited inside the snow line. Therefore, the effect of decreasing the opacity due to the growth in the size of the dust may work favorably for planetesimal formation by direct collisional growth. However, the mass opacity of dust aggregates also depends on their porosity and it can be characterized by $a \times f$, where $f$ is the filling factor and $a$ is the radius of the dust aggregates [@kataoka2014]. We need to calculate the dust size distribution, porosity, and opacity simultaneously to determine the midplane temperature, which is a future work. ### Streaming Instability A streaming instability is caused by a two-fluid instability due to the relative drift between the dust and the gas in the protoplanetary disk [@youdin2005]. As a result of the streaming instability, dust particles that have sizes close to $\Omega t_{\rm s} \sim 1$ (or even smaller values of $\Omega t_{\rm s}$ are suggested by [@carrera2015] and [@yang2017]) form dust clumps, and if the density of the dust clump becomes larger than the Roche density, planetesimals are formed by gravitational collapse of those dust clumps [e.g., @johansen2007; @johansen2007b]. The formation of dust clumps by the streaming instability requires an increase in $\Sigma_{\rm d}/\Sigma_{\rm g}$ by a few times from the solar value of $10^{-2}$ [@johansen2009; @carrera2015]. Processes for achieving an enhancement in the dust-to-gas mass ratio and planetesimal formation by the streaming instability are subjective; the dissipation of the gas from a disk by photoevapration can produce a massive planetesimal belt beyond 100 AU [@carrera2017], and the pile up of drifting macroscopic dust by the dust-to-gas back reaction creates a narrow planetesimal formation region at the inner edge of the protoplanetary disk [@drazkowska2016]. However, these mechanisms cannot form sufficiently early and sufficient icy planetesimals in the Saturn and Jupiter region (5–10 AU). The evaporation and recondensation of water outside the snowline can be the strongest process that triggers an enhancement in the dust-to-gas mass ratio for icy dust in the disk formation stage. Drifting through the snowline, icy dust evaporates, and the vapor recondenses when it is transferred outside the snowline owing to diffusion. This process can trigger the streaming instability near the outside of the snowline [@schoonenberg2017]. [@drazkowska2018] investigated planetesimal formation by the streaming instability beginning in the disk build-up phase. They found that icy planetesimals are formed just outside the snowline due to the re-condensation of water vapor, the radial drift of dust particles/aggregates, and the traffic jam of dust at just after the disk build-up phase. The enhancement of dust-to-gas mass ratio just outside the snowline due to those effects is also found in our results. However, the enhancement seen in our results is not enough to lead to the streaming instability. This difference seems to be originated from the difference of models used in this study and in [@drazkowska2018]: in [@drazkowska2018], the critical collision velocity for destruction of dust aggregates was assumed to be 10 m s$^{-1}$ and the back reaction from dust to gas is taken into account, while in the model of this study, the critical velocity is assumed to be so high that the fragmentation does not happen and the back reaction is not taken into consideration. Judging from results by this study by [@drazkowska2018], icy planetesimal formation caused by the streaming instability near the snowline seems to be a promising formation mechanism. A more precise model including the streaming instability for planetesimal formation in the disk formation stage is desirable in the future work. SUMMARY {#sec:sum} ======= We have investigated how disk evolution in the disk formation stage affects the collisional growth and radial motion of porous icy dust aggregates. We have calculated the evolution of the radial size distribution of icy dust aggregates using the disk model developed by [@nakamoto1994] and [@hueso2005]. Our study is summarized as follows. 1. The disk temperature rises easily by viscous heating, the snow line reaches as much as 10 AU at the maximum, and the disk becomes gravitationally unstable in the outer region where the disk is cold and massive in the disk formation stage. 2. For any parameters related to the disk and molecular cloud core, no icy planetesimal forms outside the snowline via direct collisional growth owing to the radial drift of aggregates at $\Omega t_{\rm s} \sim 1$. 3. Dust aggregates cannot have many voids until they become large in size such that collisional compression works effectively because the small dust particles from the molecular cloud core contribute to the growth of aggregates in an earlier phase of their growth. 4. The reason why icy aggregates suffer radial drift without growth over $\Omega t_{\rm s} \sim 1$ is that the icy region is restricted outward from the disk, where the growth rate of dust is low. Our analytical estimates also show that it is difficult to form an icy planetesimal in a disk having a high accretion rate $\sim 10^{-6} \ M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr^{-1}}$, even if the internal density of aggregates is sufficiently low as $\sim 10^{-4} \ {\rm g \ cm^{-3}}$. 5. Our results suggest that some processes that prevent small dust from growing to a macroscopic size during the disk formation stage or the streaming instability just outside the snowline may be needed to form icy planetesimals. We are grateful to S. Okuzumi and S. Arakawa for their fruitful discussion and help. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (15K05266).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper presents directional and omnidirectional RMS delay spread statistics obtained from 28 GHz and 73 GHz ultrawideband propagation measurements carried out in New York City using a 400 Megachips per second broadband sliding correlator channel sounder and highly directional steerable horn antennas. The 28 GHz measurements did not systematically seek the optimum antenna pointing angles and resulted in 33% outage for 39 T-R separation distances within 200 m. The 73 GHz measurements systematically found the best antenna pointing angles and resulted in 14.3% outage for 35 T-R separation distances within 200 m, all for mobile height receivers. Pointing the antennas to yield the strongest received power is shown to significantly reduce RMS delay spreads in line-of-sight (LOS) environments. A new term, distance extension exponent (DEE) is defined, and used to mathematically describe the increase in coverage distance that results by combining beams from angles with the strongest received power at a given location. These results suggest that employing directionality in millimeter-wave communications systems will reduce inter-symbol interference, improve link margin at cell edges, and enhance overall system performance.' author: - bibliography: - 'ICC\_2015\_bib.bib' title: 'Exploiting Directionality for Millimeter-Wave Wireless System Improvement' --- at ($(current page.north) + (0,-0.25in)$) [G. R. MacCartney, Jr., M. K. Samimi, and T. S. Rappaport, “Exploiting Directionality for Millimeter-Wave Wireless System]{}; at ($(current page.north) + (0,-0.4in)$) [Improvement," accepted in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), June 2015.]{}; mmWave; 5G; 28 GHz; 73 GHz; RMS delay spread; distance extension; omnidirectional models; multipath; Introduction ============ \[sec:intro\] The growing demand for wireless broadband communications has led to the exploration of the underutilized millimeter-wave (mmWave) spectrum where a vast amount of raw bandwidth can be exploited to provide multi-gigabit per second data rates for backhaul, fronthaul, and mobile applications [@Pi:CommMag11]. Highly directional horn antennas at the transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX) make up for the additional free space path loss induced by the order of increase in carrier frequency, resulting in many more directional systems than at today’s Microwave and Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) bands below 6 GHz, where quasi-omnidirectional antennas are commonplace [@TSR:mmWave]. Recent outdoor mmWave measurements using less than 1 W of transmit power have shown that future cell radii will be 200 m or so, implying that at such short distances, atmospheric and rain attenuations will not be a major concern for mmWave outdoor urban-microcell (UMi) propagation [@TSR:WillWork13]. \[tbl:outage\] [\|>m[1.6cm]{}\|>m[0.62cm]{}\|>m[2.7cm]{}\|>m[2.62cm]{}\|]{} & 28 GHz & 73 GHz & TX/RX: 10.9$^\circ$ HPBW & TX/RX: 7$^\circ$ HPBW & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & (31 m $\leq d \leq$ 102 m) & (30 m $\leq d \leq$ 54 m) & & & & & (61 m $\leq d \leq$ 187 m) & (48 m $\leq d \leq$ 190 m) & & & & & & & & (96 m $\leq d \leq$ 193 m) & (168 m $\leq d \leq$ 198 m) & & & & & (31 m $\leq d \leq$ 102 m) & (30 m $\leq d \leq$ 54 m) & & & & & (61 m $\leq d \leq$ 187 m) & (48 m $\leq d \leq$ 190 m) & & & & & & & & (96 m $\leq d \leq$ 425 m) & (168 m $\leq d \leq$ 216 m) Future mmWave radio-systems must be designed appropriately with the help of statistical channel models (SCM), such as the widespread 3GPP and WINNER II models that were used to characterize the sub-6 GHz wireless channel [@ICC2015:SR]. Recent mmWave propagation measurements, have faithfully accounted for mmWave wideband channel properties, with new statistical directional and omnidirectional path loss models, and temporal and spatial channel models [@MR:ICC14; @RBMQ:ICC12; @MKR:PIMRC14; @MR:GCOM14; @Hur14:2; @MIWEBA]. The time dispersive characteristics of mmWave wideband channels have, however, received little attention to date. The omnidirectional root-mean-square (RMS) delay spread provides an important measure of channel time dispersion and multipath, and greatly impacts equalization, cyclic-prefixes, and receiver architectures when designing UWB systems. Multipath components (MPCs) arise from propagating signals that experience reflection and scattering, and cause inter-symbol interference (ISI). The measured RMS delay spread thus provides valuable channel knowledge. \[tbl:SounderSpecs\] [\| >m[3cm]{} \|\| >m[2cm]{} \| >m[2cm]{} \|]{} Campaign & 28 GHz (2012) & 73 GHz (2013)\ TX / RX IF Frequency & 5.4 GHz & 5.625 GHz\ TX / RX LO Frequency & 22.6 GHz & 67.875 GHz\ TX / RX PN Chip Rate &\ RF Bandwidth (Null-to-null) &\ Multipath Time Resolution &\ Max. TX RF Power & 30 dBm & 14.6 dBm\ Max. Measurable Path Loss (5 dB SNR) & 178 dB & 181 dB\ TX / RX Antenna Polarization &\ TX / RX Antenna Gain & 24.5 dBi & 27 dBi\ TX / RX Az. HPBW & 10.9$^\circ$ & 7$^\circ$\ TX / RX El. HPBW & 8.6$^\circ$ & 7$^\circ$\ TX Antenna Heights &\ RX Antenna Heights & 1.5 m & 2 m\ Omnidirectional RMS delay spreads were extensively measured for the UHF/Microwave bands in order to design current 3G and 4G systems, resulting in RMS delay spreads from 15.7 ns to 23.75 ns with an UWB pulse of 2.2 GHz between 3.1 and 5.3 GHz [@ZNC:ICIAS14]. Typical mean RMS delay spreads at 400 MHz and 1900 MHz in multipath-rich LOS and NLOS environments were measured on the order of 300-400 ns and 730 ns, respectively, over 10-20 MHz of RF bandwidth [@MLN:ISWCS08; @MKPC:PIMRC02]. The mean and maximum RMS delay spreads observed using directional antennas in a NLOS dense urban wideband cellular study were 12.2 ns and 117 ns at 38 GHz, respectively [@RBMQ:ICC12]. 90% of 59 GHz collected wideband measurements had RMS delay spreads less than 20 ns in a dense UMi environment for T-R separation distances less than 200 m [@Lovnes94:1], and the typical RMS delay spread in another study in a city street environment was below 20 ns [@Smulders]. 28 GHz and 73 GHz mmWave UWB propagation measurements in New York City were collected with a 400 Megachips per second (Mcps) broadband sliding correlator channel sounder, each with a pair of highly directional steerable horn antennas used at the TX and RX, for 74 and 36 TX-RX location combinations at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, for mobile RX heights [@TSR:WillWork13; @MR:ICC14]. Power delay profiles (PDPs) were measured at unique azimuth and elevation antenna pointing angles at the TX and RX, allowing us to model both temporal and spatial channel characteristics. Table \[tbl:outage\] lists the number of LOS and NLOS locations measured and the range of distances for both 28 GHz and 73 GHz LOS and NLOS environments in Manhattan, where signal was detected and where outages occurred. High-gain directional antennas were used to complete mmWave links in order to make up for the increase in free space path loss at higher frequencies compared to today’s bands. MmWave channels must therefore be characterized using directional statistical models obtained from unique pointing angle narrowbeam measurements, as reported in [@TSR:WillWork13; @MR:ICC14; @Shu:CommMagDec14]. In this paper, we present both directional and omnidirectional RMS delay spread statistics based on our 28 GHz and 73 GHz propagation measurements, that can be used in developing beam combining and beamforming algorithms to be used in future electrically-steered on-chip antennas [@RMG:PROC11]. Section \[sec:Drms\] presents directional RMS delay spreads obtained from all pointing angle measurements between the TX and RX, Section \[sec:CovExt\] introduces a new term, the distance extension exponent (DEE), used to determine distance extension when combining beams from unique pointing angles with the strongest received power, Section \[sec:3Drms\] gives omnidirectional RMS delay spreads synthesized from absolute timing power delay profiles recovered using 3-D ray-tracing techniques, and Section \[sec:conc\] concludes the paper. Directional RMS Delay Spread ============================ \[sec:Drms\] UWB propagation measurement campaigns were performed in 2012 and 2013 in dense urban LOS and NLOS environments to assess the viability of mmWave outdoor communications. 400 Mcps broadband sliding correlator channel sounders at 28 and 73 GHz shared a similar architecture but with different IF, LO, and RF up- and down-conversion front-ends. T-R separation distances ranged from 30 m to 425 m, where several thousands of PDPs were recorded at many different azimuth and elevation pointing angle combinations using steerable high-gain horn antennas (10.9$^{\circ}$ (at 28 GHz) and 7$^{\circ}$ (at 73 GHz), half-power beamwidth (HPBW)) at both the TX and RX, providing maximum measurable path loss of 178 dB and 181 dB at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively. Although both backhaul (4.06 m) and mobile (2 m) RX heights were measured at 73 GHz, only mobile measurements are considered in this paper for proper comparison with the 28 GHz mobile (1.5 m) measurements. The 28 GHz measurements were more rigid, in that they did not systematically point and search for antenna pointing angles between the TX and RX that resulted in the strongest power, whereas the 73 GHz measurement campaign did search for TX and RX antenna pointing angles that resulted in links with the strongest received power. At both 28 and 73 GHz, omnidirectional path loss models were created by summing PDPs from adjacent and orthogonal antenna beams so as to not double count overlapping angles or multipath energy. While the 73 GHz measurements scanned a larger portion of the 4$\pi$ steradian sphere, both measurements resulted in consistent path loss models [@MKR:PIMRC14]. The measurement equipment specifications are listed in Table \[tbl:SounderSpecs\], and additional details are available in [@TSR:WillWork13; @MR:ICC14]. \[tbl:RMSdelay\] [\|>m[1.9cm]{}\|>m[1.9cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|]{} & & & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & 28.8 & 44.3 & 17.4 & 28.3 & 13.9 & 22.0 & 11.1 & 22.9 ![28 GHz and 73 GHz LOS and NLOS RMS delay spread CDFs over all pointing angles in the azimuth and elevation planes in New York City using high-gain directional antennas (HPBW of 10.9$^\circ$ at 28 GHz and 7$^\circ$ at 73 GHz). 28 GHz RMS delay spreads are larger than 73 GHz RMS delay spreads in both LOS and NLOS environments.[]{data-label="fig:Drms"}](D_RMS_Plot.eps){width="50.00000%"} Fig. \[fig:Drms\] shows cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the LOS and NLOS directional RMS delay spreads at 28 GHz and 73 GHz over all pointing angles between the TX and RX antennas, where RMS delay spreads $\sigma_{\tau}(\theta_i,\phi_j)$ at a given azimuth angle $\theta_i$ and elevation angle $\phi_j$ combination were computed from Eqs. (\[eq:eq1\]) to (\[eq:eq3\]) [@TSR:mmWave]: $$\taubar(\theta_i,\phi_j) = \frac{\sum_k P(\tau_k,\theta_i,\phi_j)\tau_k}{\sum_k P(\tau_k,\theta_i,\phi_j)}\label{eq:eq1}$$ $$\overline{\tau^{2}}(\theta_i,\phi_j) = \frac{\sum_k P(\tau_k,\theta_i,\phi_j){\tau_k}^2}{\sum_k P(\tau_k,\theta_i,\phi_j)}\label{eq:eq2}$$ $$\sigma_\tau(\theta_i,\phi_j) = \sqrt{\overline{\tau^{2}}-(\taubar)^{2}}\label{eq:eq3}$$ where $P(\tau_k,\theta_i,\phi_j)$ is the relative amplitude of multipath in mW/ns in time bin $\tau_k$, for a measured azimuth angle $\theta_i$ and elevation angle $\phi_j$ direction. In our work, each directional PDP measurement was processed using a 5 dB above mean thermal noise floor SNR threshold, where all measured signals above this threshold were deemed valid and all signal levels below were ignored. Directional LOS RMS delay spreads over all arbitrary pointing angles are for RX locations where the TX and RX were in clear LOS of each other, with the TX and RX antennas aligned on boresight, but also when TX and RX antennas were not necessarily aligned on boresight, in order to measure delay spread of a LOS environment with directional antennas [@TSR:WillWork13; @MR:ICC14]. The large RMS delay spreads observed in LOS usually appear at off-boresight angles arising from multipath signal reflections and scattering in the environment, causing large delays with strong signals. Directional NLOS RMS delay spreads are for RX locations where obstructions blocked the clear optical LOS path from the TX. Table \[tbl:outage\] shows the number of TX-RX location combinations where signal was measured, and the corresponding T-R separation distances for LOS and NLOS environments at 28 GHz and 73 GHz. Table \[tbl:RMSdelay\] provides the directional mean RMS delay spreads and standard deviations observed at 28 GHz and 73 GHz in LOS and NLOS environments. The mean LOS RMS delay spreads measured at 28 GHz and 73 GHz were 28.8 ns and 13.9 ns, respectively, and are both larger than their corresponding mean NLOS RMS delay spreads of 17.4 ns and 11.1 ns, indicating that scattered energy is more prominent in LOS environments when looking in arbitrary directions. Fig. \[fig:Drms\] displays that 90% of the measured RMS delay spreads occur within 80 ns and 38 ns in LOS environments at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, whereas 90% of measured RMS delay spreads in NLOS environments are within 39 ns and 25 ns at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively. The larger LOS and NLOS RMS delay spreads at 28 GHz imply that reflections are stronger at 28 GHz and that diffuse scattering is more important for the propagation path at 73 GHz (this is also seen in Figs. \[fig:Drms\] and \[fig:Bestrms\], and Tables \[tbl:RMSdelay\] and \[tbl:bestRMSdelay\]). The NLOS mean RMS delay spreads at 28 GHz and 73 GHz compare well with other mmWave RMS delay spreads that are typically lower than 20 ns [@Smulders; @Lovnes94:1]. Large RMS delay spreads in LOS environments occur when the TX and RX antennas are not aligned on boresight. Proper beam pointing in mmWave systems can direct antennas to the strongest received power or smallest delay spread angle combinations between TX and RX antennas, effectively reducing RMS delay spread and resulting in an improved link budget [@Shu:CommMagDec14]. ![28 GHz and 73 GHz directional RMS delay spread CDFs for the single strongest beam power^2^ over all TX-RX location combinations using directional antennas (HPBW of 10.9$^\circ$ at 28 GHz and 7$^\circ$ at 73 GHz) in New York City in LOS and NLOS environments. Table \[tbl:outage\] shows the corresponding T-R separation distances and measured locations. Table \[tbl:bestRMSdelay\] show the mean RMS delay spreads and standard deviations for the strongest single beam power over all locations^3^.\[fig:Bestrms\]](BestRMS_28_73_bothGHz_Plot.eps){width="50.00000%"} Fig. \[fig:Bestrms\] shows the RMS delay spread CDFs from the unique pointing angles (in both azimuth and elevation lane) at both the TX and RX that resulted in the strongest received power for each TX-RX location combination in LOS and NLOS environments. Fig. \[fig:Bestrms\] reveals that directional RMS delay spreads when only considering the single strongest beam power for a TX-RX location combination, are less than 2 ns at 28 and 73 GHz, thus illustrating that the angles with the strongest received power correspond to the LOS boresight link. Table \[tbl:bestRMSdelay\] shows the directional single strongest beam LOS and NLOS mean RMS delay spreads and standard deviations at 28 GHz and 73 GHz. Improvements for the mean RMS delay spread when considering the single strongest beam powers compared to arbitrary beams, are observed in LOS environments, where the strongest path is always the boresight-to-boresight link between the TX and RX antennas, compared to any arbitrary direction. At 28 GHz, the single strongest beam power mean RMS delay spread over all locations for NLOS is larger than for the arbitrary pointing angle case due to a large number of angles at 28 GHz with low RMS delay spreads, but when comparing Fig. \[fig:Drms\] and Fig. \[fig:Bestrms\], the trend of the CDF curve is relatively consistent up until the 70% mark. The higher 28 GHz delay spread is likely due to the experimental design of the 28 GHz measurements that did not seek out the stongest beam pointing angles at the TX and RX. With beam searching and beamforming algorithms, directional RMS delay spreads for the strongest single beam powers will reduce ISI, thereby significantly improving connectivity and data throughput in a LOS mmWave network [@Shu:CommMagDec14]. \[tbl:bestRMSdelay\] [\|>m[1.9cm]{}\|>m[1.9cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|>m[0.6cm]{}\|]{} & & & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & 1.19& 0.76& 25.7 & 40.2 & 1.16 & 0.42 & 7.1 & 8.3 Distance Extension Using Beam Combining ======================================= \[sec:CovExt\] Beamforming and beam combining techniques will be feasible for mmWave wireless and will improve link margin at cell edges, or equivalently offer, increased cell coverage beyond the estimated 200 m cell radius [@Shu:CommMagDec14]. We quantify the distance extension by introducing a new concept of a distance extension exponent (DEE), used to determine distance extension curves as a function of T-R separation distance by combining beams at the mobile handset. Enabling distance extension through beam combining can be understood by considering two mean path losses $\PL_{\mathrm{(1\;beam)}}(d_1)$ at distance $d_1$ for the single best beam and $\PL_{\mathrm{(multibeam)}}(d_2)$ at distance $d_2$ for combining beams. Both path loss values are equivalent such that: $$\label{eq4} \PL_{\mathrm{(1\;beam)}}(d_1) = \PL_{\mathrm{(multibeam)}}(d_2)$$ Below, the DEE derivation is based on a close-in free space reference distance, $d_0 = 1$ m, as this provides a standard for all measurements and models standardized to a 1 m reference. The distance extension exponent can be determined by solving for $d_2$ in terms of $d_1$, Eq. (\[eq4\]) remains valid for all $(d_1,d_2)$ pairs. Given the two path loss exponents (PLE) $n_1$ (single best beam) and $n_2$ (multibeam) (with respect to a free space reference distance $d_0 = 1$ m), we can estimate $\PL_{\mathrm{(1\;beam)}}(d_1)$ and $\PL_{\mathrm{(multibeam)}}(d_2)$ using the close-in free space reference distance path loss models in the following way: $$\label{eq5} \PL_{\mathrm{(1\;beam)}}(d_1) = \PL_{\mathrm{FS}}(d_0) + 10 n_1 \log_{10}\left( \frac{d_1}{d_0}\right)$$ $$\label{eq6} \PL_{\mathrm{(multibeam)}}(d_2) = \PL_{\mathrm{FS}}(d_0) + 10 n_2 \log_{10} \left(\frac{d_2}{d_0} \right)$$ where $\PL_{\mathrm{FS}}(d_0)$ is the free space path loss at the standardized reference distance $d_0 = 1$ m. After substituting (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq6\]) into (\[eq4\]), we obtain the relationship between $d_2$ and $d_1$ such that (\[eq4\]) remains valid: $$\left(d_2 \right)= \left(d_1\right) ^{\frac{n_1}{n_2}},\;(n_1\geq n_2,\:\mathrm{\textbf{always}})$$ where $\frac{n_1}{n_2}$ defines the DEE. Table \[tbl:CovExt\] provides empirical values for the DEE under different beam combining scenarios, where $n_1$ describes the PLE under the single best beam, and $n_2$ describes the PLE for coherently or non-coherently combining multiple beams [@Shu:CommMagDec14]. Coherent combining is done by summing the square root of strongest received powers, in Volts and squaring the sum, resulting in Watts, whereas non-coherent combining simply adds the strongest received powers together in Watts, and both methods are performed during post-detection [@Shu:CommMagDec14; @SR:IMS14]. For example, a maximum cell radius of 200 m for the single best beam can be extended to 448 m when combining the four best beams coherently (DEE = 1.152), extending the coverage distance by a factor of 2.24 as seen in Eq. (\[eq:DEE1\]). The effective distance extension factor (DEF) for a given T-R separation distance $d_1$ (PLE = $n_1$) when combining the best four beams compared to the single best beam, that results in $d_2$ (PLE = $n_2$) is computed as follows: $$\mathrm{DEF}(d_1,d_2) = \frac{d_2-d_1}{d_1}+1$$ or equivalently using the DEE: $$\mathrm{DEF}(d_1,\mathrm{DEE}) = \left[d_1\:^{\left(\mathrm{DEE-1}\right)}\right]$$ $$\label{eq:DEE1} \mathrm{DEF}(200,1.152) = \left[200^{\left(1.152-1\right)}\right] = 2.24$$ The DEE can be used to determine the increased distance for a user experiencing the same path loss for beam combining compared to the single best beam. Fig. \[fig:CEF\] displays the distance extension for coherently and non-coherently combining the best beams compared to the single best beam at 73 GHz. The 28 GHz distance extension curves follow the same trend as shown in Table \[tbl:CovExt\]. The use of a 1 m free space reference distance allows a standard propagation model to be used and allows such comparisons in system design. ![Beam combining distance extension curves at 73 GHz for coherently and non-coherently combining the best beams compared the single best beam. 28 GHz beam combining distance extension follows the same trend as the 73 GHz data.[]{data-label="fig:CEF"}](CEF_Plot.eps){width="50.00000%"} \[tbl:CovExt\] [\| >m[0.85cm]{} \| >m[0.7cm]{} \|>m[0.6cm]{} \|>m[0.6cm]{} \| >m[0.75cm]{} \| >m[0.6cm]{} \| >m[0.6cm]{} \| >m[0.75cm]{} \|]{}\ Freq. & &\ & 10.9$^\circ$ HPBW & &\ & Beams & PLE & DEE & $\bm{d_2}$ if & PLE & DEE & $\bm{d_2}$ if\ & 1 & 3.812 & - & $\bm{d_1}$ = 200 m& 3.812 & - & $\bm{d_1}$ = 200 m\ & 2 & 3.548 & 1.074 & 296 m & 3.692 & 1.033 & 238 m\ & 3 & 3.406 & 1.119 & 376 m & 3.631 & 1.050 & 261 m\ & 4 & 3.307 & 1.153 & 450 m & 3.591 & 1.062 & 278 m\ & &\ & 7$^\circ$ HPBW & &\ & Beams & PLE & DEE & $\bm{d_2}$ if & PLE & DEE & $\bm{d_2}$ if\ & 1 & 3.728 & - & $\bm{d_1}$ = 200 m & 3.728 & - & $\bm{d_1}$ = 200 m\ & 2 & 3.466 & 1.076 & 300 m & 3.613 & 1.032 & 237 m\ & 3 & 3.327 & 1.121 & 380 m & 3.557 & 1.048 & 258 m\ & 4 & 3.235 & 1.152 & 448 m & 3.523 & 1.058 & 272 m\ 3-D Omnidirectional RMS Delay Spreads ===================================== \[sec:3Drms\] Recovering Omnidirectional RMS Delay Spreads -------------------------------------------- Omnidirectional PDPs were recovered at a majority of the measured RX locations from the directional measurements using a MATLAB-based 3-D ray-tracing package developed at NYU to emulate electromagnetic propagation, and to predict absolute time delays of propagating MPCs. Table \[tbl:synthPDP\] shows the number of locations where omnidirectional PDPs were synthesized compared to the total number of measured locations, as not all locations were able to be synthesized since the database did not agree with our observations. An $800 \times 800$ $\mathrm{m}^2$ area was modeled in Google SketchUp, allowing 3-D environment-specific modeling with an accuracy of 5 m. Fig. \[fig:RayTracedMap\] shows a typical ray-traced synthesized RX location where viable propagation paths are shown in red. The corresponding measured power azimuth spectrum is shown in Fig. \[fig:Polar\] along with the ray-tracing predictions for the strongest angles of arrival [@MR:GCOM14]. Our ray-tracer predicted up to four strongest measured angles at each RX location with an accuracy of $\pm 20^{\circ}$, which was enough to estimate the absolute propagating time delays of the first arriving multipath components at each of the strongest measured angles. We note the ray-tracer was unable to predict angles that received weakly scattered energy as a result of the coarseness of the database used. We synthesized absolute timing omnidirectional PDPs using the ray-tracing predictions with the measured data. The PDPs corresponding to the strongest measured azimuth and elevation angles were matched up with the corresponding shortest predicted absolute propagation distances resulting from the ray-tracing simulations. The excess delay PDPs from the strongest measured angles were then superimposed upon an absolute propagation time delay axis, where each PDP was appropriately shifted and added in time using the ray-tracing predicted absolute propagation time delay (obtained from dividing the predicted distance by the speed of light in free space) [@MR:GCOM14]. [The strongest multipath components propagating from TX to RX were assumed to follow specular reflection paths and result in prominent angles, which could be simulated in the ray-tracing environment using the “Law of Reflection", a reasonable assumption in order to pair up strong measured angles and ray-tracing predictions.]{} The resulting synthesized 3-D omnidirectional PDPs for measured RX locations were subsequently analyzed to extract the RMS delay spreads [@ICC2015:SR]. \[tbl:synthPDP\] [\|M[4cm]{}\|M[1.5cm]{}\|M[1.5cm]{}\|]{} & 28 GHz & 73 GHz LOS locations synthesized for omnidirectional PDPs & 3 out of 6 & 5 out of 5 NLOS locations synthesized for omnidirectional PDPs & 13 out of 20 & 19 out of 25 ![A 3-Dimensional view of the Downtown Manhattan area obtained from the MATLAB-based 3-D ray-tracer. The rays which leave the TX and successfully arrive at the [measured]{} RX are shown in red, and represent multipath signal trajectories in a dense UMi. The TX was located on the rooftop of the Coles Sports Center 7 m above ground (yellow star), and the RX was located 113 m away, 1.5 m above ground (black circle) [@MR:GCOM14].[]{data-label="fig:RayTracedMap"}](RayTraced_Map.eps){width="3.5in"} ![Measured azimuthal distribution of total received power (dBm units), also referred to as a polar plot, showing the predicted AOAs (black arrows) using 3-D ray-tracing at [the]{} measured Manhattan RX location [shown in Fig. \[fig:RayTracedMap\]]{}. The center of the plot corresponds to the RX location. The RX and TX antennas both had 24.5 dBi of gain with $10.9^{\circ}$ (in azimuth) and $8.6^{\circ}$ (in elevation) 3 dB beamwidths, and the RX azimuth $0^{\circ}$ mark points to the True North bearing direction [@MR:GCOM14].[]{data-label="fig:Polar"}](Polar_Plot.eps){width="3.5in"} Millimeter-Wave Omnidirectional RMS Delay Spreads ------------------------------------------------- Fig. \[fig:RMS\] shows the 28 GHz and 73 GHz omnidirectional RMS delay spreads as a function of T-R separation distance in both LOS and NLOS environments, obtained from absolute timing omnidirectional PDPs. The mean LOS RMS delay spreads were 46.6 ns and 14.6 ns at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, and the corresponding NLOS values were 40.9 ns and 45.7 ns. These values depend significantly on the ray-tracing simulation results, required to recover the omnidirectional profiles. We also note that there are only three locations with synthesized omnidirectional RMS delay spreads for the 28 GHz LOS case. We again note that the 28 GHz measurements did not search for the angles that resulted in the strongest received power and did not measure all locations with antennas aligned on boresight. The RMS delay spread appears to [slightly]{} decrease as the T-R separation distance increases, where MPCs experience more reflections to arrive at the receiver. Finally, the 73 GHz mean omnidirectional NLOS RMS delay spreads are slighly larger than at 28 GHz, indicating that the received energy is more spread out in time, implying a more pronounced diffuse scattering effect at 73 GHz. [\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|]{} & & & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & $\bm{\mu}$ (ns) & $\bm{\sigma}$ (ns) & 28 GHz & 46.6 & 39.7 & 40.9 & 57.0 & 73 GHz & 14.6 & 7.9 & 45.7 & 35.5 \[tbl:41\] ![Omnidirectional RMS delay spreads as a function of T-R separation distance obtained from synthesized absolute timing PDPs measured at 28 GHz and 73 GHz for LOS and NLOS channels in Downtown Manhattan, a dense UMi environment.[]{data-label="fig:RMS"}](omni_TR.eps){width="3.5in"} Fig. \[fig:RMSCDF\] shows the LOS and NLOS CDFs for the 28 GHz and 73 GHz omnidirectional RMS delay spreads. We observe that 50% of all RMS delay spreads lie below 25 ns at both 28 GHz and 73 GHz, and that 90% of all RMS delay spreads lie below 80 ns and 89 ns at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, illustrating more diffuse scattering at 73 GHz, as the received energy is more spread out in time delay. ![CDFs of the omnidirectional RMS delay spreads obtained from synthesized absolute timing PDPs measured at 28 GHz and 73 GHz in LOS and NLOS environments in Downtown Manhattan, a dense UMi environment.[]{data-label="fig:RMSCDF"}](CDF_omni.eps){width="3.5in"} Conclusion ========== \[sec:conc\] This paper presented directional and omnidirectional RMS delay spread statistics obtained from outdoor mmWave UWB propagation measurements using highly directional steerable horn antennas, and presented a new system design parameter. Distance extension with beam combining using a distance extension exponent, is useful in performing system-wide simulations. The DEE is made possible through the use of a 1 m free space reference distance for all LOS and NLOS path loss models, as described in [@TSR:mmWave]. Directional measurements over all unique pointing angles resulted in mean RMS delay spreads of 28.8 ns and 13.9 ns in LOS at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, as seen in Fig. \[fig:Drms\] and Table \[tbl:RMSdelay\]. The directional mean RMS delay spreads were 17.4 ns and 11.1 ns in NLOS environments at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, showing that 28 GHz has larger RMS delay spread than 73 GHz. Measured NLOS directional mean RMS delay spreads at angles with the strongest received power are 25.7 ns and 7.1 ns at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, a great reduction over NLOS omnidirectional RMS delay spreads as seen in Table \[tbl:41\] where means of 40.9 ns and 45.7 ns were measured, respectively. The mean RMS delay spreads found at 28 GHz and 73 GHz in NLOS environments compare well with typical RMS delay spreads found at 59 GHz that are at or lower than 20 ns [@Lovnes94:1; @Smulders]. Future mmWave coverage distance can also be extended significantly through beam combining, by a factor of more than 2.2 from 200 m when combining the four strongest beams over the single best beam at 73 GHz in a NLOS environment using a DEE. The synthesized omnidirectional RMS delay spreads are much larger than at arbitrary pointing angles for both LOS and NLOS, indicating that directional mmWave systems will be more useful for avoiding ISI and thus improving signal quality and throughput. These results illustrate that mmWave UWB communications systems can be exploited with directional antennas at the TX and RX to achieve greater system performance.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Vector representations of words have heralded a transformational approach to classical problems in NLP; the most popular example is word2vec. However, a single vector does not suffice to model the polysemous nature of many (frequent) words, i.e., words with multiple meanings. In this paper, we propose a three-fold approach for [unsupervised]{} polysemy modeling: (a) context representations, (b) sense induction and disambiguation and (c) lexeme (as a word and sense pair) representations. A key feature of our work is the finding that a sentence containing a target word is well represented by a low rank [subspace]{}, instead of a point in a vector space. We then show that the subspaces associated with a particular sense of the target word tend to [intersect]{} over a line (one-dimensional subspace), which we use to disambiguate senses using a clustering algorithm that harnesses the Grassmannian geometry of the representations. The disambiguation algorithm, which we call $K$-Grassmeans, leads to a procedure to label the different senses of the target word in the corpus – yielding lexeme vector representations, all in an unsupervised manner starting from a large (Wikipedia) corpus in English. Apart from several prototypical target (word,sense) examples and a host of empirical studies to intuit and justify the various geometric representations, we validate our algorithms on standard sense induction and disambiguation datasets and present new state-of-the-art results.' author: - \| Jiaqi Mu, Suma Bhat, Pramod Viswanath\ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\ University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign\ Urbana, IL 61801, USA\ `{jiaqimu2,spbhat2,pramodv}@illinois.edu` bibliography: - 'polysemy.bib' title: Geometry of Polysemy --- Introduction ============ Distributed representations are embeddings of words in a real vector space, achieved via an appropriate function that models the interaction between neighboring words in sentences (e.g.: neural networks [@DBLP:journals/jmlr/BengioDVJ03; @DBLP:conf/interspeech/MikolovKBCK10; @DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12], log-bilinear models [@DBLP:conf/icml/MnihH07; @DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781], co-occurrence statistics [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/PenningtonSM14; @DBLP:conf/nips/LevyG14]). Such an approach has been strikingly successful in capturing the syntactic and semantic similarity between words (and pairs of words), via simple linear algebraic relations between their corresponding vector representations. On the other hand, the [polysemous]{} nature of words, i.e., the phenomenon of the same surface form representing multiple senses, is a central feature of the creative process embodying all natural languages. For example, a large, tall machine used for moving heavy objects and a tall, long-legged, long-necked bird both share the same surface form “crane”. A vast majority of words, especially frequent ones, are polysemous, with each word taking on anywhere from two to a dozen different senses in many natural languages. For instance, WordNet collects 26,896 polysemous English words with an average of 4.77 senses each [@DBLP:journals/cacm/Miller95]. Naturally, a single vector embedding does not appropriately represent a polysemous word. There are currently two approaches to address the polysemy issue: - Sense specific representation learning [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/ChenLS14; @DBLP:conf/acl/RotheS15], usually aided by hand-crafted lexical resources such as WordNet [@DBLP:journals/cacm/Miller95]; - Unsupervised sense induction and sense/lexeme representation learning by inferring the senses directly from text [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/LiJ15; @DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. Since hand-crafted lexical resources sometimes do not reflect the actual meaning of a target word in a given context [@DBLP:journals/csl/Veronis04] and, more importantly, such resources are lacking in many languages (and their creation draws upon intensive expert human resources), we focus on the second approach in this paper; such an approach is inherently scalable and potentially plausible with the right set of ideas. Indeed, a human expects the contexts to cue in on the particular sense of a specific word, and successful unsupervised sense representation and sense extraction algorithms would represent progress in the broader area of representation of natural language. Such are the goals of this work. Firth1957’s hypothesis – a word is characterized by the company it keeps [@Firth1957] – has motivated the development of single embeddings for words, but also suggests that multiple senses for a target word could be inferred from its contexts (neighboring words within the sentence). This task is naturally broken into three related questions: (a) how to [represent]{} contexts (neighboring words of the target word); (b) how to [induce]{} word senses (partition instances of contexts into groups where the target word is used in the same sense within each group) and (c) how to represent lexemes (word and sense pairs) by vectors. Existing works address these questions by exploring the latent structure of contexts. In an inspired work, [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] hypothesizes that the global word representation is a linear combination of its sense representations, models the contexts by a finite number of discourse atoms, and recovers the sense representations via sparse coding of all the vectors of the vocabulary (a global fit). Other works perform a local context-specific sense induction: [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/LiJ15] introduces a sense-based language model to disambiguate word senses and to learn lexeme representations by incorporating the Chinese restaurant process, [@DBLP:conf/naacl/ReisingerM10] and [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12] label the word senses by clustering the contexts based on the average of the context word embeddings and learn lexeme representations using the labeled corpus. [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14] retains the representation of contexts by the average of the word vectors, but improves the previous approach by jointly learning the lexeme vectors and the cluster centroids. [Grassmannian Model]{}: We depart from the linear latent models in these prior works by presenting a [nonlinear]{} (Grassmannian) geometric property of contexts. We empirically observe and hypothesize that the context word representations surrounding a target word reside roughly in a low dimensional [subspace]{}. Under this hypothesis, a specific sense representation for a target word should reside in all the subspaces of the contexts where the word means this sense. Note that these subspaces need not cluster at all: a word such as “launch" in the sense of “beginning or initiating a new endeavor" could be used in a large variety of contexts. Nevertheless, our hypothesis that large semantic units (such as sentences) reside in low dimensional subspaces implies that the subspaces of all contexts where the target word shares the same meaning should [intersect]{} non-trivially. This further implies that there exists a direction (one dimensional subspace) that is very close to all subspaces and we treat such an intersection vector as the representation of a group of subspaces. Following this intuition, we propose a three-fold approach to deal with the three central questions posed above. - [Context Representation]{}: we define the context for a target word to be a set of left $W$ and right $W$ non-functional words of the target word ($W\approx 10$ in our experiments), including the target word itself, and represent it by a low-dimensional subspace spanned by its context word representations; - [Sense Induction and Disambiguation]{}: we induce word senses from their contexts by partitioning multiple context instances into groups, where the target word has the same sense within each group. Each group is associated with a representation – the intersection direction of the group – found via $K$-Grassmeans, a novel clustering method that harnesses the geometry of subspaces. Finally, we disambiguate word senses for new context instances using the respecive group representations; - [Lexeme Representation]{}: the lexeme representations can be obtained by running an off-the-shelf word embedding algorithm on a labeled corpus. We label the corpus through hard decisions (involving [erasure]{} labels) and soft decisions (probabilistic labels), motivated by analogous successful approaches to decoding of turbo and LDPC codes in wireless communication. [Experiments]{}: The lexical aspect of our algorithm (i.e., senses can be induced and disambiguated [individually]{} for each word) as well as the novel geometry (subspace intersection vectors) jointly allow us to capture subtle shades of senses. For instance, in “Can you hear me? You’re on the [air]{}. One of the great moments of live television, isn’t it?”, our representation is able to capture the occurrence of “air” to mean “live event on camera”. In contrast, with a global fit such as that in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] the senses are inherently limited in the number and type of “discourse atoms” that can be captured. As a quantitative demonstration of the latent geometry captured by our methods, we evaluate the proposed induction algorithm on standard Word Sense Induction (WSI) tasks. Our algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art on two datasets: (a) SemEval-2010 Task 14 [@DBLP:conf/semeval/ManandharKDP10] whose word senses are obtained from OntoNotes [@DBLP:conf/naacl/PradhanX09]; and (b) a custom-built dataset built by repurposing the polysemous dataset of [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. In terms of lexeme vector embeddings, our representations have evaluations comparable to state-of-the-art on standard tasks – the word similarity task of SCWS [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12] – and significantly better on a subset of the SCWS dataset which focuses on polysemous target words and the “police lineup" task of [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. We summarize our contributions below: - We observe a new geometric property of context words and use it to represent contexts by the low-dimensional subspaces spanned by their word vector representations; - We use the geometry of the subspaces in conjunction with unsupervised clustering methods to propose a sense induction and disambiguation algorithm; - We introduce a new dataset for the WSI task which includes 50 polysemous words and 6,567 contexts. The word senses in this dataset are coarser and more human-interpretable than those in previous WSI datasets. Context Representation {#sec:context-representation} ====================== Contexts refer to entire sentences or (long enough) consecutive blocks of words in sentences surrounding a target word. Efficient distributed vector representations for sentences and paragraphs are active topics of research in the literature ([@DBLP:conf/icml/LeM14; @DBLP:conf/acl/TaiSM15; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/Kim14]), with much emphasis on appropriately relating the individual word embeddings with those of the sentences (and paragraphs) they reside in. The scenario of contexts studied here is similar in the sense that they constitute long semantic units similar to sentences, but different in that we are considering semantic units that all have a [common]{} target word residing inside them. Instead of a straightforward application of existing literature on sentence (and paragraph) vector embeddings to our setting, we deviate and propose a [non-vector]{} space representation; such a representation is central to the results of this paper and is best motivated by the following simple experiment. Given a random word and a set of its contexts (culled from the set of all sentences where the target word appears), we use principle component analysis (PCA) to project the context word embeddings for every context into an $N$-dimensional subspace and measure the low dimensional nature of context word embeddings. We randomly sampled 500 words whose occurrence (frequency) is larger than 10,000, extracted their contexts from Wikipedia, and plotted the histogram of the variance ratios being captured by rank-$N$ PCA in Figure \[fig:lowrank\](a) for $N=3,4,5$. We make the following observations: even rank-3 PCA captures at least 45% of the energy (i.e., variance ratio) of the context word representations and rank-$4$ PCA can capture at least half of the energy almost surely. As comparison, we note that the average the number of context words is roughly 21 and a rank-4 PCA over a random collection of 21 words would be expected to capture only 20% of the energy (this calculation is justified because word vectors have been observed to possess a spatial isotropy property [@TACL742]). All word vectors were trained on the Wikipedia corpus with dimension $d=300$ using the skip-gram program of word2vec [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781]. This experiment immediately suggests the low-dimensional nature of contexts, and that the contexts be represented in the space of subspaces, i.e., the Grassmannian manifold: we represent a context $c$ (as a multiset of words) by a point in the Grassmannian manifold – a subspace (denoted by $S(c)$) spanned by its top $N$ principle components (denoted by $\{u_n(c)\}_{n=1}^N$), i.e., $$\begin{aligned} S(c) = \left\{\sum_{n=1}^N \alpha_n u_n(c): \alpha_n \in \mathbb{R}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ A detailed algorithm chart for context representations is provided in Appendix \[app:algo1\], for completeness. Sense Induction and Disambiguation ================================== We now turn to sense induction, a basic task that explores polysemy: in this task, a set of sentences (each containing a common target word) have to be partitioned such that the target word is used in the same sense in all the sentences within each partition. The number of partitions relates to the number of senses being identified for the target word. The geometry of the subset representations plays a key role in our algorithm and we start with this next. Geometry of Polysemy -------------------- Consider a target word $w$ and a context sentence $c$ containing this word $w$. The empirical experiment from the previous section allows us to represent $c$ by a $N$-dimensional subspace of the vectors of the words in $c$. Since $N$ (3$\sim$5 in our experiments) is much smaller than the number of words in $c$ (21, on average), one suspects that the representation associated with $c$ wouldn’t change very much if the target word $w$ were expurgated from it, i.e., $$S(c) \approx S(c \setminus w).$$ On the other hand $v(w)$ (the vector representation of the target word $w$) perhaps has a fairly large intersection with $S(c)$ and thus also with $S(c\setminus w)$. Putting these two observations together, one arrives at the following hypothesis, in the context of [monosemous]{} target words: > [Intersection Hypothesis]{}: the target word vector $v(w)$ should reside in the [intersection]{} of $S(c \setminus w)$, where the intersection is over all its contexts $c$. The reason why this hypothesis is made in the context of monosemous words is that in this case the word vector representation is “pure”, while polysemous words are really different words with the same (lexical) surface form. [Empirical Validation of Intersection Hypothesis]{}: We illustrate the intersection phenomenon via another experiment. Consider a monosemous word “typhoon” and consider all contexts in Wikipedia corpus where this word appears (there are 14,829 contexts and a few sample contexts are provided in Table \[tb:monosemy\]). We represent each context by the rank-$N$ PCA subspace of all the vectors (with $N=3$) associated with the words in the context and consider their intersection. Each of these subspaces is $3\times d$ dimensional (where $d = 300$ is the dimension of the word vectors). We find that cosine similarity (normalized projection distance) between the vector associated with “typhoon" and each context subspace is very small: the average is 0.693 with standard deviation 0.211. For comparison, we randomly sample 14,829 contexts and find the average is 0.305 with standard deviation 0.041 (a detailed histogram is provided in Figure \[fig:monosemy\](a)). This corroborates with the hypothesis that the target word vector is in the intersecton of the context subspaces. A visual representation of this geometric phenomenon is in Figure \[fig:monosemy\](b), where we have projected the $d$-dimensional word representations into 3-dimensional vectors and use these 3-dimensional word vectors to get the subspaces for contexts (we set $N=2$ here for visualization) in Table \[tb:monosemy\], and plot the subspaces as $2$-dimensional planes. From Figure \[fig:monosemy\], we can see that all the context subspaces roughly intersect at a common direction, thus empirically justifying the intersection hypothesis. [\|p[0.92]{}\|]{}\ powerful typhoon that affected southern japan in july it was the sixth named storm and second typhoon of the pacific [typhoon]{} season originating from an area of low pressure near wake island on july the precursor to maon gradually developed\ typhoon ineng was a powerful typhoon that affected southern japan in july it was the sixth named storm and second [typhoon]{} of the pacific typhoon season originating from an area of low pressure near wake island on july the precursor\ crossing through a gulf of the south china sea patsy weakened to a mph kmh tropical storm before the joint [typhoon]{} warning center ceased following the system on the morning of august as it made landfall near the city of\ bay were completely wiped out while all airplanes at the local airports were damaged this is the first active pacific [typhoon]{} season on record typhoon barbara formed on march and moved west it strengthened briefly to a category three with\ [Recovering the Intersection Direction]{}: An algorithmic approach to robustly discover the intersection direction involves finding that direction vector that is “closest" to all subspaces; we propose doing so by solving the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{u}(w) = \arg \min_{\\|u\\|=1} \sum_{w \in c} d(u, S(c \setminus w))^2, \label{eq:mono-opt}\end{aligned}$$ where $d(v, S)$ is the shortest $\ell_2$-distance between $u$ and subspace $S$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} d(u, S) = \sqrt{\\|u\\|^2 - \sum_{n=1}^N \left(u^{\rm T}u_n\right)^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $u_1, \ldots, u_N$ are $N$ orthonormal basis vectors for subspace $S$. Thus is equivalent to, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{u}(w) = \arg \max_{\\|u\\|=1} \sum_{w\in c} \sum_{n=1}^N \left(u^{\rm T}u_n(c \setminus w)\right)^2,\end{aligned}$$ which can be solved by taking the first principle component of $\{u_n(c \setminus w)\}_{w\in c, n=1,\ldots,N}$. The property that context subspaces of a monosemous word intersect at one direction naturally generalizes to polysemy: > [Polysemy Intersection Hypothesis]{}: the context subspaces of a polysemous word intersect at different directions for different senses. This intuition is validated by the following experiment, which continues on the same theme as the one done for the monosemous word “typhoon”. Now we study the geometry of contexts for a polysemous word “crane”, which can either mean a large, tall machine used for moving heavily objects or a tall, long-legged, long-necked bird. We list four contexts for each sense of “crane” in Table \[tb:polysemy\], repeat the experiment as conducted above for the monosemous word “typhoon” and visualize the context subspaces for two senses in Figure \[fig:polysemy\](a) and \[fig:polysemy\](b) respectively. Figure \[fig:polysemy\](c) plots the direction of two intersections. This immediately suggests that the contexts where “crane” stands for a bird intersect at one direction and the contexts where “crane” stands for a machine, intersect at a different direction as visualized in 3 dimensions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In June 1979, the anchor towed ashore and lifted by mobile [crane]{} into a tank made of concrete built into the ground specifically for the purpose of conserving the anchor. The sandhill crane (“Grus canadensis”) is a species of large [crane]{} of North America and extreme northeastern siberia. The company ran deck and covered lighters, stick lighters, steam cranes and heavy lift [crane]{} barges, providing a single agency for Delaware Valley shippers. Although the grey crowned [crane]{} remains common over much of its range, it faces threats to its habitat due to drainage, overgrazing, and He claimed that his hydraulic [crane]{} could unload ships faster and more cheaply than conventional cranes. The blue crane (“Anthropoides paradiseus”), also known as the Stanley [crane]{} and the paradise crane, is the national bird of South Africa. A large pier was built into the harbour to accommodate a heavy lift marine [crane]{} which would carry the components into the Northumberland Strait to be installed. The sarus [crane]{} is easily distinguished from other cranes in the region by the overall grey colour and the contrasting red head ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sense Induction {#sec:sense-induction} --------------- We can use the representation of senses by the intersection directions of context subspaces for unsupervised sense induction: supposing the target polysemous word that has $K$ senses (known ahead of time for now), the goal is to [partition]{} the contexts associated with this target word into $K$ groups within each of which the target polysemous word shares the same sense. The fact that two groups of context subspaces, corresponding to different senses, intersect at different directions motivates our geometric algorithm: we note that each one of the contexts belongs to a group associated by the [nearest intersection direction]{} which serves as a prototype of the group. Part of the task is also to identify the most appropriate intersection direction vectors associated with each group. This task represents a form of unsupervised clustering which can be formalized as the optimization problem below. Given a target polysemous word $w$, $M$ contexts $c_1,...,c_M$ containing $w$ and a number $K$ indicating the number of senses $w$ has, we would like to partition the $M$ contexts into $K$ sets $S_1,...,S_K$ so as to minimize the distance $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ of each subspace to the intersection direction of its group, $$\begin{aligned} L = \min_{u_1,...,u_K, S_1,...,S_K} \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{c\in S_k} d^2(u_k, S(c \setminus w)). \label{eq:kmeans}\end{aligned}$$ This problem is analogous to the objective of $K$-means clustering for vectors and solving it exactly in the worst case can be shown to be NP-hard. We propose a natural algorithm by repurposing traditional $K$-means clustering built for vector spaces to the Grassmannian space as follows (a detailed algorithm chart is provided in Appendix \[app:algo2\]): [Algorithm: $K$-Grassmeans]{} - [Initialization:]{} we randomly initialize $K$ unit-length vectors $u_1,...,u_K$. - [Expectation:]{} we group contexts based on the distance to each intersection direction: $$\begin{aligned} S_k \leftarrow \{c_m:& d(u_k, S(c_m\setminus w)) \le d(u_{k'}, S(c_m\setminus w)) \ \forall k' \}, \forall \ k. \end{aligned}$$ - [Maximization:]{} we update the intersection direction for each group based on the contexts in the group. $$\begin{aligned} u_k &\leftarrow \arg \min_{u} \sum_{c\in S_k} d^2(u, S(c\setminus w)), \\ L &\leftarrow \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{c\in S_k} d^2(u_k, S(c\setminus w)). \end{aligned}$$ To ensure good performance, we randomize the intersection directions with multiple different seeds and output the best one in terms of the objective function $L$; this step is analogous to the random initialization conducted in kmeans++ in classical clustering literature [@DBLP:journals/jacm/OstrovskyRSS12; @DBLP:conf/soda/ArthurV07]. To get a qualitative feel of this algorithm at work, we consider an exemplar target word “columbia” with $K=5$ senses. We considered 100K sentences, extracted from the Wikipedia corpus. The goal of sense induction is to partition the set of contexts into 5 groups, so that within each group the target word “columbia” has the same sense. We run $K$-Grassmeans for this target word and extract the intersect vectors $u_1,\ldots u_K$ for $K=5$. One sample sentence for each group is given in Table \[tb:induction-example\] as an example, from which we can see the first group corresponds to British Columbia in Canada, the second one corresponds to Columbia records, the third one corresponds to Columbia University in New York, the fourth one corresponds to the District of Columbia, and the fifth one corresponds to Columbia River. The performance of $K$-Grassmeans in the context of the target word “columbia” is described in detail in the context of sense disambiguation (Section \[sec:disambiguation\]). Group No. contexts ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 \(a) research centres in canada it is located on patricia bay and the former british columbia highway a in sidney british [columbia]{} vancouver island just west of victoria international airport the institute is paired with a canadian coast guard base 2 \(b) her big break performing on the arthur godfrey show and had since then released a series of successful singles through [columbia]{} records hechtlancaster productions first published the music from their film marty in april and june through cromwell music this 3 \(c) fellow at the merrill school of journalism university of maryland college park in she was a visiting scholar at the [columbia]{} university center for the study of human rights in haddad completed a master of international policy 4 \(d) signed into law by president benjamin harrison in march a site for the new national conservatory in the district of [columbia]{} was never selected much less built the school continued to function in new york city existing solely from philanthropy 5 \(e) in cowlitz county washington the caples community is located west of woodland along caples road on the east shore of [columbia]{} river and across the river from columbia city oregon the caples community is part of the woodland school district : Semantics of 5 groups for target word “columbia”.\[tb:induction-example\] Note that our algorithm can be run for any one [specific]{} target word, and makes for efficient [online]{} sense induction; this is relevant in information retrieval applications where the sense of the query words may need to be found in real time. To get a feel for how good $K$-Grassmeans is for the sense induction task, we run the following synthetic experiment: we randomly pick $K$ [monosemous]{} words, merge their surface forms to create a single [artificial polsemous]{} word, collect all the contexts corresponding to the $K$ monosemous words, replace every occurrence of the $K$ monosemous words by the single artificial polysemous word. Then we run the $K$-Grassmeans algorithm on these contexts with the artificial polysemous word as the target word, so as to recover their original labels (which are known ahead of time, since we merged known monosemous words together to create the artificial polysemous word). Figure \[fig:artificial-polysemy\](a) shows the clustering performances on a realization of the artificial polysemous word made of “monastery” and “phd” (here $K=2$) and Figure \[fig:artificial-polysemy\](b))shows the clustering performance when $K=5$ monosemous words “employers”, “exiled”, “grossed”, “incredible” and “unreleased” are merged together. We repeat the experiment over 1,00 trials with $K$ varying from 2$\sim$8 and the accuracy of sense induction is reported in Figure \[fig:artificial-polysemy\](c). From these experiments we see that $K$-Grassmeans performs very well, qualitatively and quantitatively. A quantitative experiment on a large and standardized real dataset (which involves real polysemous target words, as opposed to synthetic ones we created), as well as a comparison with other algorithms in the literature, is detailed in Section \[sec:experiments\], where we see that $K$-Grassmeans outperforms state of the art. Sense Disambiguation {#sec:disambiguation} -------------------- Having the intersection directions to represent the senses, we are ready to disambiguate a target word sense in a given context using the learned intersection directions specific to this target word: for a new context instance for a polysemous word, the goal is to identify which sense this word means in the context. Our approach is three-fold: represent the context by a low dimensional subspace $S(c \setminus w)$ approximation of the linear span of the word embeddings of non-functional words in the context, find the orthogonal projection distance between the intersection vector $u_k(w)$ and the context subspace, and finally output $k^$ that minimizes the distance, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} k^ = \arg \min_{k} d(u_k(w), S(c \setminus w))\label{eq:disambiguation}.\end{aligned}$$ We refer to as a [hard]{} decoding of word senses since this outputs a deterministic label. At times, it makes sense to consider a [soft]{} decoding algorithm where the output is a probability distribution. The probability that $w$ takes $k$-th sense given the context $c$ is defined via, $$\begin{aligned} P(w, c, k) = \frac{\exp(- d(u_k(w), S(c\setminus w)))}{\sum_{k'} \exp(- d(u_{k'}(w), S(c\setminus w)))}. \label{eq:soft-disambiguation}\end{aligned}$$ Here we calculate the probability as a monotonic function of the cosine distance between the intersection vector $u_k(w)$ and the context subspace $S(c\setminus w)$, inspired by similar heuristics in the literature [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12]. We applied and on the target word “columbia” and five sentences listed in Table \[tb:induction-example\], the probability distributions $P(w,c,k)$ returned by the soft decoding algorithm and the optimal $k^$’s returned by hard decoding algorithm are provided in Table \[tb:disambiguation-example\]. From Table \[tb:disambiguation-example\] we can see that even though the hard decoding algorithm outputs the correct label, some information is missing if we return a single label $k^$. For example, since we take bag-of-words model in $K$-Grassmean, some words (e.g. “school” and “new york city” in context (c) provided in Table \[tb:induction-example\]) suggest that the meaning for “columbia” in this instance might also be Columbia University. The function of those words reflects in the probability distribution returned by the soft decoding algorithm, where we can see the probability that “columbia” in this instance means Columbia University is around 0.13. The misleading result mainly comes from the bag-of-words model, and how to resolve it remains open. ----- --- ----------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- $k=1$ $k=2$ $k=3$ $k=4$ $k=5$ (a) 1 0.81 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.13\ (b) & 2 & 0.02 & 0.92 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.01\ (c) & 3 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.91 & 0.06 & 0.01\ (d) & 4 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.13 & 0.70 & 0.07\ (e) & 5 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.90\ ******** ----- --- ----------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- : Hard decoding and soft decoding for disambiguation of “columbia” in five sentences given in Table \[tb:induction-example\].\[tb:disambiguation-example\] Lexeme Representation\[sec:representation\] =========================================== Induction and disambiguation are important tasks by themselves, but several downstream applicatons can use a distributed vector representation of the multiple senses associated with a target word. Just as with word representations, we expect the distributed lexeme representations to have semantic meanings – similar lexemes should be represented by similar vectors. It might seem natural to represent a lexeme $s_k(w)$ of a given word $w$ by the intersection vector associated with the $k$-th sense group of $w$, i.e., $u_k(w)$. Such an idea is supported by an observation that the intersection vector is close to the word representation vector for many monosemous word. We perform another experiment to directly confirm this observation: we randomly sample 500 monosemous words which occur at least 10,000 times, for each word we compute the intersection vector and check the cosine similarity between the intersection vector and the corresponding word representation of these monosemous words. We find that on average the cosine similarity score is a very high 0.607, with a small standard deviation of 0.095. Despite this empirical evidence, somewhat surprisingly, lexeme representation using the intersection vectors turns out to be not such a good idea, and the reason is fairly subtle. It turns out that the intersection vectors are concentrated on a relatively small surface area on the sphere (magnitudes are not available in the intersection vectors) – the cosine similarity between two random intersection vectors among 10,000 intersection vectors (five intersection vectors each for 2,000 polysemous words) is 0.889 on average with standard deviation 0.068 (a detailed histogram is provided in Figure \[fig:similarity\](a)). This is quite in contrast to analogous statistics for (global) word embeddings from the word2vec algorithm: the cosine similarity between two random word vectors is 0.134 on average with standard deviation 0.072 (a detailed histogram is provided in Figure \[fig:similarity\](b)). Indeed, word vector representations are known to be approximately uniformly scattered on the unit sphere (the so-called isotropy property, see [@TACL742]). The intersection vectors cluster together far more and are quite far from being isotropic – yet they are still able to distinguish different senses as shown by the empirical studies and qualitative experiments on prototypical examples above (and also on standard datasets, as seen later in Section \[sec:experiments\]). Due to this geometric mismatch between word vectors and intersection directions, and corresponding mismatch in linear algebraic properties expected of these distributed representations, it is not appropriate to use the intersection direction as the lexeme vector representation. Why word representations are isotropic but intersection vectors cluster close to each other is an intriguing open question: a detailed empirical study of this phenomenon and a theoretical exploration of generative models that might mathematically explain this behavior are exciting future directions of research, and beyond the scope of this paper. In addition to the geometric mismatch, intersection vectors are perhaps not appropriate to represent the lexemes for two further reasons: (a) the intersections only represent directions and lack information about their magnitudes; and (b) the context subspaces are themselves noisy since during the initial phase, a polysemous word is represented by a single vector. In this light, we propose to learn the lexeme representations by an alternate (and more direct) procedure: first [label]{} the polysemous words in the corpus using the proposed disambiguation algorithm from Section \[sec:disambiguation\] and then run a standard word embedding algorithm (we use word2vec) on this labeled corpus, yielding lexeme embeddings. There are several possibilities regarding labeling and are discussed next. Hard Decodings -------------- We label the corpus using the disambiguation algorithm as in . A special label “IDK” representing “I don’t know” is introduced to avoid introducing too many errors during the labeling phase since (a) our approach is based on the bag-of-words model and cannot guarantee to label every sense correctly; (for example, “arm” in “the boat commander was also not allowed to resume his career in the Greek Navy due to his missing [arm]{} which was deemed a factor that could possibly raise enquiries regarding the mission which caused the trauma.” will be labeled as “weapon”); and (b) we are not clear how such errors will affect existing word embedding algorithms. An “IDK” label is introduced via checking the closest distance between the context subspace and the intersection directions, i.e., let $u_{k^}(w)$ be the closest intersection vector of $w$ to context $c$, we will label this instance as $k^$ if $d(u_{k^}(w), S(c\setminus w)) < \theta$ and “IDK” otherwise, where $\theta$ is a hyperparameter. A detailed algorithm chart for sense disambiguation and corpus labeling is provided in Appendix \[app:algo3\]. The “IDK” label includes instances of words that means a rare sense, (for example: “crane” as in stretching the neck), or a confusing sense which requires disambiguation of context words (for example: “book” and “ticket” in “book a flight ticket”). The IDK labeling procedure is inspired by analogous scenarios in wireless communication where the log likelihood ratio of (coded) bits is close to zero and in practice are better labeled as “erasures”, than treating them as informative for the overall decoding task [@DBLP:conf/sigcomm/CidonNKV12]. Soft Decodings -------------- Another way of labeling is via using the absolute scores of $K$-Grassmeans disambiguation for each sense of a target work in a specific context, cf. Equation . Soft decoding involves generating a random corpus by sampling one sense for every occurrence of a polysemous word according to its probability distribution from . Then lexeme representations are obtained via an application of a standard word embedding algorithm (we use word2vec) on this (random) labeled corpus. Since we only consider words that are frequent enough (i.e., whose occurrence is larger than 10,000), each sense of a polysemous word is sampled enough times to allow a robust lexeme representation with high probability. Soft decoding benefits in two scenarios: (a) when a context has enough information for disambiguation (i.e., the probability distribution concentrates on one), the random sampling will have a high chance making a correct decision. (b) when a context is ambiguous (i.e., the probability distribution have more than one peak), the random sampling will have a chance of not making a wrong (irreversible) decision. Experiments {#sec:experiments} =========== Throughout this paper we have conducted multiple qualitative and empirical experiments to highlight and motivate the various geometric representations. In this section we evaluate our algorithms (on sense disambiguation method and sense representation) empirically on (standardized) datasets from the literature, allowing us to get a quantitative feel for the performance on large datasets, as well as afford a comparison with other algorithms from the literature. Preliminaries ------------- All our algorithms are unsupervised and operate on a large corpus obtained from Wikipedia dated 09/15. We use WikiExtractor (<http://medialab.di.unipi.it/wiki/Wikipedia_Extractor>) to extract the plain text. We use the skip-gram model from word2vec [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3781] as the word embedding algorithm where we use the default parameter setting. We set $c=10$ as the context window size and set $N=3$ as the rank of PCA. We choose $K=2$ and $K=5$ in our experiment. For the disambiguation algorithm, we set $\theta = 0.6$. Baselines --------- Our main comparisons are with algorithms that conduct unsupervised polysemy disambiguation, specifically the sense clustering method of [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12], the multi-sense skip gram model (MSSG) of [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14] with different parameters, and the sparse coding method with a global dictionary of [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. We were able to download the word and sense representations for [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14] online, and trained the word and sense representations of [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] on the same corpus as that used by our algorithms. Sense Induction and Disambiguation ---------------------------------- Word sense induction (WSI) tasks conduct the following test: given a set of context instances containing a target word, one is asked to partition the context instances into groups such that within each group the target word shares the same sense. We test our induction algorithm, $K$-Grassmeans, on two datasets – one standard and the other custom-built. - [SemEval-2010:]{} The test set of SemEval-2010 shared task 14 [@DBLP:conf/semeval/ManandharKDP10] contains 50 polysemous nouns and 50 polysemous verbs whose senses are extracted from OntoNotes [@DBLP:conf/naacl/PradhanX09], and in total 8,915 instances are expected to be disambiguated. The context instances are extracted from various sources including CNN and ABC. - [Makes-Sense-2016:]{} Several word senses from SemEval-2010 are too fine-grained in our view (no performance results on tests with native human speakers’ is provided in the literature) – this creates “noise” that that reduces the performance of all the algorithms, and the required senses are perhaps not that useful to downstream applications. For example, “guarantee” (as a noun) is labeled to have four different meanings in the following four sentences: - It has provided a legal [guarantee]{} to the development of China’s Red Cross cause and connections with the International Red Cross movement, signifying that China’s Red Cross cause has entered a new historical phase. - Some hotels in the hurricane - stricken Caribbean promise money - back [guarantees]{}. - Many agencies roll over their debt , paying off delinquent loans by issuing new loans , or converting defaulted loan [guarantees]{} into direct loans. - Litigation consulting isn’t a [guarantee]{} of a favorable outcome. However, in general they all mean “a formal promise or pledge”. Towards a more human-interpretable version of the WSI task, we custom-build a dataset whose senses are coarser and clearer. We do this by repurposing a recent dataset created in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16], as part of their “police lineup" task. Our dataset contains 50 polysemous words, together with their senses (on average 2.78 senses per word) borrowed from [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. We generate the testing instances for a target word by extracting all occurrences of it in the Wikipedia Corpus, analyzing its Wikipedia annotations (if any), grouping those which have the same annotations, and finally merging annotations where the target word shares the same sense. Since the senses are quite readily distinguishable from the perspective of native/fluent speakers of English, the disambiguation variability, among the human raters we tested our dataset on, is negligible (this effect is also seen in Figure 6 of [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]). We evaluate the performance of the algorithms on this (disambiguation) task according to standard measures in the literature: V-Measure [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/RosenbergH07] and paired F-Score [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/ArtilesAG09]; these two evaluation metrics also feature in the SemEval-2010 WSI task [@DBLP:conf/semeval/ManandharKDP10]. V-measure is an entropy-based external cluster evaluation metric. Paired F-score evaluates clustering performance by converting the clustering problem into a binary classification problem – given two instances, do they belong to the same cluster or not? Both metrics operate on a contingency table $A=\{a_{tk}\}$, where $a_{tk}$ is the number of instances that are manually labeled as $t$ and algorithmically labeled as $k$. A detailed description is given in Appendix \[app:metric\] for completeness. Both the metrics range from 0 to 1, and perfect clustering gives a score of 1. Empirical statistics show that V-Measure favors those with a larger number of cluster and paired F-score favors those with a smaller number of cluster. ------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- --------- ------------ V-Measure F-score \# cluster V-Measure F-score \# cluster MSSG.300D.30K.key 9.00 47.26 2.88 19.40 54.49 2.88 MSSG.300D.6K.key 6.90 48.43 2.45 14.40 57.91 2.35 huang 2012 10.60 38.05 6.63 46.86 15.9 2.74 \#cluster=2 7.30 57.14 & 1.93 & 29.30 & 64.58 & 2.37\ \#cluster=5 & 14.50 & 44.07 & 4.30 & 34.40 & 58.17 & 4.98\ ***** ------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- --------- ------------ : Performances (V-measure (x100) and paired F-score (x100)) of Word Sense Induction Task on two datasets.[]{data-label="tb:wsi"} Table \[tb:wsi\] shows the detailed results of our experiments, and from where we see that $K$-Grassmeans strongly outperforms the others. The main reason behind the better performance seems to be that $K$-Grassmeans disambiguates some subtle senses where the others cannot. For example, following are three sentences containing “air”: - Can you hear me? You’re on the [air]{}. One of the great moments of live television , isn’t it? - The [air]{} force is to take at least 250 more. - The empty shells piled here along the roadside fill the [air*]{} with their briny aroma. It can be observed that enough information is contained in the sentence to inform us that the first “air” is about broadcasting, the second is about the region above the ground and the third one is about a mixture of gases. $K$-Grassmeans can distinguish all three while the other algorithms cannot. Lexeme Representation \[sec:exp:lex-rep\] ----------------------------------------- The key requirement of lexeme representations should be that they have the same properties as word embeddings, i.e., similar lexemes (or monosemous words) should be represented by similar vectors. Hence we evaluate our lexeme representations on a standard word similarity task focusing on context-specific scenarios: the Stanford Contextual Word Similarities (SCWS) dataset [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12]. In addition to word similarity task on SCWS, we also evaluate our lexeme representations on the “police lineup” task proposed in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. #### Word Similarity on SCWS The task is as follows: given a pair of target words, the algorithm assigns a measure of similarities between this pair of words. The algorithm is evaluated by checking the degree of agreement between the similarity measure given by the algorithm and the similarity measure given by humans in terms of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Although this SCWS dataset is not meant specifically for polysemy, we repurpose it for our tasks since it asks for the similarity between two words in two given sentential contexts (the contexts presumably provide important clues to the human rater on the senses of the target words) and also because this is a large (involving 2,003 word pairs) and standard dataset in the literature with 10 human rated similarity scores, each rated on an integral scale from 1 to 10. We take the average of 10 human scores to represent the human judgment. We propose two measures between $w$ and $w'$ given their respective contexts $c$ and $c'$ – one (denoted by ${\rm HardSim}$) is based on the hard decoding algorithm and the other one (denoted by ${\rm SoftSim}$) is based on the soft one. ${\rm HardSim}$ and ${\rm SoftSim}$ are defined via, $$\begin{aligned} {\rm HardSim}(w, w', c, c') = d(v_k(w), v_{k'}(w')),\end{aligned}$$ where $k$, and $k'$ are the senses obtained via , $v_k(w)$ and $v_{k'}(w)$ are the lexeme representations for the two senses, $d(v, v')$ is the cosine similarity between two vectors $v$ and $v'$, i.e., ($d(v, v') = {v^{\rm T}v}/{\\|v\\|\\|v'\\|}$), and $$\begin{aligned} {\rm SoftSim}(w, w', c, c') = \sum_{k}\sum_{k'}P(w, c, k)P(w', c', k')d(v_k(w), v_{k'}(w')),\end{aligned}$$ where $P(w, c, k)$ is the probability that $w$ takes $k$-th sense given the context $c$ defined in . Table \[tb:scws\] shows the detailed results on this task. Here we conclude that in general our lexeme representations have a similar performance as the state-of-the-art on both soft and hard decisions. It is worth mentioning that the vanilla word2vec representation (which simply ignores the provided contexts) also has a comparable performance – this makes some sense since some of the words in SCWS are monosemous (and hence their meanings are context-dependent). A closer inspection of the results shows that the vanilla word2vec representation also performs fairly well for polysemous words too – we hypothesize that this is because the word2vec global representation is actualy close to the individual sense representations, if the senses occur frequently enough in the corpus. This hypothesis is supported by the linear algebraic structure uncovered by [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16], that a word representation is a linear combination of its lexeme representations: let $v(w) = \sum_{k}\alpha_k v_k(w)$, and let $w'$ be a word semantically close to $k'$-th sense of $w$, then we know that $v(w)^{\rm T}v(w') = \alpha_{k'} v_{k'}(w)^{\rm T} v(w') + \sum_{k\neq k'} \alpha_k v_k(w)^{\rm} v(w')$. Since (a) other senses are irrelevant to $w'$, we can assume $v_k(w)^{\rm} v(w') \approx 0$ for $k\neq k'$, and (b) the $k'$-th sense is frequent enough, we can assume $\alpha_{k'}\approx 1$. Putting (a) and (b) together we can conclude that $v(w)^{\rm T}v(w') \approx v_{k'}(w)^{\rm T}v(w')$ and therefore the inner product between $v(w)$ and $v(w')$ captures the similarity between $k'$-th sense of $w$ and $w'$. To separate out the effect of the combination of monosemous and polysemous words in the SCWS dataset, we expurgate monosemous words from the corpus creating a smaller version that we denoted by SCWS-lite. In SCWS-lite, we only consider the pairs of sentences where [both]{} target words in one pair have the [same surface form]{} but different contexts (and hence potentially different senses). SCWS-lite now contains 241 pairs of words, which is roughly 12% of the original dataset. The performances of the various algorithms are detailed in Table \[tb:scws\], from where we see that our representations (and corresponding algorithms) outperform the state-of-the-art and showcases the superior representational performance when it comes to context-specific polysemy disambiguation. -------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- SoftSim HardSim SoftSim HardSim skip-gram MSSG.300D.6K 67.89 & 55.99 & 21.30 & 20.06\ MSSG.300D.30K & 67.84 & 56.66 & 19.49 & 20.67\ NP-MSSG.300D.6K & 67.72 & 58.55 & 20.14 & 19.26\ Huang 2012 & 65.7 & 26.1 & – & –\ \#cluster=2 (hard) & 61.03 & 58.40 & 9.33 & 4.97\ \#cluster=5 (hard) & 60.82 & 53.14 & 27.40 & 22.28\ \#cluster=2 (soft) & 63.59 & 63.67 & 5.07 & 6.53\ \#cluster=5 (soft) & 62.46 & 61.23 & 16.54 & 17.83\ ******* -------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- : Performance (Spearman’s rank correlation x100) on SCWS task.\[tb:scws\]. #### Police Lineup Task This task is proposed in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] to evaluate the efficacy of their sense representations (via the vector representations of the discourse atoms). The testbed contains 200 polysemous words and their 704 senses, where each sense is defined by eight related words. For example, the “tool/weapon” sense of “axes” is represented by “handle”, “harvest”, “cutting”, “split”, “tool”, and “wood”, “battle”, “chop”. The task is the following: given a polysemous word, the algorithm needs to identify the true senses of this word from a group of $m$ senses (which includes many distractors) by outputting $k$ senses from the group. The algorithm is evaluated by the corresponding precision and recall scores. This task offers another opportunity to test our representations with the others in the literature, and also provide insight into some of those representations themselves. One possible algorithm is to simply use that proposed in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] where we replace their sense representations with ours: Let $s_k(w)$ denote a sense of $w$, and let $L$ denote the set of words representing a sense. We define a similarity score between a sense representation of $w$ and a sense set from the $m$ senses as, $$\begin{aligned} score(s_k(w), L) = \sqrt{\sum_{w'\in L} (v_{k}(w)^{\rm T} v_w)^2}, \end{aligned}$$ and group two senses with highest scores with respect to $s_k(w)$ for each $k$, and then output the top $k$ senses with highest scores. A detailed algorithm is provided in Appendix \[app:algo4\], with a discussion of the potential variants. Figure \[fig:princeton\] shows the precision and recall curve in the polysemy test where we let $m=20$ and let $k$ vary from 1 to 6. First, we observe that our representations are uniformly better over the precision-recall curve than the state of the art, although by a relatively small margin. Soft decoding performs slightly better than hard decoding over this task. Second, the surprising finding is that the baseline we create using vanilla word2vec representations (precise details of this baseline algorithm are provided in Appendix \[app:algo4\] for completeness) performs as well as the state-of-the-art described in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. A careful look shows that all algorithm outputs (word2vec, ours and those in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]) are highly correlated – they all make correct calls on obvious instances and all make mistakes for confusing instances. We believe that this is because of the following: (a) the algorithm 1 in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] is highly correlated with word2vec since their overall similarity measure uses a linear combination of the similarity measures associated with the sense (discourse atom) vector and the word vector (see Step 6 of Algorithm 1 in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]); (b) word2vec embeddings appear to have an ability to capture two different senses of a polysemous word (as discussed earlier ); (c) the instances where the errors occur all seem to be either genuinely subtle or rare in the domain where embeddings were trained (for instance “bat" in the sense of fluttering eyelashes is rare in the Wikipedia corpus, and is one of the error instances). Related Work \[sec:relatedwork\] ================================ There are two main approaches to model polysemy: one is supervised and uses linguistic resoures [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/ChenLS14; @DBLP:conf/acl/RotheS15] and the other is unsupervised inferring senses directly from a large text corpus [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/LiJ15; @DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. Our approach belongs to the latter category. There are differing approaches to harness hand-crafted lexical resources (such as WordNet): [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/ChenLS14] leverages a “gloss" as a definition for each lexeme, and uses this to model and disambiguate word senses. [@DBLP:conf/acl/RotheS15] models sense and lexeme representations through the [ontology]{} of WordNet. While the approaches are natural and interesting, they are inherently limited due to (a) the coverage of WordNet: WordNet only covers 26k polysemous words, and the senses for polysemous words are not complete and are domain-agnostic (for example, the mathematical sense for “ring” is missing in WordNet and a majority of occurrences of “ring” mean exactly this sense in the Wikipedia corpus) and (b) the fine-grained nature of WordNet: WordNet senses appear at times too pedantic to be useful in practical downstream applications (for example, “air” in “This show will [air]{} Saturdays at 2 P.M.” and “air” in “We cannot [air]{} this X-rated song” are identified to have different meanings). The unsupervised methods do not suffer from the idiosyncracies of linguistic resources, but are inherently more challenging to pursue since they only rely on the [latent]{} structures of the word senses embedded inside their contexts. Existing unsupervised approaches can be divided into two categories, based on what aspects of the contexts of target words are used: (a) global structures of contexts and (b) local structures of contexts. [Global structure:]{} [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] hypothesizes that the global word representation is a linear combination of its sense vectors. This linear algebraic hypothesis is validated by a surprising experiment wherein a single artificial polysemous word is created by merging two random words. The experiment is ingenious and the finding quite surprising but was under a restricted setting: a [single]{} artificial polysemous word is created by merging only [two]{} random words. Upon enlargening these parameters (i.e., many artificial polysemous words are created by merging multiple random words) to better suit the landscape of polysemy in natural language, We find the linear-algebraic hypothesis to be fragile: Figure \[fig:linear\] plots the linearity fit as a function of the number of artificial polysemous words created, and also as a function of how many words were merged to create any polysemous word. We see that the linearity fit worsens fairly quickly as the number of polysemous words increases, a scenario that is typical of natural languages. ![A synthetic experiment to study the linear algebraic structure of word senses.\[fig:linear\]](./figures/linear.pdf){width="80.00000%"} The main reason for this effect appears to be that the linearity fit is quite sensitive to the [interaction between the word vectors]{}, caused by the polysemous nature of the words. The linear algebraic hypothesis is mathematically justified in Section 5 in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] in terms of the RAND-WALK generative model of [@TACL742] with three extra simplifications. If one were to generalize this proof to handle multiple artificial words at the same time, it appears particularly relevant that the simplification 2 should continue to hold. This simplification step involved the assumption that if $w_1$, ..., $w_n$ be the random words being merged, then (a) $w_i$ and $w_j$ do not occur together in a context window for any $i\neq j$ and (b) any other word $\kappa$ can only occur with a single one of the $w_i$’s in all context windows. This simplification step clearly no longer holds when $n$ increases, and especially so when $n$ nears the size of vocabulary. However, this latter scenario (of $n$ being the size of the vocabulary) is the very basis of of the sparse-coding algorithm proposed in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] where the latent structure of the multiple senses is modeled as a corpus of discourse atoms where every atom interacts with all the others. [The experiment, whose results are depicted in Figure \[fig:linear\], is designed to mimic these underlying simplifications of the proof in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]: we train word vectors via the skip-gram version of word2vec using the following steps. (a) We initialize the newly generated artificial polysemous words by random vectors; (b) we initialize, and do not update the (two sets of), vector representations of other words $\kappa$ by the existing word vectors. The embeddings are learnt on the 2016/06/01 Wikipedia dump, tokenized via WikiExtractor (<http://medialab.di.unipi.it/wiki/Wikipedia_Extractor>); words that occur less than 1,000 times are ignored; words being merged are chosen randomly in proportion to their frequencies. Due to computational constraints, each instance of mergers is subjected to a single run of the word2vec algorithm. ]{} [Local structure:]{} [@DBLP:conf/acl/HuangSMN12; @DBLP:conf/emnlp/NeelakantanSPM14] model a context by the [average]{} of its constituent word embeddings and use this average vector as a feature to induce word senses by partitioning context instances into groups and to disambiguate word senses for new context instances. [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/LiJ15] models the senses for a target word in a given context by a Chinese restaurant process, models the contexts also by averaging its constituent word embeddings and then applies standard word embedding algorithms (continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) or skip-gram). Our approach is broadly similar in spirit to these approaches, in that a local lexical-level model is conceived, but we depart in several ways, the most prominent one being the modeling of the contexts as subspaces (and not as vectors, which is what an average of constituent word embeddings would entail). Conclusion ========== In this paper, we study the geometry of contexts and polysemy and propose a three-fold approach (entitled $K$-Grassmeans) to model target polysemous words in an unsupervised fashion: (a) we represent a context (non-function words surrounding the target word) by a low rank subspace, (b) induce word senses by clustering the subspaces in terms of a distance to an intersection vector and (c) representing lexeme (as a word and sense pair) by labeling the corpus. Our representations are novel and involve nonlinear (Grassmannian) geometry of subspaces and the clustering algorithms are designed to harness this specific geometry. The overall performance of the method is evaluated quantitatively on standardized word sense induction and word similarity tasks and we present new state-of-the-art results. Several new avenues of research in natural language representations arise from the ideas in this work and we discuss a few items in detail below. - [Interactions between Polysemous Words]{}: One of the findings of this work, via the experiments in Section \[sec:relatedwork\], is that polysemous words interact with each other in the corpus. One natural way to harness these intersections, and hence to sharpen $K$-Grassmeans, is to do an iterative labeling procedure. Both hard decoding and soft decoding (discussed in Section \[sec:representation\]) can benefit from iterations. In hard decoding, the “IDK” labels may be resolved over multiple iterations since (a) the rare senses can become dominant senses once the major senses are already labeled, and (b) a confusing sense can be disambiguated once the polysemous words in its context are disambiguated. In soft decoding, the probability can be expected to concentrate on one sense since each iteration yields yet more precise context word embeddings. This hypothesis is inspired by the success of such procedures inherent in the message passing algorithms for turbo and LDPC codes in reliable wireless communication which share a fair bit of commonality with the setting of polysemy disambiguation [@DBLP:books/daglib/0027802]. A quantitative tool to measure the disambiguation improvements from iterations and when to stop the iterative process (akin to the EXIT charts for message passing iterative decoders of LDPC codes [@DBLP:journals/tcom/Brink01]) is an interesting research direction, as is a detailed algorithm design of the iterative decoding and its implementation; both of these are beyond the scope of this paper. - [Low Dimensional Context Representation]{}: A surprising finding of this work is that contexts (sentences) that contain a common target word tend to reside in a low dimensional subspace, as justified via empirical observations in Figure \[fig:lowrank\]. Understanding this geometrical phenomenon in the context of a generative model (for instance, RAND-WALK of [@TACL742] is not able to explain this) is a basic problem of interest, with several relevant applications (including language modeling [@DBLP:conf/naacl/IyerOR94; @DBLP:journals/aslib/PuciharKMD16] and semantic parsing of sentences (textual entailment, for example [@DBLP:conf/mlcw/DaganGM05; @bar2006second; @giampiccolo2007third])). Such an understanding could also provide new ideas for the topical subject of representing sentences and paragraphs [@DBLP:conf/icml/LeM14; @DBLP:journals/corr/WietingBGL15a; @DBLP:conf/acl/KenterBR16; @DBLP:conf/icml/KusnerSKW15] and eventually combining with document/topic modeling methods such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation [@DBLP:journals/jmlr/BleiNJ03]. - [Combining Linguistic Resources]{}: Presently the methods of lexeme representation are either exclusive external resource-based or entirely unsupervised. The unsupervised method of $K$-Grassmeans reveals robust clusters of senses (and also provides a soft score measuring the robustness (in terms of how frequent the sense is and how sharply/crisply it is used) of the identified sense). On the other hand, WordNet lists a very detailed number of senses, some frequent and robust but many others very fine grained; the lack of any accompanying metric that relates to the frequency and robustness of this sense (which could potentially be domain/corpus specific) really makes this resource hard to make computational use of, at least within the context of polysemy representations. An interesting research direction would be to try to combine $K$-Grassmeans and existing linguistic resources to automatically define senses of multiple [granularities]{}, along with metrics relating to frequency and robustness of the identified senses. Supplementary Material: Geometry of Polysemy Context Representation Algorithm {#app:algo1} ================================ The pseudocode for context representation (c.f. Section \[sec:context-representation\]) is provided in Algorithm \[algo:representation\]. Compute the first $N$ principle components of samples $\{v(w'), w'\in c\}$, $$\begin{aligned} u_1,...,u_N &\leftarrow {\rm PCA}(\{v(w'), w'\in c\}), \\ S &\leftarrow \left\{\sum_{n=1}^N : \alpha_n u_n, \alpha_n \in R\right\}\end{aligned}$$\ , Sense Induction Algorithm {#app:algo2} ========================= The pseudocode for word sense induction (c.f. Section \[sec:sense-induction\]) is provided in Algorithm \[algo:induction\]. Initialize unit length vectors $u_1,...,u_K$ randomly, initialize $L\leftarrow \infty$,\ Sense Disambiguation Algorithm {#app:algo3} ============================== The pseudocode for the word sense disambiguation (c.f. Section \[sec:disambiguation\]) is provided in Algorithm \[algo:disambiguation\]. Compute denoised context subspace, $$S\leftarrow S(c\setminus w),$$\ Compute the distance between $S(c\setminus w)$ and intersections, $$d_k \leftarrow d(u_k, S),$$\ \ V-Measure and Paired F-score {#app:metric} ============================ Clustering algorithms partition $N$ data points into a set of clusters $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,...,K\}$. Given the ground truth, i.e., another partition of data into another set of clusters $\mathcal{T} = \{1,2,...,T\}$, the performance of a clustering algorithm is evaluated based on a contingency table $A = a_{tk}$ representing the clustering algorithm, where $a_{tk}$ is the number of data whose ground truth label is $t$ and algorithm label is $k$. There are two intrinsic properties of all desirable evaluation measures: - The measure should be permutation-invariant, i.e., the measure should be the same if we permutate the labels in $\mathcal{K}$ or $\mathcal{T}$. - The measure should encourage intra-cluster similarity and penalize inter-cluster similarity. V-Measure [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/RosenbergH07] and paired F-Score [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/ArtilesAG09] are two standard measures, the definitions of which are given below. V-Measure --------- V-Measure is an entropy-based metric, defined as a harmonic mean of homogeneity and completeness. - Homogeneity is satisfied if the data points belong to one algorithm cluster fall into a single ground truth cluster, formally defined as, $$\begin{aligned} h = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{ if $H(\mathcal{T}) =0 $ } \\ 1 - \frac{H(\mathcal{T}\|\mathcal{K})}{H(\mathcal{T})} & \textrm{ otherwise,} \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} H(\mathcal{T} \| \mathcal{K}) &= - \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{t=1}^ T a_{tk}{N} \log \frac{a_{tk}}{\sum_{t=1}^T} a_{tk}, \\ H(\mathcal{T}) &= -\sum_{t=1}^T \frac{\sum_{k=1}^K a_{tk}}{N} \log \frac{\sum_{k=1}^k a_{ck}}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ - Completeness is analogous to homogeity. Formally this is defined as: $$\begin{aligned} c = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{ if $H(\mathcal{K}) =0 $ } \\ 1 - \frac{H(\mathcal{K}\|\mathcal{T})}{H(\mathcal{K})} & \textrm{ otherwise,} \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} H( \mathcal{K} \| \mathcal{T}) &= - \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{k=1}^K a_{tk}{N} \log \frac{a_{tk}}{\sum_{k=1}^K} a_{tk}, \\ H(\mathcal{K}) &= -\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{\sum_{t=1}^T a_{tk}}{N} \log \frac{\sum_{t=1}^T a_{ck}}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ Given $h$ and $c$, the V-Measure is their harmonic mean, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} V = \frac{2hc}{h+c}.\end{aligned}$$ Paired F-score -------------- Paired F-score evaluates clustering performance by converting the clustering into a binary classification problem – given two instances, do they belong to the same cluster or not? For each cluster $k$ identified by the algorithm, we generate ${{ \sum_{t=1}^T a_{tk}} \choose 2}$ instance pairs, and for each ground true cluster, we generate ${{ \sum_{k=1}^K a_{tk}} \choose 2}$ instances pairs. Let $F(\mathcal{K})$ be the set of instance pairs from the algorithm clusters and let $F(\mathcal{T})$ be the set of instances pairs from ground truth clusters. Precision and recall is defined accordingly: $$\begin{aligned} P = \frac{\|F(\mathcal{K})\cap F(\mathcal{T})\|}{F(\mathcal{K})}, \\ R = \frac{\|F(\mathcal{K})\cap F(\mathcal{T})\|}{F(\mathcal{S})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\|F(\mathcal{K})\|$, $\|F(\mathcal{T})\|$ and $\|F(\mathcal{K})\cap F(\mathcal{T})\|$ can be computed using the matrix $A$ as below: $$\begin{aligned} \|F(\mathcal{K})\| &= \sum_{k=1}^K {{ \sum_{t=1}^T a_{tk}} \choose 2}, \\ \|F(\mathcal{T})\| &= \sum_{t=1}^T {{ \sum_{k=1}^K a_{tk}} \choose 2}, \\ \|F(\mathcal{K})\cap F(\mathcal{T})\| &= \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{k=1}^K {{a_{tk}} \choose 2}.\end{aligned}$$ Algorithms for Police Lineup Task {#app:algo4} ================================= We first introduce the baseline algorithm for word2vec and our algorithm, as given in Algorithm \[algo:word2vec\] and \[algo:our\]. Both algorithms are motivated by the algorithm in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16]. In our algorithm, the similarity score can be thought as a mean value of the word similarities between a target word $w$ and a definition word $w'$ in the given sense $L$, we take the power mean with $p=2$. Our algorithm can be adapted to different choice of $p$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} score_p(s_k(w), L) \leftarrow \left(\sum_{w'\in L} \left\|v_{k}(w)^{\rm T} v_w\right\|^p\right)^{1/p} - \frac{1}{\|V\|} \sum_{w'' \in V} \left(\sum_{w'\in L} \left\|v_{k}(w'')^{\rm T} v_w\right\|^p\right)^{1/p} \end{aligned}$$ Different choice of $p$ leads to different preferences of the similarities between $w$ and $w'\in L$, generally speaking larger weights put on relevant words with larger $p$: - If we take $p=0$, $score_1(w, L)$ turns to be an average of the similarities; - If we take $p = \infty$, $score_{\infty}(w, L)$ measures the similarity between $w$ and $L$ by the similarity between $w$ and the most relevant word $w'\in L$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} score_{\infty}(s_k(w), L) \leftarrow \max_{w'\in L} \|v_k(w)^{\rm T} v(w')\| \end{aligned}$$ In our case we take $p=2$ to allow enough (but not too much) influence from the most relevant words. Compute a similarity score between $w$ and a sense $L_i$, $$score(w, L_i) \leftarrow \sqrt{\sum_{w' \in L_i} \left(v(w)^{\rm T} v(w')\right)^2} - \frac{1}{\|V\|}\sum_{w''} \sqrt{\sum_{w' \in L_i} \left(v(w'')^{\rm T} v(w')\right)^2}$$\ \ candidates $\leftarrow$ list()\ scores $\leftarrow$ list()\ \ Both our algorithm and the algorithm in [@DBLP:journals/corr/AroraLLMR16] do not take into account that one atom represents one sense of the target word, and thus some atoms might generate two senses in the output $k$ candidates. A more sophisticated algorithm is required to address this issue.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'With the help of various square principles, we obtain results concerning the consistency strength of several statements about trees containing ascent paths, special trees, and strong chain conditions. Building on a result that shows that Todorčević’s principle $\square(\kappa)$ implies an indexed version of $\square(\kappa,\lambda)$, we show that for all infinite, regular cardinals $\lambda<\kappa$, the principle $\square(\kappa)$ implies the existence of a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree containing a $\lambda$-ascent path. We then provide a complete picture of the consistency strengths of statements relating the interactions of trees with ascent paths and special trees. As a part of this analysis, we construct a model of set theory in which $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees exist and all such trees contain $\aleph_0$-ascent paths. Finally, we use our techniques to show that the assumption that the $\kappa$-Knaster property is countably productive and the assumption that every $\kappa$-Knaster partial order is $\kappa$-stationarily layered both imply the failure of $\square(\kappa)$.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel' - 'Mathematisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115 Bonn, Germany' author: - 'Chris Lambie-Hanson' - Philipp Lücke bibliography: - 'ascent\_paths.bib' title: 'Squares, ascent paths, and chain conditions' --- [^1] Introduction {#section:Introduction} ============ The existence or non-existence of cofinal branches is one of the most fundamental properties of set-theoretic trees[^2] of uncountable regular height. Important examples of trees without cofinal branches are given by special trees. Given an infinite cardinal $\mu$, a tree of height $\mu^+$ is special if it can be decomposed into $\mu$-many antichains. This notion was generalized by Todorčević to the class of all trees of uncountable regular heights (see Definition \[definition:SpacialTree\]). It is easy to see that a special tree does not contain a cofinal branch, not only in the ground model ${{\rm{V}}}$, but also in all outer models of ${{\rm{V}}}$ in which its height remains a regular cardinal. In contrast, it is possible to use the concept of ascent paths, introduced by Laver, to obtain interesting examples of branchless, non-special trees of uncountable regular height. Given infinite regular cardinals $\lambda<\kappa$, a $\lambda$-ascent path through a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ of height $\kappa$ is a sequence ${\langle{{{b_\alpha}:{\lambda}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ of functions with the property that $b_\alpha(i)$ is contained in the $\alpha$-th level of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ for all $\alpha<\kappa$ and $i<\lambda$ and, for all $\alpha<\beta<\kappa$, there is an $i<\lambda$ with $b_\alpha(j)<_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(j)$ for all $i\leq j<\lambda$. A theorem of Shelah (see [[@MR964870 Lemma 3]]{}) then shows that, if $\mu$ is an uncountable cardinal and $\lambda<\mu$ is a regular cardinal with $\lambda\neq{\mathrm{cof}}(\mu)$, then every tree of height $\mu^+$ that contains a $\lambda$-ascent path is not special. Note that this shows that trees containing ascent paths are non-special in a very absolute way, because it implies that they remain non-special in every outer model of ${{\rm{V}}}$ in which $\mu$ and $\mu^+$ remain cardinals and ${\mathrm{cof}}(\lambda)\neq{\mathrm{cof}}(\mu)$ holds. This result was later strengthened by Todorčevic and Torres Pérez in [@MR2965421] and by the second author in [@ascending_paths] (see Lemma \[lucke\_lemma\]). Many authors have dealt with the construction of trees of various types containing ascending paths (see, for example, [@MR3596614], [@MR1376756], [@MR732661], [@ChrisTreesSquareReflection], [@ascending_paths], [@MR964870] and [@MR929410]). In particular, the constructions of Shelah and Stanley in [@MR964870] and Todorčević in [@MR929410] show that, given infinite, regular cardinals $\lambda<\kappa$, the existence of a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree containing a $\lambda$-ascent path follows from the existence of a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence that avoids[^3] a stationary subset $S$ of $\kappa$ consisting of limit ordinals of cofinality $\lambda$ (see [[@ascending_paths Theorem 4.12]]{} and [[@MR3523658 Section 3]]{}). Our first main result shows that such a tree can be constructed from a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence without additional properties. This answers [[@ascending_paths Questions 6.5 and 6.6]]{}. \[square\_ascent\_path\_thm\] Let $\lambda<\kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals. If $\square(\kappa)$ holds, then there is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree with a $\lambda$-ascent path. It is easy to see that, if $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal and ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is tree of height $\kappa$ containing a $\lambda$-ascent path with $\lambda < \kappa$, then ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ contains a cofinal branch. Moreover, basic arguments, presented in [[@ascending_paths Section 3]]{}, show that, if $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal, $\mu<\kappa$ is a regular, uncountable cardinal, and $G$ is ${{\rm{Col}}({\mu},{{<}\kappa})}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then every tree of height $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ that contains a $\lambda$-ascent path with $\lambda<\mu$ already has a cofinal branch. Since seminal results of Jensen and Todorčević show that, for uncountable regular cardinals $\kappa$, a failure of $\square(\kappa)$ implies that $\kappa$ is weakly compact in Gödel’s constructible universe ${{\rm{L}}}$ (see [[@jensen_fine_structure Section 6]]{} and [[@MR908147 (1.10)]]{}), the above theorem directly yields the following corollary showing that the existence of regular cardinals $\lambda < \mu$ such that there are no $\mu^+$-Aronszajn trees with $\lambda$-ascent paths is equiconsistent with the existence of a weakly compact cardinal. \[square\_ascent\_path\_cor\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable regular cardinal. If there is an infinite regular cardinal $\lambda<\kappa$ with the property that there are no $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees with $\lambda$-ascent paths, then $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal in ${{\rm{L}}}$. Starting with the above theorem, we provide a complete picture of the consistency strengths of statements relating the interactions of trees with ascent paths and special trees. For concreteness, we will speak here about $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees and $\aleph_0$-ascent paths, but the same results will hold for $\mu^+$-Aronszajn trees and $\lambda$-ascent paths, provided $\lambda < \mu$ are infinite, regular cardinals. In what follows, if ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree, then $S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ denotes the assertion that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is special and $A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ denotes the assertion that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ has an $\aleph_0$-ascent path. Table \[table:Implications\_Special\_Ascent\_Succ\_Reg\] provides a complete picture of the precise consistency strengths of various assertions relating the existence of special trees and the existence of trees with ascent paths, where the background assumption is that there are $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees, and the quantification is over the set of $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees. [\|\[4]{}[>p[.20]{}\|]{}]{} & $\forall{{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ & $\exists{{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ & $\forall{{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg A({{\mathbb{T}}})$\ $\forall{{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ & $0=1$ & $0=1$ & Weakly compact\ $\exists{{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ & $0=1$ & ZFC & Weakly compact\ $\forall{{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ & Weakly compact & Mahlo & Weakly compact\ Besides Theorem \[square\_ascent\_path\_thm\], the following result is the other main new ingredient in the determination of the consistency strengths in Table \[table:Implications\_Special\_Ascent\_Succ\_Reg\]. The results of Section \[section:Forcing\_preliminaries\] will show that, for successors of regular cardinals and inaccessible cardinals, the consistency of the hypotheses of this theorem can be established from a weakly compact cardinal. Given an infinite, regular cardinal $\kappa$, we let ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$ denote the partial order that adds a Cohen subset to $\kappa$. Moreover, given an uncountable, regular cardinal $\kappa$, we let $\mathrm{TP}(\kappa)$ denote the statement that the tree property holds at $\kappa$. \[all\_ascent\_path\_thm\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals such that $\kappa=\kappa^{{<}\kappa}$ and $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}(\check{\kappa})$. Then the following statements hold in a cofinality-preserving forcing extension of the ground model: 1. There are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees. 2. Every $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree contains a $\lambda$-ascent path. In the last part of this paper, we use the techniques developed in this paper to study chain conditions of partial orders. There is a close connection between ascent paths and the infinite productivity of chain conditions, given by the fact that a result of Baumgartner (see [[@MR823775 Theorem 8.2]]{}) shows that for every tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ of uncountable regular height $\kappa$ without cofinal branches, the canonical partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ that specializes ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ using finite partial functions ${{f}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}}\xrightarrow{part}{\omega}}$ (see Definition \[definition:SpecializiationForcing\]) satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition, and that every $\lambda$-ascent path ${\langle{{{b_\alpha}:{\lambda}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ induces an antichain ${\{{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\}}$ in the full support product $\prod_{i<\lambda}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ with ${\mathrm{dom}}(p_\alpha(i))=\{b_\alpha(i)\}$ and $p_\alpha(i)(b_\alpha(i))=0$ for all $\alpha<\kappa$ and $i<\lambda$ (see [[@ascending_paths Section 2]]{} for more details on this connection). Our first application deals with failures of the infinite productivity of the $\kappa$-Knaster property. Remember that, given an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$, a partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\kappa$-Knaster* if every collection of $\kappa$-many conditions in ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ contains a subcollection of cardinality $\kappa$ that consists of pairwise compatible conditions. This strengthening of the $\kappa$-chain condition is of great interest because of its product behavior. In particular, the product of two $\kappa$-Knaster partial orders is $\kappa$-Knaster and the product of a $\kappa$-Knaster partial order with a partial order satisfying the $\kappa$-chain condition again satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition. An easy argument (see [[@MR3620068 Proposition 1.1]]{}) shows that, if $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal, then the class of $\kappa$-Knaster partial orders is closed under $\mu$-support products for all $\mu<\kappa$. A combination of [[@MR3620068 Theorem 1.13]]{} with [[@ascending_paths Theorem 1.12]]{} shows that the question of whether, for uncountable regular cardinals $\kappa$, the countable productivity of the $\kappa$-Knaster is equivalent to the weak compactness of $\kappa$ is independent of the axioms of ${{\rm{ZFC}}}$. The construction in [@MR3620068], producing a model of set theory in which this characterization of weak compactness fails, starts from a model of ${{\rm{ZFC}}}$ containing a weakly compact cardinal. The following result and its corollary show that this assumption is necessary. \[square\_productivity\_thm\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable regular cardinal with the property that $\square(\kappa)$ holds. If $\lambda<\kappa$ is an infinite, regular cardinal, then there is a partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ with the following properties: 1. If $\mu<\lambda$ is a (possibly finite) cardinal with $\nu^\mu<\kappa$ for all $\nu<\kappa$, then ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\mu$ is $\kappa$-Knaster. 2. ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\lambda$ does not satisfy the $\kappa$-chain condition. The results of [@MR3620068] and [@ascending_paths] leave open the question whether it is consistent that the $\kappa$-Knaster property is countably productive for accessible uncountable regular cardinals, like $\aleph_2$. It is easy to see that this productivity implies certain cardinal arithmetic statements. Namely, if $\lambda<\kappa$ are infinite, regular cardinals, $\nu<\kappa$ is a cardinal with $\nu^\lambda\geq\kappa$ and ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is a partial order of cardinality $\nu$ containing an antichain of size $\nu$ (e.g. the lottery sum of $\nu$-many copies of Cohen forcing ${{\rm{Add}}({\omega},{1})}$), then ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\kappa$-Knaster and the full support product ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\lambda$ contains an antichain of size $\nu^\lambda$. Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals. If the class of $\kappa$-Knaster partial orders is closed under $\lambda$-support products, then $\kappa$ is weakly compact in ${{\rm{L}}}$ and $\nu^\lambda<\kappa$ for all $\nu<\kappa$. Our second application deals with a strengthening of the $\kappa$-Knaster property introduced by Cox in [@Cox_Layerings]. Given an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$, a partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\kappa$-stationarily layered if the collection of all regular suborders of ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ of cardinality less than $\kappa$ is stationary[^4] in the collection ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}({{\mathbb{P}}})}$ of all subsets of ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ of cardinality less than $\kappa$. In [[@Cox_Layerings]]{}, Cox shows that this property implies the $\kappa$-Knaster property. The main result of [@MR3620068] shows that an uncountable regular cardinal is weakly compact if and only if every partial order satisfying the $\kappa$-chain condition is $\kappa$-stationarily layered. Moreover, it is shown that the assumption that every $\kappa$-Knaster partial order is $\kappa$-stationarily layered implies that $\kappa$ is a Mahlo cardinal with the property that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ reflects. In particular, it follows that this assumption characterizes weak compactness in certain models of set theory. In contrast, it is also shown in [@MR3620068] that there is consistently a non-weakly compact cardinal $\kappa$ such that every $\kappa$-Knaster partial order is $\kappa$-stationarily layered. The model of set theory witnessing this consistency is again constructed assuming the existence of a weakly compact cardinal. The following result shows that this assumption is necessary, answering [[@MR3620068 Questions 7.1 and 7.2]]{}. \[KnasterLayered\_thm\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable, regular cardinal. If every $\kappa$-Knaster partial order is $\kappa$-stationarily layered, then $\square(\kappa)$ fails. Trees and ascent paths {#BasicDefinitions} ====================== In this short section, we recall some fundamental definitions and results dealing with trees, special trees and ascent paths. A partial order ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a tree if, for all $t \in {{\mathbb{T}}}$, the set $${\mathrm{pred}}_{{\mathbb{T}}}(t) ~ = ~ {\{{s \in {{\mathbb{T}}}}~\vert~{s <_{{\mathbb{T}}}t}\}}$$ is well-ordered by the relation $<_{{\mathbb{T}}}$. Let ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ be a tree. 1. For all $t \in{{\mathbb{T}}}$, we let ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(t)}$ denotes the order type of $\langle{\mathrm{pred}}_{{\mathbb{T}}}(t), <_{{\mathbb{T}}}\rangle$. 2. For all $\alpha \in {{\rm{On}}}$, we set ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha) = {\{{t \in {{\mathbb{T}}}}~\vert~{{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(t)} = \alpha}\}}$. 3. We let ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}})}$ denote the least ordinal $\alpha$ such that ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha) = \emptyset$. This ordinal is referred to as the height of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. 4. If $S \subseteq{{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}})}$, then ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ is the suborder of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ whose underlying set is $\bigcup {\{{{{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)}~\vert~{\alpha \in S}\}}$. 5. A branch through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a subset $B$ of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ that is linearly ordered by $\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}}$. A branch $B$ is cofinal if the set ${\{{{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(t)}}~\vert~{t \in B}\}}$ is cofinal in ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}})}$. 6. If $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal, then ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-tree if ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}})} = \kappa$ and ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)$ has cardinality less than $\kappa$ for all $\alpha < \kappa$. A $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree is a $\kappa$-tree without cofinal branches. \[definition:SpacialTree\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable regular cardinal, let ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ be a tree of height $\kappa$, and let $S$ be a subset of $\kappa$. 1. A map ${{r}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}$ is regressive if $r(t) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}t$ holds for all $t \in {{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(t)} > 0$. 2. The subset $S$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ if there is a regressive map ${{r}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S }\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}$ such that, for every $t \in {{\mathbb{T}}}$, there is a $\theta_t < \kappa$ and a function ${{c_t}:{r^{{-}1}``\{t\}}\longrightarrow{\theta_t}}$ that is injective on $<_{{\mathbb{T}}}$-chains. 3. The tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is special if $\kappa$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. A result of Todorčević (see [[@MR793235 Theorem 14]]{}) shows that for successor cardinals, the above notion of special trees coincides with the notion mentioned in Section \[section:Introduction\]. One of the reasons for interest in special trees is that they are branchless in a very absolute way. \[non\_stationary\_fact\] Suppose that $\kappa$ is an uncountable regular cardinal, ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a tree of height $\kappa$, and there is a stationary $S \subseteq \kappa$ such that $S$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Then there are no cofinal branches through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. \[ascent\_path\_def\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be cardinals with $\kappa$ uncountable and regular, let ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ be a tree of height $\kappa$, and let $\vec{b} = {\langle{{{b_\alpha}:{\lambda}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)}}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ be a sequence of functions. 1. The sequence $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascending path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ if, for all $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$, there are $i,j < \lambda$ with $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(j)$. 2. The sequence $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ if, for all $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$, there is an $i< \lambda$ such that $b_\alpha(j) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(j)$ holds for all $i \leq j < \lambda$. 3. Suppose that $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Given $I < \lambda$ and a cofinal subset $B$ of $\kappa$, the pair $\langle I, B\rangle$ is a true cofinal branch through $\vec{b}$ if the following statements hold: 1. \[c3c\] If $\alpha,\beta\in B$ with $\alpha < \beta$, then $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(i)$ for all $I \leq i < \lambda$. 2. \[c3d\] If $\beta \in B$ and $\alpha < \beta$ with $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(i)$ for all $I \leq i < \lambda$, then $\alpha \in B$. A $\lambda$-ascent path through a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is clearly a $\lambda$-ascending path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. The notion of a $\lambda$-ascent path is due to Laver and grew out of his work on higher Souslin Hypotheses in [@MR603771]. Ascent paths and ascending paths can be seen as generalized cofinal branches and, like cofinal branches, they provide concrete obstructions to a tree being special. The best current result in this direction is due to the second author, building upon work of Shelah in [@MR964870] and Todorčevic and Torres Pérez in [@MR2965421]. Given an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$ and a cardinal $\lambda<\kappa$, we let $E^\kappa_{{>}\lambda}$ denote the set of all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with ${\mathrm{cof}}(\alpha)>\lambda$. The sets $E^\kappa_{{\geq}\lambda}$, $E^\kappa_\lambda$, etc. are defined analogously. \[lucke\_lemma\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite cardinals with $\kappa$ uncountable and regular, let ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ be a tree of height $\kappa$ and let $S \subseteq S^\kappa_{{>}\lambda}$ be stationary in $\kappa$. If $\kappa$ is not the successor of a cardinal of cofinality at most $\lambda$ and the set $S$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then there are no $\lambda$-ascending paths through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. In particular, if $\kappa$ is either weakly inaccessible or the successor of a regular cardinal and $\lambda$ is a cardinal with $\lambda^+<\kappa$, then special trees of height $\kappa$ do not contain $\lambda$-ascending paths. In contrast, the first author showed in [@ChrisTreesSquareReflection] that, if $\lambda$ is a singular cardinal, then Jensen’s principle $\square_\lambda$ implies the existence of a special tree of height $\lambda^+$ containing a ${\mathrm{cof}}(\lambda)$-ascent path. Square principles ================= In the following, we recall the definitions of several square principles that will be used in this paper. Given an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$ and a cardinal $1 < \lambda \leq \kappa$, a sequence ${\langle{{\mathcal{C}}_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ is a $\square(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$-sequence if the following statements hold: 1. For all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, ${\mathcal{C}}_\alpha$ is a collection of club subsets of $\alpha$ with $0 < \|{\mathcal{C}}_\alpha\| < \lambda$. 2. If $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, $C \in {\mathcal{C}}_\beta$, and $\alpha \in{\mathrm{acc}}(C)$, then $C \cap \alpha \in {\mathcal{C}}_\alpha$. 3. There is no club $D$ in $\kappa$ such that, for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(D)$, we have $D \cap \alpha \in {\mathcal{C}}_\alpha$. We let $\square(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$ denote the assertion that there is a $\square(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$-sequence. The principle $\square(\kappa,{<} \lambda^+)$ is typically written as $\square(\kappa, \lambda)$, and $\square(\kappa,1)$ is written as $\square(\kappa)$. Finally, a sequence ${\langle{C_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence if the sequence ${\langle{\{C_\alpha\}}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ witnesses that $\square(\kappa)$ holds. We next introduce an indexed version of $\square(\kappa, \lambda)$. The definition is taken from [@systems] and is a modification of similar indexed square notions studied in [@MR1838355] and [@MR1942302]. \[ind\_square\_def\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite regular cardinals. A $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence is a matrix $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}} = {\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$ satisfying the following statements: 1. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, then $i(\alpha) < \lambda$. 2. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$, then $C_{\alpha,i}$ is a club subset of $\alpha$. 3. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $i(\alpha) \leq i < j < \lambda$, then $C_{\alpha,i} \subseteq C_{\alpha,j}$. 4. If $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $i(\beta) \leq i < \lambda$, then $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i})$ implies that $i\geq i(\alpha)$ and $ C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\beta,i} \cap \alpha$. 5. If $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with $\alpha < \beta$, then there is an $i(\beta)\leq i < \lambda$ such that $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i})$. 6. There is no club subset $D$ of $\kappa$ such that, for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(D)$, there is $i < \lambda$ such that $C_{\alpha, i}=D \cap \alpha$ holds. We let $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ denote the assertion that there is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence. A proof of the following statement can be found in [[@systems Section 6]]{}. \[threadprop\] Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] is unchanged if we replace condition (6) by the following seemingly weaker condition: 1. There is no club subset $D$ of $\kappa$ and $i < \lambda$ such that $i\geq i(\alpha)$ and $C_{\alpha,i}=D \cap \alpha$ for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(D)$. It is immediate that the principle $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ implies $\square(\kappa, \lambda)$. We next show that $\square(\kappa)$ implies all relevant instances of $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$. \[square\_building\_thm\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite regular cardinals and assume that $\square(\kappa)$ holds. Given a stationary subset $S$ of $\kappa$, there is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence $$\vec{{\mathcal{C}}} ~ = ~ {\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa), ~ i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda}\rangle}$$ with the following properties: 1. If $i<\lambda$, then the set ${\{{\alpha\in S}~\vert~{i(\alpha)=i}\}}$ is stationary in $\kappa$. 2. There is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence ${\langle{D_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ such that ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)\subseteq{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i(\alpha)})$ holds for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$. By a result of Rinot (see [[@MR3271280 Lemma 3.2]]{}) and our assumptions, there is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence $\vec{D} = {\langle{D_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ with the property that, for all $\eta < \kappa$, the set $S^\eta = {\{{\alpha\in S}~\vert~{\min(D_\alpha) = \eta}\}}$ is stationary. Fix a partition ${\langle{A_i }~\vert~{ i < \lambda}\rangle}$ of $\kappa$ into disjoint, non-empty sets. Given $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, define $i(\alpha)$ to be the unique $i<\lambda$ with $\min(D_\alpha)\in A_i$. Then the set ${\{{\alpha\in S}~\vert~{i(\alpha)=i}\}}$ is stationary in $\kappa$ for every $i<\kappa$ and, if $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$, then $i(\alpha)=i(\beta)$ By induction on $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, we define a matrix ${\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa), ~ i(\alpha)<i<\lambda}\rangle}$ satisfying clauses (1)–(5) listed in Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] together with the assumption that ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha) \subseteq {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha, i(\alpha)})$ holds for every $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$. In the following, fix a limit ordinal $\alpha<\kappa$ and assume that we already have constructed a matrix with the above properties up to $\alpha$. There are a number of cases to consider: #### Case 1: $\alpha = \omega$. Define $C_{\omega, i} = \omega$ for all $i(\omega)\leq i <\lambda$. Then all of the desired requirements are trivially satisfied. #### Case 2a: $\alpha = \beta + \omega$ for a limit ordinal $\beta$, and ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)=\emptyset$. Set $j=\max\{i(\alpha),i(\beta)\}$, $C_{\alpha,i}={\{{\beta+n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}}$ for all $i(\alpha)\leq i<j$ and $C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\beta,i}\cup{\{{\beta+n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}}$ for all $j\leq i<\lambda$. Then it is easy to see that clauses (1)–(3) and (5) of Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] hold. To verify clause (4), suppose $i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda$ and $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})$. By our construction, it follows that $i\geq j\geq i(\beta)$ and $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i})\cup\{\beta\}$. By the induction hypothesis applied to $\beta$, it follows that $i \geq i(\gamma)$ and $C_{\gamma, i} = C_{\beta, i} \cap \gamma = C_{\alpha,i} \cap \gamma$. #### Case 2b: $\alpha = \beta + \omega$ for a limit ordinal $\beta$, and ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)\neq\emptyset$. In the following, we set $\alpha_0=\max({\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha))\leq\beta$. Then the above remarks show that $i(\alpha_0)=i(\alpha)$. If $\alpha_0<\beta$, then we let $j$ be minimal such that $i(\alpha)\leq j<\lambda$ and $\alpha_0\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,j})$. Otherwise, we set $j=i(\alpha)$. Then $j\geq i(\beta)$, because either $\alpha_0=\beta$, $\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$ and $i(\beta)=i(\alpha_0)=j$ or $\alpha_0<\beta$, $\alpha_0\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,j})$ and $j\geq i(\beta)$. Define $$C_{\alpha,i} ~ = ~ C_{\alpha_0, i} \cup \{\alpha_0\} \cup {\{{\beta + n}~\vert~{n < \omega}\}}$$ for all $i(\alpha)\leq i<j$ and $C_{\alpha, i} = C_{\beta, i} \cup {\{{\beta + n }~\vert~{n < \omega}\}}$ for all $j\leq i<\lambda$. Since our induction hypothesis ensures that $C_{\alpha_0,i}\cup\{\alpha_0\}\subseteq C_{\alpha_0,j}\cup\{\alpha_0\}\subseteq C_{\beta,j}$ holds for all $i(\alpha)\leq i<j$, it is easy to see that Clauses (1)–(3) and (5) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] hold in this case. We thus verify clause (4). Suppose $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$ and $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha, i})$. If $i(\alpha)\leq i<j$, then either $\gamma=\alpha_0$ or $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_0,i})$. In both instances, we have $i(\gamma)\leq i$ and $C_{\gamma,i}=C_{\alpha_0,i}\cap\gamma=C_{\alpha,i}\cap\gamma$. On the other hand, if $j\leq i < \lambda$, then $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i})\cup\{\beta\}$, so $i \geq i(\gamma) $ and $C_{\gamma,i}=C_{\beta,i}\cap\gamma = C_{\alpha, i} \cap \gamma$. Finally, the above definitions ensure that $${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha) ~ = ~ {\mathrm{acc}}(D_{\alpha_0})\cup\{\alpha_0\} ~ \subseteq ~ C_{\alpha_0,i(\alpha_0)}\cup\{\alpha_0\} ~ \subseteq ~ C_{\alpha,i(\alpha)}.$$ #### Case 3a: $\alpha$ is a limit of limit ordinals and ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)=\emptyset$. Pick a strictly increasing sequence ${\langle{\alpha_n}~\vert~{n < \omega}\rangle}$ of limit ordinals cofinal in $\alpha$. Given $n < \omega$, let $i(\alpha) \leq j_n < \lambda$ be minimal with $i(\alpha_m) \leq j_n$ and $\alpha_m \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_{n+1}, j_n})$ for all $m \leq n$. Then our induction hypothesis implies that $j_n\leq j_{n+1}$ for all $n<\omega$. Set $j_\omega=\sup_{n<\omega}j_n\leq\lambda$. If $i(\alpha)\leq i< j_0$, then we define $C_{\alpha,i}={\{{\alpha_n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}}$. Next, if $j_n\leq i< j_{n+1}$ for some $n<\omega$, then $i\geq i(\alpha_n)$, and we define $C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cup{\{{\alpha_m}~\vert~{n\leq m<\omega}\}}$. Finally, if $j_\omega\leq i<\lambda$, then $i\geq i(\alpha_n)$ for all $n<\omega$, and we define $C_{\alpha, i} = \bigcup{\{{C_{\alpha_n, i}}~\vert~{n < \omega}\}}$. The above definitions and our induction hypothesis directly ensure that clauses (1) and (5) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] hold. If $m<n<\omega$ and $i\geq j_{n-1}$, then the above definitions ensure that $\alpha_m\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_n,i})\subseteq C_{\alpha_n,i}$ holds. In particular, we have ${\{{\alpha_n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}}\subseteq C_{\alpha,i}$ for all $i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda$. Moreover, we have $C_{\alpha_m,i}=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cap\alpha_m$ for all $j_\omega\leq i<\lambda$ and $m<n<\omega$. This shows that clause (2) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] holds. Now, fix $i(\alpha)\leq i<j<\lambda$. If either $i$ or $j$ is contained in $[i(\alpha),j_0)\cup[j_\omega,\lambda)$, then the above remark and our induction hypothesis imply that $C_{\alpha,i}\subseteq C_{\alpha,j}$ holds. Next, if there is an $n<\omega$ with $j_n\leq i<j<j_{n+1}$, then our induction hypothesis implies that $C_{\alpha_n,i}\subseteq C_{\alpha_n,j}$ and therefore $C_{\alpha,i}\subseteq C_{\alpha,j}$ also holds in this case. Finally, if there are $m<n<\omega$ with $j_m\leq i<j_{m+1}\leq j_n\leq j<j_{n+1}$, then $\alpha_m\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_n},j)$, $C_{\alpha_m,i}\subseteq C_{\alpha_m,j}=C_{\alpha_n,j}\cap\alpha_m$ and, in combination with the above remarks, this implies that $C_{\alpha,i}\subseteq C_{\alpha,j}$ holds. These computations show that clause (3) of Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] holds in this case. We finally verify clause (4) of Definition \[ind\_square\_def\]. To this end, fix $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$ and $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha, i})$. Then $i\geq j_0$. If there is an $n<\omega$ with $j_n\leq i<j_{n+1}$, then it follows that $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_n,i}) \cup \{\alpha_n\}$, in which case the induction hypothesis implies that $i\geq i(\gamma)$ and $C_{\gamma, i} = C_{\alpha_n,i} \cap \gamma = C_{\alpha,i} \cap \gamma$. In the other case, assume that $j_\omega \leq i < \lambda$ and let $n < \omega$ be least such that $\gamma < \alpha_n$. By the above remarks and our induction hypothesis, we then have $C_{\alpha,i}\cap\gamma=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cap\gamma$, $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_n,i})$, $i\geq i(\gamma)$ and $C_{\gamma,i}=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cap\gamma=C_{\alpha,i}\cap\gamma$. #### Case 3b: $\alpha$ is a limit of limit ordinals and ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)\neq\emptyset$ is bounded below $\alpha$. Pick a strictly increasing sequence ${\langle{\alpha_n}~\vert~{ n < \omega}\rangle}$ of limit ordinals cofinal in $\alpha$ with $\alpha_0 = \max({\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha))$. Then $\alpha_0\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$ implies that $i(\alpha_0)=i(\alpha)$. Define a sequence ${\langle{j_n}~\vert~{n\leq\omega}\rangle}$ as in Case 3a. If $i(\alpha)\leq i< j_0$, then $i\geq i(\alpha_0)$, and we define $C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\alpha_0,i}\cup{\{{\alpha_n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}}$. Next, if $j_n\leq i< j_{n+1}$ for some $n<\omega$, then $i\geq i(\alpha_n)$, and we define $C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cup{\{{\alpha_m}~\vert~{n\leq m<\omega}\}}$. Finally, if $j_\omega\leq i<\lambda$, then $i\geq i(\alpha_n)$ for all $n<\omega$, and we define $C_{\alpha, i} = \bigcup{\{{C_{\alpha_n, i}}~\vert~{n < \omega}\}}$. As above, it is easy to see that clauses (1) and (5) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] hold. Moreover, we again have $\alpha_m\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_n,i})\subseteq C_{\alpha_n,i}$ for all $m<n<\omega$ and $i\geq j_{n-1}$ and, together with our induction hypothesis, this implies that $$C_{\alpha_0,i} ~ \cup ~ {\{{\alpha_n}~\vert~{n<\omega}\}} ~ \subseteq ~ C_{\alpha,i}$$ for all $i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda$ and $C_{\alpha_m,i}=C_{\alpha_n,i}\cap\alpha_m$ for all $j_\omega\leq i<\lambda$ and $m<n<\omega$. Hence clause (2) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] holds. As in Case 3a, clauses (3) and (4) from Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] are a direct consequence of our induction hypothesis and the above observations. Finally, our construction and the induction hypothesis ensure that $${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha) ~ = ~ {\mathrm{acc}}(D_{\alpha_0}) \cup \{\alpha_0\} ~ \subseteq ~ {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_0, i(\alpha_0)}) \cup \{\alpha_0\} ~ \subseteq ~ {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha, i(\alpha)}).$$ #### Case 4: ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$ is unbounded in $\alpha$. Note that, for all $\beta,\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$ with $\beta<\gamma$, our construction and the induction hypothesis imply that $i(\alpha) = i(\beta) = i(\gamma)$, $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta, i(\alpha)})$, and therefore $C_{\gamma, i} = C_{\beta, i} \cap \gamma$ for all $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$. If we now define $C_{\alpha, i} = \bigcup{\{{C_{\beta, i}}~\vert~{\beta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)}\}}$ for all $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$, then it is easy to see that clauses (1)–(3) and (5) of Definition \[ind\_square\_def\] hold. To verify clause (4), fix $i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda$ and $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha, i})$. Let $\beta = \min({\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha) \setminus (\gamma + 1))$. It follows that $\gamma \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta, i})$, so, by the induction hypothesis, we have $i\geq i(\gamma)$ and $C_{\gamma, i} = C_{\beta, i} \cap \gamma = C_{\alpha, i} \cap \gamma$. Finally, our induction hypothesis implies that $$\begin{split} {\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha) ~ & = ~ \bigcup{\{{{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\beta)}~\vert~{\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)}\}} \\ & \subseteq ~ \bigcup{\{{{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i(\beta)})}~\vert~{\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)}\}} ~ \subseteq ~ {\mathrm{acc}}(D_{\alpha,i(\alpha)}). \end{split}$$ We have thus constructed a matrix $\vec{C}$ satisfying clauses (1)–(5) of Definition \[ind\_square\_def\]. We finish the proof by verifying condition (6’) from Proposition \[threadprop\]. To this end, suppose for the sake of a contradiction that there is $i < \lambda$ and a club $E$ in $\kappa$ such that $i\geq i(\alpha)$ holds for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(E)$. Let $T = {\{{\alpha \in S}~\vert~{i(\alpha) = i+1}\}}$. Since $T$ is stationary in $\kappa$, there is $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(E) \cap T$. But then $i\geq i(\alpha)=i+1$, a contradiction. In the proof of the following result, we use Todorčević’s method of walks on ordinals to construct trees with ascent paths from suitable square principles. \[indexed\_square\_thm\] If $\lambda<\kappa$ are infinite regular cardinals and $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa,\lambda)$ holds, then there is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree with a $\lambda$-ascent path. Fix a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-sequence $\vec{C}={\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa, ~ i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda}\rangle}$. Given $i<\lambda$, let $\vec{C}_i={\langle{C^i_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ denote the unique $C$-sequence (see [[@MR908147 Section 1]]{}) with $C^i_\alpha = C_{\alpha, i(\alpha)}$ for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with $i < i(\alpha)$ and $C^i_\alpha = C_{\alpha, i}$ for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with $i(\alpha) \leq i$. For each $i < \lambda$, recursively define ${{\rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}}:{[\kappa]^2}\longrightarrow{{^{{<}\omega} \kappa}}}$ as in [@MR908147] by letting, for all $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$, $$\rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}(\alpha, \beta) = \langle {\mathrm{otp}}(C^i_\beta \cap \alpha) \rangle ^\frown \rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}(\alpha, \min(C^i_\beta \setminus \alpha)),$$ subject to the boundary condition $\rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}(\alpha, \alpha) = \emptyset$ for all $\alpha < \kappa$. Given $i<\lambda$, we set $${{\mathbb{T}}}_i ~ = ~ {{\mathbb{T}}}(\rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}) ~ = ~ ({\{{\rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}(~ \cdot ~, \beta) \restriction \alpha}~\vert~{\alpha \leq \beta < \kappa}\}}, \subset).$$ \[branch\_claim\] If $i<\lambda$, then the tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i$ has no cofinal branches. Suppose ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i$ has a cofinal branch. By [@MR908147 (1.7)], there is a club $D$ in $\kappa$ and a $\xi < \kappa$ with the property that, for all $\alpha < \kappa$, there is $\beta(\alpha) \geq \alpha$ with $$D \cap \alpha ~ = ~ C^i_{\beta(\alpha)} \cap [\xi, \alpha).$$ Given $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(D)$, we have $\beta(\alpha)\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and there is a $j(\alpha) < \lambda$ with the property that $C^i_{\beta(\alpha)} = C_{\beta(\alpha), j(\alpha)}$. Since $\vec{C}$ is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence and $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C^i_{\beta(\alpha)})={\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta(\alpha),j(\alpha)})$ for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D)$, we can conclude that $$D \cap \alpha ~ = ~ C^i_{\beta(\alpha)} \cap [\xi, \alpha) ~ = ~ C_{\beta(\alpha),j(\alpha)} \cap [\xi, \alpha) ~ = ~ C_{\alpha,j(\alpha)}\cap [\xi, \alpha).$$ Fix an unbounded subset $E$ of ${\mathrm{acc}}(D)$ and $j < \lambda$ with $j(\alpha)=j$ for all $\alpha \in E$. Given $\alpha,\beta\in E$ with $\xi<\alpha<\beta$, we have $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta, j})$ and therefore $C_{\alpha, j} = C_{\beta, j} \cap \alpha$. If we define $C^* = \bigcup{\{{C_{\alpha, j}}~\vert~{\xi<\alpha \in E}\}}$, then $C^$ is a club in $\kappa$ and, for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C^)$, we have $C_{\alpha, j} = C^* \cap \alpha$, contradicting the fact that $\vec{C}$ is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence. \[level\_claim\] If $i<\lambda$ and $\alpha<\kappa$, then the $\alpha$-th level of ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i$ has cardinality less than $\kappa$. Let $\mathcal{D}^i_\alpha = {\{{C^i_\beta \cap \alpha}~\vert~{\alpha \leq \beta < \kappa}\}}$. By [@MR908147 (1.3)], the $\alpha$-th level of ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i$ has cardinality at most ${\vert{\mathcal{D}^i_\alpha}\vert} + \aleph_0$. If $D \in \mathcal{D}^i_\alpha$, then $D$ is the union of a finite subset of $\alpha$ and a set of the form $C_{\gamma, j}$, where $\gamma \leq \alpha$ and $j < \lambda$. There are only ${\vert{\alpha}\vert}$-many finite subsets of $\alpha$ and only $\max\{\lambda, {\vert{\alpha}\vert}\}$-many sets of the form $C_{\gamma, j}$, where $\gamma \leq \alpha$ and $j < \lambda$. In combination, this shows that ${\vert{\mathcal{D}^i_\alpha}\vert} \leq \max\{\lambda, {\vert{\alpha}\vert}\} < \kappa$. Now, define ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ to be the unique tree with the following properties: 1. The underlying set of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is the collection of all pairs $\langle i,t\rangle$ such that $i<\lambda$, $t\in{{\mathbb{T}}}_i$ and ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}_i}}(t)}$ is a limit ordinal. 2. Given nodes $\langle i,t\rangle$ and $\langle j,u\rangle$ in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, we have $\langle i,t\rangle\leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}\langle j,u\rangle$ if and only if $i=j$ and $t\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}_i}u$. Then Claims \[branch\_claim\] and \[level\_claim\] directly imply that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree. Given $\alpha<\kappa$, we define $${{c_\alpha}:{\lambda}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}};~{i}\longmapsto{\langle i, ~ \rho_0^{\vec{C}_i}( ~ \cdot ~ , ~ \omega\cdot\alpha)\rangle}}.$$ The sequence ${\langle{c_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Note that, for all $i < \lambda$ and all $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$, if $C^i_{\omega \cdot \alpha} = C^i_{\omega \cdot \beta} \cap (\omega \cdot \alpha)$, then $$\rho^{\vec{C}_i}_0( ~ \cdot ~ , \omega\cdot\alpha) ~ = ~ \rho^{\vec{C}_i}_0( ~ \cdot ~ , \omega\cdot\beta) \restriction \omega\cdot\alpha.$$ Let $j_{\alpha, \beta} < \lambda$ be least such that $\omega \cdot \alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\omega \cdot \beta, j_{\alpha, \beta}})$. Then, for all $j_{\alpha, \beta} \leq i < \lambda$, we have $C^i_{\omega \cdot \alpha} = C_{\omega \cdot \alpha, i}$, $C^i_{\omega\cdot\beta} = C_{\omega\cdot\beta, i}$, and $C_{\omega\cdot\alpha, i} = C_{\omega\cdot\beta, i} \cap \omega\cdot\alpha$. It follows that, for all $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$ and all $j_{\alpha, \beta} \leq i < \lambda$, we have $c_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}c_\beta(i)$. This completes the proof of the theorem. The statement of Theorem \[square\_ascent\_path\_thm\] now follows directly from Theorems \[square\_building\_thm\] and \[indexed\_square\_thm\]. Forcing preliminaries {#section:Forcing_preliminaries} ===================== In this section, we review some forcing posets designed to add and thread square sequences. We also recall constructions to make weak compactness or the tree property indestructible under mild forcing. Forcing square sequences ------------------------ We first recall the notion of strategic closure. Let ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ be a partial order (with maximal element $\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbb{P}}}$) and let $\beta$ be an ordinal. 1. $\Game_\beta({{\mathbb{P}}})$ is the two-player game of perfect information in which Players I and II alternate playing conditions from ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ to attempt to construct a $\leq_{{\mathbb{P}}}$-decreasing sequence ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha < \beta}\rangle}$. Player I plays at all odd stages, and Player II plays at all even (including limit) stages. Player II is required to play $p_0 = \mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbb{P}}}$. If, during the course of play, a limit ordinal $\alpha < \beta$ is reached such that ${\langle{p_\xi}~\vert~{\xi < \alpha}\rangle}$ has no lower bound in ${{\mathbb{P}}}$, then Player I wins. Otherwise, Player II wins. 2. ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\beta$-strategically closed if Player II has a winning strategy in $\Game_\beta({{\mathbb{P}}})$. \[square\_forcing\_def\] Given cardinals $1 < \lambda \leq \kappa$ with $\kappa$ regular and uncountable, we let ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$ denote the partial order defined by the following clauses: 1. A condition in ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$ is a sequence $p = {\langle{{\mathcal{C}}^p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha \leq \gamma^p}\rangle}$ with $\gamma^p \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ such that the following statements hold for all $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\gamma^p + 1)$: 1. ${\mathcal{C}}^p_\alpha$ is a collection of club subsets of $\alpha$ with $0 < {\vert{{\mathcal{C}}^p_\alpha}\vert} < \lambda$. 2. If $C \in {\mathcal{C}}^p_\beta$ with $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C)$, then $C \cap \alpha \in {\mathcal{C}}^p_\alpha$. 2. The ordering of ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$ is given by end-extension, i.e., $q \leq_{{{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)} p$ holds if and only if $\gamma^q \geq \gamma^p$ and, for all $\alpha \leq \gamma^p$, ${\mathcal{C}}^q_\alpha = {\mathcal{C}}^p_\alpha$. In the following, we will usually write ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ instead of ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa, {<} \lambda^+)$. The proof of the following lemma is standard and follows, for example, from the proofs of [@MR3129734 Proposition 33 and Lemma 35]. Let $1 < \lambda \leq \kappa$ be cardinals with $\kappa$ regular and uncountable. 1. ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$ is $\omega_1$-closed. 2. ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed. 3. If $G$ is ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<} \lambda)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then $\bigcup G$ is a $\square(\kappa, {<} \lambda)$-sequence in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. We next consider a forcing poset meant to add a thread to a $\square(\kappa, {<} \lambda)$-sequence. \[definition:POthreadSquare\] Let $1 < \lambda \leq \kappa$ be cardinals with $\kappa$ regular and uncountable, and let $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}} = {\langle{{\mathcal{C}}_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ be a $\square(\kappa, {<} \lambda)$-sequence. We let ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}})$ denote the partial order whose underlying set is $\bigcup{\{{{\mathcal{C}}_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}\}}$ and whose ordering is given by end-extension, i.e. $D \leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}})} C$ holds if and only if $C=D \cap \sup(C)$. In what follows, if ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ is a partial order and $\theta$ is a cardinal, then we let ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\theta$ denote the full-support product of $\theta$ copies of ${{\mathbb{P}}}$. \[dense\_closed\_lemma\_1\] Let $1 < \lambda \leq \kappa$ be cardinals with $\kappa$ regular and uncountable, let $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$-name for the $\square(\kappa, {<} \lambda)$-sequence added by ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$ and let $\dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda)$-name for ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\dot{{\mathcal{C}}})$. For all $0 < \theta < \lambda$, the partial order ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda)* \dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}^\theta$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset. Fix $\theta < \lambda$, and let ${{\mathbb{U}}}$ denote the set of all $\langle p,\dot{f}\rangle \in {{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda) * \dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}^\theta$ such that, for all $\xi < \theta$, there is a $D_\xi \in {\mathcal{C}}^p_{\gamma^p}$ with $p \Vdash_{{{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda)}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\dot{f}(\xi) = \check{D}_\xi}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$ Then standard arguments show that ${{\mathbb{U}}}$ is dense in ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa,{<}\lambda) * \dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}^\theta$ and $\kappa$-directed closed. There is also a natural forcing notion to add a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence by initial segments. \[ind\_square\_forcing\_def\] Given infinite, regular cardinals $\lambda < \kappa$, we let ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ denote the partial order defined by the following clauses: 1. A condition in ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is a matrix $$p ~ = ~ {\langle{C^p_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha \leq \gamma^p, ~ i(\alpha)^p \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$$ with $\gamma^p \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $i(\alpha)^p < \lambda$ for all $\alpha \leq \gamma^p$ such that the following statements hold for all $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\gamma^p+1)$: 1. If $i(\alpha)^p \leq i < \lambda$, then $C^p_{\alpha, i}$ is a club subset of $\alpha$. 2. If $i(\alpha)^p \leq i < j < \lambda$, then $C^p_{\alpha, i} \subseteq C^p_{\alpha, j}$. 3. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C^p_{\beta, i})$ for some $i(\beta)^p \leq i < \lambda$, then we have $i\geq i(\alpha)^p$ and $ C^p_{\alpha, i} = C^p_{\beta, i} \cap \alpha$. 4. If $\alpha < \beta$, then there is $i < \lambda$ with $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C^p_{\beta, i})$. 2. The ordering of ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is given by end-extension, i.e., $q \leq_{{{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)} p$ holds if and only if $\gamma^q \geq \gamma^p$ and the following statements hold for all $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\gamma^p+1)$: 1. $i(\alpha)^q = i(\alpha)^p$. 2. If $i(\alpha)^p \leq i < \lambda$, then $C^q_{\alpha, i} = C^p_{\alpha, i}$. The following results are proven in [[@systems Section 7]]{} or follow directly from the proofs presented there. \[lemma:PropertiesGenericIndexedSquare\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals. 1. ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is $\lambda$-directed closed. 2. ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is $\kappa$-strategically closed. 3. If $G$ is ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then $\bigcup G$ is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ and for every regular cardinal $\mu<\kappa$ and every $i<\lambda$, the set $${\{{\alpha\in E^\kappa_\mu}~\vert~{\exists p\in G ~ [\alpha\leq\gamma^p\wedge i(\alpha)^p=i]}\}}$$ is stationary in $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. We finally introduce a forcing notion to add a thread through a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence. \[definition:POthreadIndexedSquare\] Let $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}} = {\langle{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$ be a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-sequence. Given $i < \lambda$, let ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$ denote the partial order whose underlying set is $${\{{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa), ~ i(\alpha)\leq i}\}}$$ and whose ordering is given by end-extension. The following result is proven in [[@hayut_lh Section 3]]{}. \[lem: amalgamation for indexed square\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals, let $\dot{C}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-name for the generic $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\lambda, \kappa)$-sequence and, for $i < \kappa$, let $\dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}_i$ be a ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-name for ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i(\dot{C})$. 1. For all $i < \lambda$, ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa,\lambda) * \dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}_i$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset. 2. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$ and let $\bigcup G={\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa, ~ i(\alpha)\leq i<\lambda}\rangle}$ be the generic $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\lambda, \kappa)$-sequence. Given $i < j < \lambda$, the map $${{\pi_{i,j}}:{\dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}_i^G}\longrightarrow{\dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}_j^G};~{C_{\alpha, i}}\longmapsto{C_{\alpha, j}}}$$ is a forcing projection in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. \[deciding\_lemma\] Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals, let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, and let $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be the generic $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\lambda, \kappa)$-sequence in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. Assume that, in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, for each $i < \lambda$, $\dot{x}_i$ is a ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$-name for an element of ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. Given $t \in {{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$, there is a condition $s \leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})} t$ such that $\pi_{0,i}(s)$ decides the value of $\dot{x}_i$ for all $i < \lambda$. Work in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. For all $i < \lambda$, let ${{\mathbb{D}}}_i$ be the set of $s \in {{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$ such that $\pi_{0,i}(s)$ decides the value of $\dot{x}_i$. Since $\pi_{0,i}$ is a projection, the set ${{\mathbb{D}}}_i$ is dense and open in ${{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$. Since ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa,\lambda) * \dot{{{\mathbb{T}}}}_0$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset in ${{\rm{V}}}$, it follows that the partial order ${{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})$ is $\kappa$-distributive in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. We can thus find $s \in \bigcap{\{{{{\mathbb{D}}}_i}~\vert~{i < \lambda}\}}$ with $s \leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}_0(\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\hspace{1.6pt})} t$. Then the condition $s$ is as desired. Indestructibility ----------------- In this subsection, we outline techniques for arranging so that weak compactness and the tree property necessarily hold at a cardinal $\kappa$ after forcing with the partial order ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{ 1})}$ that adds a Cohen subset to $\kappa$. These methods are well-known, so we will just sketch the constructions or refer the reader elsewhere for details. A classical result of Silver shows that weak compactness of a weakly compact cardinal can be made indestructible under forcing with ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$. The proof of this result is described in [[@MR495118 Section 3]]{}. A modern presentation of these arguments can be found in [[@MR2768691 Example 16.2]]{}. Let $\kappa$ be a weakly compact cardinal. Then there is a forcing extension ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ such that $\kappa$ is weakly compact in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ whenever $H$ is ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. Note that the conclusion of the above result implies that $\kappa$ is also weakly compact in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, because forcing with $\kappa$-closed partial orders does not add branches to $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees. Given an uncountable, regular cardinal $\kappa$, we let $\mathrm{TP}^+(\kappa)$ denote the conjunction of $\mathrm{TP}(\kappa)$ and the statement that for every regular cardinal $\lambda$ with $\lambda^+ < \kappa$, if $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ of height $\kappa$, then there is a true cofinal branch through $\vec{b}$. It is easy to see that, if $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal, then $\mathrm{TP}^+(\kappa)$ holds. The proof of the following result is a slight modification of the presentation of Mitchell’s consistency proof of the tree property at $\aleph_2$ in [[@MR2768691 Section 23]]{}. Let $\kappa$ be a weakly compact cardinal and let $\mu < \kappa$ be an infinite, regular cardinals with $ \mu=\mu^{{<}\mu}$. Then there is a forcing extension ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ of the ground model ${{\rm{V}}}$ such that the following statements hold: 1. ${{\rm{V}}}$ and ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ have the same cofinalities below $(\mu^+)^{{\rm{V}}}$. 2. $(\mu^+)^{{\rm{V}}}=(\mu^+)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$, $\kappa = (2^\mu)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]} = (\mu^{++})^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$ and $\kappa=(\kappa^{<\kappa})^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$. 3. If $H$ is ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, then $\mathrm{TP}^+(\kappa)$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$. Given $\alpha\leq\kappa$, let $\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_\alpha$ denote the canonical ${{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\alpha})}$-name with the property that, whenever $G$ is ${{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\alpha})}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then $\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_\alpha^G={{\rm{Add}}({\mu^+},{1})}^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$. By induction on $\alpha\leq\kappa$, we define a sequence ${\langle{{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)}~\vert~{\alpha \leq \kappa}\rangle}$ of partial orders with the property that, if $\alpha\leq\kappa$ is inaccessible and $G$ is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then ${{\rm{V}}}$ and ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ have the same cofinalities below $(\mu^+)^{{\rm{V}}}$, $(\mu^+)^{{\rm{V}}}=(\mu^+)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$, $\alpha = (2^\mu)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]} = (\mu^{++})^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$, and $\alpha=(\alpha^{<\alpha})^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$. Fix $\beta \leq \kappa$ and assume that the partial order ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)$ with the above properties has been defined for all $\alpha < \beta$. Given $\alpha<\beta$ inaccessible, let $\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha$ denote the canonical ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)$-name with the property that, whenever $G$ is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, then $\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha^G={{\rm{Add}}({\alpha},{1})}^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}$. We define the underlying set of the partial order ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\beta)$ to consist of triples $\langle p, f, g\rangle$ that satisfy the following statements: 1. $p$ is a condition in ${{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\beta})}$. 2. $f$ is a partial function on $\beta$ of cardinality at most $\mu$ with the property that for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{dom}}(f)$, $\alpha$ is a successor ordinal and $f(\alpha)$ is an ${{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\alpha})}$-name for a condition in $\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_\alpha$. 3. $g$ is a partial function on $\beta$ of cardinality at most $\mu$ with the property that for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{dom}}(g)$, $\alpha$ is an inaccessible cardinal and $g(\alpha)$ is a ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)$-name for a condition in $\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha$. Given triples $\langle p_0, f_0, g_0\rangle$ and $\langle p_1, f_1, g_1\rangle$ satisfying the above statements, we define $\langle p_1, f_1, g_1\rangle \leq_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\beta)} \langle p_0, f_0, g_0\rangle$ to hold if and only if the following statements hold: 1. $p_1 \leq_{{{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\beta})}} p_0$. 2. ${\mathrm{dom}}(f_1) \supseteq {\mathrm{dom}}(f_0)$ and ${\mathrm{dom}}(g_1) \supseteq {\mathrm{dom}}(g_0)$. 3. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{dom}}(f_0)$, then $$p_1 \restriction \alpha \Vdash_{{{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\alpha})}} {{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{f_1(\alpha) \leq_{\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_\alpha} f_0(\alpha)}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$$ 4. If $\alpha \in {\mathrm{dom}}(g_0)$, then $$\langle p_1 \restriction \alpha, ~ f_1 \restriction \alpha, ~ g_1 \restriction \alpha\rangle \Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)} {{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{g_1(\alpha) \leq_{\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha}g_0(\alpha)}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$$ By representing ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\beta)$ as a projection of a product ${{\rm{Add}}({\mu},{\beta})}\times{{\mathbb{P}}}$ for some $\mu^+$-closed partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}$, it is possible to show that ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\beta)$ satisfies the assumptions listed above. Set ${{\mathbb{Q}}}= {{\mathbb{Q}}}(\kappa)$. Given $\alpha < \kappa$ inaccessible, the canonical map $${{\pi_\alpha}:{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\alpha)\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha};~{\langle p,f,g\rangle}\longmapsto{\langle\langle p \restriction \alpha, ~ f \restriction \alpha, ~ g \restriction \alpha\rangle, ~ g(\alpha)\rangle}}$$ is a projection. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, let $H$ by ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$-generic over $V[G]$, and let $G_\alphaH_\alpha$ be the filter on ${{\mathbb{P}}}(\alpha)\dot{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_\alpha$ induced by $G$ via $\pi_\alpha$. Suppose for sake of contradiction that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree (with $\kappa$ as an underlying set) in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$. A routine application of weak compactness yields an inaccessible cardinal $\alpha < \kappa$ such that ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction \alpha \in {{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha, H_\alpha]$ and ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction \alpha$ is an $\alpha$-Aronszajn tree in ${{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha, H_\alpha]$. However, standard arguments show that $\mu^+$-approximation holds between ${{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha,H_\alpha]$ and ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ (see [[@MR2768691 Definition 21.2]]{}). It follows that $\alpha$-Aronszajn trees in ${{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha, H_\alpha]$ cannot gain cofinal branches in ${{\rm{V}}}[G, H]$. However, ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction \alpha$ does have a cofinal branch in ${{\rm{V}}}[G, H]$, namely the set of predecessors of any element of ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)$, which is a contradiction. Similarly, if $\lambda\leq\mu$ and $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through a $\kappa$-tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ with no true cofinal branch, then there is an inaccessible $\alpha < \kappa$ such that ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction \alpha, ~ \vec{b} \restriction \alpha \in {{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha, H_\alpha]$ and there is no true cofinal branch through $\vec{b} \restriction \alpha$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G_\alpha, H_\alpha]$. As above, an appeal to $\mu^+$-approximation yields a contradiction. Consistency results for trees {#ConsResultsTrees} ============================= Building on the results of the previous section, we prove consistency results that will provide upper bounds for the consistency strength of two interactions between ascent paths and special trees listed in Table \[table:Implications\_Special\_Ascent\_Succ\_Reg\]. \[no\_special\_no\_ascent\_thm\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable cardinal with the property that $\kappa=\kappa^{{<}\kappa}$ and $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}^+(\check{\kappa})$. Then the following statements hold in a cofinality-preserving forcing extension of the ground model: 1. There are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees. 2. There are no special $\kappa$-trees. 3. For all $\lambda$ with $\lambda^+ < \kappa$, there are no $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees with $\lambda$-ascent paths. Let ${{\mathbb{P}}}= {{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa, 2)$ be the forcing from Definition \[square\_forcing\_def\] that adds a $\square(\kappa, 2)$-sequence. Let $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the generically-added $\square(\kappa, 2)$-sequence, and let $\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the partial order ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\dot{{\mathcal{C}}})$ defined in Definition \[definition:POthreadSquare\]. By Lemma \[dense\_closed\_lemma\_1\], if $\theta \in \{1,2\}$, then the partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}} \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^\theta$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset. Moreover, since $\kappa=\kappa^{{<}\kappa}$ holds, the dense subset constructed in the proof of Lemma \[dense\_closed\_lemma\_1\] has size $\kappa$ and is hence forcing equivalent to ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$, and set ${{\mathbb{Q}}}=\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^G$. We claim that the above statements hold in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. We first note that, since $\square(\kappa, 2)$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, there are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees in this model. To verify clause (2), note that our assumptions and the above computations imply that, if $H$ is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, then $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ and every $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ has a cofinal branch in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$. This observation directly implies that there are no special $\kappa$-trees in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. To verify clause (3), suppose for sake of a contradiction that, in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, there is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ , a cardinal $\lambda$ with $\lambda^+ < \kappa$, and a $\lambda$-ascent path $\vec{b} = {\langle{b_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Given $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$, let $i_{\alpha,\beta} < \lambda$ be least such that, for all $i_{\alpha, \beta} \leq j < \lambda$, we have $b_\alpha(j) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(j)$. Since ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ forces $\mathrm{TP}^+(\kappa)$ to hold, there are ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-names $\dot{I}$ and $\dot{B}$ such that $$\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\Vdash{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{The pair $\langle\dot{I}, \dot{B}\rangle$ is a true cofinal branch through $\vec{b}$}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. Let $H_0 \times H_1$ be ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^2$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, and, given $\varepsilon < 2$, set $I_\varepsilon=\dot{I}^{H_\varepsilon}$ and $B_\varepsilon=\dot{B}^{H_\varepsilon}$. Note that, since ${{\mathbb{P}}}* \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^2$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset in ${{\rm{V}}}$, $\kappa$ remains a regular cardinal in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H_0,H_1]$. Work now in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H_0,H_1]$. For each $\alpha < \kappa$ and $\varepsilon < 2$, set $\alpha_\epsilon = \min(B_\varepsilon\setminus (\alpha + 1))$. Using the regularity of $\kappa$ and the fact that $\lambda < \kappa$, we find $\max(I_0,I_1)\leq I_* < \lambda$ and unbounded subsets $B_0^* \subseteq B_0$ and $B_1^* \subseteq B_1$ with $i_{\alpha, \alpha_{1-\varepsilon}} \leq I_$ for all $\varepsilon<2$ and all $\alpha \in B_\varepsilon^$. Given $\varepsilon < 2$, set $A_\varepsilon = {\{{\alpha < \kappa}~\vert~{i_{\alpha, \alpha_\epsilon} \leq I_}\}}$. For $\varepsilon < 2$, the pair $\langle I_, A_\varepsilon\rangle$ is a true cofinal branch through $\vec{b}$. Fix $\alpha,\beta\in A_\varepsilon$ with $\alpha < \beta$. By definition of $A_\varepsilon$ and the fact that $I_* \geq I_\epsilon$, it follows that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\alpha_\varepsilon}(i) \leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\beta_\varepsilon}(i)$ and $b_\beta(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\beta_\varepsilon}(i)$ for all $I_* \leq i < \lambda$. Since $\leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a tree order, it follows that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(i)$ for all $I_* \leq i < \lambda$ and therefore $\langle I_, A_\varepsilon\rangle$ satisfies Clause (\[c3c\]) of Definition \[ascent\_path\_def\]. Next, fix $\beta \in A_\varepsilon$ and $\alpha < \beta$ such that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(i)$ for all $I_ \leq j < \lambda$. As above, it follows that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_\beta(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\beta_\varepsilon}(i)$ and $b_{\alpha_\varepsilon}(i) \leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\beta_\varepsilon}(i)$ for all $I_* \leq i < \lambda$. Thus, again by the fact that $\leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a tree order, this implies that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\alpha_\varepsilon}(i)$ for all $I_* \leq i < \lambda$ and hence $\alpha \in A_\varepsilon$. This allows us to conclude that the pair $\langle I_, A_\varepsilon\rangle$ also satisfies Clause (\[c3d\]) of Definition \[ascent\_path\_def\]. $A_0 = A_1$. We show $A_0 \subseteq A_1$. The proof of the reverse inclusion is symmetric. Thus, fix $\alpha \in A_0$ and set $\beta = \min(B_0^ \setminus \alpha_1)$. Given $I_* \leq i < \lambda$, we then have $$b_\alpha(i) ~ <_{{\mathbb{T}}}~ b_{\alpha_0}(i) ~ \leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}~ b_\beta(i) ~ <_{{\mathbb{T}}}~ b_{\beta_1}(i),$$ where the last relation holds because $\beta \in B_0^$. But we also have $b_{\alpha_1}(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\beta_1}(i)$ for all $I_ \leq i < \lambda$, because $\alpha_1,\beta_1\in B_1$ and $I_\geq I_1$. But then, again using the fact that $\leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a tree order, we can conclude that $b_\alpha(i) <_{{\mathbb{T}}}b_{\alpha_1}(i)$ holds for all $I_ \leq i < \lambda$. This shows that $\alpha$ is an element of $A_1$. Given $\varepsilon < 2$, the set $A_0=A_\varepsilon$ is definable from $I_$ and $B_\varepsilon$. Hence the pair $\langle I_,A_0\rangle$ is a member of ${{\rm{V}}}[G][H_\varepsilon]$ for all $\varepsilon<2$. By the Product Lemma, it follows that $\langle I_,A_0\rangle$ is contained in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. But then ${\{{b_\alpha(I_)}~\vert~{\alpha \in A_0}\}}$ is a cofinal branch through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, contradicting the assumption that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. Next, we show that, consistently, there are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees and all such trees contain ascent paths of small width. Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be infinite, regular cardinals such that $\kappa=\kappa^{{<}\kappa}$ and $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}(\check{\kappa})$. Define ${{\mathbb{P}}}= {{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ to be the forcing notion from Definition \[ind\_square\_forcing\_def\] that adds a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence. Let $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the generically-added $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence, and, for all $i < \lambda$, let $\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i$ be a ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the partial order ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i(\dot{{\mathcal{C}}})$ defined in Definition \[definition:POthreadIndexedSquare\]. By Lemma \[lem: amalgamation for indexed square\], if $i < \lambda$, then the partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}* \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i$ has a dense, $\kappa$-directed closed subset and the assumption that $\kappa=\kappa^{{<}\kappa}$ implies that this dense subset is forcing equivalent to ${{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}$. Therefore, by our assumptions, we know that $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}}}* \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}(\check{\kappa})$ for all $i < \lambda$. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over $V$ and, for all $i < \lambda$, set ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i=\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i^G$. Given $i < j < \lambda$, let ${{\pi_{i,j}}:{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_j}}$ be the projection given by Lemma \[lem: amalgamation for indexed square\]. Let $$\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}^G ~ = ~ {\langle{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$$ be the realization of $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$. We claim that ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ is the desired forcing extension. Since $\square(\kappa, \lambda)$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, there are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees in this model. We thus verify requirement (2). To this end, work in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ and fix a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. For all $i < \lambda$, we have $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}(\check{\kappa})$ and hence we can fix a ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i$-name $\dot{B}_i$ for a cofinal branch in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. We may assume that $\dot{B}_i$ is forced to be $\leq_{{\mathbb{T}}}$-downward closed, i.e., that $\dot{B}_i$ is forced to meet every level of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. For each $\alpha < \kappa$, use Lemma \[deciding\_lemma\] to find $q_\alpha \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}_0$ such that, for all $i < \lambda$, there is a node $x_{\alpha, i} \in {{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)$ with the property that $$\pi_{0,i}(q_\alpha)\Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\check{x}_{\alpha,i}\in\dot{B}_i \cap \check{{{\mathbb{T}}}}(\check{\alpha})}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$$ Define a sequence of functions $\vec{b} = {\langle{{{b_\alpha}:{\lambda}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)}}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa}\rangle}$ by setting $b_\alpha(i) = x_{\alpha, i}$ for all $\alpha < \kappa$ and $i < \lambda$. We claim that $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. To see this, fix $\alpha < \beta < \kappa$. Pick $\gamma_\alpha, \gamma_\beta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ such that $q_\alpha = C_{\gamma_\alpha, 0}$ and $q_\beta = C_{\gamma_\beta, 0}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\gamma_\alpha < \gamma_\beta$; the other cases are treated similarly. Fix an $i< \lambda$ such that $\gamma_\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\gamma_\beta, i})$ and hence $\pi_{0,j}(q_\beta) \leq_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_j} \pi_{0,j}(q_\alpha)$ for all $i\leq j<\lambda$. This shows that $\pi_{0,j}(q_\beta) \Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_j}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{x_{\alpha, j}, x_{\beta, j} \in \dot{B}_j}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$ holds for all $i\leq j<\lambda$. Since $\dot{B}_i$ is a name for a branch through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, this implies that $$b_\alpha(j) ~ = ~ x_{\alpha, j} ~ <_{{\mathbb{T}}}~ x_{\beta, j} ~ = ~ b_\beta(j)$$ holds for all $i \leq j < \lambda$. Therefore, $\vec{b}$ is a $\lambda$-ascent path through ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. With the help of a result form [@ascending_paths], it is easy to see that the conclusion of Theorem \[all\_ascent\_path\_thm\] implies that $\kappa$ is a weakly compact cardinal in ${{\rm{L}}}$. \[lemma:AllAscentSquareFails\] Let $\kappa$ be a regular cardinal and let $\lambda$ be an infinite cardinal with $\lambda^+<\kappa$. If every $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree contains a $\lambda$-ascending path, then $\square(\kappa)$ fails. Assume, towards a contradiction, that there is a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence $\vec{C}$ and let ${{\mathbb{T}}}={{\mathbb{T}}}(\rho_0^{\vec{C}})$ denote the tree of full codes of walks through $\vec{C}$ defined in [[@MR908147 Section 1]]{} (as in the proof of Theorem \[indexed\_square\_thm\]). Then the results of [@MR908147] show that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree and [[@ascending_paths Lemma 4.5]]{} implies that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ does not contain a $\lambda$-ascending path, contradicting our assumption. It has long been known that, for regular cardinals $\kappa > \aleph_1$, the principle $\square(\kappa)$ does not imply the existence of a special $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree. For example, this is the case in ${{\rm{L}}}$ if $\kappa$ is a Mahlo cardinal that is not weakly compact, and it will remain true in the forcing extension of ${{\rm{L}}}$ by ${{\rm{Col}}({\aleph_1},{{<}\kappa})}$, in which $\kappa = \aleph_2$. We now show that $\square(\kappa)$ does not even imply the existence of a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ such that there is a stationary subset of $\kappa$ that is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. In particular, this shows that the various trees that will be constructed from the principle $\square(\kappa)$ in the proofs of Theorem \[square\_productivity\_thm\] and \[KnasterLayered\_thm\] in Section \[section:ChainConditions\] cannot be assumed to be $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees. Let $\kappa > \aleph_1$ be a regular cardinal with the property that $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}$ and $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}}\Vdash\mathrm{TP}(\check{\kappa})$. Then the following statements hold in a cofinality-preserving forcing extension of the ground model: 1. $\square(\kappa)$ holds. 2. If ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree and $S$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$, then $S$ is stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Let ${{\mathbb{S}}}= {{\mathbb{S}}}(\kappa, 1)$ be the forcing from Definition \[square\_forcing\_def\] that adds a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence. Let $\dot{C}$ be the canonical ${{\mathbb{S}}}$-name for the generically-added square sequence, and let $\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be an ${{\mathbb{S}}}$-name for the threading forcing ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\dot{C})$ defined in Definition \[definition:POthreadSquare\]. By Lemma \[dense\_closed\_lemma\_1\] and our assumptions, the partial order ${{\mathbb{S}}}* \dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{S}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}$ and set ${{\mathbb{R}}}=\dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}}^G$. By [@hayut_lh Lemma 3.4 and Corollary 3.5], there is a forcing iteration ${\langle{{{\mathbb{P}}}_\eta, \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_\xi}~\vert~{\eta \leq \kappa^+, \xi < \kappa^+}\rangle}$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ with supports of size less than $\kappa$, such that, letting ${{\mathbb{P}}}= {{\mathbb{P}}}_{\kappa^+}$, the following statements hold: 1. If $\eta \leq \kappa^+$ and $\dot{{{\mathbb{P}}}}_\eta$ is the canonical ${{\mathbb{S}}}$-name for ${{\mathbb{P}}}_\eta$ in ${{\rm{V}}}$, then ${{\mathbb{S}}}(\dot{{{\mathbb{P}}}}_\eta \times \dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ has a $\kappa$-directed closed dense subset in ${{\rm{V}}}$. Moreover, if $\eta < \kappa^+$, then this subset can be assumed to have size $\kappa$. 2. ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ satisfies the $\kappa^+$-chain condition in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. 3. If $H$ is ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, then $\square(\kappa)$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ and, for every stationary subset $E$ of $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$, there is a condition $r$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $r\Vdash_{{\mathbb{R}}}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{$\check{E}$ is stationary in $\check{\kappa}$}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$ holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$. Let $H$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. For $\eta < \kappa^+$, let $H_\eta$ be the ${{\mathbb{P}}}_\eta$-generic filter induced by $H$. We claim that ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ is the desired model. Thus, work in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ and suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn and $E$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$ that is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. By the properties of ${{\mathbb{P}}}$, we can find $r \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $r \Vdash_{{\mathbb{R}}}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{$\check{E}$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$. Since the tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, the subset $E$, and the maps witnessing that $E$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ can all be coded by subsets of ${{\rm{V}}}$ of cardinality $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$, the fact that ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ satisfies the $\kappa^+$-chain condition in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ implies that there is an $\eta < \kappa^+$ such that $E,{{\mathbb{T}}}\in{{\rm{V}}}[G,H_\eta]$ and $E$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H_\eta]$. Let $K$ be ${{\mathbb{R}}}$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$ with $r \in K$. Since the partial order ${{\mathbb{S}}} (\dot{{{\mathbb{P}}}}_\eta \times \dot{{{\mathbb{R}}}})$ has a dense $\kappa$-directed closed subset of size $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}$, our assumptions imply that the tree property holds at $\kappa$ in $V[G,H_\eta,K]$. However, $E$ remains stationary in $V[G,H,K]$ and thus, a fortiori, in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H_\eta,K]$. Moreover, the maps witnessing that $E$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ obviously persist in $V[G,H_\eta,K]$, so $E$ remains non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ in $V[G,H_\eta,K]$, and so, by Fact \[non\_stationary\_fact\], ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree in $V[G,H_\eta,K]$, contradicting the fact that the tree property holds at $\kappa$. Provable implications {#section:ProvableImplications} ===================== In this section, we piece things together to provide a complete explanation of Table \[table:Implications\_Special\_Ascent\_Succ\_Reg\] from the end of the Introduction, thus completing the picture of the interaction between special trees and trees with ascent paths at successors of regular cardinals. Throughout this section, we will work under the assumption that there are $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees. Inconsistencies --------------- We first note that, by Lemma \[lucke\_lemma\], an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree with an $\aleph_0$-ascent path cannot be special. This immediately implies that $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ is incompatible with $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ and that $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ is incompatible with $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$, so the three boxes in the upper left of the table are inconsistent. Lower bounds ------------ We now deal with lower bounds for the boxes in the bottom row and right column of the table. First, by Theorem \[square\_ascent\_path\_thm\], $\square(\aleph_2)$ implies the existence of an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree with an $\aleph_0$-ascent path. By results of Jensen and Todorčević (see [[@jensen_fine_structure Section 6]]{} and [[@MR908147 (1.10)]]{}), a failure of $\square(\aleph_2)$ implies that $\aleph_2$ is weakly compact in $L$. Therefore, the consistency of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ implies the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal, which takes care of all three boxes in the right column of the table. By Lemma \[lemma:AllAscentSquareFails\], the assumption that $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ holds implies a failure of $\square(\kappa)$ and, as above, we can conclude that the consistency of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ implies the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal. Finally, Jensen’s principle $\square_{\aleph_1}$ implies the existence of a special $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree and, by a result of Jensen in [@jensen_fine_structure], the failure of $\square_{\aleph_1}$ implies that $\aleph_2$ is Mahlo in $L$. In particular, the consistency of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ implies the consistency of a Mahlo cardinal, thus finishing our derivation of lower bounds. Upper bounds ------------ We finally deal with upper bounds. First, Theorem \[all\_ascent\_path\_thm\] shows that the consistency of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ follows from the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal. Since $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ implies $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}. \neg S({{\mathbb{T}}})$, it follows that the consistency of the conjunction of these two statements follows from the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal. Next, in [@MR603771], Laver and Shelah prove that the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal implies the consistency of Souslin’s Hypothesis at $\aleph_2$. A straightforward and well-known strengthening of their argument yields that the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal in fact implies the consistency of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$. Since $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ implies $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}. \neg A({{\mathbb{T}}})$, it follows that the consistency of the conjunction of these two statements follows from the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal. Moreover, it immediately follows that the conjunction of $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ and $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}. \neg A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ follows from the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal. Since $\square_{\aleph_1}$ implies the existence both of a special $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree and an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree with an $\aleph_0$-ascent path, it follows that the consistency of the conjunction of $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ and $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ does not require large cardinals. Suppose $\kappa$ is the least Mahlo cardinal in ${{\rm{L}}}$, and force over ${{\rm{L}}}$ with the partial order constructed by Mitchell in [@MR0313057] for $\kappa$. Then there are no special $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees in the extension. Since $\kappa$ is not weakly compact in ${{\rm{L}}}$, $\square(\aleph_2)$ holds in the extension, so, by Corollary \[square\_ascent\_path\_cor\], there is an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree with an $\aleph_0$-ascent path. It follows that the consistency of the conjunction of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ and $\exists {{\mathbb{T}}}.A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ follows from the consistency of a Mahlo cardinal. Finally, Theorem \[no\_special\_no\_ascent\_thm\] shows that the consistency of the conjunction of $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg S({{\mathbb{T}}})$ and $\forall {{\mathbb{T}}}.\neg A({{\mathbb{T}}})$ follows from the consistency of a weakly compact cardinal, thus completing the table. Chain conditions {#section:ChainConditions} ================ The first part of this section is devoted to the proofs of Theorem \[square\_productivity\_thm\] and \[KnasterLayered\_thm\]. In the second part, we will use ideas from Section \[ConsResultsTrees\] to construct a model of set theory in which the class of all partial orders satisfying the $\kappa$-chain condition exhibits an interesting product behavior. Suppose that $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}} = {\langle{C_{\alpha,i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$ is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence, and $i < \lambda$. 1. We define $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_i = {\{{\alpha \in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}~\vert~{i(\alpha) = i}\}}$ and $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\leq}i} = {\{{\alpha \in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}~\vert~{i(\alpha) \leq i}\}}$. The sets $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{<} i}$, $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{>} i}$, etc. are defined analogously. 2. We let ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ denote the tree with underlying set $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\leq} i}$ and $$\alpha <_{{{\mathbb{T}}}_i^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}} \beta ~ \Longleftrightarrow ~ \alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta, i})$$ for all $\alpha, \beta \in S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\leq} i}$. \[lemma:TreeIndexedSquareSpecialSubset\] Let $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}=\langle C_{\alpha, i} \mid \alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda \rangle$ be a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa,\lambda)$-sequence and let $i<\lambda$. If the tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ has height $\kappa$, then the set $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{>}i}$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Set ${{\mathbb{T}}}={{\mathbb{T}}}_i^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and $S = S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{>i}$. Let $A$ denote the set of all $\alpha\in{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ with ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}\neq\emptyset$. Given $\alpha\in A$, define $s(\alpha)=\sup({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)})$. Since $\alpha\geq{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}\in S$, we have $\alpha\notin S$ and therefore $\alpha>{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}$ holds for all $\alpha\in A$. This shows that $s(\alpha)\leq{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}<\alpha$, $s(\alpha)\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})$, $i(s(\alpha))\leq i$ and $s(\alpha)\in{{\mathbb{T}}}$. Moreover, we have ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap S=\emptyset$ and hence $s(\alpha)<{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}$ for all $\alpha\in A$. Given $\beta\in{{\mathbb{T}}}$, define $A_\beta$ to be the set of all $<_{{\mathbb{T}}}$-minimal elements $\gamma$ in $s^{{-}1}``\{\beta\}$. Let $B$ denote the set of all $\alpha\in A$ with $\alpha\notin A_{s(\alpha)}$, and let ${{r}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}$ denote the unique function with the following properties: 1. If $\alpha\in B$, then $r(\alpha)$ is the unique element $\gamma$ of $A_{s(\alpha)}$ with $\gamma<_{{\mathbb{T}}}\alpha$. 2. If $\alpha\in A\setminus B$, then $r(\alpha)=s(\alpha)$. 3. If $\alpha\in({{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S)\setminus A$ is not minimal in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then we define $r(\alpha)=\min({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i}))$. 4. If $\alpha\in{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ is minimal in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then we define $r(\alpha)=\alpha$. By the above remarks, the function $r$ is regressive on ${{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$. Fix $\gamma\in{{\mathbb{T}}}$ and let ${{c_\gamma}:{r^{{-}1}``\{\gamma\}}\longrightarrow{\omega\times\kappa}}$ denote the unique function with the following properties: 1. If $\alpha\in B$, then $c_\gamma(\alpha)=\langle 0,{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}\rangle$. 2. If $\alpha\in A\setminus B$, then $c_\gamma(\alpha)=\langle 1,0\rangle$. 3. If $\alpha\in({{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S)\setminus A$ is not minimal in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then $c_\gamma(\alpha)=\langle 2,{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}\rangle$. 4. If $\alpha\in{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ is minimal in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then $c_\gamma(\alpha)=\langle 3,0\rangle$. Then $c_\gamma$ is injective on $<_{{\mathbb{T}}}$-chains in $r^{{-}1}``\{\gamma\}$. If $\alpha\in{\mathrm{dom}}(c_\gamma)\setminus A$ is not minimal in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, then we have ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\neq\emptyset$, ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}=\emptyset$ and therefore $${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)} ~ \leq ~ \min({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})) ~ = ~ r(\alpha) ~ = ~ \gamma.$$ Next, pick $\alpha\in B\cap{\mathrm{dom}}(c_\gamma)$. Then we have ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}<\alpha$, $\gamma\in A_{s(\alpha)}\subseteq A\subseteq{{\mathbb{T}}}\restriction S$ and $\gamma<_{{\mathbb{T}}}\alpha$. This implies that ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\gamma)}<\min\{{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)},\gamma\}$, $C_{\gamma,i}=C_{\alpha,i}\cap\gamma$ and $$\max({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}) ~ = ~ \max({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\gamma,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\gamma)}) ~ = ~ \max({\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\gamma)}).$$ In particular, we have ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap[{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\gamma)},{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)})=\emptyset$ and therefore ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)}\leq\gamma$, because otherwise we would have $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i})\cap[{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\gamma)},{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}}}(\alpha)})$. These computations show that the range of $c_\gamma$ has cardinality strictly less than $\kappa$. The following type of partial order will be crucial in our construction of Knaster partial orders with interesting product behavior. \[definition:SpecializiationForcing\] Given a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$, we let ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ denote the partial order consisting of finite partial functions ${{f}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}}\xrightarrow{part}{\omega}}$ that are injective on $<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}}$-chains and that are ordered by reverse inclusion. Remember that a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is extensional at limit levels if ${\mathrm{pred}}_{{\mathbb{T}}}(s)\neq{\mathrm{pred}}_{{\mathbb{T}}}(t)$ holds for every limit ordinal $\alpha$ and all $s,t\in{{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)$ with $s\neq t$. \[knaster\_lemma\] Let $\kappa$ be an uncountable regular cardinal, let $\mu<\kappa$ be a (possibly finite) cardinal with $\nu^\mu<\kappa$ for all $\nu<\mu$, let $S$ be a subset of $E^\kappa_{{>}\mu}$ that is stationary in $\kappa$, and let ${\langle{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}~\vert~{\gamma<\mu}\rangle}$ be a sequence of trees of height at most $\kappa$ that are extensional at limit levels. Assume that $S$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$ for every $\gamma<\lambda$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)}=\kappa$. Then the full support product $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$ is $\kappa$-Knaster. Since two conditions in a partial order of the form ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ are compatible if and only if their union is a condition, it suffices to prove the statement for trees of cardinality $\kappa$, because we can always consider trees of this form that are given by the downward closures of the unions of the domains of $\kappa$-sequences of conditions. Note that every such tree is isomorphic to a tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ with the property that the underlying set of ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ is a subset of $\kappa\times\kappa$, we have ${{\mathbb{T}}}(\alpha)\subseteq\{\alpha\}\times\kappa$ for all $\alpha<\kappa$ and $\langle\alpha_0,\beta_0\rangle <_{{\mathbb{T}}}\langle\alpha_1,\beta_1\rangle$ implies $\beta_0<\beta_1$ for all nodes $\langle\alpha_0,\beta_0\rangle$ and $\langle\alpha_1,\beta_1\rangle$ in ${{\mathbb{T}}}$. Assume that all trees in the above sequence are of this form and fix a sequence ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ of conditions in $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$. If $\gamma<\mu$ and ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)}=\kappa$, then we also fix functions ${{r_\gamma}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma\restriction S}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}$ and ${\langle{{{c^\gamma_t}:{r_\gamma^{{-}1}``\{t\}}\longrightarrow{\kappa^\gamma_t}}}~\vert~{t\in{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}\rangle}$ witnessing the non-stationarity of $S$ with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$. In the other case, if $\gamma<\mu$ and ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)}<\kappa$, then we let ${{r_\gamma}:{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma\restriction S}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}$ denote the unique regressive function with ${{{\rm{ran}}(r_\gamma)}}\subseteq{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma(0)$ and we set $c^\gamma_{r_\gamma(t)}(t)={{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}$ for all $t\in{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma\restriction S$. Now, define ${{\mathbb{D}}}_\gamma$ to be the set of all conditions $p$ in ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$ with the property that for all $t,u\in{\mathrm{dom}}(p)$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}<{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(u)}$, there is $s\in{\mathrm{dom}}(p)$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(s)}={{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}$ and $s<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} u$. Then it is easy to see that ${{\mathbb{D}}}_\gamma$ is a dense subset of ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$ and we can pick a sequence ${\langle{q_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ of conditions in $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$ with $q_\alpha(\gamma)\leq_{{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)}p_\alpha(\gamma)$ and $q_\alpha(\gamma)\in{{\mathbb{D}}}_\gamma$ for all $\alpha<\kappa$ and $\gamma<\mu$. By our assumptions on the trees ${{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$, there is a club $C$ of limit ordinals in $\kappa$ with the property that ${\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\subseteq\beta\times\beta$ holds for all $\alpha,\beta\in C$ with $\alpha<\beta$ and all $\gamma<\mu$. For all $\alpha\in C$ and $\gamma<\mu$, fix an injective enumeration ${\langle{t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k}~\vert~{k<n_{\alpha,\gamma}}\rangle}$ of the finite set ${\{{t\in{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma(\alpha)}~\vert~{\exists u\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma)) ~ t\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} u}\}}$. Since the trees ${{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$ are extensional at limit levels and $S$ is a subset of $E^\kappa_{{>}\mu}$, there is a regressive function ${{\rho}:{C\cap S}\longrightarrow{\kappa}}$ and a matrix $${\langle{{{\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}}:{n_{\alpha,\gamma}}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma(\rho(\alpha))}}}~\vert~{\alpha\in C\cap S, ~ \gamma<\mu}\rangle}$$ of injections with ${\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\cap{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma_{{<}\alpha}\subseteq{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma_{{<}\rho(\alpha)}$, ${\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\cap(\alpha\times\alpha)\subseteq \rho(\alpha)\times\rho(\alpha)$ and $r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} \iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k) <_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k$ for all $\alpha\in C\cap S$, $\gamma<\mu$ and $k<n_\alpha$. In this situation, the assumption that $\nu^\mu<\kappa$ holds for all $\nu<\kappa$ yields a stationary subset $E$ of $C\cap S$, an ordinal $\xi<\kappa$, a sequence ${\langle{n_\gamma}~\vert~{\gamma<\mu}\rangle}$ of natural numbers, a subset $K\subseteq\mu\times\omega$, a subset $H\subseteq \mu\times\xi$ and a sequence ${\langle{D_\gamma}~\vert~{\gamma<\mu}\rangle}$ of finite subsets of $\kappa\times\kappa$ such that the following statements hold for all $\alpha,\beta\in E$ and $\langle\gamma,k\rangle\in K$: 1. $n_\gamma=n_{\alpha,\gamma}$ and $\rho(\alpha)=\xi$. 2. $K={\{{\langle \gamma,k\rangle}~\vert~{\gamma<\mu, ~ k<n_\gamma, ~ \iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k)\in\alpha\times\alpha}\}}$. 3. $H={\{{\langle\gamma,{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}\rangle}~\vert~{\gamma<\mu, ~ t\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\cap{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma_{{<}\alpha}}\}}$. 4. $D_\gamma={\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\cap(\alpha\times\alpha)$ and $q_\alpha(\gamma)\restriction D_\gamma= q_\beta(\gamma)\restriction D_\gamma$. 5. $\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k)=\iota_{\beta,\gamma}(k)$, $r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)=r_\gamma(t^{\beta,\gamma}_k)$ and $c^\gamma_{r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)}(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)=c^\gamma_{r_\gamma(t^{\beta,\gamma}_k)}(t^{\beta,\gamma}_k)$. Now, pick $\alpha,\beta\in E$ with $\alpha<\beta$ and assume for a contradiction that the conditions $q_\alpha$ and $q_\beta$ are incompatible in $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$. Then there is a $\gamma<\mu$ such that $q_\alpha(\gamma)\cup q_\beta(\gamma)$ is not a condition in ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$ and hence there are $<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}$-comparable nodes $t,u\in{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$ such that $t\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))\setminus{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))$, $u\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))\setminus{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))$ and $q_\alpha(\gamma)(t)=q_\beta(\gamma)(u)$. But then $t<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}u$, because otherwise $u<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} t\in\beta\times\beta$ would imply that $u\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))\cap(\beta\times\beta)=D_\gamma\subseteq{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\alpha(\gamma))$. Next, assume that ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}<\alpha$. Then $\langle\gamma,{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}\rangle\in H$ and there is a $t_0\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t_0)}={{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}<{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(u)}$. Since $q_\beta(\gamma)\in{{\mathbb{D}}}_\gamma$, we can find $s\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))$ with ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(s)}={{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t_0)}$ and $s<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} u$. But then $s=t\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_\beta(\gamma))$, a contradiction. This shows that ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}\geq\alpha>\xi$ and hence there is a $k<n_\gamma$ with $t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} t$. But then ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(u)}>{{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(t)}>\xi=\rho(\beta)$ implies that ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(u)}\geq\beta$ and hence there is an $l<n_\gamma$ with $t^{\beta,\gamma}_l\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} u$. Since $t<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}u$ and ${{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k))}=\xi={{\rm{ht}}_{{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}}(\iota_{\beta,\gamma}(l))}$, we know that $\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k)=\iota_{\beta,\gamma}(l)$ and therefore $\iota_{\beta,\gamma}(l)<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} t\in \beta\times\beta$ implies that $\langle\gamma,l\rangle\in K$. This shows that $\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(k)=\iota_{\beta,\gamma}(l)=\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}(l)$ and the injectivity of $\iota_{\alpha,\gamma}$ implies that $k=l$ and $\langle\gamma,k\rangle\in K$. In this situation, the above choices ensure that $r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)=r_\gamma(t^{\beta,\gamma}_k)$ and $c^\gamma_{r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)}(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)=c^\gamma_{r_\gamma(t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k)}(t^{\beta,\gamma}_k)$. Since $t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k\neq t^{\beta,\gamma}_k$, this implies that ${{\rm{ht}}_{{}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)}=\kappa$ and hence the nodes $t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k$ and $t^{\beta,\kappa}_k$ are incompatible in ${{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma$. But this yields a contradiction, because we have $t^{\alpha,\gamma}_k\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} t<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma} u$ and $t^{\beta,\gamma}_k\leq_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma}u$. The above computations show that the sequence ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha\in E}\rangle}$ consists of pairwise compatible conditions in $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^\gamma)$. We now introduce the $\kappa$-Knaster partial order that is used in the proofs of Theorem \[square\_productivity\_thm\] and \[KnasterLayered\_thm\]. \[definition:IndSquareKnasterPO\] Suppose that $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence. We let ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ denote the lottery sum of the sequence ${\langle{{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_i)}~\vert~{i<\lambda}\rangle}$ of partial orders, i.e., conditions in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ are pairs $\langle p,i\rangle$ with $i<\lambda$ and $p\in{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_i)$ and, given $\langle p,i\rangle,\langle q,j\rangle\in{{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$, we have $\langle p,i\rangle\leq_{{{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}}\langle q,j\rangle$ if either $i=j$ and $p\leq_{{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_i)}q$ or $q=\mathbbm{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_j)}$. \[lottery\_sum\_lemma\] Let $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}={\langle{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$ be a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence with the property that the set $E^\kappa_{{\geq}\lambda}\cap S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\geq}i}$ is stationary in $\kappa$ for all $i<\lambda$. 1. If $\mu < \lambda$ is a cardinal with $\nu^\mu < \kappa$ for all $\nu < \kappa$, then the full support product ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\mu$ is $\kappa$-Knaster. 2. The full support product ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\lambda$ does not satisfy the $\kappa$-chain condition. \(1) Let ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ be a sequence of conditions in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\mu$. Since $\lambda^\mu < \kappa$ holds, we may assume that there is a function ${{f}:{\mu}\longrightarrow{\lambda}}$ and a sequence ${\langle{q_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ of conditions in the full support product $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{f(\gamma)})$ with the property that $p_\alpha(\gamma)=\langle q_\alpha(\gamma),f(\gamma)\rangle$ holds for all $\alpha<\kappa$ and $\gamma<\mu$. Set $i_* = {{\rm{lub}}}({{{\rm{ran}}(f)}})<\lambda$. In this situation, Lemma \[lemma:TreeIndexedSquareSpecialSubset\] shows that for every $\gamma<\mu$ with the property that the tree ${{\mathbb{T}}}_{f(\gamma)}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ has height $\kappa$, the set $S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\geq}i_}\subseteq S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{>}f(\gamma)}$ is non-stationary with respect to ${{\mathbb{T}}}_{f(\gamma)}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Since our assumptions imply that the set $E^\kappa_{{\geq}\lambda}\cap S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\geq}i_}$ is stationary in $\kappa$, we can apply Lemma \[knaster\_lemma\] to conclude that the product $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{f(\gamma)})$ is $\kappa$-Knaster. Hence there is an unbounded subset $U$ of $\kappa$ such that the sequence ${\langle{q_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha\in U}\rangle}$ consists of pairwise compatible conditions in $\prod_{\gamma<\mu}{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{f(\gamma)})$ and this implies that the sequence ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha\in U}\rangle}$ consists of pairwise compatible conditions in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\mu$. \(2) Given $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ and $i<\lambda$, the function $\{\langle\alpha,0\rangle\}$ is a condition in the partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{\max\{i,i(\alpha)\}})$. This shows that for every $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$, there is a unique condition $p_\alpha$ in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\lambda$ with $p_\alpha(i)=\langle\{\langle\alpha,0\rangle\},\max\{i,i(\alpha)\}\rangle$ for all $i<\lambda$. Fix $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with $\alpha<\beta$. Then there is $i(\beta)\leq i < \lambda$ such that $\alpha \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\beta,i})$. This implies that $i\geq i(\alpha)$, $C_{\alpha,i}=C_{\beta,i}\cap\alpha$ and $\alpha<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_i}\beta$. We can conclude that the conditions $p_\alpha(i)=\langle\{\langle\alpha,0\rangle\},i\rangle$ and $p_\beta(i)=\langle\{\langle\beta,0\rangle\},i\rangle$ are incompatible in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\mathcal{C}}$ and therefore the condition $p_\alpha$ and $p_\beta$ are incompatible in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\mathcal{C}}^\lambda$. These computations show that the sequence ${\langle{p_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}\rangle}$ enumerates an antichain in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}^\lambda$. The statement of Theorem \[square\_productivity\_thm\] now follows directly from an application of Theorem \[square\_building\_thm\] with $S=E^\kappa_{{\geq}\lambda}$ and Lemma \[lottery\_sum\_lemma\]. Moreover, by combining the above with the results of [@MR3620068], we can show that $\square(\kappa)$ implies the existence of a $\kappa$-Knaster partial order that is not $\kappa$-stationarily layered. Assume that $\kappa$ is an uncountable regular cardinal with the property that every $\kappa$-Knaster partial order is $\kappa$-stationarily layered. Then [[@MR3620068 Theorem 1.11]]{} shows that $\kappa$ is a Mahlo cardinal with the property that every stationary subset of $\kappa$ reflects. Assume, towards a contradiction, that $\square(\kappa)$ holds. In this situation, we can apply Theorem \[square\_building\_thm\] to obtain a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa,\aleph_0)$-sequence $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}={\langle{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \omega}\rangle}$ with the property that there exists a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence ${\langle{D_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ such that ${\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)\subseteq{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i(\alpha)})$ holds for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$. The set ${\{{\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}~\vert~{{\mathrm{otp}}(D_\alpha)<\alpha}\}}$ is not stationary in $\kappa$. Assume, for a contradiction, that the set is stationary in $\kappa$. Then a pressing down argument yields $\xi<\kappa$ such that the set $$E ~ = ~ {\{{\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)}~\vert~{{\mathrm{otp}}(D_\alpha)=\xi}\}}$$ is stationary in $\kappa$. By the above remarks, there is an $\alpha<\kappa$ such that ${\mathrm{cof}}(\alpha)>\omega$ and the set $E\cap\alpha$ is stationary in $\alpha$. But then we can find $\beta,\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)\cap E$ with $\gamma<\beta$. This implies that $D_\gamma=D_\beta\cap\gamma$ and hence $\xi={\mathrm{otp}}(D_\gamma)<{\mathrm{otp}}(D_\beta)=\xi$, a contradiction. By the above claim, we can find a club $C$ in $\kappa$ consisting of strong limit cardinals such that ${\mathrm{otp}}(D_\alpha)=\alpha$ holds for all $\alpha\in C$. Let ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ denote the partial order defined in Definition \[definition:IndSquareKnasterPO\]. Then a combination of Theorem \[square\_building\_thm\] with Lemma \[lottery\_sum\_lemma\] implies that ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is $\kappa$-Knaster and, by our assumption, this shows that ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is $\kappa$-stationarily layered. Pick a sufficiently large regular cardinal $\theta>\kappa$. Then [[@MR3620068 Lemma 2.3]]{} shows that there is an elementary substructure $M$ of ${{\rm{H}}(\theta)}$ of cardinality less than $\kappa$ and $\alpha\in C$ such that $\alpha=\kappa\cap M$, $\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}\in M$, and ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap M$ is a regular suborder of ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Set $p_0=\{\langle\alpha,0\rangle\}$. Then $p=\langle p_0,i(\alpha)\rangle$ is a condition ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and there is a reduct $q$ of $p$ in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap M$, i.e., $q\in M$ is a condition in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ with the property that for every $r\in{{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap M$ with $r\leq_{{{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}}q$, the conditions $p$ and $r$ are compatible in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Then there is a condition $q_0$ in ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{i(\alpha)})\cap M$ with $q=\langle q_0,i(\alpha)\rangle$. Since the conditions $p_0$ and $q_0$ are compatible in ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{i(\alpha)})$, we know that $q_0(\beta)\neq 0$ holds for all $\beta\in{\mathrm{dom}}(q_0)$ with $\beta<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{i(\alpha)}}\alpha$. Since $\alpha={\mathrm{otp}}(D_\alpha)$ is a cardinal and ${\mathrm{dom}}(q_0)$ is a finite subset of $\alpha$, there is a $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(D_\alpha)$ with ${\mathrm{dom}}(q_0)\subseteq\gamma$. Then $\gamma\in{\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha,i(\alpha)})$, $i(\gamma)\leq i(\alpha)$ and $\gamma<_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{i(\alpha)}}\alpha$. Moreover, the above remarks show that $r=\langle q_0\cup\{\langle\gamma,0\rangle\},i(\alpha)\rangle\in M$ is a condition in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ that strengthens $q$. But this implies that the conditions $p$ and $r$ are compatible in ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$, a contradiction. The proof of the following result is similar to that of Theorem \[all\_ascent\_path\_thm\] presented in Section \[ConsResultsTrees\]. Let $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal with $\mathbbm{1}_{{{\rm{Add}}({\kappa},{1})}}\Vdash$. If $\lambda < \kappa$ is an infinite, regular cardinal, then the following statements hold in a cofinality-preserving forcing extension of the ground model: 1. There is a $\kappa$-Knaster partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}$ such that ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\mu$ is $\kappa$-Knaster for all $\mu < \lambda$, but ${{\mathbb{P}}}^\lambda$ does not satisfy the $\kappa$-chain condition. 2. If ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a partial order with the property that ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition, then ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\theta$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition for all $\theta < \kappa$. Let ${{\mathbb{P}}}= {{\mathbb{P}}}(\kappa, \lambda)$ be the forcing notion from Definition \[ind\_square\_forcing\_def\] that adds a $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence, let $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the generically-added $\square^{\mathrm{ind}}(\kappa, \lambda)$-sequence, and, for all $i < \lambda$, let $\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i$ be a ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-name for the partial order ${{\mathbb{T}}}_i(\dot{{\mathcal{C}}})$ defined in Definition \[definition:POthreadIndexedSquare\]. If $i < \lambda$, then our assumptions imply that $\kappa$ is weakly compact in all $({{\mathbb{P}}}* \dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i)$-generic extensions of ${{\rm{V}}}$. Let $G$ be ${{\mathbb{P}}}$-generic over $V$, and let $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}^G = \vec{{\mathcal{C}}} = {\langle{C_{\alpha, i}}~\vert~{\alpha < \kappa, ~ i(\alpha) \leq i < \lambda}\rangle}$ be the realization of $\dot{{\mathcal{C}}}$. Given $i < j < \lambda$, set ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i=\dot{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}_i^G$ and let ${{\pi_{i,j}}:{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}\longrightarrow{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_j}}$ be the projection map given by $\pi_{i,j}(C_{\alpha, i})=C_{\alpha, j}$. We claim that ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ is the desired forcing extension. By Lemma \[lemma:PropertiesGenericIndexedSquare\], the set $E^\kappa_{{\geq}\lambda}\cap S^{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}_{{\geq}i}$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$ in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ for all $i<\lambda$. In this situation, Lemma \[lottery\_sum\_lemma\] shows that the partial order ${{\mathbb{P}}}_{\vec{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ from Definition \[definition:IndSquareKnasterPO\] witnesses that the above statement (1) holds. Let us now show that requirement (2) holds in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. To this end, work in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ and fix a partial order ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition. There is an $i < \lambda$ and a condition $q$ in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i$ such that $$q \Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{$\check{{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ satisfies the $\check{\kappa}$-chain condition}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$$ Suppose not. Given $i < \lambda$, this assumption yields a sequence ${\langle{\dot{r}_{i, \eta}}~\vert~{\eta < \kappa}\rangle}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i$-names for elements of ${\mathbb}{R}$ such that $$\mathbbm{1}_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}\Vdash{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{The conditions $\dot{r}_{i,\eta}$ and $\dot{r}_{i,\xi}$ are incompatible in $\check{{{\mathbb{R}}}}$}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$$ for all $\eta<\xi<\kappa$. For each $\eta < \kappa$, use Lemma \[deciding\_lemma\] to find $q_\eta \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}_0$ and a sequence ${\langle{r_{i, \eta}}~\vert~{i<\lambda}\rangle}$ of conditions in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\pi_{0,i}(q_\eta)\Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\dot{r}_{i,\eta}=\check{r}_{i,\eta}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}$ for all $i < \lambda$. Given $\eta < \kappa$, pick $\alpha_\eta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$ with $q_\eta = C_{\alpha_\eta, 0}$. For each $\eta < \lambda$, let $s_\eta$ denote the unique condition in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$ with $s_\eta(i) = r_{i, \eta}$ for all $i < \lambda$. Fix $\eta,\xi < \lambda$ with $\alpha_\eta < \alpha_\xi$ and $i < \lambda$ with $\alpha_\eta \in {\mathrm{acc}}(C_{\alpha_\xi,j})$ for all $i \leq j < \lambda$. Given $i \leq j < \lambda$, we then have $\pi_{0,i}(q_\xi) \leq_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i} \pi_{0,i}(q_\eta)$ and therefore $$\pi_{0,i}(q_\xi) \Vdash_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_i}{{\text{``}\hspace{0.3ex}{\textit{$\dot{r}_{i, \eta} = \check{r}_{i,\eta}$ and $\dot{r}_{i, \xi} = \check{r}_{i,\xi}$}}\hspace{0.3ex}\text{''}}}.$$ In particular, the conditions $s_\eta(i)$ and $s_\xi(i)$ are incompatible in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, and therefore the conditions $s_\eta$ and $s_\xi$ are incompatible in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$. But this shows that ${\{{s_\eta}~\vert~{\eta < \kappa}\}}$ is an antichain in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$ of size $\kappa$, contradicting our assumption that ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\lambda$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition. Fix $i$ and $q$ as given in the claim, and $\theta<\kappa$. Let $H$ be ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i$-generic over ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$ with $q \in H$. In ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$, $\kappa$ is weakly compact and ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition. By the weak compactness of $\kappa$, it follows that ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\theta$ is $\kappa$-Knaster in ${{\rm{V}}}[G,H]$. Since ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_i$ is ${<}\kappa$-distributive in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$, we have $({{\mathbb{R}}}^\theta)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G]}=({{\mathbb{R}}}^\theta)^{{{\rm{V}}}[G,H]}$. Moreover, since the property of satisfying the $\kappa$-chain condition is easily seen to be downward absolute, we can conclude that ${{\mathbb{R}}}^\theta$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition in ${{\rm{V}}}[G]$. [^1]: During the preparation of this paper, the second author was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the grant LU2020/1-1. The initial results of this paper were obtained while the authors were participating in the Intensive Research Program on Large Cardinals and Strong Logics at the Centre de Recerca Matemàtica in Barcelona during the fall of 2016. The authors would like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to participate in the program. Further results were obtained while the first author was visiting the second author in Bonn during the spring of 2017. The first author would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the financial support of this visit through the above grant. [^2]: A summary of basic definitions concerning set-theoretic trees can be found in Section \[BasicDefinitions\]. [^3]: Given an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$, a $\square(\kappa)$-sequence ${\langle{C_\alpha}~\vert~{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle}$ avoids a stationary subset $S$ of $\kappa$ if ${\mathrm{acc}}(C_\alpha)\cap S=\emptyset$ holds for all $\alpha\in{\mathrm{acc}}(\kappa)$. [^4]: This definition refers to Jech’s notion of stationarity in ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}(A)}$: a subset of ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}(A)}$ is stationary in ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}(A)}$ if it meets every subset of ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}(A)}$ which is $\subseteq$-continuous and cofinal in ${{\mathcal{P}}_{\kappa}(A)}$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A mechanism to derive non-repetitive coverage path solutions with a proven minimal number of discontinuities is proposed in this work, with the aim to avoid unnecessary, costly end effector lift-offs for manipulators. The problem is motivated by the automatic polishing of an object. Due to the non-bijective mapping between the workspace and the joint-space, a continuous coverage path in the workspace may easily be truncated in the joint-space, incuring undesirable end effector lift-offs. Inversely, there may be multiple configuration choices to cover the same point of a coverage path through the solution of the Inverse Kinematics. The solution departs from the conventional local optimisation of the coverage path shape in task space, or choosing appropiate but possibly disconnected configurations, to instead explicitly explore the least number of discontinuous motions through the analysis of the structure of valid configurations in joint-space. The two novel contributions of this paper include proof that the least number of path discontinuities is predicated on the surrounding environment, independent from the choice of the actual coverage path; thus has a minimum. And an efficient finite cellular decomposition method to optimally divide the workspace into the minimum number of cells, each traversable without discontinuities by any arbitrary coverage path within. Extensive simulation examples and real-world results on a 5 DoF manipulator are presented to prove the validity of the proposed strategy in realistic settings.' author: - 'Tong Yang$^1$, Jaime Valls Miro$^2$ , Qianen Lai$^1$, Yue Wang$^{1}$ and Rong Xiong$^1$ [^1] [^2] [^3]' bibliography: - 'min\_removal.bib' title: 'Cellular Decomposition for Non-repetitive Coverage Task with Minimum Discontinuities' --- Introduction ============ non-repetitive coverage task* of a given object is an important application carried out by manipulators. This is for instance the case of inspecting a surface for defects at close range, painting, deburring or polishing. The task is effectively encapsulated as the generic coverage path planning (CPP) [@choset2001coverage] [@galceran2013a] problem, which requires for the end-effector (EE) to traverse over all the points that define the surface of a given object exactly one time, whilst usually fulfilling additional task-specific constraints (e.g. sustain a desired orientation of the EE with respect to the surface, maintain contact or exerting a constant EE force/torque). Typically, joint-space dimension is higher than the workspace’s, and the Inverse Kinematic (IK) mapping between task and joint space is thus non-bijective. As a result, planning in the higher dimension joint-space cannot ensure non-repetitive visiting, and coverage paths are thus more suited to be designed directly in the workspace domain [@Oriolo2005Motion]. Yet what constitutes a continuous coverage path in the workspace may easily end up truncated into many seemingly intermittent sections after mapping them back onto the joint-space, with undersirable path discontinuities, as graphically illustrated by Fig. \[fig1\]. This is also the case if a simplistic greedy strategy is followed, as the example depicted in Fig. \[fig:greedy\], whereby a complete path in task space that solves for all possible configurations leads to unnecessary lift-offs to accomplish full coverage. Singularities have been proven to be at the origin of these bifurcations of the joint-space [@porta2010path] [@Porta2012Randomized], sitting at the intersection of different configurations (e.g. elbow-up and elbow-down). Notwithstanding singularities, for non-redundant manipulators, non-singular configurations thus form disjoint sets in the joint-space, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\], and continuous joint-space paths between sets must then visit singularities along the way for full coverage.The problem is further compounded by additional task constraints, most notably obstacles, which produce usable configurations further divided into many disjoint sets, inevitably incurring undesirable“jumps” between sets for successful coverage, as very rarely the whole workspace ends up mapped into a single set. This work advocates for the minimisation of the cost incurred on these path discontinuities, which can significantly outweigh any improvements proposed in the literature that may occur locally in the task space when it comes to coverage [@hassan2018a]. This is perhaps more apparent for the case of the uniform polishing task motivating this work, as that means lifting the EE off the object’s surface, adjusting the pose of the manipulator to the new configuration, and landing back into contact with the surface again. This may be not only sub-optimal for the speedy completion of the CPP task, but also introduces potentially avoidable complexity in transitioning between position and force/torque control [@cheah2003brief] [@heck2015switched] [@mirrazavi2018a] [@solanes2018adaptive] [@solanes2019robust] during the coverage task. In this work, a mechanism is proposed to address this shortcoming and derive CPP solutions with a proven minimal number of discontinuities, with the aim to avoid unnecessary, costly EE lift-offs. The solution departs from locally optimising the shape of the coverage path in task space, or choosing appropiate but possibly disconnected configurations, but explicitly seeking for least number of discontinuous motions through the analysis of the structure of valid configurations in the joint-space. The two novel contributions of this paper can be summarised as: 1. Proving that the minimum number of path discontinuities, or “lift-offs”, for the non-repetitive coverage task with non-redundant manipulators is independent of the actual choice of coverage path. Instead, it is predicated on the surrounding environment - the relative pose between manipulator, object and the presence of any obstacles - and this motivates to formulate the problem as a global cellular decomposition process. On a side note, this also implies that the proposed scheme can be exploited as a criterion to evaluate the most advantageous placement of a manipulator, or object to be manipulated (e.g. polished, painted), both in a fixed configuration (automated production line), or in a mobile manipulation environment. 2. Proposing an effective finite cellular decomposition method to divide a worskpace surface into the least number of cells whereby each is ensured to be traversable by any arbitrary inner path without incurring discontinuities. The remainder of this paper [^4] is organised as follows. Section \[sectionrelatedwork\] reviews existing literature. Section \[sectionproblemformulation\] describes the proposed abstraction of the problem into a topological graph of surface cells corresponding to feasible, continuous configurations, hence administering the tools to prove that the number of path discontinuities for the CPP problem can be made independent to the eventual coverage path chosen. Section \[sectionenumerativesolver\] goes into further details about the process of finitely resolving the surface into cell elements, whilst Section \[sectioniterativesolver\] reports on the proposed iterative strategy to build on the cell elements to ensure CPP with a minimum number of discontinuitues. Experimental results from simulations and on an actual non-reduntant manipulator are collected in Section \[sectionexperiment\], with final concluding remarks gathered in Section \[sectionconclusion\]. Related Work {#sectionrelatedwork} ============ Almost all state-of-the-art methods to solve the CPP problem first divide the robot’s workspace area and then solve the CPP problem in each cell, so called cellular decomposition, which is generally further divided into two categories: exact cellular decomposition methods [@lumelsky1990dynamic] and Morse-based cellular decomposition methods [@choset2000exact] [@Acar2002Morse]. Exact cellular decomposition methods divide the free space into several simple, easy sub-regions, and use conventional coverage paths, such as trapezoidal [@choset2005principles] or the boustrophedon paths [@choset1998coverage] [@choset2000coverage], to finish coverage in each cell. Morse-based cellular decomposition methods apply divisions of the free space based on the critical points of Morse functions to present more flexible shapes for cells over those extratcted by exact cellular decomposition. A combination of Morse decomposition and Voronoi diagrams [@choset2000sensor-based] has also been proposed, particularly fitting to cover vast open spaces and narrow areas simultaneously. Optimality of CPP algorithms mainly focus on metrics such as path length and time to completion. Atkar et al. [@Atkar2003Towards] optimised the coverage path through chossing optimal starting points. Huang [@huang2001optimal] reduced movement cost by remaining on straight paths as long as possible thus minimising the number of turns. Jimenez et al. [@jimenez2007optimal] used a genetic algorithm to achieve optimal coverage. Whilst generic, the context of these coverage works has almost invariably been motivated by mobile robots operating on 2- or 2.5-dimensional terrains. However, for manipulator, this essay advocates avoiding unnecessary path lift-off discontinuities as that decidedly outweighs any other performance metric improvement that my be achieved during the coverage process, e.g., by switching between differing geometric paths such as boustrophedon and spirals as proposed in the works of Hassan and Liu [@hassan2018a]. These discontinuities in the CPP task are inherent to the kinematics of manipulator mechanisms, and as such the algorithms designed for mobile robots do not need to deal with this problem. We notice that [@paus2017a] considered the pose optimisation of a mobile manipulator for coverage, searching for a valid criterion for the adequacy of the relative pose between manipulator and object(s) to be handled, under the assumption that repositioning the robot is costly and that simultaneous repositioning and end-effector motion is not desired. Problem Formulation {#sectionproblemformulation} =================== In this section, we first state the problem of optimal coverage path planning ensuring least number of discontinuites. The problem is tailored to a polishing task with the introduction of additional task-specific constraints, as per the motivation of this work. These could be waived for a more generic exercise. Then, we show that the least number of discontinuities is independent of the choice of physical coverage path, so the original problem is transformed to an optimal cellular decomposition problem. Finally, the minimisation problem is further transformed to a colouring problem of the derived graph ensuring least number of different colors. Problem Statement ----------------- Given the surface of an object, the kinematics of the manipulator, the shape of other obstacles in the workspace, and their relative poses, a valid coverage path consists of all valid joint-space poses of the manipulator which satisfy the following constraints: 1. Kinematic: the resulting manipulator motion is collision-free. When the EE contacts the surface, its $z$-axis is align with the normal vector of the surface at the contact point. 2. Force: when the EE contacts the surface, the manipulator is able to exert the required force along the $z$-axis. 3. Manipulability: when the EE contacts the surface, the manipulator should remain well-conditioned (under given manipulability measure [@yoshikawa1990translational]), to dispensing with arising pertubations. The optimal CPP problem is to find a valid joint-space path whereby the manipulator EE covers the workspace non-repetitively and ensures the least number of discontinuities. A point contact between surface and EE is assumed. Independence from the Physical Coverage Path -------------------------------------------- An observation which simplifies the original problem is that manipulators are locally omni-directional in the joint-space, and configurations corresponding to a segment of coverage path without lift-off have high dimensional continuity in the joint-space, independently of their sequencing order. As a result, this work is inspired to consider only continuous regions in the joint-space and its corresponding reachable area in the workspace, instead of coverage paths in the task space, which is equivalent to a cellular decomposition problem in the workspace considering joint-space continuity. Under this equivalence, complete visiting of each cell is guaranteed with any arbitraty joint-space continuous path within, without discontinuities. Hence, once the cells are determined, the CPP problem within each cell is trivial, effectively transforming the design of the global coverage path in the traditional sense into a global cellular decomposition problem in joint-space, optimal in the number of lift-offs by incuring workspace partitions with minimum sets. Modeling -------- Let $\mathscr{C}$ be the set of all valid configurations and $M$ be the set of all reachable points on the surface. The pose of the EE is also denoted by $M$ since there is an one-to-one correspondence between the pose of the EE and the point on the surface, so we do not distinguish them. Given a configuration $p \in \mathscr{C}$ covering $m\in M$, following the joint-space continuity, there exist a neighborhood $(p\in)U_p\subset \mathscr{C}$ that can be reached continuously (without lift-off) from $p$, covering a section of surface $(m\in )V_{m}\subset M$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[figsquare\], where the poses reached by the manipulator configuration depicted in vivid colour can be reached continuously - shown in vivid cyan. If any of them is chosen as $p$, then all of them are in $U_p$. Assuming there are some other unassigned configurations, i.e., $\mathscr{C}\backslash U_p\neq \varnothing$, choosing another $p'\in \mathscr{C}\backslash U_p$ specifies another set $V_{m'}\subset M$ - e.g. the shaded configurations depicted in Fig. \[figsquare\]. It is evident that $U_{p'} \cap U_{p} = \varnothing$. On repeating this process, all configurations are assigned a colour. Let the number of configurations be infinite. Actually, each valid configuration implies an open neighbourhood of valid configurations covering an open region on the surface (defined sub-resolutionally if the input data is discretized, like a triangular mesh in our case). The family of all open regions on the surface implied by all valid configurations is an infinite open cover of the whole surface which, with physical meanning, must have boundary. Then, even if there are infinite many open regions in the family, the Heine-Borel theorem in mathematical analysis claims the existance of a subcover with finite open regions. The finiteness of a discretized input data is trivial because the number of configurations is also finite. As such, $\mathscr{C}$ is divided into a finite number of disjoint sets, denoted by a finite number of different colors. The problem also exploits the concept of a cell defined on the task-space, following the standard terminology of conventional cellular decomposition methods, but with the additional property of homogeneity. This is established on noticing that IK mapping from reachable points in the workspace to a single set of configurations is injective, since there is no non-singular path connecting two configurations whose EEs are at a same point (see graphic example in Fig. \[fig1\]). The injectivity of each branch of the IK is the motivation to map the property of joint-space continuity back on to the surface, thus the algorithm can be visualized by drawing colors on the surface to form cells beloging to the same configuration class (colour). Refering to the same square coverage example, Fig. \[flowchart\] shows how $\mathscr{C}$ is divided into 4 disjoint sets. Since different IK solutions possess distinct colors, the available colors for points can be used to classify them. Let $\{c_i\}, i = 1, n$ be all the colors used, then for two points $m_1, m_2\in M$ their sets of available colors are $c_{m_1} = \{c_{11}, \cdots, c_{1i}\}, c_{m_2} = \{c_{21}, \cdots, c_{2j}\}$. We then say that $m_1$ and $m_2$ belong to the same cell if and only if $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & m_1,m_2 \mbox{ are connected}\\ %\mbox{ and } & \{c_{11}, \cdots, c_{1i}\} = \{c_{21}, \cdots, c_{2j}\} \end{aligned} \right.$$ Typically, for a triangular mesh surface as is our case, connectivity is provided by the edges of the mesh. Fig. \[flowchart\] shows the creation of the cells. Finally, a topological graph is created, whose elements are cells. Each cell possesses an index, records the possible colors and the indices of its adjacet cells in order, as per the example in Fig. \[figforcolor\]. Since the number of colors is finite, the number of possible combinations of colors is also finite, which can be ordered as $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\{c_1\}, \cdots, \{c_n\}\\ &\{c_1, c_2\}, \cdots, \{c_1, c_n\}, \{c_2, c_3\}, \cdots, \{c_2, c_n\}, \cdots, \{c_{n-1}, c_n\}\\ &\cdots\ \mbox{(with all $i$-element combinations in the $i$-th row)}\\ &\{c_1, \cdots, c_n\} \end{aligned} \right.$$ For each combination of colors, the number of corresponding cells is finite, unless there are infinite many small cells with area zero, which is physically meaningless for the coverage task of the robots. In all, the number of cells must be finite. After creating the topological graph, the cellular decomposition process is transformed into painting all points in a graph with one of their available colors. The number of solutions to “painting” the full graph means the number of coverage path segments, where discontinuities are required in between, with the minimum(s) as best solution. Two valid solutions exist for the example in Fig. \[flowchart\]. In summary, the proposed model of colouring a point in the surface to be covered means selecting a given IK solution for it, and the planning problem is thus transfered to designing a colour scheme for a topological configuration graph. Enumerative Solver for Cellular Decomposition {#sectionenumerativesolver} ============================================= The difficulty of solving the coloring problem is that, although points are gathered into homogeneous cells, they can be filled in with different colors, instead of only being seen as a whole and drawn with a single colour. The counter-example in Fig. \[figsimpleexample\] illustrates this phenomenon. By efficiently discarding equivalent cellular decompositions, it can be proven that the total number of different cellular decompositions is finite, thus all optimal solutions are finitely solvable. Finiteness of Divisions {#subsectionproof} ----------------------- Since any path starting and ending at the boundary of a cell will divide the cell into two parts, there are infinite many physical solutions of dividing a cell into parts. However, there are only finite classes of them from a topological structure viewpoint because of the equivalence of physical divisions in the number of lift-offs. Fig. \[figproof\](a) shows how cutting paths which start or end at a point other than an endpoint on an edge are unnecessary and can be pruned. Let a cutting path end at an arbitrary point of the edge connecting with cell 3. From the definition of a cutting path, it implicitly enforces cell 1 and cell 2 having different colors. If $1\neq 3$ and $2\neq 3$ the division is trivial. Howewer, for the depicted cases when $1=3$ or $2=3$, any cutting paths that start at any endpoint of the edge are equivalent. Hence, for a complete solutoin it is sufficient to only consider cutting paths which start and end at the endpoint of and edge. Fig. \[figproof\](b) shows how cutting paths which go across any edge are unnecessary. Let a cutting path go across an edge, then cell 4 and cell 5 are prevented from being colored together which leads to non-optimality, since they are separated physically by the cutting path. Fig. \[figproof\](c) shows that cutting paths need not go across each other. When two cutting paths intersect, the resulting cutting path segments can be continuously transformed back onto the existing topological edges, and can be safely diregarded. In conclusion, only cutting paths which start and end at the endpoint of topological edges and do not go across each other need to be considered when considering options for cell subdivision, making the total number of topological divisions finite. Solution to Simple Cells {#sec:simple_cell} ------------------------ The following kinds of cells offer simple cases that can be solved directly without further divisions: 1. Cells containing less than four edges. They cannot be divided further into several cells with less number of topological edges. Fig. \[figeasycell3\] enumerates all possible topological divisions for a three-edge cell, which constitutes the most complicated case for direct enumeration. Binary number are used to represent the edge connectivity, $1$ (connected), $0$ (disconnected). It is thus easy to see that there are at most $8$ situations that require consideration. 2. Cells with only one possible colour. Solution to Complex Cells ------------------------- The concept of using binary coding for a simple cell is extended to solve for an arbitrary $n$-edge cell, with the addition of “$\times$” for a yet unspecified connectivity state that emanates from these more complex scenarios. For this binary combination, there are less than $2^n\times m$ branches for an $n$-edge cell with $m$ possible colors, so the problem remains finite. An example of solving for $n=4$ is shown in Fig. \[figeasycell4\]. In this case, a continuous connected state ($1$s) implies that part of this cell must be painted with the same colour as that of the adjacent cells. On the other hand, a connectivity of $0$ indicates that the topological edge between the cell and the corresponding adjacent cell is maintained, and as such the colors must be different. The unspecified state $\times$ indicates a sub-cell will be generated. A more detail discussion about the distinction between $0$ and $\times$ is warranted: when connectivity cases such as the following arise $$1\times\times1, 1\times\times\times1, \cdots$$ the cell is divided into smaller parts whose colors are enforced to be different, i.e. the cell needs further subdivision. Refer for instance to cases $\times\times11, \times11\times, 1\times\times1, 11\times\times$ in Fig. \[figeasycell4\]. The original cell transforms into a new one with fewer edges, since some (two for a 4-edge cell) edges are replaced by a single one. We use the bracket notation $(\cdots)$ in the binary number of the original cell to represent the generation of sub-cells. In recursively applying the same division for the applicable sub-cells, any $n$-edge cell can thus be continuously divided into a set of cells with less edges, suitable to then be solved enumeratively as described. Since sub-cells are generated from an original one, there are extra constraints on its connectivity as specified by the previous division. As such, the following situation may arise: 1. Single $\times$ cannot form a sub-cell, because $$\cdots 1\times 1\cdots = \cdots 101\cdots \mbox{ or }\cdots 111\cdots$$ but both conditions of the right side are considered in other branches. This is why the $\times$ case does not apply to the 3-edge cell in Fig. \[figeasycell3\]. 2. The $0$s can be freely moved outside the bracket, because of the equivalence $$\cdots\times1(0\times\cdots\times1)1\times\cdots = \cdots\times10(\times\cdots\times1)1\times\cdots$$ See Fig. \[figconstraint\]. The same is true for the right bracket based on the symmetry of the number list, since a cutting graph makes sense only when the inner two numbers at the boundary are $1$s. This is why there are no brackets in Fig. \[figeasycell4\]. 3. The new topological edge created by a cutting path must be retained as it is manually introduced as such (it will always be $0$, spliting a cell into different colours, it can not be be $1$ or $\times$). No extra possiblities appear after the division. Iterative Solver for Cellular Decomposition {#sectioniterativesolver} =========================================== With the enumerative solver as the basic building block, the graph can now be solved iteratively. Starting from a fully-unpainted graph, an unsolved cell is arbitrarily chosed and enumerativelly solved as described in Section \[sectionenumerativesolver\]. Assuming a the cell with $n$-edges with $m$ possible colors, there are at most $2^n\times m$ possible divisions. A branch for each possible solution of the chosen cell is created, and in each branch the selected cell is filled in with the specfied colour (so it will not change any more). In the next iteration, an unsolved branch is selected, and an unsolved cell within it, and repeat the same steps. Note that the constraints given by the solved adjacent cells significantly restrict the possible solutions, because the state of an edge resticts the connectivity of the cells on both sides. Through iterative execution, if there is a cell who cannot satisfy all constraints given by its solved adjacent cells, then the graph cannot be painted using the current state of the even partly-filled painting scheme, orelse a valid coloring scheme for the graph can be generated which uniquely specifies the configuration to polish each equivalent workspace point amongst the various valid IK solutions it may exhibit. The search algorithm runs on a deepest-first-searching (DFS) format, so that the memory requirements are reduced. As an exhaustive search protocol, all optimal physical cellular decompositions must be homeomorphic to one of the resulting schemes. Cost Calculation ---------------- The physical meaning of the cost for a (partly filled) graph is the number of colour segments in the current portion of the graph, i.e. 1 colour equals cost = 1. The cost formulation is then described incrementally, whereby after a cell is solved, 1. if its connectivity is all zero, then the cost will increase $1$ after coloring this cell, because this cell forms a new segment. 2. if its connectivity has only one $1$ connection to an already solved cell, then the cost will remain unchanged, since the cell colour can be filled homegeneously with the connected adjacent cell. 3. if its connectivity has $i$ $1$s, there may exist multiple edges which connect the same adjacent cell, as per the illustration in Fig. \[figcost\]. In order to be consistent with the physical meaning of the cost, if these edges connect $j$ distinct solved cells, then the variation of cost is $$\Delta cost = 1-j \label{eq:cost}$$ Experimental Results {#sectionexperiment} ==================== The proposed algorithm performs non-repetitive coverage task using non-redundant manipulators of any dimension. To test it, simulation and experimental work have been implemented using a 5DoF manipulator to emulate a polishing task on an object’s surface. For such endeavour, the final revolute joint of a typical 6 DoF manipulator is unnecessary given the rotating nature of the polishing tool itself, and real experiments are undertaken with a UR5 where the last link has been locked. In the first simulated experiment, a hemispherical object is polished at different poses in the workplace, one arbitrarily set and the other being precisely designed to be fully reachable with the least number of lift-offs as a metric for evaluating the quality of the object placement to be inspected. The second simulated experiment shows how the proposed algorithm can directly influence the choice of configurations to avoid non-optimal configurations that invariably lead to unnecessary lift-offs altogether. Finally, real-world experiments with a UR5 manipulator polishing a wok in free space and under the presence of obstacles proves the applicablity of the proposed algorithm. In the results shown hereafter the environment contains the manipulator, the object being polished, and where applicable a ground plane and additional obstacles. Moreover, figures shown in this section are representative examples of arbitrary paths derived within the cells attained following the proposed optimal coverage solution. Covering a Hemispherical Object ------------------------------- A wok-like round mesh is used for this experiment. Results are collected in Fig. \[figflatwise\] and Fig. \[figsloped\]. In the former, the object is arbitrarily placed with respect to the robot, as would be the case, for instance, on an automated production line with unsorted objects are fed via a conveyor belt. A CPP is designed following the proposed scheme. With no criterion for the placement, the algorithm shows that such an object placement requires at least $3$ lift-offs to inspect the reachable area, yet fails in attaining full coverage (the farthest area, shown at the bottom of the mesh, is out-of-bounds). Fig. \[figsloped\] illustrates the case where the proposed coverage strategy reveals a suitable pose for the object so that not only the required least number of lift-offs is decreased to $2$ when compared to the arbitrary placement, but the manipulator can fully cover the surface. Covering a Cylindrical Object ----------------------------- Polishing of a half-pipe is employed in this simulation to demonstrate how the proposed algorithm can identify and bypass unnecessary configurations leading to “traps” that cause CPPs with extra lift-offs. The pipe is placed obliquely to achieve full coverage. Surface normals vary along the arc length of the cylinder over $\pi$ radians, which causes increased difficulty in kinematic terms for the manipulator to sustain the desidered polishing operation. The topological graph and optimal solution are shown in Fig. \[fighalfpipe\], where it can be seen that the full coverage task requires only $1$ lift-off. However, there are many valid configurations which lead to non-optimality. See Fig. \[figthreeexamplepose\] for an example of such “trap” configurations. The configurations on the left and right are the ones finally chosen by one of the optimal solutions shown in Fig. \[fighalfpipe\]. However, while the configuration in the middle can cover a large area without lift-offs, and would therefore be equally likely to be chosen if the IK solutions were to be selected randomly or in a greedy fashion, it cannot reach the corners of the mesh (eventually covered by the other two configurations). Hence, should any configuration from the middle be selected to trace the object, after coverage of (a section) of the middle part of the pipe, sooner or later the CPP will have to undertake one unnecesary lift-off for full coverage inspection, leading to non-optimality when compared to the case shown in Fig. \[fighalfpipe\]. The proposed algorithm will provide all optimal solutions, with none of them using the middle colored cell. Real World Experiments in the Presence of Obstacles --------------------------------------------------- A Universal Robots UR5 manipulator is employed in real experiments to polish the outer surface of a wok to show a physical coverage path generated based on the proposed cellular decomposition method. The actual physical coverage path uses a simple back and fore motion within the resulting cells, whilst the lift-off concatenation between paths segments belonging to different cells are manually demonstrated. The manipulator ioperates as a 5DOF. Since hybrid position/force control [@solanes2019robust] is beyond the scope of this work, contact is restricted to position control. Fig. \[fig\_realworld\_no\] illustrates the results. Given the location of the wok, it can be seen how the nearest part of the wok is unreachable. As can be observed in Figs. \[fig:real\_free\_extreme1\] and \[fig:real\_free\_extreme1\], the manipulator must keep its wrist configured in the “above” the fore-arm configuration in order to avoid collisions, which leads to the two shoulder-left and shoulder-right configuration solutions. The total number of lift-offs is $1$. Note that any division keeping the resulting cell connectivity guarantees full (reachable) coverage and is optimal in the minimum number of lift-offs, so the cutting path dividing the final cell is arbitrary. A more interesting example arises when the motion of the manipulator is obstructed by the cylindrical obstacle depicted in Fig. \[fig\_realworld\_with\]. Since the obstacle may collide with the upper-arm, fore-arm or the EE, and the wrist may collide with the fore-arm, the resulting colour cell decomposition and the topological graphs is more complex. As such, to avoid collisions, the least number of lift-offs is shown to be 2. Conclusion {#sectionconclusion} ========== A novel proposition for the coverage planning problem has been develop in this work. The focus is set on the minimum number of coverage path discontinuities as key metric, predicated on the need for manipulator tasks such as polishing, painting or deburring to curtail the number of lift-offs for proficient results. To achive this goal, instead of considering the design of a coverage path in the traditional sense, this research considers the global optimal cellular decomposition problem in joint-space to assemble joint-space partitions with minimum sets. In noting that IK mapping from the reachable points in the workspace to a single set of configurations is injective, colouring a point in the surface to be covered means selecting a given IK solution for it, and the planning problem is transfered to designing a colour scheme for a topological configuration graph. In that way, the key concern is joint-space continuity of the cells. The proposed scheme thus provides two relevant conributions to the CPP problem in relation to optimal discontinuities: Proof that the least number of discontinuities, or “lift-offs”, is independent of the choice of coverage path. And, by sugesting a novel cellular decomposition strategy for the efficient discarding of equivalent cells, this work proves that the total number of different cellular decompositions is finite, thus all optimal solutions are finitely solvable. After applying any conventional CPP algorithm in each resulting cell, the nominated algorithm thus generates a coverage path containing the least number of discontinuities. As a direct corollary, the result strategy can be applied to the result of other cellular decomposition methods in the literature (e.g. Morse-based), to produce the least number of discontinuities obeying the given cellular decomposition method. It can also be exploited as a criterion to evaluate the placement quality of a manipulator or object in the workspace for minimal lift-off coverage paths. A systematic way to resolve this issue is left for future work. Extensive simulation and real-world implementation results on a 5 DoF manipulator are presented, suplemented by a video, to prove the validity of the proposed strategy in challenging realistic conditions. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== This work was supported in part by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant 2018YFB1309300 and in part by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant U1609210 and Grant 61903332. [Tong Yang]{} is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the Institute of Cyber-Systems and Control, Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. His current research interests include robot planning and control. [Jaime Valls Miro]{} received his B.Eng. and M.Eng. in Computer Science (Systems Engineering) from the Valencia Polytechnic University (UPV, Spain), in 1990 and 1993 respectively. He received his Ph.D. in robotics and control systems from Middlesex University (UK) in 1998, and worked in the underwater robotics industry as a software and control systems analyst until 2003. In 2004 he joined the Centre for Autonomous Systems in UTS (Australia), where he is currently an Associate Professor. His areas of interest span across the field of robotics, most notably modelling sensor behaviours for perception and mapping, computational Intelligence in HRI , and robot navigation. [Qianen Lai]{} is currently pursuing the master degree with the Institute of Cyber-Systems and Control, Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. His current research interests include robot grasping and robotics vision. [Yue Wang]{} is currently a Post-Doctotral Fellow with the Institute of Cyber-Systems and Control, Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. His current research interests include mobile robotics and robot perception. [Rong Xiong]{} is currently a Professor with the Institute of Cyber-Systems and Control, Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Her current research interests include robot planning and robotics vision. [^1]: $^1$ Tong Yang, Qianen Lai, Yue Wang and Rong Xiong are with the State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control and Technology, Zhejiang University, P.R. China. [^2]: $^2$ Jaime Valls Miro is with the Centre for Autonomous Systems (CAS), University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia. [^3]: $^*$ Corresponding Author. E-mail address: [[email protected]]{} [^4]: A video illustrating the concepts and results hereby described can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyvXin60cCQ&feature=youtu.be	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study subrings of finite index of $\mathbb{Z}^n$, where the addition and multiplication are defined componentwise. Let $f_n(k)$ denote the number of subrings of index $k$. For any $n$, we give a formula for this quantity for all integers $k$ that are not divisible by a power of a prime, extending a result of Liu.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, Room 206, MC4406, 2990 Broadway, New York, NY 10027' - 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, 340 Rowland Hall, Irvine, CA 92697' - 'Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, East Hall B723, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109' - 'Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RH, U.K.' author: - Stanislav Atanasov - Nathan Kaplan - Benjamin Krakoff - Julian Menzel title: 'Counting Finite Index Subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$' --- Introduction {#sec1} ============ The main goal of this paper is to study the number of subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of given index. We begin by reviewing an easier problem, counting subgroups of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of given index. Counting Subgroups of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ {#sec_counting_subgroups} -------------------------------------- The zeta function of an infinite group $G$ is defined by $$\zeta_G(s) = \sum_{H \le G \atop [G:H] < \infty} [G:H]^{-s} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty s_G(k) k^{-s},$$ where $s$ is a complex variable and $s_G(k)$ is the number of subgroups of $G$ of index $k$. We can think of $\zeta_G(s)$ as a generating function that gives the number of subgroups $H$ of $G$ of each finite index. We focus on the case $G = ({\mathbb{Z}}^n,+)$ and write $s_n(k)$ in place of $s_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(k)$. A finite index subgroup of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is a sublattice, and every sublattice of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is the column span of a unique matrix $A$ in Hermite normal form. The index of the lattice spanned by $A$ is $\det(A)$. Let $M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ denote the set of all $n \times n$ matrices with entries in ${\mathbb{Z}}$. We have $$s_n(k) = \#\{A \in M_n({\mathbb{Z}}) \colon A \text{ is in Hermite normal form and } \det(A) = k\}.$$ Throughout this paper, $p$ always represents a prime number and $\prod_p$ denotes a product over all primes. All of the zeta functions we consider have Euler products, see for example [@duSautoyWoodward Section 1.2.2] or [@VollRecent Section 3.2]. That is, $$\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s) = \prod_p \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}(s),$$ where $$\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}(s) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} s_n(p^k) p^{-ks}.$$ A matrix $A \in M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ in Hermite normal form with $\det(A) = p^k$ has diagonal $(p^{i_1}, p^{i_2},\ldots, p^{i_n})$ where each $i_j \ge 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^n i_j = k$. It is not difficult to compute the number of $n \times n$ matrices in Hermite normal form with given diagonal. This leads to the fact that $$\label{local_factor_subgroup} \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}(s) = (1-p^{-s})^{-1} (1-p^{-(s-1)})^{-1}\cdots (1-p^{-(s-(n-1))})^{-1},$$ which implies $$\label{subgroupeqn} \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s) = \zeta(s) \zeta(s-1) \cdots \zeta(s-(n-1)).$$ See the book of Lubotzky and Segal for five proofs of this fact [@LubotzkySegal]. We review one of these arguments in Section \[sec\_hermite\], as it forms the basis for the approach to counting subrings that we explain in Section \[sec\_subring\_matrices\]. Since $\zeta(s)$ has a simple pole at $s=1$, a standard Tauberian theorem from analytic number theory gives an asymptotic formula for the number of sublattices of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of bounded index. We have [$$\begin{split}\label{asymptotic_subgroup_count} N_n(X) := &\ \#\{\mbox{sublattices of } {\mathbb{Z}}^d \mbox{ of index} <X\} = \sum_{k < X} s_n(k) \\ = &\ \frac{\zeta(d)\zeta(d-1)\cdots \zeta(2)}{d}X^d+O(X^{d-1}\log(X)) \end{split}$$]{} as $X\to\infty$. In Section \[sec\_hermite\] we see that for fixed $n$ and $e,\ s_n(p^e)$ is a polynomial in $p$ that is not difficult to compute. Therefore, the problems of counting sublattices of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of given index, and of asymptotically counting sublattices of bounded index, are well-understood. Counting Subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ {#counting_subrings} ------------------------------------- We study the function analogous to $s_n(k)$ that counts subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. We use the term subring to mean a multiplicatively closed sublattice containing the multiplicative identity $(1,1,\ldots, 1)$. Let $f_n(k)$ denote the number of subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $k$. Define the subring zeta function of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ by $$\zeta^R_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty f_n(k) k^{-s}.$$ As in the previous section, this zeta function has an Euler product $$\zeta^R_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s) = \prod_p \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s),$$ where $$\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_n(p^k) p^{-ks}.$$ Equivalently, $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s) = \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}_p^n}^R(s)$ where ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ denotes the ring of $p$-adic integers and $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}_p^n}(s)$ is the zeta function counting finite index ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$-subalgebras of ${\mathbb{Z}}_p^n$. For fixed $n$ and $e$, how does $f_n(p^e)$ behave as a function of $p$? Liu uses a strategy similar to the one outlined in Section \[sec\_counting\_subgroups\] to compute $f_n(p^e)$ for $e \le 5$ and any $n$. (There is a small error in the computation of $f_n(p^5)$ that we correct here. More specifically, the constant terms in the coefficients of ${n \choose 6}$ and ${n \choose 7}$ are corrected to $141$ and $371$, respectively.) [@Liu Proposition 1.1]\[Liu\_fn\_prop\] We have $$\begin{aligned} f_n(1) & = & 1, \\ f_n(p) & = & \binom{n}{2},\\ f_n(p^2) & = & \binom{n}{2} + \binom{n}{2} + 3 \binom{n}{4},\\ f_n(p^3) & = & \binom{n}{2} + (p+1) \binom{n}{3} + 7 \binom{n}{4} + 10 \binom{n}{5} + 15 \binom{n}{6}, \\ f_n(p^4) & = & \binom{n}{2} + (3p+1) \binom{n}{3} + (p^2+p+10) \binom{n}{4} + (10p+21) \binom{n}{5} \\ & & + 70 \binom{n}{6} + 105 \binom{n}{7} + 105 \binom{n}{8}.\end{aligned}$$ The main theorem of this paper extends this result to all $e\le 8$. \[Main\_Theorem\] We have $$\begin{aligned} f_n(p^5) & = & {n \choose 2} + (4p + 1){n \choose 3} + (7p^2 + p + 13){n \choose 4} + (p^3 + p^2 + 41p + 31){n \choose 5} \\ & & + (15p^2 + 35p + 141){n \choose 6} +(105p + 371){n \choose 7} + 910{n \choose 8} + 1260{n \choose 9} \\ & & + 945{n \choose 10}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} f_n(p^6) & = & {n \choose 2} + (p^2 + 4p + 1){n \choose 3} + (p^3 + 14p^2 + p + 16){n \choose 4} \\ & & + (p^4+11p^3+2p^2+81p+41){n \choose 5} + (p^4 + p^3 + 131p^2 + 111p + 226){n \choose 6} \\ & & + (21p^3 + 56p^2 + 616p + 743){n \choose 7}+ (210p^2 + 770p + 2639){n \choose 8} \\ & & + (1260p + 6958){n \choose 9} + 14175{n \choose 10}+ 17325{n \choose 11} + 10395{n \choose 12},\\ & & \\ & & \\ f_n(p^7) & = & {n \choose 2} + (3p^2 + 4p + 1){n \choose 3} + (10p^3 + 12p^2 + p + 19){n \choose 4}\\ & & + (15p^4+21p^3+16p^2+121p+51){n \choose 5} \\ & & + (p^6 + p^5 + 17p^4 + 17p^3 + 392p^2 + 206p + 326){n \choose 6}\\ & & + (p^5 + 22p^4 + 288p^3 + 379p^2 + 1618p + 1219){n \choose 7} \\ & & + (28p^4 + 84p^3 + 2324p^2 + 3640p + 5279){n \choose 8}\\ & & + (378p^3 + 1638p^2 + 11298p + 18600){n \choose 9}+(3150p^2 + 15750p + 58800){n \choose 10}\\ & & + (17325p + 143605){n \choose 11} + 252945{n \choose 12} + 270270{n \choose 13} + 135135{n \choose 14}, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} f_n(p^8) & = & {n \choose 2} + (4p^2 + 4p + 1){n \choose 3} + (p^4 + 26p^3 + 9p^2 + p + 22){n \choose 4} \\ & & + (p^5 + 77p^4 -13p^3 + 52p^2 + 161p + 61){n \choose 5} \\ & & + (16p^6 + 31p^5 + 22p^4 + 187p^3 + 702p^2 + 301p + 441){n \choose 6} \\ & & + (p^8 + p^7 + 2p^6 + 23p^5 + 339p^4 + 1080p^3 + 1206p^2 + 3074p + 1800){n \choose 7}\\ & & + (26p^6 + 29p^5 + 652p^4 + 1093p^3 + 9374p^2 + 9073p + 8933){n \choose 8}\\ & & + (36p^5 + 498p^4 + 6420p^3 + 15324p^2 + 39810p + 37200){n \choose 9}\\ & & + (630p^4 + 3150p^3 + 46200p^2 + 103320p + 148551){n \choose 10}\\ & & + (6930p^3 + 41580p^2 + 243705p + 510730){n \choose 11} \\ & & + (51975p^2 + 329175p + 1474165){n \choose 12}\\ & & + (270270p + 3258255){n \choose 13} + 5045040{n \choose 14} + 4729725{n \choose 15} + 2027025{n \choose 16}.\end{aligned}$$ Motivation: Counting Subrings and Orders of Bounded Index --------------------------------------------------------- Bhargava has asked about the asymptotic growth rate of $f_n(k)$ [@Liu]. We would like to have formulas analogous to those of that give asymptotic formulas for the number of subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of bounded index. Expressions for $\zeta^R_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s)$ analogous to would lead to such results. However, such formulas are only known for $n \le 4$. \[GeneratingFunctions\] We have $$\begin{aligned} \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}^R(s) & = & \zeta(s), \\ \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^3}^R(s) & = & \frac{\zeta(3s-1) \zeta(s)^3}{\zeta(2s)^2}, \\ \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^4}^R(s) & = & \prod_p \frac{1}{(1-p^{-s})^2(1-p^2 p^{-4s})(1-p^3 p^{-6s})} \Big(1+4 p^{-s}+2 p^{-2s}\\ & & +(4p-3) p^{-3s}+(5p-1)p^{-4s} +(p^2-5p)p^{-5s}+(3p^2-4p) p^{-6s} \\ & & -2p^2 p^{-7s}-4p^2 p^{-8s} - p^2 p^{-9s}{\Big)}.\end{aligned}$$ The computation for $n=2$ is elementary. The $n=3$ result is originally due to Datskovsky and Wright [@DatskovskyWright], and for $n =4$ it is a result of Nakagawa [@Nakagawa]. Liu gives combinatorial proofs of these results [@Liu]; his $A_n(p,p^{-s})$ is $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s)$. Kaplan, Marcinek, and Takloo-Bighash study the problem of counting subrings of bounded index in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ and prove the following. [@KMTB Theorem 6]\[KMTB\_Theorem\] Let $$N^R_n(X) := \#\{\mbox{Subrings of } {\mathbb{Z}}^d \mbox{ of index less than } X\} = \sum_{k < X} f_n(k).$$ 1. Let $n \le 5$. There is a positive real number $C_n$ such that $$N^R_n(X) \sim C_n X (\log X)^{\binom{n}{2}-1}$$ as $X \to \infty$. 2. Suppose $n \ge 6$. Then for any $\epsilon > 0$ we have $$X (\log X)^{\binom{n}{2} -1} \ll N^R_n(X) \ll_{\epsilon} X^{\frac{n}{2}-\frac{7}{6} + \epsilon}.$$ The authors of [@KMTB] derive the asymptotic order of growth for $N^R_5(X)$ up to a constant, despite not having a formula for $\zeta^R_{{\mathbb{Z}}^5}(s)$ analogous to those of Theorem \[GeneratingFunctions\]. The main idea is to try to locate the right-most pole of $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}^R(s)$ by computing $f_n(p^e)$ exactly for small $e$ and giving estimates for larger $e$. A major motivation for the computations of this paper is to try to prove stronger versions of Theorem \[KMTB\_Theorem\]. For $n \ge 6$ we do not even know of a conjecture for the asymptotic growth rate of $N_n^R(X)$. One of the main problems in the rapidly growing field of arithmetic statistics is to count finite extensions of a number field and the orders that they contain. For example, it is an old conjecture that the number of isomorphism classes of degree $n$ extensions $K$ of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with $\|{\mathop{\rm disc}}(K)\| < X$ is asymptotic to a constant depending on $n$ times $X$. One can also ask for the number of isomorphism classes of orders contained in these fields with discriminant at most $X$ in absolute value. Bhargava has proven breakthrough results counting quartic and quintic fields by first counting all isomorphism classes of orders in these fields and then sieving for the maximal ones [@Bhargava4; @Bhargava5]. Bhargava, Malle, and others have made extensive precise conjectures for counting finite extensions with bounded discriminant and specified Galois group [@BhargavaIMRN; @Malle1; @Malle2]. Problems about counting orders contained in field extensions of given degree with bounded discriminant have received less attention. Recall that if $K$ is a number field with ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}_K}$, an order $\mathcal{O} \subseteq {\mathcal{O}_K}$ is a subring of ${\mathcal{O}_K}$ with identity that is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module of rank $n$. If $\mathcal{O} \subseteq {\mathcal{O}_K}$ is an order, then ${\mathop{\rm disc}}(\mathcal{O}) = [{\mathcal{O}_K}:\mathcal{O}]^2\cdot {\mathop{\rm disc}}({\mathcal{O}_K})$. Let $B_n(X)$ denote the number of isomorphism classes of orders $\mathcal{O}$ in all degree $n$ number fields such that $\|{\mathop{\rm disc}}(\mathcal{O})\| < X$. How does $B_n(X)$ grow as a function of $X$? It follows from work of Davenport and Heilbronn for $n = 3$ [@DavenportHeilbronn], and Bhargava for $n = 4,5$ [@Bhargava4; @Bhargava5], that $B_n(X)$ is asymptotic to a constant $c_n$ times $X$. For $n \ge 6$ we do not know of a conjecture for the asymptotic growth rate of this function. One approach to this problem is to count orders contained in a fixed field $K$ of bounded index, and take a sum over all $K$ of fixed degree. \[count\_orders\] Let $K$ be a number field and let $N_K(X)$ denote the number of isomorphism classes of orders $\mathcal{O}$ contained in $K$ such that $\|{\mathop{\rm disc}}(\mathcal{O})\| < X$. How does $N_K(X)$ grow as a function of $X$? Kaplan, Marcinek, and Takloo-Bighash study Question \[count\_orders\] by investigating analytic properties of the subring zeta function of ${\mathcal{O}_K}$. More precisely, let $$\zeta_{{\mathcal{O}_K}}^R(s) = \sum_{\mathcal{O} \subseteq {\mathcal{O}_K}} [{\mathcal{O}_K}:\mathcal{O}]^{-s}$$ where the sum is taken over all orders in ${\mathcal{O}_K}$. In the statement of the theorem below, $r_2$ is an explicitly computable positive integer that depends on the Galois group of the normal closure of $K/{\mathbb{Q}}$; see [@KMTB] for details. [@KMTB Theorem 2]\[KMTB\_Theorem\_Orders\] 1. For $n \le 5$, there is a constant $C_K >0$ such that $$N_K(X) \sim C_K X^{1/2} (\log X)^{r_2 -1},$$ as $X \to \infty$, 2. For any $n \ge 6$ and any $\epsilon > 0$, $$X^{1/2} (\log X)^{r_2 -1} \ll N_K(X) \ll_\epsilon X^{\frac{n}{4} - \frac{7}{12} + \epsilon}.$$ When $[K:{\mathbb{Q}}] \ge 6$, we do not know of a conjecture for the asymptotic growth rate of $N_K(X)$. The subring zeta function of ${\mathcal{O}_K}$ has an Euler product, and its local factors satisfy $\zeta^R_{\mathcal{O}_K,p}(s) = \zeta^R_{\mathcal{O}_K \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_p}(s)$, where this zeta function counts finite index ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$-subalgebras. When $p$ splits completely in ${\mathcal{O}_K},\ \mathcal{O}_K \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_p \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_p^n$, so $$\zeta_{\mathcal{O}_K,p}^R(s) = \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}_p^n}^R(s) = \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s).$$ The $n =3$ case of Theorem \[KMTB\_Theorem\_Orders\] follows from earlier work of Datskovsky and Wright [@DatskovskyWright], who compute $\zeta_{{\mathcal{O}_K}}^R(s)$ for any cubic field $K$. The $n=4$ case follows from Nakagawa’s computation for any quartic field $K$ of $\zeta^R_{{\mathcal{O}_K},p}(s)$ at all unramified primes $p$ [@Nakagawa]. The authors of [@KMTB] suggest that among all unramified primes, those that split completely may control the asymptotic growth rate of $N_K(X)$. This suggests that the growth rate of the simpler function $N_n^R(X)$ along with the Galois group of the normal closure of $K$ may determine the growth rate of $N_K(X)$. For more information, see the discussion following [@KMTB Theorem 4]. We hope that more precise results on the growth of $f_n(p^e)$ will lead not only to improved asymptotic estimates for counting subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of bounded index, like those of Theorem \[KMTB\_Theorem\], but may also help to understand asymptotic formulas for counting orders of bounded index in a fixed number field, like those of Theorem \[KMTB\_Theorem\_Orders\]. In Section \[sec\_lower\_bounds\] we give lower bounds for $f_n(p^e)$ that are analogous to lower bounds for $N_K(X)$ due to Brakenhoff [@Brakenhoff], suggesting a closer connection between these counting problems. Motivation: Uniformity of Subring Zeta Functions ------------------------------------------------ Zeta functions of infinite groups, rings, and algebras have been studied extensively from both a combinatorial and analytic point of view [@duSautoyWoodward; @Rossmann2; @Rossmann3; @VollRecent; @Voll]. A common question is how local factors of zeta functions vary with $p$. [@duSautoyWoodward Section 1.2.4] A zeta function $\zeta_G(s)$ for which there exist finitely many rational functions $W_1(X,Y),\ldots, W_r(X,Y) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[X,Y]$ such that for each prime $p$ there is an $i$ for which $\zeta_{G,p}(s) = W_i(p,p^{-s})$ is called finitely uniform. If $r=1$, we say the zeta function is uniform. This definition can be extended in the obvious way to subring zeta functions. \[local\_factor\_ex\] 1. In we saw that $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}(s)$ is given by a single rational function in $p$ and $p^{-s}$. That is, the zeta function $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}(s)$ is uniform. 2. When $K$ is a number field of degree at most $4$ with ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}_K},\ \zeta^R_{\mathcal{O}_K}(s)$ is finitely uniform. The local factor at $p$ depends on the decomposition of $p$ in ${\mathcal{O}_K}$. In order to understand how $f_n(p^e)$ varies with $p$, we want to know how the local factors $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s)$ vary. Grunewald, Segal, and Smith build on work of Denef [@Denef1; @Denef2], and Igusa [@Igusa], to prove the following result. \[GSSthm\][@GSS Theorem 3.5] For each positive integer $n$ and each prime $p$ there exist polynomials $\Phi_{n,p}(X), \Psi_{n,p}(X) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ such that $$\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}^R(s) = \frac{\Phi_{n,p}(p^{-s})}{\Psi_{n,p}(p^{-s})}.$$ Moreover, the degrees of $\Phi_{n,p}$ and $\Psi_{n,p}$ are bounded independently of the prime $p$. When $n$ is fixed, we want to understand how these rational functions vary with $p$. [@VollRecent Question 3.7]\[zetaznuniform\] Is the zeta function $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}^R(s)$ uniform? Is it finitely uniform? Expanding the rational functions of Theorem \[GSSthm\] as power series and computing individual coefficients shows that $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}^R(s)$ is uniform if and only if for each fixed $e\ge 1,\ f_n(p^e)$ is a polynomial in $p$. See [@Voll Section 2.1] for additional discussion. \[fnpolyq\] For fixed $n \ge 2$ and $e \ge 1$, is $f_n(p^e)$ a polynomial in $p$? It was previously known that $f_n(p^e)$ is polynomial for $e \le 5$. The main result of this paper, Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\], extends this to $e \le 8$. This provides some evidence for a positive answer to Questions \[zetaznuniform\] and \[fnpolyq\]. However, we see in the proof of Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\] how equations for varieties over finite fields play a role in our counting problem. More precisely, in the proof of Lemma \[lemma3211\] we see a close relation to the variety $V$ in $5$-dimensional affine space over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ defined by $$(x^2-x) - (u^2 - u) c' =(y^2-y) - (v^2 - v) c' = xy -uv c' = 0.$$ A computation in Magma shows that $V$ is is $2$-dimensional, with $7$ irreducible components, and suggests that $\#V({\mathbb{F}}_p) = 7p^2 - 6p+6$. We verify this formula in the proof of Lemma \[lemma3211\]. It is not difficult to imagine how for larger values of $e$, more complicated varieties may play a role in the formula for $f_n(p^e)$. Outline of the Paper -------------------- In Section \[sec2\] we follow the method of Liu and give a bijection between subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ and matrices of a specific form. This transforms the question of counting subrings of prime power index into a problem of counting matrices with entries satisfying certain divisibility conditions. We then review Liu’s notion of irreducible subrings. Let $g_n(k)$ be the number of irreducible subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ of index $k$. We recall a recurrence due to Liu relating $g_n(k)$ and $f_n(k)$ in Proposition \[fnrecurrence\]. Our $g_n(k)$ is denoted by $g_{n-1}(k)$ in [@Liu]. In Section \[sec3\] we express $g_n(p^e)$ as a sum over irreducible subrings with fixed diagonal entries. Possible diagonals are in bijection with compositions of $e$ into $n-1$ parts. We verify that for $n \le 9$ and $e \le 8$ each of the functions counting irreducible subring matrices with a fixed diagonal is given by a polynomial in $p$. We use this method along with the recurrence of [@Liu] to compute $f_n(p^e)$ for $e \leq 8$, proving Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\]. In Section \[sec\_lower\_bounds\] we give lower bounds for $g_n(p^e)$ analogous to results of Brakenhoff for orders in a fixed number field [@Brakenhoff]. We end with questions for further study. Subring Matrices and Irreducible Subring Matrices {#sec2} ================================================= In our analysis of $f_{n}(k)$ we employ techniques developed in [@Liu], where Liu gives a bijection between subrings $\mathbb{Z}^n$ and a class of integer matrices. This reduces the problem of counting of subrings of index $k$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ to the problem of counting subring matrices, which can be understood as compositions of yet simpler irreducible subring matrices. Counting Matrices in Hermite Normal Form {#sec_hermite} ---------------------------------------- We begin by giving a proof of due to Bushnell and Reiner [@LubotzkySegal]. A matrix $A \in M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ with entries $a_{ij}$ is in Hermite normal form if: 1. $A$ is upper triangular, and 2. $0\leq a_{ij} < a_{ii}$ for $1\leq i < j \leq n$. There is a bijection between sublattices of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $p^k$ and matrices $A\in M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ in Hermite normal form with $\det(A) = p^k$. The diagonal entries of such a matrix are of the form $(p^{i_1},\ldots, p^{i_n})$, where each $i_j \ge 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^n i_j = k$. A weak composition of an integer $k$ is a list of non-negative integers $(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)$ where $\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i = k$. Each $\alpha_i$ is a part of the weak composition, and $n$ is the length or number of parts. A weak composition in which every part is positive is called a composition of $k$. The possible diagonals of an $n \times n$ matrix in Hermite normal form with determinant $p^k$ are in bijection with weak compositions of $k$ of length $n$. The number of $n \times n$ matrices in Hermite normal form with diagonal $(p^{i_1},\ldots, p^{i_n})$ is $p^{(n-1) i_1} p^{(n-2) i_2} \cdots p^{i_{n-1}}$. Taking a sum of these terms over all weak compositions of $k$ into $n$ parts gives a polynomial formula for $s_n(p^k)$. We have, $$\begin{aligned} \zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n,p}(s) & = & \sum_{k=0}^\infty s_n(p^k) p^{-ks} = \sum_{i_1 = 0}^\infty \cdots \sum_{i_n = 0}^\infty p^{-(i_1+\cdots + i_n)s} p^{(n-1) i_1} p^{(n-2) i_2} \cdots p^{i_{n-1}} \\ & = & \left(\sum_{i_1 = 0}^\infty p^{-(s-(n-1))i_1} \right) \cdots \left(\sum_{i_{n-1} = 0}^\infty p^{-(s-1)i_{n-1}} \right) \left(\sum_{i_n = 0}^\infty p^{-s i_n} \right) \\ & = & (1-p^{-s})^{-1} (1-p^{-(s-1)})^{-1}\cdots (1-p^{-(s-(n-1))})^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ completing the proof of . Counting Subrings via Liu’s Bijection {#sec_subring_matrices} ------------------------------------- Liu adapts the argument of the previous section to count subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. For column vectors $u = (u_1,\ldots, u_n)$ and $w = (w_1,\ldots, w_n)$ we write $u\circ w$ for the column vector given by the componentwise product $(u_1 w_1,\ldots, u_n w_n)$. We write $v_1,\ldots, v_n$ for the columns of an $n \times n$ matrix. \[prop:bijection-between-rings-and-matrices\] There is a bijection between subrings with identity $L \subset \mathbb{Z}^{n}$ of index $k$ and matrices $A\in M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ in Hermite normal form with $\det(A) = k$ such that: 1. the identity element $(1, \ldots, 1)^{T}$ is in the column span of $A$, and 2. for each $i,j \in [1,n]$, $v_i \circ v_j$ is in the lattice spanned by the column vectors $v_1,\ldots, v_n$. <!-- --> 1. A lattice for which the second condition of Proposition \[prop:bijection-between-rings-and-matrices\] holds is multiplicatively closed. 2. A matrix that satisfies the conditions of Proposition \[prop:bijection-between-rings-and-matrices\] is a subring matrix. Fixing $n$, we may calculate $f_n(k)$ by enumerating the corresponding subring matrices. Since $f_n(k)$ is weakly multiplicative, it suffices to consider $k=p^{e}$ for $p$ prime. This restricts our attention to subring matrices with diagonal entries $(p^{\alpha_{1}},\ldots,p^{\alpha_{n}})$ such that $(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)$ is a weak composition of $e$ of length $n$. Subring matrices are direct sums of irreducible subring matrices. \[irred-def\] A subring $L\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ of index $p^{e}$ is irreducible if for each $(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\in L,\ x_{1}\equiv x_{2} \equiv \ldots \equiv x_{n} \pmod{p}$. [@Liu Theorem 3.4] Any subring $L\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ of finite index can be written uniquely as a direct sum of irreducible subrings $L_{i}\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$. It is easy to see if a subring is irreducible by considering the corresponding subring matrix. [@Liu Proposition 3.1] \[prop:irreducible-corresponding-matrix\] An $n\times n$ subring matrix represents an irreducible subring if and only if its first $n-1$ columns contain only entries divisible by $p$, and its final column is the identity $(1, \ldots, 1)^{T}$. Recall that $g_n(k)$ is the number of irreducible subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $k$. In Section \[sec3\], we compute polynomial formulas for $g_n(p^e)$ for each $e \le 8$. We recall the following recurrence due to Liu. We again emphasize that $g_n(p^e)$ is given by $g_{n-1}(p^e)$ in [@Liu]. Define $f_0(1) = 1$ and $f_0(p^e) = 0$ for $e> 0$. [@Liu Proposition 4.4]\[fnrecurrence\] The following recurrence holds for $n > 0$: $$f_n(p^e) = \sum_{i=0}^e \sum_{j=1}^{n} \binom{n-1}{j-1} f_{n-j}(p^{e-i}) g_j(p^i).$$ In order to show for fixed $n$ and $e$ that $f_n(p^e)$ is a polynomial in $p$, it is enough to show that $f_j(p^k)$ is a polynomial in $p$ for each fixed $j\le n-1$ and $k \le e$, and that $g_j(p^i)$ is a polynomial in $p$ for each fixed $j \le n$ and $i \le e$. Computing $f_n(p^6)$, $f_n(p^7)$, and $f_n(p^8)$ {#sec3} ================================================ In this section we give formulas for $f_n(p^6),\ f_n(p^7)$, and $f_n(p^8)$, proving Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\]. We do this by showing for any $n$ and fixed $e\le 8$ that $g_n(p^e)$ is a polynomial in $p$ and then applying Proposition \[fnrecurrence\]. We first recall that for fixed $e$, $ g_n(p^e) = 0$ for all but finitely many $n$. [@Liu Proposition 4.3] For all $n > 0$, we have that $g_n(p^e) = 0$ for $e < n-1,\ g_{n+1}(p^n) = 1$, and $g_n(p^{n}) = \frac{p^{n-1}-1}{p-1}$. Proposition \[Liu\_fn\_prop\] gives Liu’s polynomial formulas for $f_n(p^e)$ for $e \le 4$ [@Liu Proposition 1.1]. We note that there is a slight error in Liu’s computation for $e = 5$, so we have stated the corrected result as part of Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\]. We have checked that our formulas are correct by explicit calculation for small primes. Combining Propositions \[Liu\_fn\_prop\] and \[fnrecurrence\] gives polynomial formulas for $g_n(p^e)$ for all $e \le 5$ and all $n$. Although they are not written explicitly, Liu gives polynomial formulas for $g_n(p^e)$ for $n =3, 4$ [@Liu Propositions 6.2 and 6.3]. Note that $g_2(p^e) = 1$ for all $e$. Therefore, in order to give a polynomial formula for $f_n(p^6)$, we need only give a polynomial formula for $g_5(p^6)$. For $e = 6, 7, 8$ and $n$ fixed we show that $g_n(p^e)$ is given by a polynomial in $p$ by showing that the number of irreducible subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $p^e$ whose subring matrices have fixed diagonal entries is given by a polynomial. Recall that the last column of any irreducible subring matrix is $(1,\ldots, 1)^T$ and that every other entry of such a matrix is divisible by $p$. The set of tuples of diagonal entries of irreducible subring matrices corresponding to irreducible subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $p^{e}$ is in bijection with the set of compositions of $e$ of length $n-1$. Let $\mathcal{C}_{n,e}$ denote the set of compositions of $e$ into $n-1$ parts. For a composition $\alpha$ of length $n-1$ let $g_\alpha(p)$ denote the number of irreducible subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with diagonal entries $(p^{\alpha_1}, p^{\alpha_2}, \ldots, p^{\alpha_{n-1}}, 1)$. It is a standard fact that $\|\mathcal{C}_{n,e}\| = \binom{e-1}{n-2}$. Combining these definitions gives the following. Let $n$ and $e$ be fixed positive integers. Then $$g_n(p^e) = \sum_{\alpha \in \mathcal{C}_{n,e}} g_\alpha(p).$$ In order to find a polynomial formula for $g_5(p^6)$ we need only show that $g_\alpha(p)$ is given by a polynomial in $p$ for each $\alpha \in \mathcal{C}_{5,6}$. Proposition \[fnrecurrence\] then gives a polynomial formula for $f_n(p^6)$. We need to consider some individual cases with separate arguments, but the following lemma significantly reduces this casework. \[lem2\] Let $\alpha = (1,\alpha_2,\ldots, \alpha_k)$ be a composition of a positive integer $e$ and $\alpha' = (\alpha_2,\ldots, \alpha_k)$. We have $g_\alpha(p) = g_{\alpha'}(p)$. An irreducible subring matrix with a $p$ in its upper left corner has its first row equal to $(p,0,\ldots, 0,1)$ since every entry $a_{1,j}$ with $j \not\in \{1,n\}$ satisfies $0 \le a_{1,j} < p$ and $a_{1,j} \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$. The conditions derived from taking products of pairs of columns are identical in both cases. Lemma \[lem2\] implies that $$\begin{aligned} g_4(p^5) & = & g_{(1,3,1,1)}(p) + g_{(1,1,3,1)}(p) +g_{(1,1,1,3)}(p) + g_{(1,2,2,1)}(p) \\ & & + g_{(1,2,1,2)}(p) + g_{(1,1,2,2)}(p).\end{aligned}$$ We can compute that each term in this sum is given by a polynomial in $p$, but do not give the details here. Therefore, in order to verify that $g_5(p^6)$ is a polynomial in $p$ we need only check that each $g_\alpha(p)$ is given by a polynomial in $p$, where $$\alpha \in \left\{ (3,1,1,1), (2,2,1,1),(2,1,2,1),(2,1,1,2) \right\}.$$ There is a particular class of compositions for which we can explicitly compute $g_\alpha(p)$. Let $\alpha = (\beta,1,\ldots, 1)$ be a composition of length $n-1$. 1. If $\beta = 2$, then $g_{\alpha}(p) = p^{n-2}$. 2. If $\beta \ge 3$, then $g_{\alpha}(p) = (n-1)p^{n-2}$. We count irreducible subring matrices with diagonal $(p^\beta,p,\ldots, p,1)$. Let $A$ be such a matrix with entries $a_{i,j}$ and columns $v_1,\ldots, v_n$. Recall that we may assume $v_n = (1,\ldots, 1)^T$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem2\], $a_{i,j} = 0$ for all $i,j$ satisfying $1 < i < j \le n-1$. Therefore, all divisibility conditions that must be satisfied come from the first row of $A$. When $\beta = 2$ it is easy to check that if $a_{1,j} \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ for each $1\le j \le n-1$ then $v_i \circ v_j$ is in the column span of $A$ for each pair $1\le i,j \le n-1$. This gives the first part of the lemma. For the rest of the proof, suppose $\beta \ge 3$. If $a_{1,j} = 0$ for some $j$ then $v_i \circ v_j$ is in the column span of $A$ for all $i$. Therefore, we only get non-trivial conditions from entries $a_{1,j} \neq 0$. For each $j \in [2,n-1]$ such that $a_{1,j} \neq 0$ let $a_{1,j} = p^{\gamma_j} b_j$ where $b_j \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ and $1 \le \gamma_j < \beta$. If $v_j \circ v_j$ is in the column span of $A$ then $$p^{2\gamma_j} b_j^2 = p^{\gamma_j+1} b_j + x p^\beta$$ for some $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. This gives $$x = p^{-(\beta-\gamma_j -1)}(p^{\gamma_j-1} b_j^2 - b_j).$$ If $\gamma_j \neq 1$, then $\gamma_j = \beta - 1$. There are $p-1$ values of $b_j$ satisfying $0 \le p^{\beta-1} b_j < p^{\beta}$ and $p \nmid b_j$. We also include the possibility $a_{1,j} = 0$, for a total of $p$ choices for which $p^{\beta -1} \mid a_{1,j}$. If $\gamma_j = 1$, we must have $b_j - 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{p^{\beta-2}}$. There are $p$ values of $b_j$ satisfying $0 \le p b_j < p^\beta$ and $p^{\beta-2} \mid (b_j -1)$. Now we show that $\gamma_j = 1$ for at most one $j \in [2,n-1]$. Suppose $\gamma_j = \gamma_k = 1$ where $j \neq k$. If $v_j \circ v_k$ is in the column span of $A$ we must have $v_j \circ v_k = x v_1$ for some $x\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, which implies $p^\beta \mid p^2 b_j b_k$. This contradicts the assumption that $\beta \ge 3$ and $p \nmid b_j b_k$. If $v_j$ and $v_k$ are columns with $\gamma_j = \gamma_k = \beta - 1$ then $v_j \circ v_k$ is a multiple of $v_1$. If $v_j$ is a column with $\gamma_j = 1$ and $v_k$ is a column with $\gamma_k = \beta -1$ then again $v_j \circ v_k$ is a multiple of $v_1$. We say that a sequence $(\gamma_2,\ldots, \gamma_{n-1})$ is admissible if it contains at most one $\gamma_j$ equal to $1$ and the rest of the $\gamma_i$ are equal to $\beta-1$. For any admissible sequence there are $p^{n-2}$ corresponding irreducible subring matrices. Hence, $$g_{\alpha}(p) = p^{n-2} + (n-2) p^{n-2} = (n-1)p^{n-2}.$$ The exact position of $\beta$ played no role in this proof, so we can compute $g_{\alpha}(p)$ for any composition $\alpha$ that has a single part not equal to $1$. This can also be seen as a consequence of Lemma \[lem2\]. We consider the remaining compositions individually. We give the details of the computation for $g_{(2,2,1,1)}(p)$ and note that it is easier to compute $g_{(2,1,2,1)}(p)$ and $g_{(2,1,1,2)}(p)$ since the corresponding subring matrices do not need to satisfy as many constraints. \[uniquenesslemma\] For any prime $p$, we have $g_{(2, 2, 1, 1)}(p) = p^4 + 3p^2(p-1)$. An irreducible subring matrix $A$ with diagonal $(p^2,p^2, p, p, 1)$ is of the form $$\begin{pmatrix} p^2 & c & a_1 & a_2 & 1 \\ 0 & p^2 & b_1 & b_2 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & p & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & p & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix},$$ where $0 \le a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2, c < p^2$ and $a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2, c \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$. Let $v_1, \ldots, v_5$ denote the columns of $A$. Define $a_1', a_2', b_1', b_2'$ and $c'$ by $a_i = p a_i',\ b_i = p b_i'$, and $c = c' p$. We see that $v_2 \circ v_2,\ v_2 \circ v_3$, and $v_2\circ v_4$ are in the column span of $A$ for any choice of $c'$. If $c = 0$ then every choice of $a_i'$ and $b_i'$ gives a multiplicatively closed sublattice, giving $p^4$ irreducible subring matrices. For the rest of the proof, suppose that $c \neq 0$, which implies $0 < c' < p$. We need only determine when $v_3 \circ v_4, v_3 \circ v_3$, and $v_4 \circ v_4$ lie in the column span of $A$. Taking $v_3 \circ v_4$ gives $$\begin{pmatrix} p^2a'_1a'_2\\ p^2b'_1b'_2 \end{pmatrix}=b'_1b'_2\begin{pmatrix} pc'\\ p^2 \end{pmatrix} + x\begin{pmatrix} p^2\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Such an integer $x$ exists precisely when $p \mid b'_1b'_2 c'$, which only occurs when $b_1 b_2 = 0$. Taking $v_3 \circ v_3$ or $v_4 \circ v_4$ gives an equation of the form $$\begin{pmatrix} a_i^2 \\ b_i^2 \\ p^2 \end{pmatrix} = p \begin{pmatrix} a_i \\ b_i \\ p \end{pmatrix} + x \begin{pmatrix} c \\ p^2 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} + y \begin{pmatrix} p^2 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ We see that $xp^2 = b_i^2 - p b_i$, and therefore $x = b_i'(b_i'-1)$. We also have $a_i^2 - p a_ i- x c =yp^2$, which implies $p^2 a_i' (a_i'-1) - pxc' = yp^2$. When $c \neq 0,\ p \mid x$. Since $0\leq b'_i \leq p-1$ we see $b'_i =0$ or $b'_i =1$, which implies $b_i\in \{0,p\}$. When $c\neq 0,\ (b_1,b_2)$ must be in $\{(0,0),(0,p), (p,0)\}$. This gives $p^2$ choices for $(a_1,a_2)$ and $p-1$ choices for $c$. Given such a choice, $v_i \circ v_j$ is in the column span of $A$ for any $i,j$. We now have polynomial formulas for $g_k(p^6)$ for $k = 2,3,\ldots, 6$, which completes the computation of $f_n(p^6)$ in Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\]. We follow a similar strategy to give formulas for $f_n(p^7)$ and $f_n(p^8)$. We show that $g_n(p^7)$ is a polynomial in $p$ for all $n \le 8$, which follows from the results of this section except when $n \in \{5,6\}$. In each of these cases we show that $g_\alpha(p)$ is a polynomial in $p$ for all compositions $\alpha \in \mathcal{C}_{n,e}$ by following arguments of the type given above. For $e = 8$ we show that $g_n(p^8)$ is a polynomial in $p$ for all $n \le 9$ by following a similar strategy. We include details only for one representative challenging case. \[lemma3211\] For a prime $p$, we have $g_{(3, 2, 1, 1)}(p) =7p^4 - 6p^3 + 6p^2$. This statement is an easy computation when $p=2$, so for the rest of the proof suppose that $p \ge 3$. An irreducible subring matrix $A$ with diagonal $(p^3,p^2, p, p, 1)$ is of the form $$\begin{pmatrix} p^3 & c & a_1 & a_2 & 1 \\ 0 & p^2 & b_1 & b_2 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & p & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & p & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix},$$ where $0 \le a_1, a_2, c < p^3,\ 0 \le b_1, b_2 < p^2$, and $p$ divides each of $a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2$, and $c$. Let $v_1,\ldots, v_5$ denote the columns of $A$. If $v_2 \circ v_2$ is in the column span of $A$ then $$\begin{pmatrix} c^2 \\ p^4 \end{pmatrix}= p^2\begin{pmatrix} c \\ p^2 \end{pmatrix}+ \lambda \begin{pmatrix} p^3 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ for some $\lambda\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. This implies $p^3 \mid (c^2 - p^2c^2)$. Since $p \mid c$ we see that $p^3 \mid c^2$, and therefore $p^2 \mid c$. Define $c'$ by $c = p^2 c'$ where $0 \le c' < p$. Also define $x,y,u$, and $v$ by $a_1 = p x,\ a_2 = p y,\ b_1 = pu$, and $b_2 = p v$. Taking $v_3 \circ v_3$ or $v_4 \circ v_4$ and applying an argument like the one above gives $$p^3 \mid \left(a_i^2 - pa_i - (b_i^2 - pb_i) c'\right),$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned} (x^2-x) - (u^2 - u) c' \equiv & 0 & \pmod{p}\label{eq1} \\ (y^2-y) - (v^2 - v) c' \equiv & 0 & \pmod{p}\label{eq2}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $v_3 \circ v_4$ gives $$\label{eq3} xy -uv c' \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.$$ Every solution to these three equations $(x,y,u,v,c')$ gives $p^2$ irreducible subring matrices since these equations depend only on $x$ and $y$ modulo $p$, rather than their particular values. Therefore, we need only count solutions to equations , , and for which $0 \le x, y < p$. If $c' = 0$, then equations and imply that $x,y \in \{0,1\}$. By equation (\[eq3\]) we cannot have $x=y=1$. Any choices of $u$ and $v$ now satisfy these equations. This gives $3p^2$ choices for $(x,y,u,v,c')$ and $3p^4$ irreducible subring matrices. For the rest of the proof suppose that $c' \neq 0$. We consider cases based on the values of $u$ and $x$. Equation implies that $u \in \{0,1\}$ if and only if $x \in \{0,1\}$. \[ClaimA\] Suppose that $c' \neq 0$. The following table gives the number of solutions to equations , , and with specified values of $u$ and $x$: $$\begin{tabular}{\|c \| c \| c \|} \hline $u$ & $x$ & Number of Solutions \\ \hline $0$ & $0$ & $p^2$ \\ \hline $1$ & $0$ & $2(p-1)$ \\ \hline $0$ & $1$ & $2(p-1)$ \\ \hline $1$ & $1$ & $2(p-1)$ \\ \hline Not $\{0,1\}$ & Not $\{0,1\}$ & $3(p-2)^2$ \\ \hline \end{tabular}\ .$$ We further divide up the last case of this claim. \[ClaimB\] Suppose that $c' \neq 0$ and $u,x \not\in\{0,1\}$. There are $(p-2)^2$ solutions with $v = 0$. When $v \neq 0$ there are $(p-1)(p-2)$ solutions with $x =u$ and $(p-2)(p-3)$ solutions with $x \neq u$. Once these claims are established we count $$3p^4 + p^2 \left(p^2+6(p-1)+3(p-2)^2\right) = 7p^4-6p^3+6p^2$$ total irreducible subrings, completing the proof. We now prove Claim \[ClaimA\]. Case 1: $u=x=0$. We need only count solutions of equation . If $v \in \{0, 1\}$, then there are $p-1$ choices for $c'$ and $2$ solutions $y$ for every $c'$, namely $y \in \{0, 1\}$, for a total of $4(p-1)$ solutions. If $v \not\in \{0, 1\}$, this equation gives a quadratic polynomial in $y$ for each fixed $v$. The number of solutions depends on whether the discriminant $1 + 4(v^2-v)c'$ is $0$, a non-zero square modulo $p$, or a non-square. Since $v\not\in\{0,1\},\ v^2 -v \not\equiv 0\pmod{p}$, and as $c'$ varies through $\{1,\ldots, p-1\}$ this discriminant takes every value modulo $p$ except $1$ exactly once, giving $2 \left(\frac{p-1}{2}-1\right) + 1 = p-2$ solutions. Adding these cases together gives $4(p-1) + (p-2)^2 = p^2$ solutions. Case 2: $u=1,\ x=0$. Equation implies $uvc' = 0$, and since $u$ and $c'$ are non-zero, we must have $v = 0$. Equation implies $y \in \{0,1\}$, so accounting for the $p-1$ possible values of $c'$ gives $2(p-1)$ solutions. Case 3: $u=0,\ x=1$. Equation implies $y = 0$. Equation (\[eq2\]) gives $v \in \{0,1\}$, so accounting for the $p-1$ possible values of $c'$ gives $2(p-1)$ solutions. Case 4: $u=1,\ x=1$. Equation gives $y \equiv v c' \pmod{p}$. Substituting this into equation gives $(c'^2-c')v^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$. If $c' = 1$ we have $p$ choices for $v$. If $c'\neq 1$ then $v = 0$. This gives $p + p-2 = 2(p-1)$ solutions. For the rest of the proof suppose that $c'\neq 0$ and $x,u \not\in \{0,1\}$. We consider two further subcases. Case 5: $v=0$. Equation implies $y=0$. Setting $c' = \frac{x^2-x}{u^2-u}$ for any choice of $x, u$ gives a valid solution. This gives $(p-2)^2$ solutions. Case 6: $v\neq0$. Equations and imply that $$c' \equiv \frac{x(x-1)}{u(u-1)} \equiv \frac{xy}{uv} \pmod{p}.$$ This implies $v \equiv \frac{y(u-1)}{x-1} \pmod{p}$. Since $v \neq 0$ by assumption, equation (\[eq3\]) implies $y \neq 0$. Substituting this expression for $v$ into equation and dividing by $y$ gives $$\label{eq4} y \left(1 - c'\frac{(u-1)^2}{(x-1)^2}\right) + c'\frac{u-1}{x-1}-1 \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.$$ This equation is linear in $y$ and the coefficient of $y$ is $0$ precisely when $c' \equiv \frac{(x-1)^2}{(u-1)^2} \pmod{p}$. Since $c' \equiv \frac{x(x-1)}{u(u-1)} \pmod{p}$ by equation (\[eq1\]), this is equivalent to $\frac{x}{u} \equiv \frac{x-1}{u-1} \pmod{p}$. This implies $x \equiv u \pmod{p}$. Now suppose that $x = u$. Equation (\[eq4\]) is satisfied for any of the $p-2$ possible choices for $x$. All of these equations are satisfied for any choice of $y$, except that $y = 0$ implies $v = 0$ by equation , a case we have already considered. Therefore, this case gives $(p-1)(p-2)$ solutions. When $x\neq u$, for any of the $(p-2)(p-3)$ choices of $x$ and $u$ there are unique choices of $y$ and $c'$ such that equation is satisfied, giving $(p-2)(p-3)$ solutions. This completes the proofs of the two claims, which completes the proof of Lemma \[lemma3211\]. Combining these computations with Proposition \[fnrecurrence\] completes the proof of Theorem \[Main\_Theorem\]. With such complicated expressions it is natural to be concerned about errors. We have used a computer to check our computations for $f_n(p^e)$ and $g_n(p^e)$ for all integers $n$ where $e \le 8$ and all primes $p \le 23$. We have also checked our computations for $g_{\alpha}(p)$, where $\alpha$ is a composition of an integer $e \le 8$. It would be quite technically challenging to extend these computations to $f_n(p^9)$, even with the help of a computer. Lower Bounds on $g_n(p^e)$ {#sec_lower_bounds} ========================== We now give a lower bound on $g_n(p^e)$ when $2 \le e \le n-1$. We do this by giving a lower bound on $g_{\alpha}(p^e)$ for a particular composition $\alpha$ of $e$ of length $n-1$. \[lowerbound\] Let $\alpha = (2,\ldots, 2,1,\ldots, 1)$ be a composition of length $n-1$ with $r$ entries equal to $2$ and $s$ entries equal to $1$. Then $g_{\alpha}(p) \ge p^{rs}$. Note that $r+s = n-1$ and $2r + s = e$. Solving for $r$ and $s$ in terms of $n$ and $e$ gives $(r,s) = \left(e-(n-1), 2(n-1)-e\right)$. Let $A$ be an upper triangular matrix with columns $v_1,\ldots, v_n$ where the diagonal entry of columns $v_1,\ldots, v_r$ is $p^2$, the diagonal entry of columns $v_{r+1},\ldots, v_{r+s}$ is $p$, and the final column is the identity $(1,\ldots, 1)^T$. Suppose that every non-diagonal entry in the first $n-1$ columns of this matrix is zero except possibly in the first $r$ rows of columns $v_{r+1},\ldots, v_{r+s}$. In each of these $rs$ entries there are $p$ integers $a_{i,j}$ satisfying $0 \le a_{i,j} < p^2$ and $p \mid a_{i,j}$. This gives $p^{rs}$ total matrices. It is easy to check that each one is an irreducible subring matrix. The matrices described in this proof do not give all irreducible subring matrices with diagonal $(p^2,\ldots, p^2, p,\ldots, p, 1)$. For example, we saw in Lemma \[uniquenesslemma\] that $g_{(2, 2, 1, 1)}(p) = p^4 + 3p^2(p-1)$, larger than the lower bound of $p^4$ from Proposition \[lowerbound\]. For each $e$, we compute the value of $n$ such that the corresponding lower bound on $g_n(p^e)$ is largest. That is, for fixed $e$ we want to find the non-negative integer $n$ maximizing $(e-(n-1))(2(n-1)-e)$. As a function of real numbers, this is maximized when $n = \frac{3e+4}{4}$. Taking $n$ equal to the nearest integer to $\frac{3e+4}{4}$, where we take either integer when $e\equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, gives the following lower bound. \[Cor1\] Let $e$ be a positive integer. We have $$\max_n g_n(p^e) \ge \begin{cases} p^{\frac{e^2}{8}} & \text{if } e \equiv 0 \pmod{4} \\ p^{\frac{1}{8}(e^2-1)} & \text{if } e \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\ p^{\frac{1}{8}(e^2-4)} & \text{if } e \equiv 2 \pmod{4} \\ p^{\frac{1}{8}(e^2-1)} & \text{if } e \equiv 3 \pmod{4} \end{cases}.$$ For each $e \le 8$ we can compute the value of $n$ giving the largest value of $g_n(p^e)$, and see that it is a polynomial of degree equal to the degree in the right hand side of the expression given in this corollary. For example, $$g_7(p^8) = p^8 + p^7 + 2p^6 + 23p^5 + 3p^4 + 2p^3 + 2p^2 + p + 1,$$ a polynomial of degree $\frac{8^2}{8} =8$. It is unclear whether for larger values of $e$ these lower bounds will continue to grow at a rate similar to the growth of $\max_n g_n(p^e)$. These lower bounds on $g_n(p^e)$ together with Proposition \[fnrecurrence\] give lower bounds on $f_n(p^e)$. The lower bounds of this section are closely related to Brakenhoff’s lower bounds for orders of given index in the ring of integers of a number field. [@Brakenhoff Lemma 5.10]\[BrakenhoffLower\] Let $\mathcal{O}_K$ be the ring of integers of a number field $K$. Every additive subgroup $G$ of $\mathcal{O}_K$ that satisfies ${\mathbb{Z}}+ m^2 \mathcal{O}_K \subset G \subset {\mathbb{Z}}+ m \mathcal{O}_K$ for some integer $m$ is a subring. The subrings $R$ described in the proof of Proposition \[lowerbound\] do satisfy ${\mathbb{Z}}+ p^2 {\mathbb{Z}}^n \subset R \subset {\mathbb{Z}}+ p {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, where the first ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is interpreted as integer multiples of the multiplicative identity $(1,\ldots, 1)$. Brakenhoff gives a lower bound for the number of additive subgroups satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition \[BrakenhoffLower\] and derives a lower bound for the number of orders of index at most $X$ in the ring of integers of a degree $n$ number field $K$. This requires an easy optimization along the lines of Corollary \[Cor1\]. In this way, our lower bounds for $g_n(p^e)$ is analogous to the lower bounds from [@Brakenhoff Theorem 5.1]. Using results of [@KMTB], increased lower bounds on $g_n(p^e)$ should lead to better lower bounds for orders of bounded index in a given number field. Further Questions {#conjectures} ================= Uniformity of $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}^R(s)$ and Varieties over Finite Fields ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions \[zetaznuniform\] and \[fnpolyq\] are related to how counting functions vary with $p$. Theorem \[GSSthm\] of Grunewald, Segal, and Smith gives information on how the function $f_n(p^e)$ behaves for fixed $n$ and $p$. We recall a theorem of du Sautoy and Grunewald [@duSautoyGrunewald], which implies that even if for fixed $n$ and $e\ f_n(p^e)$ is not a polynomial in $p$ we can still say quite a lot about how it behaves. For simplicity of notation, we state a version of this result for the subring zeta function of a ring with a multiplicative identity that is a modification of the first part of [@Voll2 Theorem A]. \[dSGthm\] Let $L$ be a ring of additive rank $n$ containing a multiplicative identity. Then there are smooth projective varieties $V_t,\ t\in \{1,\ldots, m\}$, defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, and rational functions $W_t(X,Y) \in {\mathbb{Q}}(X,Y)$ such that for almost all primes $p$ the following holds:\ Denoting by $b_t(p)$ the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-rational points of $\overline{V_t}$, the reduction $\mod p$ of $V_t$, we have $$\zeta^R_{L,p}(s) = \sum_{t=1}^m b_t(p) W_t(p,p^{-s}).$$ Much is known about the denominators of the rational functions of Theorem \[GSSthm\], but the numerators are significantly more complicated. This can lead to the appearance of interesting projective varieties in the theorem above. See the paper of du Sautoy [@duSautoyDenom] and Voll’s survey [@Voll Section 2.1] for more information. In case $\zeta_{{\mathbb{Z}}^n}^R(s)$ is not uniform it would be interesting to see what kinds of varieties arise in the formulas of Theorem \[dSGthm\]. The conditions for the columns of an $n\times n$ matrix to be multiplicatively closed define many equations in the matrix entries. For examples for $n= 4$ and $5$, see [@KMTB Lemmas 12 and 13]. Once $n$ is not too small, it is possible that the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-points of the varieties defined by these equations does not vary in a polynomial way and that these counts filter into formulas for $f_n(p^e)$. Coefficients of $f_n(p^e)$ and $g_n(p^e)$ ----------------------------------------- For small fixed values of $n$ and $e$, the function $g_n(p^e)$ is a polynomial in $p$ with non-negative coefficients. However, this is not true for $g_5(p^8) = p^5 + 77p^4 - 13p^3 + 12p^2 + p + 1$. As far as we know, there has been no previous study of the positivity of coefficients of $g_n(p^e)$ or $f_n(p^e)$. These questions are motivated by analogous work related to Hall polynomials. 1. Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k)$, where $\lambda_1 \ge \cdots \ge \lambda_k > 0$. A finite abelian $p$-group $G$ is of type $\lambda$ if $$G \cong {\mathbb{Z}}/p^{\lambda_1} {\mathbb{Z}}\times \cdots \times {\mathbb{Z}}/p^{\lambda_k} {\mathbb{Z}}.$$ 2. A subgroup of $H$ of $G$ is of cotype $\nu$ if $G/H$ is of type $\nu$. 3. Let $g_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}(p)$ be the number of subgroups $H$ of a $p$-group $G$ of type $\lambda$ such that $H$ has type $\mu$ and cotype $\nu$. Hall proved that $g_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}(p)$ is a polynomial in $p$ with integer coefficients. Several other authors have studied these coefficients. For example, Butler and Hales give a characterization of types $\lambda$ for which all of the associated Hall polynomials have non-negative coefficients [@ButlerHales]. Maley shows that the expansion of any $g_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}(p)$ in terms of powers of $p-1$ has non-negative coefficients [@Maley]. In all cases we have computed, the same property holds for $g_n(p^e)$. This is even stronger than the observation that $g_n(1)$ is a non-negative integer. When $g_n(p^e)$ is expanded in terms of powers of $p-1$, are the coefficients positive? Evseev has studied the substitution $p = 1$ in the form of the reduced zeta function [@Evseev]. The $p \to 1$ behavior of local factors of zeta functions is closely related to the corresponding topological zeta function [@Rossmann2]. For a more detailed discussion of these questions with some examples, see [@VollRecent Section 3.3]. It would be interesting to undertake a more detailed study of the coefficients of $f_n(p^e)$ and $g_n(p^e)$. For much more background on Hall polynomials and connections to counting subgroups of finite abelian groups, see the books of Macdonald [@Macdonald] and Butler [@ButlerBook]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We thank the mathematics department at Yale University and the Summer Undergraduate Research at Yale (SUMRY) program for providing the opportunity to conduct this research. SUMRY is supported in part by NSF grant CAREER DMS-1149054. The second author is supported by NSA Young Investigator Grant H98230-16-10305 and an AMS-Simons Travel Grant. We thank Francisco Munoz, for his active involvement throughout this project and for many helpful conversations. We thank Christopher Voll and Tobias Rossmann for many extremely helpful comments. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Sam Payne, Susie Kimport, and José González for helping to organize SUMRY. The second author thanks Robert Lemke-Oliver for helpful conversations. Lastly, we thank the Yale Center for Research Computing for High Performance Computing resources. [1]{} M. Bhargava, Mass formulae for extensions of local fields, and conjectures on the density of field discriminants. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2007, no. 17, Art. ID rnm052, 20 pp. M. Bhargava, The density of discriminants of quartic rings and fields. Ann. of Math. (2) 162 (2005), no. 2, 1031-1063. M. Bhargava, The density of discriminants of quintic rings and fields. Ann. of Math. (2) 172 (2010), no. 3, 1559-1591. J.F. Brakenhoff, [Counting problems for number rings.]{} Doctoral thesis, Leiden University, 2009. L. Butler, [Subgroup lattices and symmetric functions.]{} Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 112 (1994), no. 539, vi+160 pp. L. Butler and A. Hales, [Nonnegative Hall polynomials.]{} J. Algebraic Combin. 2 (1993), no. 2, 125-135. B. Datskovsky, D. J. Wright, [Density of discriminants of cubic extensions.]{} J. Reine Angew. Math. 386 (1988), 116–138. H. Davenport and H. Heilbronn, On the density of discriminants of cubic fields. II. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 322 (1971), no. 1551, 405-420. J. Denef, [The rationality of the Poincaré series associated to the $p$-adic points on a variety]{}. Invent. Math. 77 (1984), 1-23. J. Denef, [On the degree of Igusa’s local zeta function]{}. Am. J. Math. 109 (1987), 991-1008. M. P. F. du Sautoy, [Zeta functions of groups and rings: uniformity]{}, Israel J. Math. 86 (1994), 1-23. M. P. F. du Sautoy and F. Grunewald, [Analytic properties of zeta functions and subgroup growth.]{} Ann. of Math. (2) 152 (2000), no. 3, 793-833. M. P. F. du Sautoy, L. Woodward, Zeta Functions of Groups and Rings. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1925. [Springer-Verlag, Berlin]{}, 2008. xii+208 pp. A. Evseev, [Reduced zeta functions of Lie algebras.]{} J. Reine Angew. Math. 633 (2009), 197-211. F. J. Grunewald, D. Segal, and G. C. Smith, [Subgroups of finite index in nilpotent groups.]{} Invent. Math. 93, 1988, pp. 185–223. J.-I. Igusa, [Some observations on higher degree characters]{}. Amer. J. Math. 99 (1977), no. 2, 393-417. N. Kaplan, J. Marcinek, and R. Takloo-Bighash, Distribution of orders in number fields. Res. Math. Sci. 2 (2015), Art. 6, 57 pp. R. I. Liu, [Counting subrings of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ of index $k$.]{} J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 114 (2007), no. 2, 278–299. A. Lubotzky and D. Segal, Subgroup Growth. Progress in Mathematics, 212. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2003. xxii+453 pp. I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials. Second Edition. With contributions by A. Zelevinsky. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. x+475 pp. F. Maley, [The Hall polynomial revisited.]{} J. Algebra 184 (1996), no. 2, 363-371. G. Malle, On the distribution of Galois groups. J. Number Theory, 92 (2002), no. 2, 315-329. G. Malle, On the distribution of Galois groups. II. Experiment. Math. 13 (2004), no. 2, 129-135. J. Nakagawa, [Orders of a quartic field.]{} Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 122 (1996), no. 583, viii+75 pp. T. Rossmann, [Computing topological zeta functions of groups, algebras, and modules II]{}. J. Algebra 444 (2015), 567-605. T. Rossmann, [Computing local zeta functions of groups, algebras and modules]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. To appear. (2017), 39 pp. <https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/7361>. C. Voll, [Zeta functions of groups and rings – recent developments]{}. Groups St Andrews 2013, 469- 492, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 422, [Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge]{}, 2015. C. Voll, [A newcomer’s guide to zeta functions of groups and rings]{}. Lectures on profinite topics in group theory, 99- 144, London Math. Soc. Stud. Texts, 77, [Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge]{}, 2011. C. Voll, [Functional equations for zeta functions of groups and rings.]{} Ann. of Math. (2) 172 (2010), no. 2, 1181-1218.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'T. V. Fityo' title: 'A new class of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra' --- [We construct a new class of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra. The Hamiltonians possess one explicitly known eigenfunction.]{} Introduction ============ By now, non-Hermitian Hamiltonians attract a lot of attention. Such Hamiltonians are used in optics [@swfi; @dbvg], in field theory [@ncos] and other branches of theoretical physics. Among the non-Hermitian Hamiltonians much attention was devoted to investigation of properties of the so-called $PT$ symmetric Hamiltonians [@eoch; @rsin; @ptsq; @tcp; @sswh; @ssfp; @ncop; @copn; @gce; @fspo]. A Hamiltonian is called to be $PT$ symmetric if $PTH=HPT$, where $P$ is the parity operator, i.e. $Pf(x)=f(-x)$, and $T$ is the complex conjugation operator. The main reason for this interest was an assumption that their spectra were entirely real as long as the $PT$ symmetry was not spontaneously broken. There are several ways to build a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian with real spectrum. For this purpose it was proposed to use supersymmetric quantum mechanics [@sowc]. Recently, Mostafazadeh generalized $PT$ symmetry by pseudo-Hermiticity [@phvp]. The idea of pseudo-Hermiticity was introduced by Dirac [@Dirac]. A Hamiltonian $H$ is said to be $\eta$-pseudo-Hermitian if $$\label{ph} H^+=\eta H\eta^{-1},$$ where $^+$ denotes the operation of adjoint. In [@phvp] it was proposed a new class of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra which are obtained using pseudo-supersymmetry. Mostafazadeh also showed [@phvp2] that the operator $H$ with complete set of biorthonormal eigenvectors has a real spectrum if and only if there exists a linear invertible operator $O$ such that $H$ is $\eta$-pseudo-Hermitian, where $\eta=O^+O$. In the paper we construct a new class of pseudo-Hermitian operators with real spectra using $O$ as a first order differential operator. Pseudo-Hermiticity ================== Suppose that non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H$ is $\eta$-pseudo-Hermitian: $$\label{e1} \eta H =H^+\eta.$$ Here, we choose another form of pseudo-Hermiticity to avoid a necessity of $\eta$ invertibility (the form (\[e1\]) is mentioned in [@phvp]). Choose an operator $\eta$ to be an Hermitian operator. Then $\eta H$ is an Hermitian operator, too: $(\eta H)^+=H^+\eta^+=H^+\eta=\eta H$. Consider an eigenfunction $\psi$ and the corresponding eigenvalue $E$ of $H$. Then, because of Hermiticity of $\eta H$ as well as of $\eta$, $$\int\psi^\eta H\psi dx=E\int\psi^\eta\psi dx,$$ both integrals are real and except for the case $$\label{eq0} \int\psi^\eta\psi dx=0$$ the eigenvalue $E$ is also real. On the contrary, if $\int \psi^\eta\psi dx=0$ then the left integral of (\[eq0\]) has to be zero, too. In this case $E$ can be either a real or a complex number. For a general form of $\eta$ it is difficult to find if there exist such eigenfunctions which satisfy (\[eq0\]). To simplify the study of the case of $\int \psi^\eta\psi dx=0$ we concretize the form of $\eta$ to be $$\label{e3} \eta=O^+O.$$ For this case the integral $\int\psi^O^+O\psi dx = \int \|O\psi\|^2dx$ is greater than zero except for the case of $\psi$ belonging to the kernel of $O$. So we have to solve $$\label{e4} O\phi=0$$ and verify if solutions of this equation are the eigenfunctions of $H$. In the following section we build such a pair of Shrödinger Hamiltonian $$\label{ShH} H=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)$$ and $O^+O$ that satisfies condition (\[e1\]). $O$ as the first order differential operator {#anc} ============================================ Choose $O$ in the following form $$\label{e5} O=\frac{d}{dx}+f(x)+ig(x),$$ where $f$, $g$ are regular, real-valued functions. Then $$\label{e6} O^+=-\frac{d}{dx}+f(x)-ig(x).$$ Substituting (\[ShH\]), (\[e5\]) and (\[e6\]) into (\[e1\]) and collecting terms with $\frac{d^2}{dx^2}$ operator we obtain $$\label{e7} {\rm Im} V=-2g'.$$ The terms without differential operators lead to $4g'(f'+f^2)+2g(f'+f^2)'=g'''$. Multiplying this equation by $g$ and integrating it we obtain $$\label{e9} f^2-f'=\frac{2gg''-g'^2+\alpha}{4g^2},$$ where $\alpha$ is a real constant of integration. The terms with $\frac{d}{dx}$ give $2{\rm Re} V'=2(f^2-f'-g^2)'$. Integrating it and substituting (\[e9\]) we can rewrite the real part of potential as $$\label{e8} {\rm Re}V=f^2-f'-g^2+\beta=\frac{2gg''-g'^2+\alpha}{4g^2}-g^2+\beta,$$ where $\beta$ is a real constant of integration. In equations (\[e7\]-\[e8\]) $g$ plays a role of generating function. In order to obtain a $PT$ symmetric Hamiltonian the generating function $g$ must be an even function, i.e. $g(x)=g(-x)$. It should be noted that the choice (\[e5\]) leads to $\eta=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}-2ig\frac{d}{dx}+f^2-f'+g^2-ig'$ and $\eta$ plays a role of a second order Darboux operator. It intertwines $H$ and $H^+$ which are superpartners of the second order supersymmetry [@dtfq]. Formulae (\[e7\]-\[e8\]) are similar to the corresponding results of [@sssq]. The next step is to check whether the solution of (\[e4\]) is an eigenfunction of $H$. In terms of $f$ and $g$ we can express this solution as: $$\label{e10} \phi=e^{-\int (f+ig) dx}.$$ Considering $\phi$ as an eigenfunction of (\[ShH\]) and using (\[e7\]), (\[e8\]) we obtain $$-i(g'+2fg)+\beta=E,$$ where $E=E_r+iE_i$ is the complex eigenvalue of $H$ ($H\phi=E\phi$). We see that $\beta=E_r$. Then $$\label{e111} f=-\frac{E_i+g'}{2g}.$$ Now, from (\[e111\]) and (\[e9\]) we have two different relations between $f$ and $g$. To compare them we substitute $f$ from (\[e111\]) into (\[e9\]) and after some simplification we obtain $E_i^2=\alpha$. So we can state that $\phi$ can be an eigenfunction of (\[ShH\]) only if $\alpha\ge0$. Note that (\[e111\]) for the case $E_i^2=\alpha$ is the solution of (\[e9\]). So choosing any $g$ and $\alpha<0$ we can be sure that the spectrum of the corresponding Hamiltonian is entirely real, but we are not sure that it is not empty. By choosing for $\alpha=0$ a suitable $g$ one can construct the Hamiltonian with real spectrum and that also possesses one explicitly known eigenfunction. Choosing $g$ and $\alpha>0$ we have to check if the corresponding $\phi$ does not belong to $L_2$ space to obtain an Hamiltonian with real spectrum. In the following section we illustrate these results. Examples ======== For constructing Hamiltonians we use formulae (\[e7\]) and (\[e8\]) to represent imaginary and real part of the potential as well as (\[e111\]) to express $f$. There are two ways to obtain regular expression for $f$. The first is to choose $g$ without sign changing and any value of $E_i$ or $\alpha$. It is illustrated with example 1. The second way is to choose $g$ as a function with a simple zero. In this case we have to fix value of the $E_i$ to avoid singularity. This way is illustrated with examples 2 and 3. [Example 1]{} Choosing the generating function $g$ as the even function $$g=e^{-x^2}$$ we obtain $PT$ symmetric Hamiltonian $$\label{eeeH} H=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+x^2+\frac{\alpha}{4}e^{2x^2}-e^{-2x^2}-4ixe^{-x^2}+\beta-1$$ which possesses real spectrum for $\alpha<0$, for $\alpha=0$ we know one eigenfunction $\psi_{E=\beta}=\exp(-\frac{x^2}{2}-i\int e^{-x^2}dx)$ and for $\alpha=E_i^2>0$ the eigenfunction $\psi_{E=\beta+iE_i}=\exp(-\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{E_i}{2} \int e^{x^2}dx-i\int e^{-x^2}dx)$ does not belong to $L_2$ space. So we can state that spectrum of (\[eeeH\]) is entirely real for any value of $\alpha$ parameter. [Example 2]{} Choose the generating function $g$ in the form $$g=\sinh(x),$$ then, to obtain regular $f=-\frac{E_i+\cosh(x)}{2\sinh(x)}$ one must set $E_i=-1$ and then $f=-\frac{1}{2}\tanh{\frac{1}{2}x}$. Then $\phi=\cosh(\frac{1}{2}x)e^{-i\cosh(x)}$ does not belong to $L_2$. So spectrum of $$H=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}-2i\cosh(x)-\sinh^2(x)$$ is real. [Example 3]{} Choose the generating function $g$ in the form $$g=\tanh(x),$$ then, avoiding singularity, we set $E_i=-1$ and obtain $$\label{eqH3} H=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}-\frac{2i-\frac{1}{4}}{\cosh^2(x)}+\beta-\frac{3}{4}$$ with eigenfunction $\psi_{E=\beta-i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\cosh(x)}}e^{-i\ln(\cosh(x))}$. The spectrum of (\[eqH3\]) can be found using supersymmetric methods and it easy to show that this eigenvalue is unique. Acknowledgement =============== I am very grateful to V. M. Tkachuk for numerous useful discussions. [xx]{} M. Horne, I. Jex, A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. A [59]{} 2190 (1999). M. Berry, D. O’Dell, J. Phys. A [31]{} 2093 (1998). C. Bender, K. Milton, Phys. Rev. D [55]{} 3255 (1999). E. Delabaere, F. Pham, Phys. Let. A [250]{} 25 (1998). C. Bender, S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Let. [80]{} 5243 (1998). C. Bender, S. Boettcher, P. Meisinger, J. Math. Phys. [40]{} 2201 (1999). C. Bender, Phys. Rep. [315]{} 27 (1999). M. Znojil et al. Phys. Let. B [483]{} 284 (2000). G. Lévai, M. Znojil, J. Phys. A [33]{} 7165 (2000). F. Cannata et al. Phys. Let. A [281]{} 305 (2001). M. Znojil, arXiv: math-ph/0104012. B. Bagchi, C. Quesne, M. Znojil, Mod. Phys. Let. A [16]{} 2047 (2001). V.M. Tkachuk, T.V. Fityo, J. Phys. A [34]{} 8673 (2001). F. Cannata, G. Junker, J. Trost, Phys. Let. A [246]{} 219 (1998). A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. [43]{} 205 (2002). P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [180]{} 1 (1942). A. Mostafazadeh, arXiv: math-ph/0110016. N. Debergh, B. F. Samsonov, B. van den Bossche, arXiv: quant-ph/0201105. D. J. Fernandez C., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [12]{} 171 (1997).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| The main goal of this paper is to investigate numerically the dynamics of quantized vortex loops, just before the reconnection at finite temperature, when mutual friction essentially changes evolution of lines. Modeling is performed on the base of vortex filament method with using the full Biot-Savart equation. It was discovered that initial position of vortices and the temperature strongly affect the dependence on time of the minimum distance $\delta (t)$ between tips of two vortex loops. In particular, in some cases the shrinking and collapse of vortex loops due to mutual friction occur earlier than reconnection, thereby cancelling the latter. However, this relationship takes a universal square-root form $\delta\left(t\right)=\sqrt{\left(\kappa/2\pi\right)\left(t_{}-t\right)}$ at distances smaller than the one, satisfying the Schwarz criterion, when nonlocal contribution to the Biot-Savart equation becomes about equal to local contribution. In the “universal” the nearest parts of vortices form a pyramid-like structure with angles which are also don’t depend both on the initial configuration of filaments and on the temperature. author: - 'V.A. Andryushchenko' - 'L.P. Kondaurova' - 'S.K. Nemirovskii' date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date' subtitle: '[^1]' title: Dynamics of quantized vortices moving towards reconnection --- 1 Introduction. Scientific background and motivation* The reconnection of vortex lines is of greatest influence on the dynamics of quantum turbulence (QT) in superfluid helium [@key-1]. Thus, because of reconnection processes, the vortex loops constituing QT permanently split and merge, forming the self-maintaining structure - the so called vortex tangle. For this reason, the investigation of a reconnection of vortices is very important. In particular, the dynamics of vortex loops just before reconnection is responsible for the rate of reconnections. Also, an exact shape of lines (vortex line configuration) is crucial for the form of spectrum of 3D motion, induced by these lines, etc. Study of the time dependence of the minimum distance $\delta (t)$ between tips of two vortex loops, as well as determination of the configuration of vortex lines just before reconnection are the problems of special interest. Of course, the problem of reconnection of quantized filaments was intensively explored. Let us briefly describe the works that are the most relevant to our stated tasks. The various approaches are usually used for study of the reconnection problems. It is modeling, based on the Biot-Savart equation [@key-2; @key-3; @key-4], and the numerical solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) [@key-4; @key-5; @key-6]. There are also analytic studies (see, e.g. [@key-7; @key-10] and references therein). Besides, there are also experimental observations [@key-8]. In pioneering works [@key-2; @key-10] it was found that at zero temperature the time dependence of minimum distance between points of two vortex loops has a following form [@key-2]: $$\delta\left(t\right)=\sqrt{\left(\kappa/2\pi\right)\left(t_{}-t\right)},$$ where $\kappa=\text{h /\ensuremath{m_{He}}}$ is quantum of circulation, $h$ is Planck’s constant, $m_{He}$ is the mass of the helium atom, $t_{}$ is the reconnection time. It was also discovered that the geometrical configuration of vortex lines at their route to the reconnection, forms an universal pyramidal structure. That pyramidal structure is independent on the initial position of vortex loops [@key-2]. However, in experimental work, performed at temperatures $\left(1.7\:K<T<2.05\:K\right)$ [@key-8] (and hence, the friction force was not zero) it was obtained the following relation for quantity $\delta (t)$ : $$\delta\left(t\right)=A\sqrt{\kappa\left(t_{}-t\right)}\left(1+c\|t_{}-t\|\right).$$ Coefficients $A$ and $c$ were distributed around mean values $A\thickapprox1.25$, $c\approx0.5s^{-1}$ with large dispersion. Remarkably that values of all $A$ were greater than $\sqrt{1/2\pi}$. The described above discrepancy attracted attention of scientists, a series of works on the dynamics of reconnecting lines was performed. The results of numerical simulations of the problem obtained on the basis of the GPE [@key-4; @key-5; @key-6], where many details of reconnection process were refined, look promising. However, the dynamics of vortices in Bose-Einstein gases is not fully equivalent to the dynamics of vortices in the He II. The main sources of deviations are the large compressibility and the large core size. Therefore, the difference (between GPE and vortex filament method (VFM)) would be significant, up to that the square-root law would be strongly corrected for BEC. The distance $\delta\left(t\right)$ was studied in the approximation of the vortex filament method [@key-3] at finite temperatures. It was found: $\delta\left(t\right)\sim\sqrt{\left(t_{}-t\right)}$. However, the information related to configuration of vortices before reconnection wasn’t disclosed there. Therefore the question of vortex dynamics just before reconnection at finite temperature in pure He II remains open. In this paper we present the numerical results (which were based on VFM) of vortex loops dynamics on their route to reconnection point at finite temperatures.\ 2 Basic equations and their implementation* Numerical simulations were performed on the base of the VFM, solving the equation of motion for the vortex elements in a resting helium $\boldsymbol{V}_{ns}\left(s\right)=0$ : $$\boldsymbol{V}_{L}=\boldsymbol{V}_{B}-\alpha\boldsymbol{s}'\times\boldsymbol{V}_{B} +\alpha'\boldsymbol{s}'\times\left[\boldsymbol{s}'\times\boldsymbol{V}_{B}\right].$$ Here $\alpha,\:\alpha'$ are the mutual friction coefficients, $\boldsymbol{s}'$ is tangential vector. Primes denote differentiation with respect to the instantaneous arc length. The $\boldsymbol{V}_{B}\left(s\right)$ is found by solving the Biot-Savart equation: $$\boldsymbol{V}_{B}\left(\boldsymbol{s}\right)=\frac{\kappa}{4\pi}\int_{l}\frac{\left(\boldsymbol{s}_{1}-\boldsymbol{s}\right)\times d\boldsymbol{s}_{1}}{\|\boldsymbol{s}_{1}-\boldsymbol{s}\|^{3}},$$ Here $\boldsymbol{s}_{1},\:\boldsymbol{s}$ are the radius vectors of vortex points, the integration is taken over the entire vortices configurations $l$. Initial configuration of system was two rings of identical diameter lying in the same plane.The initial radius of the vortex loops $R_{0}$ was varied from $10^{-5}m$ to $10^{-7}m$. The initial distance between centers of rings was varied from $2.1\cdot R_{0}$ to $2.5\cdot R_{0}$. Starting from early works by Siggia [@key-9] and Schwarz [@key-10; @key-11], it was observed that the arbitrary oriented vortex lines, approaching to each other, were changing their orientations to become anti-parallel. Thus, the anti-parallel scenario is the most important and therefore, vectors of vortex rings circulation were chosen co directional. The temperature of the system was varied from $0\:K$ to $1.9\:K$, the corresponding friction coefficients were taken from [@key-12]. The Runge-Kutta scheme of 4-th order was used to integrate the motion equation. Specific details related to simulation algorithm and features of its numerical implementation were described in [@key-13]. We varied space resolutions to test applicability of numerical algorithm for investigated system. Discrepancies in the vortices velocities were less then one percent, for different spatial resolutions, but for identical initial conditions and temperatures. Thus, the chosen numerical algorithm seems quite appropriate for investigation of vortex loops dynamics. In the data presented in this work the second friction coefficient $\alpha'$ was omitted. It was found that the influence of it was negligible, within $1\div2$ percents. In addition, the system was tested on the similarity by studying of the rings of various initial radii. In principle the similarity would be violated because of the logarithmic factor. However, it was found that vortices evolve similarly (just before reconnection), despite the presence of these factors.\ 3 Minimum distance between vortices Performed calculations illustrate that qualitatively the evolution process is the following: due to non-local Biot-Savart action the nearest parts go out of the initial plane with formation of cusps. After that the self-induced velocity, directed to opposite cusp, appears. Thus, the out-of-plane velocity is accompanied with the approaching factor. As a result, the close parts of both lines form a pyramid-like structure (see, Fig. 2(a)-(2b)). Qualitatively, this scenario is consistent with the results obtained by other researchers cited above. However, the mutual friction modifies an overall dynamics of approaching filaments. ![ The time dependence of the quantity $\delta (t)/R_{0}$. The solid line corresponds to $T=1.6\:K$, dash-dotted line corresponds to $T=1.3\:K$, crosses correspond to $T=0\:K$ (and obey equation (1)). All initial distances are equal $0.4\cdot R_{0}$. (Inset) Increased region near the reconnection point. ](Fig1) Let us consider such important question as a time dependence of the minimum distance between two vortex loops $\delta\left(t\right)$. Hereinafter, we consider the $R_{0}=10^{-5}m$ in most calculations. In Fig. 1 the quantities $\delta(t)$ for three different temperatures $T=0\:K$, $T=1.3\:K$, and $T=1.6\:K$ are depicted. In the all three cases, the initial normalized distances $\delta\left(0\right)/R_{0}$ are equal $0.4$. The first remarkable, although not surprising, fact is that the reconnection times are different for all three cases. Therefore, in order to accomplish comparison, the curves for temperatures $T=0\:K$ and $T=1.3\:K$ are shifted along the time axis, so that the points of reconnections (in general, different) are coincided. The shortest time for collision of filaments occurs at $T=0\:K$. The dependence $\delta\left(t\right)/R_{0}$, shown by crosses, is well described by square-root law (Eq.(1)). This result is consistent with data of paper [@key-2]. The reconnection time $t_{}$ at zero temperature time depends on the initial distance, and can be estimated as follows: $t_{}=c[\delta\left(0\right)/R_{0}]^{2}$, where $c\sim9.4\cdot10^{-3}s$. Unlike the previous case, the curves $\delta\left(t\right)$, obtained at finite temperatures, behave in more sophisticated manner. Conditionally, the whole evolution of colliding lines at finite temperatures consists of three parts. The third, last interval, just before reconnection, is fully universal. It is characterized by the square root dependence (on time) of shortest distance $\delta$ between tips on loops $\delta(t)\propto \sqrt{\kappa(t_{}-t)}$ with the universal unchanged prefactor $\sqrt{1/2\pi}$. The second, next to last interval is semi-universal. The behavior of $\delta$ is close to the square root dependence, however, it is rather characterized by the corrected formula Eq. (2) with non-generic parameters $A$ and $c$, and $A$ is greater than $\sqrt{1/2\pi}$. This results agrees well with the observation of the works [@key-6; @key-8]. Remarkably, the boundary between these two intervals (that was found numerically) is of the order of the Schwarz criterion for reconnection ansatz [@key-11; @key-12]. Finally, the first, initial part of evolution of vortices, before the semi-universal interval, is non-universal at all. Its dynamics depends on many parameters (temperature, initial separation, radius of rings, etc.).\ 4 Shrinking and collapse of vortex loops* With increasing of temperature (or mutual friction), the moving loops tend to shrink via friction. As the result, under certain initial conditions, loops may collapse and die before reconnection. This result, of course, can be predicted qualitatively. However, it would be useful to obtain more or less rigorous quantitative criteria for this phenomena. To estimate the characteristic times of the evolution of loops (either reconnection or collapse time (lifetime)) we modeled system dynamics at different initial temperatures and distances (see, Table 1). ------ ------ ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- T, K $\delta\left(0\right)/R_{0}$ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 80.0 323.4 763.0 1410.7 2269.2 1.3 80.9 366.1 1025.6 2184.3 3022.0 1.6 81.7 529.5 2490.3 - 1.9 - - - - ------ ------ ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- Table 1: Dependence of the collision time (in microseconds) on temperature and initial distances between vortices. The upper part of the table corresponds to a scenario where vortex loops collide with each other, the lower, marked part corresponds to scenario where the loops shrink and collapse (due to mutual friction) before reconnection. For the temperatures equal to $1.3\, K$, $1.6\, K$, $1.9\, K$ and the initial radius of the rings $R_{0}=10^{-5}m$ the lifetimes roughly equals to $15167\, \mu s$, $5570\, \mu s$, $2600\, \mu s$, respectively. These values are of the order of the lifetimes $\tau$ of ideal vortex rings $\tau=R_{0}^{2}/2\alpha\beta$, where $\beta=\left(\kappa/4\pi\right)\ln\left(R_{0}/a_{0}\right)$ and $a_{0}$ core radius (see, e.g. [@key-14]). It looks a bit surprisingly, since the vortex loops undergo to significant deformation due to “tidal” non-local action during evolution.\ 5 Geometric configuration of loops before reconnection As mentioned, during evolution the closest sections of the loops form a pyramid structure as it shown in Fig. 2(a). ![image](Fig2) Fig. 2 (a) Illustration of configuration of two vortex loops before reconnection, (b) Definitions of angles, (c) Dependencies of angles on $\delta$ for $T=1.3\:K.$ Again, just as in the case of the minimum distance described in Sec. 4, there are also universal and non-universal intervals. In the latter case, the influence of the mutual friction is significant. In the former case the angles of the pyramid $\psi$ and $\phi$ practically stay unchanged, which corresponds to the pattern, described in [@key-2]. We calculated the angles at very small distances, about several hundred of the core size. In this situation the angles obtained at vertex of pyramid equal to $\approx27$ and $\approx141$ degrees accordingly, which were a little higher than values given in [@key-2] as it shown in Fig. 2(c). The angles at the top of pyramid (immediately before reconnection) were practically independent from initial positions of vortex loops and friction force, as it should be expected in the universal regime.\ 6 Conclusion Thus, we revealed that the whole evolution of colliding lines consists of three parts. These are the fully non-universal interval, depending on many parameters, and the final stage, which, in turn, is composed of two periods. The last interval, just before reconnection, is fully universal. It is characterized by the square root dependence of shortest distance $\delta$ between tips on loops $\delta(t)\propto \sqrt{\kappa(t_{}-t)}$ with the universal unchanged pre-factor $\sqrt{1/2\pi}$. Another part of evolution of vortices, prior to universal interval, is semi-universal. In particularly, its dynamics depends on the temperature, and the behavior of $\delta$ is characterized by the corrected formula Eq. (2). Therefore, any attempt to fit the function $\delta(t)$, obtained experimentally or numerically, within the domain covering both an universal and semi-universal intervals, and with the use of the square root dependence, inevitably results in a deviation from pure $\sqrt{\kappa\left(t_{}-t\right)}$ law and an appearance of non-generic parameters $A$ and $c$. This observation is in good agreement with the experimental data [@key-8]. Remarkably, the boundary between these two intervals (which was found numerically) is of the order of the Schwarz criterion for reconnection ansatz [@key-11; @key-12]. The mutual friction affects also other features of reconnection processes. Thus, under some conditions the vortex loops can shrink and die, before the collision of lines occurs. Additionally a lifetimes of significantly deformed vortices are close to the lifetime of the ideal single vortex ring. We also observed the influence of friction on the pyramidal structure of vortex line before reconnection. However, in the universal interval this pyramidal structure is independent on the initial position of vortex loops and temperature. The angles of pyramid don’t change in the universal interval. [1]{} S.K. Nemirovski, Phys. Rep. 524, 3 (2013) A.T.A.M. de Waele, R.G.K.M. Aarts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 4 (1994) R. Hanninen, Phys. Rev. B. 88, 054511 (2013) S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, A.W. Baggaley, and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. of Fluids. 24, 125108 (2012) R. Tebbs, A.J. Youd, C.F. Barenghi, J. Low Temp. Phys. 162 (2011) A.J. Allen, S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, N.P. Proukakis, N.G. Parker, and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013601 (2014) L. Boue, D. Khomenko, V.S. Lvov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 145302 (2013) M.S. Paoletti, M.E. Fisher, D.P. Lathrop, Phys.D.: Non.Phen. 239, 14 (2010) A. Pumir and E.D. Siggia, Phys. of Fluids 30, 1606 (1987) K.W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B. 31, 5782 (1985) K.W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B. 38, 2398 (1988) R.J. Donnelly and C.F. Barenghi, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. 27, 1217 (1998) L.P. Kondaurova, V.A. Andryushchenko, S.K. Nemirovskii, Comp. Techn. 15, 2 (2010) R.J. Donnelly, Quantized Vortices in Helium II, Cambridge University Press, UK (1991) [^1]: This work was supported by RFBR grants No. 13-08-00673 and 15-02-05366.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Deep learning takes advantage of large datasets and computationally efficient training algorithms to outperform other approaches at various machine learning tasks. However, imperfections in the training phase of deep neural networks make them vulnerable to adversarial samples: inputs crafted by adversaries with the intent of causing deep neural networks to misclassify. In this work, we formalize the space of adversaries against deep neural networks (DNNs) and introduce a novel class of algorithms to craft adversarial samples based on a precise understanding of the mapping between inputs and outputs of DNNs. In an application to computer vision, we show that our algorithms can reliably produce samples correctly classified by human subjects but misclassified in specific targets by a DNN with a 97% adversarial success rate while only modifying on average 4.02% of the input features per sample. We then evaluate the vulnerability of different sample classes to adversarial perturbations by defining a hardness measure. Finally, we describe preliminary work outlining defenses against adversarial samples by defining a predictive measure of distance between a benign input and a target classification.' author: - - bibliography: - 'initial-biblio.bib' title: \| The Limitations of Deep Learning\ in Adversarial Settings --- at (\[yshift=1em\]current page text area.north) [Accepted to the 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security & Privacy, IEEE 2016. Saarbrucken, Germany. ]{}; Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to warmly thank Dr. Damien Octeau and Aline Papernot for insightful discussions about this work. Research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-13-2-0045 (ARL Cyber Security CRA). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on. Validation setup details {#ap:validation-details} ------------------------ To train and use the deep neural network, we use Theano [@bergstra2010theano], a Python package designed to simplify large-scale scientific computing. Theano allows us to efficiently implement the network architecture, the training through back-propagation, and the forward derivative computation. We configure Theano to make computations with float32 precision, because they can then be accelerated using graphics processors. Indeed, all our experiments are facilitated using GPU acceleration on a machine equipped with a Xeon E5-2680 v3 processor and a Nvidia Tesla K5200 graphics processor. Our deep neural network makes some simplifications, suggested in the Theano Documentation [@TheanoTutorial], to the original LeNet-5 architecture. Nevertheless, once trained on batches of $500$ samples taken from the MNIST dataset [@lecun1998mnist] with a learning parameter of $\eta=0.1$ for $200$ epochs, the learned network parameters exhibits a $98.93\%$ accuracy rate on the MNIST training set and $99.41\%$ accuracy rate on the MNIST test set, which are comparable to state-of-the-art accuracies.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'L. D. Valdez[^1]' - 'C. Buono' - 'L. A. Braunstein' - 'P. A. Macri' bibliography: - 'bibpaper\_corr.bib' title: Effect of degree correlations above the first shell on the percolation transition --- Introduction ============ In the last two decades, the use of complex networks in the study of many processes, such as the spread of diseases, random or intentional attacks, synchronization, etc. [@Boc_01; @Dor_02; @Dor_03], has led to a deeper understanding of these processes. For example, the use of network-based models in epidemiology has demonstrated how the topology affects the total fraction of the infected population and how it’s knowledge can be used to develop efficient immunization strategies [@Coh_03]. Each of the aspects of the network topology has a substantial effect on the processes taking place on the underlying network. A first feature of the network topology is the degree distribution $P_{d}(k)$, i.e., the fraction of nodes with degree $k$. One of the most used networks is the Erdös Rényi (ER) [@Erd_01] with $P_{d}(k)=e^{-\langle k\rangle}\langle k\rangle ^{k}/k!$, where $\langle k\rangle$ is the average degree. However in real networks the degree distribution fits better to a scale-free (SF) $P_{d}(k)\sim k^{-\lambda}$, where $\lambda$ is the broadness of the distribution. Many of these networks also have an exponential cutoff $\kappa$ [@Ama_01], and the degree distribution can be represented by $P_{d}(k)\sim k^{-\lambda}e^{-k/\kappa}$. Several analytical and numerical models on degree-degree uncorrelated networks were developed with the above distributions [@New_03; @Mil_02]. However, in the last years it has been observed that in real networks, the degrees of the linked nodes are correlated. For example, it is known that in social networks, nodes tend to be linked to others with similar degree, while in technological networks, large degree nodes tend to be connected with low-degree ones. Networks with the first pattern of connections are called assortative, while those with the second pattern are disassortative. Recent researches suggest that networks adopt a correlated structure in order to optimize some processes that are developed on top of them, such as synchronization [@Sor_01], transport [@Yu_01], traffic dynamic [@Jin_01], congestion [@Ana_01] and growth [@Jia_01]. As a consequence, it is necessary to consider models of networks with degree-degree correlations in order to study how the processes are affected by them. There are different measures to quantify the correlations between nearest neighbors [@Boc_01; @Dor_02]. The most detailed measure is the joint degree distribution $P_{e}(k,k')$, which indicates the probability that a node of degree $k$ is linked with another of degree $k'$. However, due to the large amount of information contained in this distribution, it is difficult to interpret the results based on $P_{e}(k, k ')$. Hence more global measures are needed to simplify the interpretation of the results. For example, a measure which follows from the above and is more simplified is the average nearest neighbor degree of a node with connectivity $k$, $k_{nn}(k)=\sum_{k'}k'P_{e}(k\|k')$. The sign of the slope of $k_{nn}(k)$ is positive (negative) for assortative (disassortative) networks. However, the most used measurement is Pearson’s coefficient, which is less detailed than the previous ones and gives a general overview of the correlation to nearest neighbors on the network. Pearson’s coefficient is given by $$\label{Eq.r} r= \frac{\langle k k'\rangle_{e} - \langle (k + k^{'})/2\rangle^{2}_{e}}{\langle (k^2 + k^{'2})/2\rangle_e- \langle (k + k^{'})/2\rangle^{2}_{e} }\;,$$ where $e$ is the average over $P_{e}(k,k')$. Assortative networks have $r> 0$, while disassortative networks have $r <0$. Finally, networks with $r = 0$ are called uncorrelated. Many studies that concentrate on how the degree-degree correlation affects the processes on top of networks, use Pearson’s coefficient to quantify the results. For example in Ref. [@Sor_01] it has been observed that synchronization is enhanced for $r\neq 0$. Also, in Ref. [@Ana_01], under a gradient network formalism, the authors explain why in disassortative networks the congestion is lower than in uncorrelated and assortative ones. On the other hand, some studies on the effect of degree-degree correlations were focused on the link percolation process [@Vaz_01; @Xul_01; @Mor_01; @Hoo_01]. The investigations on this process are very useful since they provide information about how resistant a network is against random failures and also due to the relation between percolation with some aspects of the spread of diseases [@Dun_01; @Coh_01; @Coh_02; @New_05; @Gra_01]. For uncorrelated networks, it is well known that in percolation processes there is a critical fraction $p=p_{c}$ of nodes/links, above which the network undergoes a second order phase transition [@New_03; @Coh_01]. The order parameter of the transition is $P_{\infty}(p)$, which is the fraction of nodes that belong to the largest component for a given value of $p$. For infinite systems ($N\to \infty$) and close to the threshold ($p_{c}$), the order parameter behaves as [@Sta_01] $$\label{Eq.pinf} P_{\infty}(p) \sim (p -p_c)^\beta, \,\,\,\,\,\, p\gtrsim p_{c}+\delta p,\,\,\delta p>0;$$ and the average value of the size of the finite clusters $\langle s(p)\rangle$ goes as $$\label{Eq.S} \langle s(p)\rangle \sim (p -p_c)^{-\gamma}, \,\,\,\,\,\, p\lesssim p_{c}-\delta p,\,\,\delta p>0;$$ where $\beta=1$ and $\gamma=1$ in the mean field approach [@Sta_01]. In the case of finite networks with $N$ nodes, Eq. (\[Eq.S\]) obey the general scaling law $$\label{Eq.S1} \langle s \rangle \equiv \langle s (p,N)\rangle =N^{\gamma \; \Theta}f\Bigl(\bigl(p-p_{c}(N)\bigr)N^{\Theta}\Bigr),$$ where $f$ is a scaling function that behaves as a constant at the threshold, with $\langle s \rangle \sim N^{1/3}$ for uncorrelated ER and SF networks with $\lambda \geq 4$ [@Han_01; @Wu_01]. Newman [@New_01] and Miller [@Mil_01] showed that networks with $r>0$ are more resilient to damage than those with $r\leq 0$. However, there has been little discussion in the literature about whether the percolation phase transition remains of second order depending on the value of $r$. This issue was only addressed in Ref. [@Noh_01] where they found that in correlated networks constructed using a Metropolis algorithm and characterized by $r$, for the disassortative case percolation belong to the same universality class as uncorrelated networks but highly assortative networks have no second order phase transition. A recent investigation by Dorotgsev [[et. al]{}]{} [@Dor_01] pointed out that recursive trees can be constructed with a highly correlated structure but with zero Pearson’s coefficient. On the other hand, in Ref. [@Noh_02] the authors show that positive correlations affects the loop statistics on networks. Thus, Pearson’s coefficient could hide a more complex pattern of connections between nodes that also affect the processes that spread on networks. This raises the question as to whether or not Pearson’s coefficient is a reliable tool for characterizing correlated networks and, in particular, the percolation transition on assortative networks. In this letter we use different correlation algorithms to determine the effect of very assortative networks on the link percolation transition. We find that the results depend strongly on the algorithm used to correlate the networks and not on the value of Pearson’s coefficient. Moreover, we find that strong correlations above the first shell on assortative networks affect the percolation transition. Correlation Algorithms {#modelos} ====================== We will focus only on assortative networks because we want to understand the effect of different algorithms in the percolation transition. In this work we use rewiring algorithms to correlate the networks, since they preserve the degree distribution $P_{d}(k)$. In particular we focus on two correlation algorithms: the Exponential Random Graph (ERG) [@Noh_01] and the Local Optimal Algorithm (LOA) introduced by us. For the ERG algorithm, the process to correlate a network or graph $G$ [@Noh_01], is based on a Metropolis dynamic, which uses a “Hamiltonian” function given by $H(G)=-J \sum_{i,j>i}A_{ij}k_{i}k_{j}$, where $A_{ij}$ is the component of the adjacency matrix, $k_i$ ($k_j$) is the connectivity of node $i$ ($j$) and $J$ is a control parameter for the correlation. For $J>0$ ($J<0$) an assortative (disassortative) network is built. This algorithm generates a Gibbsian ensemble network and is ergodic. The algorithm correlates the network, successively applying the following steps: 1. in a network $G$, two links are chosen randomly to be correlated. 2. rewiring is allowed (from configuration $G$ to $G'$) with probability $w=\min\{1,\exp[-(H(G')-H(G))]\}$, disallowing autoloops and multiple connections. The rewiring process continues until the steady state, where for large enough system sizes, $r$ depends only on $J$ (not shown here). In the LOA algorithm, a network is correlated as follows: 1. two links are randomly chosen from the network to be correlated. 2. for assortative (disassortative) networks, we choose the configuration that increases (decreases) most Pearson’s coefficient $r$ without generating autoloops or multiple connections. This algorithm is not ergodic but achieves the desired correlation faster, since in contrast to the previous one, we do not have to wait for the equilibrium value in order to reach the desired value of $r$. Results and Discussion ====================== Link percolation on assortative networks ---------------------------------------- In this section we study the effects of the correlation algorithms on the percolation transition in assortative networks. ![Plot of $P_{\infty}(p)$ for ER networks with $\langle k \rangle =2$, $N=8\times 10^4$ and $r=0.78$, correlated with LOA (solid line) and ERG (dashed line, $J=1$). In the inset we show an enlargement of the main plot close to the threshold. The simulations were done over $10^{3}$ realizations.\[fig.Pinf\]](Fig_01.eps) In Fig.\[fig.Pinf\], we show $P_{\infty}(p)$ for an ER network with fixed $N$ and $r$ for the ERG and LOA models. Even though the curves do not differ significantly between them, in the inset we can see that $P_{\infty}(p)$, close to the threshold computed with different algorithms converge to zero with different slopes, suggesting that the transitions are different even if the same value of $r$ is used in both algorithms. The behavior of $P_{\infty}(p)$ for networks generated with the ERG algorithm seems to be nonsingular. [Fig\_02.eps]{} (80,20)[[[(a)]{}]{}]{} [Fig\_03.eps]{} (80,20)[[(b)]{}]{} It is well known that in the thermodynamic limit a second order phase transition, has a singularity in the derivative of the order parameter at the threshold $p_{c}$. In Fig.\[fig.deriv\_Pinf\] we plot the derivative of $P_{\infty}(p)$ with respect to $p$ for different networks sizes. From the plots, we can see that in strong positive correlated networks with the LOA algorithm, the derivative of $P_{\infty}(p)$ exhibit a singularity as we increase the system size, characteristic of a second order phase transition. However for the ERG model the slope is smooth and does not depend on $N$. Therefore, we confirm that the transitions for the ERG and the LOA are not the same [@Noh_01]. [Fig\_04.eps]{} (80,56)[[(a)]{}]{} [Fig\_05.eps]{} (80,56)[[(b)]{}]{} In order to verify the existence of a second order phase transition, we compute $\langle s \rangle$ for ER and different network sizes as shown in Fig.\[fig.smed\]. We can see that with the LOA correlation model as $N$ increases, the peak of $\langle s \rangle$ increases around the critical threshold $p_{c}(N)$ as in a second-order phase transition [@Sta_01]. At $p=p_{c}$ (see Eq. (\[Eq.S1\])) $\langle s \rangle \sim N^{0.16}$, suggesting that percolation in assortative networks generated by the LOA belong to a different universality class from that in uncorrelated networks. As noted by Noh using the ERG model [@Noh_01], $\langle s \rangle$ has no peak independent of the value of $N$, which still indicates that the transition is not of second order. We run all our simulations for SF networks with exponential cutoff and find similar behavior that for ER networks. In Fig. \[SF\_trans\] we show that the derivative of $P_{\infty}(p)$ and $\langle s \rangle$ do not exhibit any singularity as we increase the network size for the ERG model, in contrast to the LOA model. [Fig\_06.eps]{} (25,30)[(a)]{} [Fig\_07.eps]{} (25,30)[(b)]{} Despite the discrepancies between the assortative networks, we find that disassortative networks generated by both algorithms undergo a second-order phase transition with $\langle s \rangle \sim N^{1/3}$, which not only confirms that disassortative networks belong to the same universality class as uncorrelated ones, but also that the critical exponents are independent of the algorithm used to generate negative correlations. Consequently, we conclude that while Pearson’s coefficient is a good measure to uniquely characterize the percolation transition on disassortatives and uncorrelated networks, it fails to characterize the transition on very assortative networks. The discrepancies between the assortative networks generated with different algorithms must underlie on structural differences introduced by the algorithms, which cannot be explained by only Pearson’s coefficient. Hence, we will show below the different effects that both algorithms introduce on the network topology. Correlations above the first shell ---------------------------------- In order to explain the differences between assortative networks with the same value of $r$ but correlated with different algorithms, we propose a new measure called generalized Pearson’s coefficient $r_{\ell}$, which measures the correlation between the connectivity of a root node and the neighbors at a chemical distance $\ell$, i.e. which are located in the $\ell-th$ shell from the root . In this way, we denote the usual Pearson’s coefficient $r$ as $r_{1}$, Pearson’s coefficient to second neighbors as $r_{2}$ and so forth. We define, $$\label{Eq.rl} r_{\ell}= \frac{\langle k k'\rangle_{\ell} - \langle (k + k^{'})/2\rangle^{2}_{\ell}}{\langle (k^2 + k^{'2})/2\rangle_{\ell}- \langle (k + k^{'})/2\rangle^{2}_{\ell} }\;,$$ where $\langle \ldots \rangle_{\ell}$ is the average over $P_{\ell}(k,k'_{\ell})$, where $P_{\ell}(k,k'_{\ell})$ is the probability that a node of degree $k$ is connected to a node of degree $k'$ at the $\ell-th$-shell. ![Plot of $r_{\ell}$ as a function of the shell number $\ell$ for LOA ($\square$) and ERG ($\bigcirc$) in ER networks with $\langle k \rangle =2$, $r=r_{1}=0.78$ and $N=10^{4}$. The dashed lines are used only as a guide to the eye. In the inset, we show $I_{\ell}$ as a function of the shell number $\ell$. As seen in the plot $I_{2}=1.21$, $I_{3}=1.46$, $I_{4}=1.81$. Then the ERG model generate stronger long range correlations than the LOA model. The simulation were done over $10^4$ realizations.\[fig.r\_elles\]](Fig_08.eps) In Fig.\[fig.r\_elles\] we show for ER networks $r_{\ell}$ as a function of $\ell$ in assortative networks [^2], for $r_{\ell}>0$. We can see that $r_{\ell}$ is a decreasing function of $\ell$. Imposing high assortativity in the network, correlations above the first shell from a root node are generated. Thus, correlation will build groups of nodes connected with similar degrees at shells close to the root, forming groups of nodes of low degrees and others with high degree. The high degree groups will form a strong core very resilient to random failures. The stronger the correlations are above the first shell, the more resilient groups are, smoothing out the transition. In the inset of Fig.\[fig.r\_elles\] we plot the factor $I_{\ell}$ defined as the ratio between $r_{\ell}$ for ERG and $r_{\ell}$ for LOA networks. Then $I_{\ell}>1$ ($I_{\ell}<1$) indicates that ERG networks have higher (lower) degree correlation at a distance $\ell$ than LOA networks. It is easy to see that for shells above $\ell=1$, $I_{\ell}$ increases with $\ell$ reaching a value of $I_{4}=1.8$ for the fourth shell[^3] for $N=10^{4}$. Thus ERG networks generate stronger correlation above shell $\ell=1$ than LOA networks supporting our picture that high assortative ERG networks posses a stronger structure of groups, with nodes of similar connectivities, than in the LOA model. This introduces two aspects of the network that contributes to erase the second-order phase transition in the ERG model. First, ERG networks have more homogeneous groups of nodes with low connectivity that are easier to fragment, generating smaller clusters than in LOA assortative networks. On the other hand, in ERG networks there are also more homogeneous groups of highly connected nodes that remain in the largest component through the percolation process[^4], preventing the network from fragmenting into large finite clusters, and smoothing out the curve of $P_{\infty}(p)$ near the threshold (see Fig.\[fig.deriv\_Pinf\]). Consequently, these two aspects induce a greater presence of small clusters, leading to a non-diverging $\langle s \rangle$. [Fig\_09.eps]{} (80,61)[(a)]{} [Fig\_10.eps]{} (80,61)[(b)]{} To determine if this behavior is representative of real networks, we measure $r_{\ell}$ on two different positive correlated SF real graphs, the condensed matter (cond-mat, $\lambda\approx 1.60$ and $\kappa\approx 40$) [@New_04] and mathematics ($\lambda \approx 1.72$ and $\kappa\approx 35$) [@Pal_01] coauthorship networks. In both cases, we obtain that positive correlations are non-negative only until the second shell with $r_{1}=r=0.18$, $r_{2}=0.01$ for the cond-mat collaboration network and $r_{1}=r=0.12$, $r_{2}=0.03$ for the mathematics collaboration network. Consequently, real networks posses mainly correlation to first neighbors ($r$), in contrast to the stronger correlation structure above $\ell=1$ found in the theoretical networks, particularly for ERG, and therefore the real graphs analyzed here have a less defined structure of groups of nodes connected with similar degrees, suggesting that there are constrains which prevent networks from evolving towards extreme correlations. This can be seen, for example, on both coauthorship networks used here. In general, coauthorship networks are made of research groups composed by senior researchers with high connectivity and young researchers generally with low connectivity. On one hand, senior researchers from different research groups have some connections between themselves in order to increase the resources and importance of their groups. Moreover, young researchers from the same group collaborate between themselves, because they generally work on similar projects. This explains the assortativity of the networks. On the other hand, in order to share their knowledges, senior researchers are highly connected to the young ones of their group, decreasing the assortativity. Thus the network evolves with an assortativity correlation, but with a not too high Pearson’s coefficient in order to improve the functionality of the full coauthorship network. This is why real assortative collaboration networks are not extreme assortativity correlated. Moreover, since this positive correlation decreases with $\ell$ as we can see in both real networks used here and in Router graph studied in Ref. [@Ech_01], the correlation above the first shell is almost zero due to the small Pearson’s coefficient, which leads to a critical behavior of percolation process on these networks. In Fig.\[fig.deriv\_reales\] we plot for the real networks, the derivative of $P_{\infty}(p)$ for the original data and after applying the LOA and the ERG models for networks with the same degree distribution. As we can see, there is a steep growth of the derivative near criticality, which is equally sharp in the LOA and ERG networks, supporting our argument that in real networks the second order phase transition exists. In turn, we note that ERG and LOA networks with the same degree distribution and Pearson’s coefficient as real networks, have also a second order phase percolation transition. Our results suggests that Pearson’s coefficient is a good indicator of the percolation transition order when the network is not strongly correlated above the first shell, but for high positive degree-degree correlations, different algorithms may generate different behaviors in percolation and therefore, Pearson’s coefficient is no longer useful to indicate the behavior of the transition. As a consequence, it becomes crucial to use measures that take into account the inner structure of the network, such as $r_{\ell}$, that as we show here is a better indicator of whether a network will undergo or not a critical phase percolation transition. In summary, we find that the second order percolation transition on theoretical networks depends on the inner structure imposed by the algorithms used to build them, and not only on Pearson’s coefficient. This means that Pearson’s coefficient hides a long-range correlation that could change dramatically the behavior on top of them. We propose a new magnitude $r_{\ell}$, which allows to explain the discrepancies between percolation transition on assortative networks generated by different correlation algorithms. For the real networks analyzed in this letter, we find that they posses mainly first neighbors correlation, and thus the percolation transition is of second order. This work was supported by UNMdP and FONCyT (PICT 0293/2008). The authors thanks Ana L. Pastore y Piontti and Joel C. Miller for useful discussions. [^1]: E-mail: [^2]: The understanding of the disassortative behavior of $r_{\ell}$ goes beyond the scope of this work. [^3]: For a SF network with $\lambda=2$, $\kappa=10$, $r=0.55$ and $N=10^4$, we obtain that $I_{2}= 2.11$, however positive correlations only reach to the second shell. [^4]: The same picture can be seen in onion networks [@Sch_01; @Wu_02]. However onion and assortativity are distinct properties as pointed out in [@Sch_01].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- address: \| $^1$ Department of Physics, Saitama University, Saitama-shi, Saitama 338 Japan\ $^2$ The House of Councilors, 2-1-1 Nagatacho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 100-8962, Japan author: - 'Y. M. Zhao$^{1}$ and A. Arima$^{2}$' title: ' Comment on “Spectroscopy with Random and Displaced Random Ensemble"' --- C. W. Johnson and his collaborators recently found that the dominance of 0+ ground state (0 g.s.) dominance of even fermion systems can be obtained by using a two-body random ensemble (TBRE). This discovery brought the physics of many-body systems interacting via random interactions into a sharp focus. One of the most interesting and important issues is the origin of the 0 g.s. dominance. The purpose of this Comment is to point out that the time reversal invariance, which was used in Ref. \[2\] to explain the 0 g.s. dominance, cannot be an explanation, and that the results by using a displaced TBRE are much more complicated than those shown in \[2\]. The key point of \[2\] to explain the 0 g.s. dominance is the behaviors of centroid $E_{cI}$, defined as $d_I^{-1} tr(H)_I$, and the variance $\sigma_I^2$ defined as $d_I^{-1} \langle (H-E_{cI})^2 \rangle_I$. Here $I$ is the total angular momentum. The $E_{cI}$ was noticed in Ref.\[2\] to be small. Therefore, the $\sigma_I^2$ was assumed to play a crucial role. This idea was actually found to be not applicable to fermions in a single-$j$ shell in \[3\]. An argument, which is essentially a combination of behavior of $\sigma_I$ and a statistical behavior of two-body coefficients of fractional parentage, was proposed to explain both the properties of $E_{cI}$ and the 0 g.s. dominance \[4\] of even fermion systems in a single-$j$ shell. A simple approach to study this problem was given recently in [@Zhao]. It is stressed here that the correlation between states is essential to explain the 0 g.s. dominance, or more generally, to explain a sizable probability (denoted as $P(I)$)of a certain $I$ g.s. by using a TBRE. Here correlation is an antonym of independence, it refers to, e.g., for fermions in a single-$j$ shell, the state with $I_{max}-2$ is very likely the first excited state when the $I=I_{max}$ state is the g.s.. It is incorrect to consider only the statistical behavior of energy levels. Taking $\sigma_I$ of 5-fermion system in a single-$j$ shell as an example, $\sigma_I$ with $I=I_{min} = \frac{1}{2}$ is very large. However, the $P(\frac{1}{2})$ is always close to zero. One can also find many such examples in even fermion systems. The $\sigma_I$ of the $I=I_{max}$ state of fermions in a single-$j$ shell is always 0, but the $P(I_{max})$ is always sizable for fermions in a small $j$ shell. Next, the authors of Ref. \[2\] showed a few interesting examples by using a displaced TBRE. We emphasize here, however, that the results by using a displaced TBRE are actually very complicated. A negative displacement of the TBRE may favor 0 g.s., as showed in Ref. \[2\]. However, this is not always correct. In fact, [both]{} negative displacements and positive displacements may favor the 0 g.s. probability (e.g., $P(0) \sim 100\%$ for 4 fermions in a two-$j$ ($j_1=13/2, j_2=9/2$) shell by using a TBRE$\pm 5$) or quench down the 0 g.s. probability (e.g., $P(0) \sim 0\%$ for 4 fermions in a two-$j$ ($j_1=11/2, j_2=3/2$) shell by using a TBRE$\pm 5$), or may play a minor role by a very slight change in $P(I)$’s (e.g., 4 fermions in a two-$j$ ($j_1=9/2, j_2=5/2$) shell by using a TBRE$\pm 5$). Our conclusion is that the time reversal invariance, which was further interpreted in Ref. \[2\] by the behaviors of $E_{cI}$ and $\sigma_I^2$, can not be the origin of the 0 g.s. dominance, as was pointed out in [@Pittel], and that the discussion by using a displaced TBRE in \[2\] is not true in general. [50]{} C. W. Johnson, G. F. Bertsch, D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. Lett. [80]{}, 2749(1998). V. Velazquez, and A. P. Zuker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88]{}, 072502(2002). Y.M. Zhao, and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. [C64]{}, (R)041301(2001). A. Arima, N. Yoshinaga, and Y.M. Zhao, $International$ $Symposium$ $on$ $Nuclear$ $Structure$ $Physics$ 2001, World scientific (2001), P25, Edited by Rick Casten et al.; Eur. J. Phys. A, in press; N. Yoshinaga, A. Arima, and Y.M. Zhao, J. Phys. [G]{}, to appear. Y.M. Zhao, A. Arima, and N. Yoshinaga, nucl-th/0112075; to be published. R. Bijker, A. Frank, and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. [C60]{}, 021302(1999).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'With the generation of high order harmonics (HHG) on the plasma surface it is possible to turn the laser pulse into a train of attosecond or even zeptosecond pulses in the back radiation. These attosecond pulses may have amplitude several orders of magnitude larger than that of the laser pulse under appropriate conditions. We study this process in detail, especially the nanobunching of the plasma electron density. We derive the analytical expression that describes the electron density profile and obtain a good agreement with particle-in-cell simulations. We investigate the most efficient case of HHG at moderate laser intensity ($a_0=10$) on the over dense plasma slab with an exponential profile per-plasma. Subsequently we calculate the spectra of single attosecond pulses from back radiation using our expression for density shape in combination with the equation for spectrum of nanobunch radiation.' author: - 'Mykyta Cherednychek and Alexander Pukhov\' bibliography: - 'apssamp.bib' title: Reflected attosecond pulse radiation from moving electron layers --- Introduction ============ The development of laser technology showed an immense progress in last decade [@Yanovsky; @MT11; @SSJ; @MMKS]. This progress offers an opportunity to study the new physics phenomena of laser plasma interaction. One of the most important processes in this field is the generation of high order harmonics (HHG), which is studied very intensely today. As the minimum achievable duration of laser pulses was reducing with time, it is interesting whether the generation even shorter pulses (in attosecond or even zeptosecond range) is possible. The reduction of the pulse duration and the radiation wavelength would open new potential applications. This is the motivation of the investigation of HHG. The most efficient method of HHG is the interaction process of the high contrast laser pulses [@TQG] with solid density targets. The pedestal of the pulse ionizes the surface and the main pulse interacts with overdense plasma electrons, while ions remain nearly immobile during the short pulse duration. One distinguishes two main HHG mechanisms in this case: coherent wake emission (CWE) [@TQG; @QTM] and “relativistically oscillating mirror” (ROM) [@GPSB; @BGP; @DZG; @DKB; @HHM]. CWE is caused by fast Brunel electrons [@Brunel] which excite the plasma oscillations at the local plasma frequencies. Thus there is no harmonics behind the maximal plasma frequency in the case of CWE. This process dominates for non-relativistic laser intensities $a_0\lesssim 1$. For $a_0\gg1$ the harmonics are generated mostly via ROM. In this case the electron layer at the plasma surface acts as a mirror that oscillates at relativistic velocities and generates high order harmonics via Doppler effect moving toward the incident wave. By this process there is no limit of frequency like by CWE, so higher harmonics can be generated. The first theoretical description of ROM claimed that the intensity spectrum envelope of reflected wave can be described by $I(n)\propto n^{-5/2}$ until “roll over” frequency $\omega_r$ proportional to $4\gamma^2$, where $n$ is the harmonic order and $\gamma$ is the relativistic gamma factor [@GPSB]. Later this theory was improved, especially the acceleration of the reflecting layer was taking into account. This results to the power law $I(n)\propto n^{-8/3}$ and $\omega_r\propto\gamma^3$ [@BGP]. This model assumes the existence of so called apparent reflection point (ARP) where the transverse electric field vanishes. This model was experimentally proved [@DZG; @DKB; @HHM]. Most recently another HHG mechanism was discovered. Using p-polarized oblique incident pulse with $a_0\gg1$ one can cause the formation of extremely dense electron nanobunches under appropriate conditions. These bunches irradiate attosecond pulses with intensities much larger comparing to incident pulse [@BP2; @BP]. That means that the boundary condition assumed in [@BGP] corresponding to ARP fails and thus the ROM theory can’t be applied in this case. This process is called coherent synchrotron emission (CSE). The reflected radiation in case of CSE in characterized by the power law $I(n)\propto n^{-4/3}$ or $I(n)\propto n^{-6/5}$ which is flatter comparing to ROM [@BP2; @BP]. The corresponding experiments can be found in Ref. [@DRY; @DCR; @YDC]. Detailed numerical investigation of the case of p-polarized oblique incidence in Ref. [@GKMS] figures out that the ROM model can be violated when the similarity parameter $S=n/a_0$ (where $n$ is the electron density given in units of the critical density $n_c$ and $a_0$ is the dimensionless laser amplitude [@GP]) is smaller than five. The authors of [@GKMS] present a new relativistic electronic spring (RES) model for $S>5$. PIC simulation of the HHG process --------------------------------- For our simulations we use one dimensional version of PIC code called Virtual Laser Plasma Laboratory [@vlpl]. In our geometry the incident wave comes from the left hand side of the simulation box and propagates along $x$-axis. The wave is p-polarized and the electric field component oscillates along the $y$-axis. The plasma is located at the right hand side of simulation box. It is also possible to describe the interactions where oblique incidence is used with our code. Let $\theta$ be the angle of incidence in laboratory frame and consider some frame moving along $y$-axis with velocity $V=c\sin\theta$. Lorenz transformations verify that in this frame the laser is normally incident (see [@LL] for more details). At the same time the whole plasma moves in $y$-direction in this frame. Thus, attributing some initial velocity to plasma in our simulation we are working in the moving frame. If we need the results in laboratory frame, we have to transform the values obtained from the simulation via Lorenz transformation. Consequently we obtain results that correspond to the process with oblique incidence. We use the incident field $E_i(t)$ of duration $T=10\lambda/c$, that is given by $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber E_i(t)=&\frac{1}{4}\left(1+\tanh\left(\frac{t}{\Delta t}\right)\right) \\ \nonumber &\times\left(1-\tanh\left(\frac{t-T}{\Delta t}\right)\right)\sin(2\pi t), \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta t = \lambda/4$. Further we use the plasma exponential density ramp for $x<0$. For $x>0$ density remains constant. $$\begin{aligned} \label{rump} n(x)=\left \lbrace \begin{aligned} &n_0e^{\frac{x}{\sigma}}\qquad\text{for}\quad x<0\\ &n_0\qquad\quad\,\text{for}\quad x>0 \end{aligned} \right ..\\ \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the ions are at rest during the whole interaction process we consider only the interaction between the electrons and the incident wave. In the simple case of normal incidence there are two forces acting on particles along $x$-axis. The electrostatic force proportional to $E_x$ and laser ponderomotive force oscillating with $2\omega$ (twice of the laser frequency). Thus the plasma surface oscillates with the half of the laser period. In the case of oblique incidence of p-polarized wave there is additional longitudinal component of the electric field oscillating at frequency $\omega$ and acting on surface. Consequently the interaction becomes even more complicated which leads to stronger oscillations on plasma surface containing both $\omega$ and $2\omega$ mods. As we can see as soon as the electrons are puled back by the electrostatic force they form a thin nanobunch that reaches velocity close to $c$. In this case the generation of high harmonics is possible. Density profile of a thin electron layer ======================================== In this section we derive two different analytic expressions for two different cases, which roughly describe the electron density profile at the intervals where the sharp spikes appear. The starting point of our calculations is the approximation of the electron phase space distribution at these intervals. As we will see later this distribution depends on the propagation velocity $\dot x_0(t)$ of given electron layer. Firstly let us consider the case of slow $\dot x_0(t)\ll c$ electron bunch. ![Electron density (red) and electrons in $x$-$p_x$-plane (green). $x_0$ is the position of the maximal density. Simulation parameters: initial plasma density $n_0 = 38.9 n_c$; $\sigma=1.1836\cdot10^{-3}\lambda$(Laboratory frame), Pulse with dimensionless amplitude $a_0 = 10$ and p-polarized oblique incidence at $57^\circ$ angle has the wave length $\lambda = 820 $nm.[]{data-label="dens1_377"}](dens_xpx.pdf){width="7cm"} In Fig. \[dens1\_377\] the electron density and its distribution in $x$-$p_x$-phase space at a certain time are visualized. Let’s claim that the curve in phase space is described by the function $x(p)$ at some small interval close to the density spike. Obviously, $x_0$ is the local minimum of this function that coincides with the position of the spike. In fact, we have always a spike of electron density at the point, where the function $x(p)$ exhibits the local extreme value. The idea that gives us the staring point for our calculations is the following. We can locally describe the given curve in phase space as a parabola: $$x(p,t)=x_0(t)+\alpha(t)(p-p_0(t))^2. \label{x(p)}$$ The point ($x_0(t)$, $p_0(t)$) corresponds to the local minimum. In order to simplify the notation, we drop the time dependence and set $p_0=x_0=0$. Then we have $$x(p)=\alpha p^2.$$ We consider some short interval $\Delta x$ where this assumption makes sense. The distribution function of the electrons is then given by $$\begin{aligned} f_a(x,p)&={\cal C}\delta_a\left(x-\alpha p^2\right), \label{phase_space1} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal C}$ is a normalization constant and $\delta_a$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber g_a(x)&\equiv\frac{3}{4a}\left(1-\frac{x^2}{a^2}\right)\\ \nonumber \delta_a(x)&\equiv\left \lbrace \begin{aligned} &g_a(x)\quad\text{for}\quad x\in [-a,a] \\ & 0\qquad \text{otherwise} \end{aligned}, \right . \end{aligned}$$ with the property $$\lim_{a\rightarrow0}\delta_a(x)=\delta(x). \label{delta_conv}$$ The parameter $a$ describes the width of $\delta_a$, which means that $a>0$ is required. In order to get the expression of density we have to perform the integration in momentum space $$n_a(x)=\int dpf_a(x,p). \label{dens_int}$$ We have to be careful with integration boundaries since $\delta_a$ is the bounded support function. As a result we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber n_a(x)=\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\\ \nonumber \left \lbrace \begin{aligned} & \frac{2{\cal C}}{5a^3\sqrt{\alpha}}\left(3a^2-2x^2+ax\right)\sqrt{x+a} \quad\text{for}\quad x\in [-a,a]\\ & \frac{2{\cal C}}{5a^3\sqrt{\alpha}}\biggr(\left(3a^2-2x^2\right)\left(\sqrt{x+a}-\sqrt{x-a}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +ax\left(\sqrt{x+a}+\sqrt{x-a}\right)\biggr)~\,\text{for}\quad x>a\\ & \qquad0\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad~\,\text{for}\quad x<-a. \end{aligned} \right .\\ \label{profile_sqrt_C} \end{aligned}$$ In order to calculate the constant ${\cal C}$, we first write an equation for the number of particles in the interval $[-a:\Delta x]$ bei integrating the density on this interval $$N_{a,\Delta x}={\cal C}\int_{-a}^{\Delta x}dx~n_a(x)\stackrel{a\ll\Delta x}{=}2{\cal C}\sqrt{\frac{\Delta x}{\alpha}}. \label{N}$$ Further we solve the obtained equation for ${\cal C}$ and insert it into equation (\[profile\_sqrt\_C\]). Finally we obtain the expression for electron density profile $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber n_{a}(x)=\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\ \nonumber \left \lbrace \begin{aligned} & \frac{N_{a,\Delta x}}{5a^3\sqrt{\Delta x}}\left(3a^2-2x^2+ax\right)\sqrt{x+a} \quad\text{for}\quad x\in [-a,a]\\ & \frac{N_{a,\Delta x}}{5a^3\sqrt{\Delta x}}\biggr(\left(3a^2-2x^2\right)\left(\sqrt{x+a}-\sqrt{x-a}\right)\\ &\qquad\quad +ax\left(\sqrt{x+a}+\sqrt{x-a}\right)\biggr)\quad~\text{for}\quad x>a\\ & \qquad0\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad~\text{for}\quad x<-a. \end{aligned} \right .\\ \label{profile_sqrt} \end{aligned}$$ Note that the parameter $\alpha$ cancels, so it doesn’t affect the density profile. In Fig. \[plot\_prof1\] we see that the density described with (\[profile\_sqrt\]) agrees very well with simulation results. We call the case where $\dot x_0(t)\ll c$ is valid “parabolic case”. ![Electron density taken from the simulation (blue) and calculated analytically via (\[profile\_sqrt\]) (red), with same simulation parameters compared to Fig. \[dens1\_377\], $\Delta x=0.0012\lambda$; $a=4.4\cdot10^{-5}$ (simulation frame).[]{data-label="plot_prof1"}](fit_dens_sqrt.pdf){width="7cm"} We chose quite a small value for $a$ because we are dealing with a very big and sharp spike in this example. This is the case since we use a strong laser pulse and very small cell size ($5\cdot 10^{-5}\lambda$). Now we discuss another case with $\dot x_0(t)\rightarrow c$. Consider the phase space evolution taken from the other simulation illustrated in Fig. \[xpx2\]. At the beginning by $t=5.4\lambda/c$ the momentum is close to zero and the distribution is parabolic as expected. Further, as soon as the electron bunch is puled back by the electrostatic force, the negative momentum of the bunch growth constantly with time and the distribution changes reminding a kind of “whip" between $t=5.7\lambda/c$ and $t=5.8\lambda/c$. The extremely dense electron nanobunch reaches the velocity close to $c$ during this period. ![Electrons in $x$-$p_x$-plane taken from the simulation to different times $t$ during the process of nanobunching. Simulation parameters: initial plasma density $n_0 = 100 n_c$; $\sigma=0.4\lambda$ (laboratory frame), Pulse with dimensionless amplitude $a_0 = 10$ and p-polarized oblique incidence at $50^\circ$ angle has the wave length $\lambda = 820 $nm.[]{data-label="xpx2"}](xpx2.pdf){width="8.6cm"} In this case the phase space distribution can be roughly fitted with an exponential function $$x_p(p, t)=x_0(t)+e^{\alpha(t)\left( p-p_0(t)\right)}. \label{exp2}$$ As we will show later the incident angle and the density gradient used here are optimal for producing the most intense attosecond pulse. Given phase space distribution belongs to the nanobunch that radiates this pulse. Like in the previous case we drop the time dependence and set $p_0=x_0=0$. Then we have $$x_p(p)=e^{\alpha p} \label{exp}$$ and the distribution function: $$\begin{aligned} f_a(x,p)&={\cal C}\delta_a\left(x-e^{\alpha p}\right). \label{phase_space2} \end{aligned}$$ The density can be given by $$n_a(x)=\int_{-p_\text{cut}} dpf_a(x,p) \label{dens_int2}$$ in this case, since we should take into account that the momentum of the electrons is limited by some amount $p_\text{cut}$. Further we calculate the number of particles on some interval $[x_\text{min}:x_\text{max}]$, where $x_\text{min}=e^{-\alpha p_\text{cut}}$, in order to obtain ${\cal C}$. Finally we calculate: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber n_a(x)=\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\ \nonumber \left \lbrace \begin{aligned} \nonumber &\frac{3N}{4a^3\ln{\left(\frac{x_\text{max}}{x_\text{min}}\right)}} \\ \nonumber &~\times\biggr((x+a)\left(x+(x-a)\left(\frac{1}{2}+\ln\left(\frac{x_\text{min}}{x+a}\right)\right)\right) \\ \nonumber &\,+x_\text{min}\left(\frac{1}{2}x_\text{min}-2x\right)\biggr)~\text{for}~ x\in [x_\text{min}-a,x_\text{min}+a] \\ \nonumber & \frac{3N}{4a^3\ln{\left(\frac{x_\text{max}}{x_\text{min}}\right)}} \\ \nonumber &\,\times\left(2ax-(x^2-a^2)\ln\left(\frac{x+a}{x-a}\right)\right)~\text{for}~x>x_\text{min}+a \\ \nonumber & \qquad0\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\!\text{for}~x<x_\text{min}-a \end{aligned} \right .\\ \label{profile_exp} \end{aligned}$$ Now as in the previous case we are going to compare the calculated analytical function with the simulated density profile (Fig. \[fit\_dens\_exp\]). ![Electron density taken from simulation (blue) and calculated analytically via (\[profile\_exp\]) (red), as well as electrons in $x$-$p_x$-plane (green), with same simulation parameters compared to Fig. \[xpx2\], taken at $t=5.7\lambda/c$. $x_\text{min}-x_0=9\cdot10^{-4}\lambda$; $x_\text{max}-x_0=0.02\lambda$; $a=1\cdot10^{-4}$ (simulation frame). []{data-label="fit_dens_exp"}](fit_dens_exp.pdf){width="7cm"} Again we obtain a good agreement and are able to describe the density spike quite well. Before we go further to the next chapter we analyze the intermediate case $\dot x_0(t) \lesssim c $, which is important for further application. In this case the electron phase space distribution looks like its shown in Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\] and can’t be approximated well either with parabolic nor with exponential function. ![Electron density taken from simulation (blue) and calculated analytically via (\[profile\_sqrt\]) (red), as well as electrons in $x$-$p_x$-plane (green). Simulation parameters: initial plasma density $n_0 = 100 n_c$; $\sigma=0.066\lambda$ (laboratory frame), Pulse with dimensionless amplitude $a_0 = 10$ and p-polarized oblique incidence at $60^\circ$ angle has the wave length $\lambda = 820 $nm.[]{data-label="fit_dens_sqrt"}](fit_dens_sqrt2.pdf){width="7cm"} Nevertheless we find out that the density profile of the spike can still be well approximated with equation (\[profile\_sqrt\]) (Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\]), so we classify the cases with intermediate velocities as parabolic. In the following chapter we are going to analyze corresponding simulation results more extensively. We will use the descriptions of the electron layer density profile derived here in order to calculate an expression for the spectra of the reflected waves in different cases. Electron density evolution and HHG emission =========================================== We are interested in high frequency spectrum of the reflected pulse mostly determined by the behavior of the ARP when it moves away from plasma with maximal velocity. This moment corresponds to a stationary phase point (SPP) (see [@BP2; @BP]). The ARP gamma factor exhibits a sharp spike in this time, it is called $\gamma$-spike [@BGP]. One distinguish different orders of $\gamma$-spikes depending on behavior of the transverse current in vicinity of SPP, which can by approximated with $$j_\bot(t,x)\approx (-\alpha_0 t)^nf(x-x_0(t)). \label{j1}$$ We assume that the transverse current density doesn’t change its shape $f$ during the time. The number $n$ denotes order of the given $\gamma$-spike. The reflected radiation is determined by the transverse current distribution via $$E_r(t)=\pi\int j_\bot(t-x,x)dx, \label{er2}$$ so we are able to derive the expression for the spectrum of the reflected pulse in line with [@BP2; @BP] and obtain: $$\begin{aligned} I(\omega)&=4\pi^4\alpha_0^2(\alpha_1\omega)^{-\frac{2n+2}{2n+1}}\left(\frac{d^n}{d\xi^n} Ai_n(\xi_n)\right)^2 \|f(\omega)\|^2, \label{Ai} \\ \nonumber \xi_n&=\alpha_1^{-\frac{1}{2n+1}}\delta\omega^\frac{2n}{2n+1}, \quad Ai_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int e^{i\left(xt+\frac{t^{2n+1}}{2n+1}\right)}dt, \\ \nonumber \alpha_1&=\frac{a_0^2}{2\upsilon n_m^2},\quad\delta=1-\upsilon, \end{aligned}$$ where $\upsilon$ is the maximal velocity of the moving electron layer in SPP and $n_m$ the maximal density assumed to be constant in time. In (\[er2\]) we use the normalized PIC units, see [@PIC] for more detail. To give the expression for the shape function we use the results from the previous section and write $$f(x)=\frac{n_a(x)}{n_a(x_\text{m})}e^{-\frac{x^2}{\tilde{\tilde{\sigma}}^2}},\quad n_a(x_\text{m})=n_m. \label{f}$$ We multiply the density profile with wider Gaussian function since $n_a$ decays too slowly ($\propto1/x$ whip or $\propto1/\sqrt{x}$ parabolic) for positive $x$ and after certain $x$-value doesn’t coincide with given density. Further we consider two different examples were we apply (\[Ai\]) to calculate the spectrum of the single reflected pulse $E_r^\text{pls}(t)$, that is filtered out by the Gaussian function $$E_r^\text{pls}(t)=E_r(t)e^{(t-t_\text{max})^2/\tilde{\sigma}^2},$$ where $t_\text{max}$ corresponds to the maximal wave amplitude and $\tilde{\sigma}=0.2\lambda/c$. At first we investigate the example of the whip case ($\dot x_0(t)\rightarrow c$) from the previous section illustrated in Fig. \[xpx2\] and Fig. \[fit\_dens\_exp\] more extensively. The electron nanobunch which radiates strong attosecond pulse can be clearly recognized from Fig. \[dens1\_2D\] and \[jy\_2D\] (a). ![The electron density distribution of the radiating nanobunch in space time domain. Simulation parameters are the same compared to Fig. \[xpx2\]. The SPP (here (0,0)) corresponds to $t=5.7\lambda/c$ as in Fig. \[fit\_dens\_exp\].[]{data-label="dens1_2D"}](dens_2D_exp.pdf){width="7cm"} For convenience we chose the coordinates in the way that the SPP is in the point (0,0). ![Transverse current density from the simulation near the SPP (0,0) (a) and calculated analytically via. (\[j1\]), $n=2$ (b). Simulation parameters are the same compared to Fig. \[xpx2\]. The parameters used by the analytical calculation for $x_0(t)$: $\alpha_0=4\cdot10^4$, $n_\text{m}=1000$ and $\gamma=15$, for shape: $a=1\cdot10^{-4}\lambda$, $x_\text{min}=9\cdot10^{-4}\lambda$ and $\tilde{\tilde\sigma}=0.02\lambda$. The velocity $\upsilon$ is derived from the given gamma factor. The Fourier transform of the shape function $f(\omega)$ is calculated numerically using FFT.[]{data-label="jy_2D"}](jy_comp_exp_2D.pdf){width="8.6cm"} In Fig. \[airy\] (b) the spectrum calculated using (\[Ai\]) is compared with the spectrum calculated von original reflected Pulse via FFT. Obviously, the description works well almost until 1000-th harmonic. ![Reflected radiation obtained from the simulation ((a) red) and from analytical current distribution ((a) black), as well as the corresponding spectra in (b). The spectrum from the simulation is taken directly from the radiated pulse via FFT, while the other one is obtained using the equation (\[Ai\]). []{data-label="airy"}](er_spec_exp.pdf){width="8.6cm"} In Fig. \[airy\] (a) the corresponding pulses are compared. The both graphs behave in the similar manner. Going along the same lines we analyze now the intermediate case $\dot x_0(t) \lesssim c$ shown in Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\]. Es we said before we attribute this case to the parabolic case. The corresponding pictures illustrating this case are Fig. \[dens1\_gamma\_2D\], \[jy2\_2D\] and \[airy1\]. ![ The electron density distribution of the radiating nanobunch the in space time domain. Simulation parameters are the same compared to Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\]. The density profile in SPP (here (0,0)) is shown in Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\].[]{data-label="dens1_gamma_2D"}](dens_2D.pdf){width="7cm"} Here the velocity in SPP significantly deviates from the speed of light and approximately equals to $0.91c$. For that reason the electron phase space distribution doesn’t become “whip-like” (Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\]). Although there is no ultrarelativistic regime here, we still may apply the same analysis assuming the absolute velocity of the electrons to be approximately constant close to SPP. ![Transverse current density from the simulation near the SPP (a) and calculated analytically via. (\[j1\]), $n=1$ (b). Simulation parameters are the same compared to Fig. \[fit\_dens\_sqrt\]. The parameters used by the analytical calculation for $x_0(t)$: $\alpha_0=1\cdot10^4$, $n_\text{m}=500$ and $\gamma=2.5$, for shape: $a=1\cdot10^{-3}\lambda$ and $\tilde{\tilde\sigma}=0.02\lambda$. The velocity $\upsilon$ is derived from the given gamma factor.[]{data-label="jy2_2D"}](jy_comp_2D.pdf){width="8.6cm"} ![Reflected radiation obtained from the simulation ((a) red) and from analytical current distribution ((a) black), as well as the corresponding spectra in (b). []{data-label="airy1"}](er_spec_sqrt.pdf){width="8.6cm"} Again we obtain good agreement for the spectrum behavior. We see that in the first example (whip case) we have the second order gamma spike, whether in the second example (parabolic case) the first order gamma spike is obtained. In order to find the parameter ranges which correspond to whip or parabolic case we perform a number of simulations. Using moderate intensity of incident wave ($a_0=10$) we vary the steepness of the exponential density gradient as well as incident angle. For each parameter set we consider the reflected radiation. In Fig. \[params\] we visualized the maximal amplitude of reflected wave for each parameter set respectively. ![Each point in these pictures corresponds to the maximal amplitude obtained from the reflected radiation taken from corresponding simulation. We have different angles of incidence along $y$-axis and different steepness of the density gradient along $x$-axis, where $\sigma$ is taken from (\[rump\]) and $n_0=100n_c$ (laboratory frame). []{data-label="params"}](er_max_10_100.pdf){width="7cm"} Consider the incident angle between 45 and 60, since by this angles the most interesting things happen. Of corse we notice the sharp increase of the reflected wave amplitude in the area around $\sigma=0.4\lambda$. We call this area high amplitude parameter set (HAPS). In this area we mostly obtain the second order $\gamma$-spikes and the current doesn’t change its sign in SPPs like in Fig. \[jy\_2D\] Furthermore our study shows that the maximal longitudinal velocity of the certain boundary electron layer increase monotonously with $\sigma$ until HAPS, where it almost reaches $c$. For $\sigma<0.05\lambda$ the boundary oscillates to slowly so that any short pulses are generated. Roughly between $0.05\lambda$ and $0.1\lambda$ we obtain the reflected radiation similar to Fig. \[airy1\]. We call this area moderate amplitude parameter set (MAPS). Here we have only first order $\gamma$-spikes and the current changes sign in SPPs (Fig. \[jy2\_2D\]). Thus the reflected spectrum in MAPS can be approximated with equation (\[profile\_sqrt\]) (parabolic case) and the area of HAPS corresponds than to the exponential case (equation (\[profile\_exp\])). In the area between MAPS and HAPS the interaction is too complicated to be attributed to any model. conclusion ========== We could obtain two different analytical expressions of electron density profile describing the density spikes in two different cases. Further we presented some simulation results of HHG, where we could obtain the amplitude increasing in the reflected pulse by the factor of five without using extremely intense incident wave. This was possible after we found optimal parameters for density gradient combined with optimal incident angle. Moreover with some simple assumptions we were able to describe the distribution of transverse current in vicinity of SPP analytically in both cases. Obtained expressions together with the expressions for electron density gave us the possibility to calculate the spectra that fits the original spectra of back radiated pulse quite good. Our work basically presents the idea of description of the plasma density considering the electron phase space distribution, but this theory has a potential to grow and to be developed further. In this work we introduced just two application examples of our theory. On the other hand it can become a strong tool in laser plasma analysis in general. This work has been supported by DFG TR18 and EU FP7 Eucard-2 projects.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| This paper describes a class of sequences that are in many ways similar to Fibonacci sequences: given $n$, sum the previous two terms and divide them by the largest possible power of $n$. The behavior of such sequences depends on $n$. We analyze these sequences for small $n$: 2, 3, 4, and 5. Surprisingly these behaviors are very different. We also talk about any $n$. Many statements about these sequences are difficult or impossible to prove, but they can be supported by probabilistic arguments, we have plenty of those in this paper. We also introduce ten new sequences. Most of the new sequences are also related to Fibonacci numbers proper, not just free Fibonacci numbers. author: - \| Brandon Avila\ MIT - \| Tanya Khovanova\ MIT title: Free Fibonacci Sequences --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ John Horton Conway likes playing with the Fibonacci sequence. Instead of summing the two previous terms, he sums them up and then adds a twist: some additional operation. John Conway discussed these sequences with the second author and this is how we got interested in them. The second author already wrote about one class of such sequences called subprime Fibonacci sequences jointly with Richard Guy and Julian Salazar [@GKS]. Here we discuss another variation called $n$-free Fibonacci sequences. An $n$-free Fibonacci sequence starts with any two integers: $a_1$ and $a_2$. After that it is defined by the recurrence $a_k = (a_{k-1} +a_{k-2})/n^i$, where $n^i$ is the largest power of $n$ that is a factor of $a_{k-1} +a_{k-2}$. It appears that many other people like twisting Fibonacci sequences. After we started working on this paper and made our calculations we checked, as everyone should, the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS [@OEIS]) and discovered that some $n$-free Fibonacci sequences were already submitted by three other people. Surprisingly, the first sequence submitted was the sequence of 7-free Fibonacci numbers (A078414) entered by Yasutoshi Kohmoto in Dec 2002. After that the sequence of 5-free Fibonacci numbers (A214684) was submitted by John W. Layman in Jul 2012. It followed by the sequence of 4-free Fibonacci numbers (A224382) submitted by Vladimir Shevelev in Apr 2013. As the reader will see very soon 2-free and 3-free Fibonacci numbers do not constitute new sequences. We filled the gap and submitted 6-free Fibonacci numbers (A232666) in Nov 2013. In Section \[sec:definitions\] we introduce useful facts about Fibonacci numbers. In Section \[sec:2free\] we show that all 2-free sequences end in a cycle of length 1. The 3-free Fibonacci sequences are much more complicated and we study them in Section \[sec:3free\]. All our computational experiments ended in a cycle of length 3. On the other hand, we show that 3-free sequences may contain arbitrary long increasing substrings. We prove this in Section \[sec:customized\]. Nevertheless, we give a probabilistic argument that a 3-free sequence should end in a cycle in Section \[sec:3free\]. The 4-free Fibonacci sequences are vastly different from 2-free and 3-free sequences (Section \[sec:4free\]). We did not find a sequence that ends in a cycle: all of them grow in our experiments. The proof that all of them grow seems intractable, but we supply a probabilistic argument that this is the case. Yet 5-free sequence bring something new (see Section \[sec:5free\]). They contain sequences that are never divided by 5 and provably grow indefinitely. At the same time 5-free sequences contain cycles too. We continue with Section \[sec:division-free\] where we find other numbers $n$ that provide examples of sequences that never need to be divided by $n$. Now we wonder where the cycles disappeared to and discuss there potential properties in Section \[sec:cycles\]. We finish with a discussion of our computational results. Section \[sec:growthdivfree\] explains why the average growth for some $n$-free sequences is close to the golden ratio and Section \[sec:growthomni\] explains the growth behavior for other values of $n$. Fibonacci Numbers and $n$-free Fibonacci Sequences {#sec:definitions} ================================================== Let us denote Fibonacci numbers by $F_k$. We assume that $F_0=0$ and $F_1=1$. The sequence is defined by the Fibonacci recurrence: $F_{n+1} =F_n + F_{n-1}$ (See A000045). We call an integer sequence $a_n$ Fibonacci-like if it satisfies the Fibonacci recurrence: $a_k = a_{k-1} +a_{k-2}$. A Fibonacci-like sequence is similar to the Fibonacci sequence, except it starts with any two integers. The second-famous Fibonacci-like sequence is the sequence of Lucas numbers $L_i$ that starts with $L_0=2$ and $L_1=1$: 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, $\ldots$ (See A000032). An $n$-free Fibonacci sequence starts with any two integers: $a_1$ and $a_2$ and is defined by the recurrence $a_k = (a_{k-1} +a_{k-2})/n^i$, where $n^i$ is the largest power of $n$ that is a factor of $a_{k-1} +a_{k-2}$. To continue the tradition we call numbers in the $n$-free Fibonacci sequence that starts with $a_0=0$ and $a_1=1$ $n$-free Fibonacci numbers. In the future we will consider only sequences starting with two non-negative integers. It is not that we do not care about other starting pairs, but positive sequences cover all essential cases. Indeed, if we start with two negative numbers we can multiply the sequence by $-1$ and get an all-positive sequence. If we start with numbers of different signs, the sequence eventually will become the same-sign sequence. If we start with two zeros, we get an all-zero sequence. So we will consider only sequences that do not have two zeros at the beginning. Note, that a non-negative sequence can have a zero only in one of the two starting positions, never later. The $n$-free Fibonacci sequence coincides with the Fibonacci-like sequence with the same beginning until the first occurrence of a multiple of $n$ in the Fibonacci-like sequence. Given a positive integer $m > 1$, the smallest positive index $k$ for which $n$ divides the $k$-th Fibonacci number $F_k$ is called the entry point of $m$ and is denoted by $Z(m)$ (see sequence A001177 of Fibonacci entry points). For example, $Z(10) = 15$ and the 10-free Fibonacci numbers coincide with the Fibonacci numbers for indices $ < 15$. Now that all the preparation is done, let us take a closer look at the simplest $n$-free Fibonacci sequences: 2-free Fibonacci sequences. 2-free Fibonacci Sequences {#sec:2free} ========================== Consider some examples. The sequence that starts with 0, 1 continues as 1, 1, 1, .... The only two 2-free Fibonacci numbers are 0 and 1. The sequence eventually stabilizes, or in other words, turns into a cycle of length 1. Let us look at other starting points. The sequence that starts as 1, 2 continues as 3, 5, 1, 3, 1, 1, and stabilizes at 1. This sequence turns into the same cycle. The sequence that starts as 100, 220, continues as, 5, 225, 115, 85, 25, 55, 5, 15, 5, 5, 5, and stabilizes at 5. It turns into a different cycle, but the length of the cycle is again equal to 1. Every 2-free Fibonacci sequence eventually turns into a cycle of length 1: $x$, $x$, $x$, $\ldots$, for an odd $x$. It is clear that after the second term all elements of the sequence are odd. Consider the maximum of the two consecutive terms of the sequence: $m_k = \max\{a_k,a_{k-1}\}$. If two consecutive terms $a_{k-1}$, $a_k$ of the sequence are odd and not equal to each other, then the maximum decreases: $m_{k+1} < m_k$. Hence, the sequence has to stabilize. It follows from the proof that for a sequence starting with $a_1$, $a_2$ the number of steps until the cycle is reached is not more than $\max\{a_1,a_2\}$. On the other hand, the subsequence before the cycle can be arbitrary long. It follows from the following lemma. For any two odd numbers $a_1$, $a_2$, a preceding odd number $a_0$ can be found so that $a_0$, $a_1$, and $a_2$ form a 2-free Fibonacci sequence. Pick a positive integer $k$ so that $2^k a_2 > a_1$ and set $a_0$ to be equal to $2^k a_2 - a_1$. There are many ways to build predecessors to a given 2-free Fibonacci sequence. The minimal such sequence is built when we choose the smallest power of 2 that still allows us to have positive members in the sequence. We explicitly build such an example starting with $a_1=3$, and $a_2=1$. Reversing the indexing direction we get: 1, 3, 1, 5, 3, 7, 5, 9, 1, $\ldots$, which is now sequence A233526. Next, we want to continue with 3-free Fibonacci sequences. Are they as simple as 2-free sequences? 3-free Fibonacci Sequences {#sec:3free} ========================== Let us look at 3-free Fibonacci sequences. Consider an example of 3-free Fibonacci numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, and so on. The sequence turns into a cycle of length 3. There are only 3 different 3-free Fibonacci numbers. We can multiply a 3-free sequence by a number not divisible by 3 to get another 3-free sequence. Thus, in general we can get cycles of the form $k$, $k$, $2k$, where $k$ is not divisible by 3. Any cycle of length 3 in a 3-free Fibonacci sequence is of the form $k$, $k$, $2k$. Consider the length 3 cycle $a$, $b$, $c$. From the definition of 3-free Fibonacci sequences, we know the following relations: $$\begin{aligned} a+b=3^xc \nonumber \\ b+c=3^ya \label{eq:b+c}\\ c+a=3^zb. \label{eq:c+a}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, no term in the sequence is divisible by 3. Then, by the pigeon-hole principle, at least two of the terms $a,b,c$ must be congruent modulo 3. Without loss of generality, take $a \equiv b$ (mod 3). Then $a+b \not\equiv 0$ (mod 3), so we have that $x=0$ and $a+b=c$. Now substitute for $c$ and add equations (\[eq:b+c\]) and (\[eq:c+a\]) to get that $a+b=3^{y-1}a+3^{z-1}b$. Since $3\nmid a+b$, either $y=1$ or $z=1$. If $y=1$, then $b=3^{z-1}b$, hence $z=1$. Similarly, $z=1$ implies $y=1$. In either case, $y=z=1$. Then we may solve for our initial variables to show that $a=b$ and $c=a+b$. Restated, $a=k$, $b=k$, and $c=2k$. The number $k$ in the cycle is the greatest common divisor of the sequence. Because of the Fibonacci additive property, if any number divides two or more elements of the sequence (excluding the first two, which may be divisible by 3), it must divide all numbers in the sequence. Thus, $k$ must divide every element. The least of these elements, then, can only be $k$ itself, making it the greatest common divisor. Will it be the case that all 3-free Fibonacci sequences end in cycles of length 3? We will build suspense by delaying this discussion, meanwhile we have a lemma about the length of any potential cycle: \[thm:parity\] Any cycle in a 3-free Fibonacci sequence is of length $3n$ for some integer $n$. Begin with any 3-free Fibonacci sequence, and divide out the highest power of 2 in the GCD of all its elements. The resulting sequence is a 3-free Fibonacci sequence with at least one odd element. It is clear that dividing or multiplying any number by 3 does not change its parity. Thus, any sequence, regardless of how many factors of 3 are divided out from each term, will have the same underlying structure in its parity. Since we have reduced the sequence to the point where there exists at least one odd number, we know that the sequence reduced modulo 2 must be congruent to 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0. Only cycles of length $3n$ are permitted in this structure, and therefore permitted in 3-free sequences. We checked all the starting pairs of numbers from 1 to 1000, and all these sequences end in a 3-cycle. The 3-free Fibonacci sequences are in many ways similar to the notorious Collatz sequences [@La10], for which it is still not known if every sequence eventually cycles. We do not expect that it is easy to prove or disprove that ever 3-free Fibonacci sequence ends in a cycle. On the other hand, it is possible to make probabilistic arguments to support different claims about free Fibonacci sequences. Here is the base of the argument. Suppose we encounter a number in a sequence that is divisible by 3, then after removing all powers of 3, let us assume that the resulting number has the remainder 1 modulo 3 with probability $1/2$. If the sum of two consecutive terms in a sequence is large and divisible by 3, then we also assume that this number is divisible by $3^k$ with probability $1/3^{k-1}$. How often do we divide by 3 in a 3-free Fibonacci sequence? The following lemma is obvious. In a 3-free Fibonacci sequence the division happens for every term or for every other term. In other words, we can not have a subsequence of length 3 such that each term is the sum of the previous two terms. We want to study two polar cases first: stretches where we divide every term and stretches were we divide every other term. We will call a subsequence of a 3-free Fibonacci sequence where we divide at each step a division-rich subsequence. Conversely, we will call a subsequence of a 3-free Fibonacci sequence where we divide at every other step a division-poor subsequence. \[thm:rich\] There exist arbitrary long division-rich subsequences. The proof is done by explicit construction. Consider the definition of a division-rich subsequence. In this case, we divide by a power of 3 after every addition step, so that $3^{i_n} \cdot a_n = a_{n-1}+a_{n-2}$ for $i_n>0$. Equivalently, $a_{n-2}=3^{i_n} \cdot a_n - a_{n-1}$. Thus, by choosing $a_n$ and $a_{n-1}$, and selecting a sequence $\{i_m\}$ that satisfies this relationship, the sequence can easily be constructed backwards. Our only requirements are that every term of the sequence is positive, and every step contains a division, so it will suffice to construct a sequence $\{i_m\}$ such that $3^{i_n} \cdot a_n - a_{n-1}>0$ and $i_n>0$ for all $n$. As an example, let us begin with $a_n=1$, $a_{n-1}=1$. At each step let us choose the smallest possible power for $i_m$. Then $i_n = 1$ satisfies our inequality for the first step, and $a_{n-2}=2$. Continuing, $i_{n-1}=1$ satisfies the inequality for the next step, yielding $a_{n-3}=1$. Next, $i_{n-2}=1$ and $a_{n-3}=1$, followed by $i_{n-3}=2$ and $a_{n-4}=5$. Reading the sequence backwards we get: 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 4, 11, 1, 32, 49, $\ldots$. This is now sequence A233525 in the OEIS [@OEIS]. when read forward, this sequence is a 3-free sequence containing eight divisions in a row. The process can be continued to arbitrarily many terms for arbitrarily many consecutive divisions. The growth bound for division-rich subsequences is estimated by the following lemma. For a division-rich subsequence: $\max\{a_{2k+1},a_{2k+2}\} \leq 2\max\{a_{2k-1},a_{2k}\}/3$. We can estimate that $a_{2k+1} \leq (a_{2k-1}+a_{2k})/3 \leq 2\max\{a_{2k-1},a_{2k}\}/3$ and $a_{2k+2} \leq (a_{2k}+a_{2k+1})/3 \leq 5\max\{a_{2k-1},a_{2k}\}/9 < 2\max\{a_{2k-1},a_{2k}\}/3$. So we can expect that with probability $1/2^n$ there would be a subsequence of length $2n$, where the maximum of the next two terms does not exceed the maximum of the previous two terms by $2/3$. Clearly it cannot go down forever. We need to start with very large numbers to get a long stretch of a division-rich subsequence. \[thm:poor\] There exist arbitrary long division-poor subsequences. This proof is more complicated than the previous one, so we will do it together with a proof of a more powerful theorem in next Section \[sec:customized\]. If we index a division-poor subsequence in such a way that division happens on the odd term, then all the even terms form an increasing subsequence: $a_{2k} > a_{2k-2}$. As every even term is the sum of the previous two terms we get: $a_{2k} = a_{2k-1} + a_{2k-2} > a_{2k-2}$. That means that both division-rich and division-poor subsequences can not form a cycle. In particular, it means we can have sequences of arbitrary length without entering a cycle. We showed that there exist 3-free Fibonacci sequences that have long increasing subsequences. Still, we want to present a probabilistic argument that any 3-free Fibonacci sequence ends in a cycle. According to our probabilistic assumptions we divide either every term or every other term with the same probability $1/2$. So on average we divide on every $1.5$ step. But for how much we divide on average? \[thm:average3\] On average we divide by $3^{3/2}$. Now we want to use the fact that when we divide by a power of 3 we on average divide by more than 3. If the number is large, we divide by 3 with probability $2/3$, by 9 with probability $2/9$ and so on. So the average division is by $$3^{2/3} \cdot 9^{2/9} \cdot 27^{2/27} \cdot \ldots.$$ We can say it differently. We can say that we divide by 3 with probability 1 and additionally we divide by 3 more with probability $1/3$, and by 3 more with probability $1/9$, so the result is 3 to the power $$1+1/3+1/9+1/27 + 1/81 + \ldots = 3/2.$$ Since the above sum is equal to $3/2$, every time we divide, we on average divide by $3^{3/2}$. Notice that the average number we divide by is approximately 5.2 which is more than 5. Let us build a probabilistic sequence that capture some of the behavior of 3-free Fibonacci sequences. We start with two numbers $a_1$ and $a_2$ and flip a coin. If the coin turns heads we add the next number $a_3 = (a_1+a_2)/5$ to the sequence. If the coin turns tails we add two more terms: $a_3 = a_1+a_2$ and $a_4 = (a_2+a_3)/5$ to the sequence. Then repeat. We expect that this sequence on average grows faster than 3-free Fibonacci sequences, because we divide by a smaller number. Now we want to bound the maximum of the last two terms of this probabilistic sequence after two coin flips. Let $M = \max\{a_1,a_2\}$. We have the following cases: - After two heads, the sequence becomes: $a_1$, $a_2$, $(a_1+a_2)/5$, $(a_1+6a_2)/25$. The last two terms do not exceed $2M/5$. - After head, tail, the sequence becomes: $a_1$, $a_2$, $(a_1+a_2)/5$, $(a_1+6a_2)/5$, $(2a_1+7a_2)/25$. The last two terms do not exceed $7M/5$. - After tail, head, the sequence becomes: $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_1+a_2$, $(a_1+2a_2)/5$, $(6a_1+7a_2)/25$. The last two terms do not exceed $3M/5$. - After two tails the sequence becomes: $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_1+a_2$, $(a_1+2a_2)/5$, $(6a_1+7a_2)/5$, $(7a_1+9a_2)/25$. The last two terms do not exceed $13M/5$. As each event happens with the same probability $1/4$, the average growth after $2n$ coin flips is $(2\cdot 3 \cdot 7 \cdot 13)^{1/4}/5$, which is below 0.97. So the overall trend for this sequence is to decrease. Based on our computational experiments and probabilistic discussions above we conjecture: Any 3-free Fibonacci sequence ends in a cycle. So 2-free Fibonacci sequences provably end in a cycle, 3-free sequences conjecturally end in a cycle. Will 4-free Fibonacci sequences end in cycles too? Before discussing 4-free Fibonacci sequences, we want to make a detour and prove the promised result that an arbitrarily long division-poor sequence exists (See Lemma \[thm:poor\]) as a corollary to a much stronger and a more general theorem. Customized-division subsequences {#sec:customized} ================================ We promised to give a proof that there exist arbitrary long division-poor sequences that are 3-free Fibonacci sequences. Now we want to prove a stronger statement. We want to allow any $n$ and show that we can build a customized $n$-free Fibonacci sequence that will have a division by a prescribed power of $n$ with the prescribed remainder. Let us correspond to any $n$-free Fibonacci sequence the list of numbers by which we divide at every step. We call this list a signature. For example, a 3-free sequence 5, 4, 1, 5, 2, 7, 1, has signature \, \, 9, 1, 3, 1, 9. We placed stars at the first two places, because we do not know the preceding members of the sequence and, hence, do not know the powers. Given an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence with a given signature and a given set of remainders, we can build many other sequences with the same signature and the set of remainders. \[thm:adjustement\] Suppose an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence $s_1$ starts with $a_1$ and $a_2$ that are not divisible by $n$ and the product of the numbers that we divide by while calculating the first $k$ terms is strictly less than $n^m$. Consider an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence $s_2$ that starts with $b_1=a_1+ d_1 n^m$ and $b_2=a_2+ d_2 n^m$ for any integers $d_1$ and $d_2$. The first $k$ terms of both sequences have the same signature and the same set of remainders modulo $n$. The initial terms of both sequences have the same remainders modulo $n^m$. Hence their sums have the same remainders. The first time we need to divide, we divide by the same power of $n$, say $m_1$, and the result will have the same remainders modulo $n^{m-m_1}$. The next time we divide, the result will have the same remainders modulo $n^{m-m_1-m_2}$. And so on. When we complete the subsequence, all the remainders will be the same modulo $n$. This lemma allows us to find a positive sequence with a given signature if we already found a sequence that might not be all positive. If there exists some finite $n$-free Fibonacci sequence with a given signature and a set of remainders, then there exists a sequence with the same signature and remainders such that every term is positive. Adjust the initial terms according to Lemma \[thm:adjustement\]. We say that a finite sequence of remainders $r_i$ modulo $n$ and a finite signature of the same length match each other, if the signature has a positive power of $n$ in place $k$ if and only $r_{k-2} + r_{k-1} \| n$. We call a sequence of remainders modulo $n$ legal if $r_{k-2} + r_{k-1} = r_k$ unless $r_{k-2} + r_{k-1} \| n$. Non-legal sequences can not be sequences of remainders of an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence. Given a legal finite sequence of remainders and a matching signature, there exists an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence with the given sequence of remainders and signature. By Lemma \[thm:adjustement\] it is enough to find such a sequence that does not need to have positive terms. We can produce such a sequence by building it backwards, similar to what we did in Lemma \[thm:rich\]. There exist arbitrary long division-poor 3-free Fibonacci subsequences. Let us build an example of a division-poor 3-free sequence, where each division is by exactly 3. Begin with $a_n=1$, $a_{n-1}=1$, and build a sequence that is not necessarily all-positive. That means we will have $a_{n-2k}=3a_{n-2k+2}-a_{n-2k+1}$ and $a_{n-2k-1}=3a_{n-2k+1}-a_{n-2k}$. Here are several terms: $-8$, 7, $-1$, 2, 1, 1. For a positive version we need to add $3^3$ to $-8$, as outlined in Lemma \[thm:adjustement\] as we had two divisions by 3. The adjusted all-positive division-poor sequence is 19, 7, 26, 11, 37, 16. 4-free Fibonacci sequences {#sec:4free} ========================== Consider the 4-free Fibonacci sequence starting with 0, 1. This sequence is A224382: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 7, 9, 1, 10, 11, 21, 2, 23, 25, $\ldots$. It seems that this sequence grows and does not cycle. In checking many other 4-free Fibonacci sequences, we still did not find any cycles. The behavior of 4-free sequences is completely different from the behavior of 3-free sequences. For 3-free sequences we expected that all of them cycle. Here it might be possible that none of them cycles. Before making any claims, let us see how these sequences behave modulo 4. A 4-free Fibonacci sequence contains an odd number. Suppose there exists a 4-free Fibonacci sequence containing only even numbers. Then ignoring the initial terms, all the elements of the sequence equal 2 modulo 2. Therefore, we divide by a power of 4 every time. This cannot last forever. After the first occurrence of an odd number, a 4-free Fibonacci sequence cannot have two even numbers in a row. Start with the first odd number. The steps that do not include division generate a parity pattern: odd, odd, even, odd, odd, even and so on. So there are no two even numbers in a row. That means we can get a multiple of 4 only after summing two odd numbers. We might get an even number after the division, but the next number must be odd again. Let us analyze the 4-free Fibonacci sequences probabilistically, similar to what we did for $n=3$. \[thm:average4\] An average division is by a factor of $4^{4/3} \approx 6.35$. When we divide, we divide by 4 with probability 1, additionally with probability $1/4$ we divide by 4 more, and so on. So the result is 4 to the power $$1+1/4+1/16+\ldots = 4/3.$$ How often on average do we divide? Let us assume that we passed stretches of all even numbers. Each time we divide after that, the previous two numbers are odd. After the division, the remainder is 1, 2, or 3. So the following six cases describe what happens after the division: If $a \equiv 1$ (mod 4) and $b \equiv 3$ (mod 4), then the following set of remainders might happen until the next division: - 1; - 2, 1, 3; - 3, 2, 1, 3. If $a \equiv 3$ (mod 4) and $b \equiv 1$ (mod 4), then the following set of remainders might happen until the next division: - 3; - 2, 3, 1; - 1, 2, 3, 1. \[thm:averagesteps\] The average number of steps between divisions is $8/3$. We assume that during the division each remainder is generated with probability $1/3$, so the stretches of length 1, 3, and 4 between divisions are equally probable. We want to build a probabilistic model that reflects some behavior of 4-free Fibonacci sequences. Let us denote the average factor by which we divide by $x$. In this model, we simply divide by $x$ each time we need to divide. The sequence stops being an integer sequence, but we artificially assign a remainder mod 4 to every element of the sequence to see when we need to divide. We want to show that our model sequence grows with probability 1. First, we want to estimate the ratio of two consecutive numbers in the model sequence. \[thm:ratio\] If $a$ and $b$ are two consecutive numbers in the model sequence, starting from index 3, then $b > a\frac{2+x}{(1+x)x}$ and $a > b\frac{1}{1+x}$. Let $v$ be the element before $a$. Then $b \geq (a+v)/x > a/x$. Analogously, $b \leq a+v$, and by the previous sentence, $xa > v$. Therefore, $b < a(1+x)$, which means that $a/(1+x) < v$. Plugging this back into $b \geq (a+v)/x$, we get $b > a(2+x)/(1+x)x$. Now we are ready to prove the theorem: In our probabilistic model, a sequence grows with probability 1. Suppose we have two consecutive numbers in the sequence $a$ and $b$ whose sum is divisible by 4. By Lemma \[thm:averagesteps\] we have 1, 3, or 4 terms until the following division with the same probability. That is, the following continuations until the next division are equally probable: - $a$, $b$, $(a+b)/x$. - $a$, $b$, $(a+b)/x$, $(a+(x+1)b)/x$, $(2a+(x+2)b)/x$. - $a$, $b$, $(a+b)/x$, $(a+(x+1)b)/x$, $(2a+(x+2)b)/x$, $(3a+(2x+3)b)/x$. If $b>a$, then the maximum of the last two terms is: $b$, $(2a+(x+2)b)/x$, and $(3a+(2x+3)b)/x$ correspondingly. Adjusting for the fact that $a > b\frac{1}{1+x}$ (see Lemma \[thm:ratio\]), the maximum of the last two terms is at least $b$, $b((x+2)+2/(x+1))/x$, and $b((2x+3)+3/(x+1))/x$ correspondingly. We want to estimate the ratio of the maximum of the last two terms to $\max\{a,b\}$. Counting probabilities we get the following lower bound for the ratio $$1^{1/3}(((x+2)+2/(x+1))/x)^{1/3}(((2x+3)+3/(x+1))/x)^{1/3}= 1.51023.$$ If $b \leq a$, then the maximum of the last two terms is at least $(a+b)/x$, $(2a+(x+2)b)/x$, or $(3a+(2x+3)b)/x$, respectively. Using $b > a\frac{2+x}{(1+x)x}$ from Lemma \[thm:ratio\], we get that the maximum of the last two terms is at least $a\frac{2+2x+x^2}{(1+x)x^2}$, $a\frac{2x^2+6x+4}{(1+x)x^2}$, or $a\frac{5x^2+10x+6}{(1+x)x^2}$, respectively. Counting probabilities, we get that the maximum is multiplied by at least $$\frac{2+2x+x^2}{(1+x)x^2}^{1/3}\frac{3x^2+6x+4}{(1+x)x^2}^{1/3}\frac{5x^2+10x+6}{(1+x)x^2}^{1/3}=0.453822.$$ Notice that if we have 3 or 4 terms until the next division, then the last two terms before the division are in the increasing order. That means the case when $b \leq a$ is at least twice less probable, so the average growth is at least the cube root of $1.51023^2\cdot 0.453822 = 1.03507$, which is greater than 1. The result is greater than 1, which means that our model sequence does not cycle all the time. Therefore, extending the argument to 4-free sequences, we can safely say that 4-free sequences do not cycle all the time. Taking our computational experiments and our intuition into account we are comfortable with the following conjecture: With probability 1 a 4-free Fibonacci sequence does not cycle. So 4-free Fibonacci sequences do not cycle. If $n$ grows will it mean that $n$-free Fibonacci sequences for $n > 4$ will not cycle either? 5-free Fibonacci sequences {#sec:5free} ========================== Let us look at the Lucas sequence modulo 5: $2$, $1$, $3$, $4$, $2$, 1 $\ldots$ and see that no term is divisible by 5. Clearly, no term in the Lucas sequence will require that we factor out a power of 5, and the terms will grow indefinitely. Thus, the Lucas sequence is itself a 5-free Fibonacci sequence. This is something new. We do not need a probabilistic argument to show that there are 5-free Fibonacci sequences that do not cycle. On the other hand, it becomes quickly evident that the sequence of 5-free Fibonacci numbers: 0, 1. 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, $\ldots$ (see A214684) cycles. Some sequences cycle, and some clearly do not! But how often will we come upon a sequence that grows indefinitely? To answer this question, let us look at a couple of terms from a few sequences of Fibonacci numbers modulo 5. Begin with $1, 1, \ldots$, to obtain the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 0, 3, 3, 1, 4, 0, 4, 4, 3, 2, 0, 2, 2, 4, 1, 0, and so on. We write it like this for clarity: at the end of each line, the last term is divisible by 5. In particular, the table above shows that $Z(5)$—the entry point of 5—is 5. Furthermore, since 5 is prime, we could know beforehand that each of these lines would be the same length. We simply had to start with the line beginning $1, 1, \ldots$, and multiply each term by 2, then 3, then 4. Clearly no term in the line could become 0 after the multiplication (except, of course, 0 itself), since there are no two non-zero numbers that multiply to zero in a field. Buy the way, the sequence of Fibonacci entry points for primes is A001602. There were exactly $5-1=4$ lines, and 5 elements (and therefore, 5 consecutive-element pairs) in each line, for a total of 20 pairs. But, excluding (0, 0), there are $5^2-1=24$ possible pairs! Thus, our 4 extra pairs must have gone into another cycle. This cycle could not contain any multiple of 5, and therefore serves as a witness that non-cyclic sequences exist in some 5-free Fibonacci sequence. There many books and paper about Fibonacci numbers and Lucas numbers, we mostly used [@HW; @Va89] for reference. This argument shows what we already know: that a Fibonacci-like sequence that does not contain multiple of 5 exists. We see that there is a strong connection between free Fibonacci sequences and proper Fibonacci sequences. Maybe we can study entry points of Fibonacci sequences to see if the story with 5 repeats for some other numbers. Division-Free $n$-Free Fibonacci Sequences {#sec:division-free} ========================================== Let us call an integer $n$ a Fibonacci omni-factor if any Fibonacci-like sequence contains a multiple of $n$. We just saw that 5 is the smallest integer that is not a Fibonacci omni-factor. If a number $n$ is not a Fibonacci omni-factor, then there exists a Fibonacci-like sequence that is at the same time an $n$-free Fibonacci sequence. Prime omni-factors can be found with the help of the following well known lemma. A prime $p$ is a Fibonacci omni-factor if and only if $Z(p) = p+1$. Consider a section of the Fibonacci sequence modulo $p$ before the entry point. Multiply this subsequence by any other remainder modulo $p$. A prime $p$ is not an omni-factor if there are fewer than $p^2-1$ total elements in all the lines of the Fibonacci sequences beginning with $k, k, \ldots$ modulo $p$. Then, as all lines are the same length as that beginning with 1, 1, $\ldots$ (that is, the start of the Fibonacci sequence proper), it will suffice to show that $(p-1)\cdot Z(p) < p^2-1$, or $Z(p) < p+1$. It is clear that $Z(p)(p-1) + 1$ can not be more than $p^2$. Hence we just proved a well known fact: For every prime $p$, $Z(p) \leq p+1$. Examples of primes that are not omni-factors include 5, which divides $F_5$, 11, which divides $F_{10}$, and 13, which divides $F_7$. The corresponding sequence is now sequence A230359. Omni-factor primes are the primes $p$ such that any Fibonacci-like sequences contains multiples of $p$. This sequence is A000057. By the way it is not known whether the latter sequence is infinite [@CR]. The entry points can be defined not only for primes, see sequence A001177 of Fibonacci entry points. For a composite number $n$ the relationship between the entry point $Z(n)$ and the existence of Fibonacci-like sequences not divisible by $n$ is slightly more complicated. But it is possible to check computationally if the sequences that start with zero and another number contain all possible pairs of remainders. The sequence of Fibonacci omni-factors, that is of numbers $n$ such that any Fibonacci-like sequences contains multiples of $n$ is A064414. Correspondingly the numbers $n$ such that there exist a Fibonacci-like sequence without multiples if $n$ is the complement of A064414. It is now sequence A230457. It starts as 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. The first composite number in the sequence is 8. Lucas numbers again is a sequence that does not have multiples of 8. Lucas numbers provide examples for many numbers, namely for the numbers that they do not divide. These numbers are represented by the sequence A064362. Thus, Lucas numbers provide examples for 10, 12, 13, 15 and so on in addition to 5 and 8. The smallest number that Lucas numbers does not provide an example for is 11. For 11, we can start with 1 and 4, to get the sequence A000285: 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 23, 37 and so on. This is a Fibonacci-like sequence that is never divisible by 11. All non-omni-factors that are not factors of the Lucas numbers are: 11, 18, 19, 22, 29, 31, 38, 41, 44, 46, 47, 54, 58, 59, 62, 71, 76, 79, 82, 94 and so on. This sequence is the A230457 sequence intersecting with factors of Lucas numbers: sequence A065156. It is now sequence A232658. Given that A064362 (Numbers $n$ such that no Lucas number is a multiple of $n$) is the complement of A065156, the new sequence can be defined as the sequence A230457 from which the numbers from A064362 are removed. Here we found many sequences that are Fibonacci-like and are not divisible by some number $n$. They provide an example of infinitely growing $n$-free sequences. Moreover, the division never happens. Will we ever see more cycles? Other Cycles {#sec:cycles} ============ For $n=2$ every sequence ends in a cycle of length 1. For $n=3$ every sequence we checked ended with a cycle of length 3. For $n=4$ we did not find any cycles at all. So far we found an example of a 5-free Fibonacci sequence that need not ever be divided by 5. We also found a cycle: 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4. Are there other cycles? We know that we can multiply a 5-free Fibonacci sequence by any number that is not divisible by 5 to get another 5-free Fibonacci sequence. Thus, we have many other cycles among 5-free Fibonacci sequences: 2, 2, 4, 6, 2, 8, and 3, 3, 6, 9, 3, 12, and so on. In general, we can multiply an $n$-free sequence by a number coprime with $n$ to get another sequence. Also, a more subtle statement is true. if we multiply an $n$-free sequence by a number not necessary coprime with $n$ but the result does not contain multiples of $n$, then the result of the multiplication is an $n$-free sequence. If all the elements of an $n$-free sequence are divisible by a number $m$, we can divide the sequence by $m$ to get another $n$-free sequence. We would like to point out that $m$ does not need to be coprime with $n$. This warrants a definition. Call a cycle primitive if its terms are coprime. As we just explained the following lemma is true. Any cycle can be divided by an integer to become a primitive cycle. All the primitive cycles we found so far contained only numbers below $n$. There is no reason why this property should hold for any cycle. For example, here is another primitive cycle of 5-free Fibonacci sequences: 4, 3, 7, 2, 9, 11, 4, 3. Though we did not find any more cycles, in case they exist, we can prove some of their properties. Take, for example, Lemma \[thm:parity\] where we used parity to prove that any 3-free Fibonacci cycle has length that is a multiple of 3. We can replace 3 by any odd number in Lemma \[thm:parity\] to get the following lemma. The length of an $n$-free Fibonacci cycle is divisible by 3 for odd $n$. It is not surprising that all the 5-free Fibonacci cycles that we found so far has length 6. There is no reason we should restrict ourselves with parity: remainders of Fibonacci numbers modulo 2. The Fibonacci sequence modulo $n$ is periodic. The period is called Pisano period and is denoted as $\pi(n)$. The sequence of Pisano periods is A001175. Pisano periods for prime numbers are outsourced into A060305. For example Fibonacci numbers modulo 3 form a cycle of length 8: 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1. We can generalize Lemma \[thm:parity\] to any prime number. The length of an $n$-free Fibonacci cycle is divisible by $\pi(p)$, where $p$ is a prime factor of $n-1$. Any cycle has the same length as a primitive cycle. Dividing by $n$ or its power does not change a remainder modulo $p$ as $n \equiv 1$ (mod $p$). All non-trivial Fibonacci cycles modulo $p$ are of the same length $\pi(p)$. So the primitive $n$-free Fibonacci cycle modulo $p$ has to be a multiple of $\pi(p)$. For example, any 4-free Fibonacci cycle, if it exists, is of length $8k$ for some $k$. This is due to the fact that $4 \equiv 1$ (mod $3$) and $\pi(3) = 8$. The following theorem immediately follows. Let $p_i$ be prime factors of $n-1$. Then the cycles in $n$-free Fibonacci sequences are of a length divisible by $\gcd(\pi(p_i))$. We studied cycles, but we actually do not expect many of them, as we expect the $n$-free Fibonacci sequences to grow faster for larger $n$. As the number $n$ grows, the multiples of $n$ are more spread apart in the Fibonacci sequence, that means the division happens more rarely. We think that the increase in the number by which we divide is less pronounced than the fact that the divisions are more spread apart. In the next Section we look at computational results and make probabilistic arguments to show that for $n > 3$ cycles should appear very rarely. Growth in Division-Free Sequences {#sec:growthdivfree} ================================= We ran several experiments. In our first experiment we did the following: For each $n$ we built 10000 random $n$-free Fibonacci sequences of length 500. Namely, we picked initial terms of each sequence as two random numbers between 1 and 1000. Then we averaged each term and found the best approximation for the exponential growth. We did this 5 times to confirm consistency of the exponents. That is, we approximated the $m$-th term of the $n$-free Fibonacci sequence as $g(n)^m$, where $g(n)$ is described by the following sequence starting from $n=4$: 1.32, 1.61, 1.42, 1.34, 1.61, 1.4, 1.61, 1.61, and so on. We did this for $n$ up to 50. Our experimental results showed that for $n$ for which division-free $n$-free Fibonacci sequences exist the growth is the same and it is about 1.61. Can we explain this? Let us take a closer look at the smallest such $n$: 5. Consider an arbitrary 5-free Fibonacci sequence. When we divide by a power of 5 at some point we may crossover to a division-free sequence. If we ever get two consecutive remainders as in the Lucas numbers: 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, and so on, we will never divide by a power of 5 again. Notice that the Lucas numbers modulo 5 cycle. The cycle has length 4 and contain every remainder exactly once. That means if the number in the sequence before division has remainder $r$, then we crossover into a division free sequence when the next number is congruent to exactly one out of possible four remainders modulo 5: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Consider for example the sequence starting with 1, 6. It continues to 7, 13, 4, and from here we would never divide by 5 again. Assume that the remainder after the division is chosen randomly with a uniform distribution. In this case, there is a 25% chance of entering the cycle with no multiples of 5, and a 75% chance of entering a sequence which will be divided by 5 again. Unless we enter into a cycle, as the number of these randomizations increases, it becomes more likely that the sequence will crossover into a division-free sequence. We did not find many cycles. Moreover all primitive cycles that we found had small numbers in it. Suppose that there are no primitive cycles with large numbers. Then, if we start with two large coprime numbers, there would be many potential divisions on the way to a cycle. Therefore, the probability of entering a division-free sequence will be very large. This probabilistic argument leads us to a conjecture. If we pick the starting integers in the range from 1 to $N$ the probability that we end up in a division-free 5-free Fibonacci sequence tends to 1 when $N$ tends to $\infty$. Let us remind you that division-free sequences are Fibonacci-like sequences. They grow like $\phi^n$, where $\phi$ is the golden ratio. It is not surprising that we get 1.61 as the growth ratio: the number close to the golden ratio, but slightly below it. We explained why 1.61 is the exponent for $n=5$. What about other numbers? Let us start by looking at the proportion of pairs that generate sequences not containing zeros. We submitted two new sequences to the OEIS: - A232656 The number of pairs of numbers below $n$ that, when generating a Fibonacci-like sequence modulo $n$, contain zeros: 1, 4, 9, 16, 21, 36, 49, 40, 81, $\ldots$. - A232357 The number of pairs of numbers below $n$ that, when generating a Fibonacci-like sequence modulo $n$, do not contain zero: 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 24, 0, $\ldots$. The sum of the two sequences is the sequence of squares: $a(n) = n^2$: the total number of possible pairs of remainders modulo $n$. For our argument we are interested in the ratio A232357$(n)/(n-1)^2$: the proportion of pairs not containing zero that lead to division-free sequences. This is what we get starting from $n=2$: > 0, 0, 0.25, 0, 0, 0.49, 0, 0.20, 0.20, 0.40, 0.58, 0, 0.18, 0.53, 0.56, 0.50, 0.11, 0.18, 0.72, 0.18, 0, 0.68, 0.18, 0.54, 0, 0.40, 0.57, 0.17, 0.067, 0.52, 0.57, 0.79, 0.17, 0.74, 0.53, 0.58, 0.52, 0.50, 0.55, 0.69, 0, 0.50, 0.17, 0.52, 0.70, 0.81, 0, 0.17, 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.51, 0.86, 0.67, 0.52, 0.55, 0.034, 0.46, 0.78, 0.55, 0.75 There is no clear pattern. For example, it drops significantly for $n=59$. Let us not get upset yet. If we look at the exact number A232357$(59) = 116 = 2 \cdot 58$. Is it true that every time we divide the probability of getting into a division-free sequence is the same? Suppose the term of the $n$-free Fibonacci sequence before division has remainder $r$. The probability that we crossover to a division-free sequence is $f(r)/(n-1)$, where $f(r)$ is the number of possible remainders that follow $r$ in division-free sequences. If $n$ is prime, then $f(r)$ is constant, for $r \neq 0$. Consider the Fibonacci sequence modulo $n$ between 0 and the first entry point. Multiply this sequence by all numbers below $n$. Pick the set of all possible pairs we get. Every non-zero number will be in this set of pairs the same number of times. But these are the pairs that lead to divisions. That means that in the set of pairs that lead to division-free sequences each remainder over zero is contained there the same number of times. As each remainder can not be followed by the same number of times, $f(r)$ must be constant. The previous lemma shows that the argument we provided for 5 works for every prime number that is not a Fibonacci omni-factor. Each time we divide, we crossover into a division-free sequence with the same probability. But what about composite numbers that are not omni-factors? We know that the cycles of Fibonacci-like sequences modulo a composite number might be different length. The number of different cycles modulo $n$ is A015134. Correspondingly, A015135 is the number of different period lengths. Let us look at the smallest possible case of a composite non omni-factor: $n=8$. Let us check all possible Fibonacci-like sequences modulo 8. There is a cycle 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 0. This cycle is of length 6. If we multiply it by 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7 we get 5 more cycles of length 6. There is a cycle 0, 4, 4, 0 of length 3. There is a trivial cycle 0, 0 of length 1. We also have a cycle corresponding to Lucas numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, 3, 2, 5, 7, 4, 3, 7, 2, 1, 3, $\ldots$ of length 12. There is also another cycle, that is a multiple of this cycle: 1, 4, 5, 1, 6, 7, 5, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3, 1, 4, $\ldots$. These are two cycles of length 12. There is no way each of the 7 possible non-zero remainders participates in these cycles the same number of times. Table \[tbl:divfreepairs\] shows, given a remainder, what the next remainder should be if we are inside a division-free sequence. --- ------------ 1 3, 4, 5, 6 2 1, 5 3 1, 2, 4, 7 4 1, 3, 5, 7 5 1, 4, 6, 7 6 3, 7 7 2, 3, 4, 5 --- ------------ : Remainders in division-free pairs.[]{data-label="tbl:divfreepairs"} We see that numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 correspond to 4 possibilities, and numbers 2 and 6 to two possibilities. That means the probability that we crossover to a division-free sequence depends on the previous remainder. But the important part is that it is never zero, because each remainder has at list two numbers that follow it. We can assume that with each division we crossover to a division-free sequence with some probability that is bounded from below. From this assumption we get a conjecture. For any $n$ such that a division-free sequence exists, if we pick the starting integers in the range from 1 to $N$ the probability that we eventually end up in a division-free $n$-free Fibonacci sequence tends to 1 when $N$ tends to $\infty$. This conjecture explains why we get 1.61 as a growth estimate for non-omni-factors in our data. Now we want to explain other numbers in the next section. Growth rates for omni-factors {#sec:growthomni} ============================= Table \[tbl:exp\] shows the exponents that are not equal to 1.61. We call them the deviated exponents and they appear when $n$ is an omni-factor. -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ $n$ 4 6 7 9 14 23 27 43 49 growth 1.32 1.42 1.34 1.4 1.49 1.48 1.53 1.54 1.56 -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ : Deviated exponents.[]{data-label="tbl:exp"} It is not surprising that these numbers are smaller than the golden ratio. Indeed, in every sequence we divide by a power of $n$ an infinite number of times. Moreover, we can extend the reasoning from Lemma \[thm:average3\] and Lemma \[thm:average4\] to see that each time we divide, we divide on average by $n^{n/(n-1)}$. The number we divide by grows with $n$, but the numbers in the second row of Table \[tbl:exp\] do not decrease. To explain this we need to see how often we divide. If we start with a pair of remainders, what is the average number of steps we need to make to get to zero? If we take all the pairs from the same cycle, then the average would be about half of the length of the cycle. The total average is the sum of squares of cycle lengths divided by the total number of pairs and by 2. This is not an integer sequence, but we submitted the rounded number and it is now sequence A233248. To keep the memory of the precise number we submitted the sum of the squares of cycle lengths as sequence A233246. We can approximate the average number of steps to the next division as $Z(n)/2$, but this is not precise. For example, we saw before that for 4-free numbers the number of steps until the next division is 1, 3, or 4. So the average is 8/3. It is easy to calculate this number when $n$ is prime. After the division we get a number that is not divisible by $n$, and the previous number is not divisible by $n$. We can assume that all such pairs are equally probable and the average number of steps is $(Z(n)-1)/2$. For non-prime numbers we can calculate this explicitly keeping in mind that before the division both numbers are coprime with $n$. (We can probabilistically argue that eventually elements of a sequence become coprime.) If $a$ is the average number of steps until the next division, then the estimated average division is by $n^{2n/(n-1)a}$. We combined these numbers in Table \[tbl:growthexplanation\]. The third row is the entry points, the fourth row is the average number of steps until the next division. The fifth row is the calculated average division per step. The last row in the table needs a separate explanation. Suppose $d$ is the average division per step. We took a recurrence defined as: $x_n = (x_{n-1} + x_{n-2})/d$ and calculated its growth, which is the last row. --------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- $n$ 4 6 7 9 14 23 27 43 49 experimental growth 1.32 1.42 1.34 1.4 1.49 1.48 1.53 1.54 1.56 $Z(n)$ 6 12 8 12 24 24 36 44 56 $a$ 8/3 6 7/2 45/8 154/13 23/2 459/26 43/2 441/16 average division 2.00 1.43 1.91 1.55 1.27 1.33 1.21 1.20 1.16 recurrence growth 1 1.26 1.03 1.19 1.36 1.32 1.41 1.42 1.46 --------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- : Estimated growth.[]{data-label="tbl:growthexplanation"} The last line, the recurrence growth and the fourth line—the average number of steps until division—are strongly correlated with the experimental growth. [9]{} The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, published electronically at <http://oeis.org>, 2012. Paul Cubre, Jeremy Rouse, Divisibility properties of the Fibonacci entry point, Number Theory arXiv:1212.6221, 2012. Richard K. Guy, Tanya Khovanova, Julian Salazar, Conway’s subprime Fibonacci sequences, Number Theory arXiv:1207.5099, 2012. Hardy, G. H.; Wright, E. M. (1938), An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers (Sixth ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008. Jeffrey C. Lagarias, The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem, Amer. Math. Soc., 2010 S. Vajda. Fibonacci & Lucas Numbers, and the Golden Section: Theory and Applications, Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, England, 1989. Morgan Ward, The characteristic number of a sequence of integers satisfying a linear recursion relation, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 33 (1): 153–165, 1931 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2010 [Mathematics Subject Classification]{}: Primary 11B39; Secondary 11B50. Keywords: Fibonacci numbers, Lucas numbers, divisibility, entry points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Mentions A000032, A000045, A000057, A000285, A001175, A001177, A015134, A015135, A001602, A060305, A064362, A064414, A065156, A078414, A214684, A224382. New sequences A230359, A230457, A232656, A232357, A232658, A232666, A233246, A233248, A233525, A233526) ------------------------------------------------------------------------	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study in the BFKL approach the total hadronic cross section for the collision of two virtual photons for energies in the range of LEP2 and of future linear colliders. The BFKL resummation is done at the next-to-leading order in the BFKL Green’s function; photon impact factors are taken instead at the leading order, but with the inclusion of the subleading terms required by invariance under changes of the renormalization scale and of the BFKL scale $s_0$. We compare our results with previous estimations based on a similar kind of approximation.' author: - 'F. Caporale' - 'D.Yu Ivanov' - 'A. Papa' title: 'NLO BFKL in $\gamma^{} \gamma^{}$ collisions ' --- [ address=[Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria\ and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo collegato di Cosenza\ I-87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy]{} ]{} [ address=[Sobolev Institute of Mathematics and Novosibirsk State University,\ 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia]{} ]{} [ address=[Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria\ and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo collegato di Cosenza\ I-87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy]{}]{} Introduction ============ The total hadronic cross section for the collision of two off-shell photons with large virtualities is a fundamental observable, since it is fully under the control of perturbative QCD. It is widely believed that this total cross section is the best place for the possible manifestation of the BFKL dynamics [@BFKL] at the energies of future linear colliders (for a review, see Ref. [@Wallon:2007xc]). For this reason, many papers [@photons_BFKL] have considered the inclusion of the BFKL resummation of leading energy logarithms. In a remarkable paper [@Brodsky:2002ka] (see also Ref. [@Brodsky:1998kn]), BFKL resummation effects have been taken into account also at the subleading order and evidence has been presented that the appearance of BFKL dynamics is compatible with experimental data already at the energies of LEP2 [@Achard:2001kr; @Abbiendi:2001tv]. In this work [@paper] we estimate the energy dependence of the $\gamma^* \gamma^$ total hadronic cross section in an energy range which covers LEP2 and future linear colliders. The procedure we follow is approximate, since we use the singlet forward NLA BFKL Green’s function together with forward $\gamma^ \to \gamma^$ impact factors [at the leading order]{}. However, in the impact factors we include the subleading terms required by the invariance of the full amplitude at the NLA under change of the renormalization scale and of the energy scale $s_0$ entering the BFKL approach. The $\gamma^ \gamma^$ total cross section: numerical analysis =============================================================== The total hadronic cross section of two unpolarized photons with virtualities $Q_1^2$ and $Q_2^2$ can be obtained from the imaginary part of the forward amplitude. Following the procedure of Refs. [@mesons_1-2], it is possible to write down the cross section with the inclusion of NLO corrections in the Green’s function only, while keeping the impact factors at the LO. In fact, the requirement of invariance of the amplitude at the NLA under renormalization group transformation and under change of the energy scale $s_0$ allows to fix the $\mu_R$- and $s_0$-dependent terms in the NLO impact factors $$A(s_0) = \chi(\nu) \ln\frac{s_0}{Q_1 Q_2}\;, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; B(\mu_R)= \frac{\beta_0}{2N_c} \ln\frac{\mu_R^2}{Q_1 Q_2}\;. \label{AB}$$ The details of the analytical calculation can be found in Ref. [@paper]. We use the series representation [@mesons_1-2], that is one of the infinitely many possible ways, equivalent with NLA accuracy, to represent the total cross section. In the case of the $\gamma^\gamma^\to VV$ process [@mesons_1-2], where $V$ stands for light vector meson ($\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$), it turned out that the contribution to the amplitude from the kernel starts to dominate over that from the impact factors in the series from $n=4$. This makes evident the fact that the high-energy behavior of the amplitude is weakly affected by the NLO corrections to the impact factor. Therefore, our approximated $\gamma^\gamma^$ total cross section should compare better and better with the correct result as the energy increases. In order to stabilize the perturbative series, it is necessary to resort to some optimization procedure, exploiting the freedom to vary the energy parameters, $\mu_R$ and $s_0$, without corrupting the calculation but at the next-to-NLA. We use both the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS method) [@Stevenson] and the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie (BLM) method [@BLM]: for some selected values of the energy $s$ in the region of interest the optimal scales $\mu_R$ and $s_0$ are found and the cross section is thus determined. Then, the curve giving the cross section [vs]{} the energy is obtained by interpolation. In order to compare the theoretical prediction with the existing data from LEP2, we cannot neglect the contribution from LO quark box diagrams [@Budnev:1974de] which is of order $\alpha^2 (\ln s)/s$. On the other hand, the soft Pomeron contribution, if estimated within the vector-dominance model, is proportional to $\sigma_{\gamma^\gamma^} \sim (m^2_V/Q^2)^4 \sigma_{\gamma \gamma}$ and is therefore suppressed for highly virtual photons. We restrict ourselves to the case of a symmetric kinematics, which means the same virtuality $Q_1 =Q_2 \equiv Q$ for the two photons. This is the so-called “pure BFKL regime”, as opposite to the “DGLAP regime” realized for strongly ordered photon virtualities. In Fig. \[fig:sigma\] (left) we summarize our results for the CERN LEP2 region: we show the NLO BFKL curves obtained by the PMS and the BLM methods, to which we added the contribution of the LO quark box diagrams. For comparison we put in this plot also the experimental data from CERN LEP2, namely three data points from OPAL [@Abbiendi:2001tv] ($Q^2$=18 GeV$^2$) and four data points from L3 [@Achard:2001kr] ($Q^2$=16 GeV$^2$). We observe first of all that the difference between the two theoretical curves can be taken as an estimate of the systematics effects which underlay the optimization procedures adopted here. Then, the comparison with experimental data is acceptable, although within uncertainties which are large both on the theory and on the experiment side. Around the energy for which the condition for the BFKL resummation, $\bar \alpha_s Y \sim 1$, is satisfied, which in the present conditions corresponds to $Y\sim 5$, [both]{} the PMS and BLM curves agree with experimental data within the errors. Finally, we remark that the determination from Ref. [@Brodsky:2002ka] falls between our two curves from PMS and BLM methods. From the energy dependence of the NLO BFKL cross section determined through the PMS method at $Q^2$=17 GeV$^2$ we obtained also the “dynamical” Pomeron intercept (minus 1) as a function of the energy. ![(Left) Energy dependence of the total cross on section on $Y\equiv\ln(s/Q^2)$. For comparison, experimental data from OPAL [@Abbiendi:2001tv] (stars, $Q^2$=18 GeV$^2$) and L3 [@Achard:2001kr] (diamonds, $Q^2$=16 GeV$^2$) are shown. (Right) $Y$-dependence of the Pomeron intercept (minus 1) calculated from the total cross section with the PMS method. All theoretical curves are obtained for $Q^2$=17 GeV$^2$ and $n_f=4$.[]{data-label="fig:sigma"}](sigma){height=".2\textheight"} ![(Left) Energy dependence of the total cross on section on $Y\equiv\ln(s/Q^2)$. For comparison, experimental data from OPAL [@Abbiendi:2001tv] (stars, $Q^2$=18 GeV$^2$) and L3 [@Achard:2001kr] (diamonds, $Q^2$=16 GeV$^2$) are shown. (Right) $Y$-dependence of the Pomeron intercept (minus 1) calculated from the total cross section with the PMS method. All theoretical curves are obtained for $Q^2$=17 GeV$^2$ and $n_f=4$.[]{data-label="fig:sigma"}](slope){height=".2\textheight"} The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:sigma\] (right). In Fig. 2 we show the $Y$-behavior of the total cross section for $Q^2$=20 GeV$^2$ ($n_f$=5) in an energy region not explored by past and present experiments, but relevant for future colliders. We plot here the two curves obtained in the present work with the PMS and the BLM methods. The condition for the BFKL resummation, $\bar \alpha_s Y\sim 1$, corresponds here to $Y\sim 6$; around this energy the deviation between the PMS and the BLM methods is about $50\%$. This discrepancy can be taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty of this approach. We observe that our determination from the BLM method is in quite good agreement with the result of Ref. [@Brodsky:2002ka] (see Fig. 4 of that paper), obtained for the same kinematics. Conclusions =========== We have found that, if suitable methods are used to stabilize the perturbative series, a smooth curve for the energy behavior of the cross section can be achieved. Our result in the CERN LEP2 region compares favorably with experimental data. Systematic effects coming from the optimization procedure are estimated by the comparison with two different methods. Our findings in the CERN LEP2 region are in agreement with the result of Ref. [@Brodsky:2002ka], where for the first time subleading BFKL effects were considered in the $\gamma^ \gamma^$ total hadronic cross section. In comparison with the latter work, which deals with the same process under consideration in the present paper, the elements of novelty are the following: - the optimization procedures to stabilize the perturbative series are performed on the amplitude itself and not on the NLO Pomeron intercept, which is not a physical quantity; - the impact factors, although taken at the LO, contain the appropriate NLO terms, so that the dependence on the energy scales entering the process (the renormalization scale $\mu_R$ and the parameter $s_0$ introduced in the BFKL approach) is pushed to the next-to-NLA; - two optimization methods are used, thus having a control of systematic effects at work. ![The $Y$-dependence of $\sigma_{\gamma^\gamma^}$ \[nb\] for virtual photon - photon collisions at $Q^2$=20 GeV$^2$ and $n_f=5$, obtained with the PMS and the BLM methods.[]{data-label="sigma2"}](sigma2){height=".2\textheight"} The numerical effect of the neglected subleading corrections to the impact factors cannot be quantified. We expected that it be modest in the second region of energy considered in this work. Here our prediction should be very close to the true NLO result. The final word will be said when the $\gamma^ \gamma^$ cross section will be calculated fully in the next-to-leading approximation. [99]{} V.S. Fadin, E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B* [60]{}, 50 (1975); E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [71]{}, 840 (1976) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [44]{}, 443 (1976)\]; [72]{}, 377 (1977) \[[45]{}, 199 (1977)\]; Ya.Ya. Balitskii and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [28]{}, 822 (1978). S. Wallon, arXiv:0710.0833 \[hep-ph\]. J. Bartels, A. De Roeck and H. Lotter, Phys. Lett. B [389]{}, 742 (1996); A. Bialas, W. Czyz and W. Florkowski, Eur. Phys. J. C [2]{}, 683 (1998); S. J. Brodsky, F. Hautmann and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D [56]{}, 6957 (1997); Phys. Rev. Lett. [78]{}, 803 (1997) \[Erratum-ibid. [79]{}, 3544 (1997)\]; J. Kwiecinski and L. Motyka, Phys. Lett. B [462]{}, 203 (1999); Eur. Phys. J. C [18]{}, 343 (2000); M. Boonekamp, A. De Roeck, C. Royon and S. Wallon, Nucl. Phys. B [555]{}, 540 (1999); J. Bartels, C. Ewerz and R. Staritzbichler, Phys. Lett. B [492]{}, 56 (2000); N. N. Nikolaev, J. Speth and V. R. Zoller, Eur. Phys. J. C [22]{}, 637 (2002); JETP [93]{}, 957 (2001) \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [93]{}, 1104 (2001)\]. S. J. Brodsky, V. S. Fadin, V. T. Kim, L. N. Lipatov and G. B. Pivovarov, JETP Lett. [76]{}, 249 (2002) \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [76]{}, 306 (2002)\]. S. J. Brodsky, V. S. Fadin, V. T. Kim, L. N. Lipatov and G. B. Pivovarov, JETP Lett. [70]{}, 155 (1999). P. Achard [et al.]{} \[L3 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [531]{}, 39 (2002). G. Abbiendi [et al.]{} \[OPAL Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [24]{}, 17 (2002). F. Caporale, D.Yu. Ivanov and A. Papa, arXiv:0807.3231 \[hep-ph\], to appear on Eur. Phys. J. C. D.Yu. Ivanov and A. Papa, Nucl. Phys. B [732]{}, 183 (2006); Eur. Phys. J. C [49]{}, 947 (2007). P.M. Stevenson, Phys. Lett. B [100]{}, 61 (1981); Phys. Rev. D [23]{}, 2916 (1981. S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, P.B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D [28]{}, 228 (1983). V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rept. [15]{}, 181 (1974).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the fluctuation-induced dissipative dynamics of the quantized center of mass motion of a polarizable dielectric particle trapped near a surface. The particle’s center of mass is treated as an open quantum system coupled to the electromagnetic field acting as its environment, with the resulting system dynamics described by a quantum Brownian motion master equation. The dissipation and decoherence of the particle’s center of mass are characterized by the modified spectral density of the electromagnetic field that depends on surface losses and the strength of the classical trap field. Our results are relevant to experiments with levitated dielectric particles near surfaces, illustrating potential ways of mitigating fluctuation-induced decoherence while preparing such systems in macroscopic quantum states.' author: - Kanupriya Sinha - Yiğit Subaşi title: 'Quantum Brownian Motion of a particle from Casimir-Polder Interactions' --- \#1[$$\begin{aligned} #1\end{aligned}$$]{} \#1 \#1[\|\#1]{} \#1[\#1\|]{} \#1[(\#1)]{} \#1 \#1[{\#1}]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1[\#1 ]{} \#1 \#1[[\#1]{}]{} \#1 \#1 \#1[ ]{} Introduction ============ Creating macroscopic superpositions of massive systems as a means to understand the quantum-to-classical transition is a task of foundational importance [@Zurek91]. Among promising experimental platforms for realizing large superpositions of massive objects, levitated optomechanical systems bring together the advantages of optical trapping and cooling methods in terms of control, while being well-isolated from an environment in the absence of mechanical clamping, thus minimizing decoherence [@Vamivakas16; @Yin; @Oriol11; @OriolPRA11; @Bateman14]. There has been astonishing experimental progress in terms of control and manipulation of levitated dielectric nanoparticles – ranging from recent demonstrations of cooling particles down to micro- and milli-kelvins, [@Uros19; @Carlos19; @Novotny19], to observation of rotational frequencies as large as MHz-GHz with remarkable stabilities [@Ahn18; @Reimann18; @Kuhn17]. Interfacing such precisely controlled mesoscopic quantum systems with waveguides further allows for better manipulation and probing mechanisms of the system of interest, as guided photonic modes can couple efficiently to particles in the near-field regime [@Diehl18; @Thomson13; @Juan16]. Near-field levitated nanophotonics can therefore allow for a strong optomechanical couplings of mesoscopic systems with well-controlled fields, as has been demonstrated in [@Magrini18]. However, when preparing a system in a macroscopic quantum state near surfaces, one needs to consider that the quantum (and thermal) fluctuations of the electromagnetic (EM) field are enhanced due to the presence of the surface degrees of freedom [@Volokitin07]. The increased density of EM field modes can therefore cause the system of interest to decohere faster in the vicinity of a surface, as has been shown both theoretically and experimentally with regard to the internal degrees of freedom of particles near surfaces [@spinflip1; @spinflip2; @superchip; @Hinds1999; @Schumm2005; @Lin2004; @Jones2003]. It is similarly imperative to analyze the fluctuation-induced decoherence for the external degrees of freedom in near-field nanomechanical experiments [@Skatepark]. In this paper we study the decoherence and dissipation of the quantized center of mass (COM) motion of a neutral dielectric particle trapped near a surface. We show that the open system dynamics of the particle can be described in terms of the quantum Brownian motion (QBM) master equation [@HPZ92; @BPBook; @Lombardo04], and the surface-modified dissipation and decoherence can be expressed in terms of a modified spectral density of the electromagnetic field. We further draw a correspondence between the surface-induced decoherence of the particle’s COM and the collisional model of decoherence [@JoosZeh; @MaxBook]. The paper is organized as follows. In section \[model\] we develop a theoretical model of a polarizable dielectric particle interacting with the EM field in the presence of a surface, deriving the fluctuation- and drive-induced potentials. In section \[results\] we derive the QBM master equation for the quantized COM motion, and analyze the resulting decoherence and dissipation of the particle for different surface properties in section \[dissdec\]. We summarize our findings in section \[discussion\]. Model ===== Let us consider a dielectric particle of mass $M$ and polarizability $\dbar{\alpha}\bkt{\omega}$ placed at a distance $z$ from a planar half-space medium of permittivity $\epsilon_S \bkt{\omega}$, as depicted in Fig.\[schematic\](a). We consider a classical driving field that is incident normally on the surface of the medium and reflected to form a standing wave potential. We assume that the particle is trapped near the first intensity maxima of the standing wave potential near the surface [@Magrini18]. The Hamiltonian for the total system can be written aswhere the first term corresponds to the kinetic energy of the particle with $ \hat{p}_z$ as the quantized COM momentum along the $z$-axis. In the absence of a strong transverse confinement we ignore the quantized motion in the $xy$-plane. $\hat H_F$ corresponds to the Hamiltonian of the quantized field in the presence of the medium (see Eq.). The interaction Hamiltonian $\hat H_\mr{int}$ represents the electric-dipole interaction between the polarizable particle and the total electric field over the volume $V$ of the particle given by [@Jackson] where $\hat {\mb{P}}\bkt{\mb{r}'}$ refers to the polarization of the dielectric, $\hat{\mb {E}}(\mb{r}')$ is the electric field, with $\mb{r}'$ being a point in the volume of the particle. The total electric field at a position $\mb{r}$ can be expressed as $\hat{\mb {E}}\bkt{\mb{r}'} = {\mb {E}}_0\bkt{\mb{r}' ,t} + \hat{\mb {E}}_{f}\bkt{\mb{r}' } $, where ${\mb {E}}_0\bkt{\mb{r} '} $ is the classical trap field, and $\hat{\mb {E}}_f\bkt{\mb{r} '} $ refers to the fluctuations of the field (quantum and thermal). We assume that the trap field is given as with $\omega_0 $ as the frequency, and $\mbc{E}_0\bkt{\mb{r}'}$ as the amplitude of the electric field at position $\mb{r}'$ which takes the incident and reflected fields into consideration. We further assume that the field is polarized along the $xy$-plane. Using the macroscopic QED formalism [@SYB1; @SYB2], the electric field fluctuations in the presence of a surface are given as (see ) where $\dbar{G}_\lambda \bkt{\mb{r}_1 , \mb{r}_2, \omega}$ stands for the propagator of a field excitation between points $\mb{r}_1 $ and $\mb{r}_2$, as described by Eq.– [@GreenWelsch]. Assuming that the particle has a linear, homogeneous and isotropic polarizability $\dbar\alpha\bkt{\mb{r}',\omega} \equiv \alpha \bkt{\omega} \mathbb{1}$, we can write the induced polarization of the particle as $\hat{\mb{P}}\bkt{\mb{r}'} ={\mb{P}}_0 \bkt{\mb{r}',t}+ \hat{\mb{P}}_f\bkt{\mb{r}'}$ [@Jackson], where is the polarization induced by the classical field and corresponds to the polarization induced due to the fluctuations of the EM field. We now assume that the dielectric particle is point-like, with the COM position of the particle $\hat{\mb{r}}_M =\hat{\mathbb{1}} \mb{r}+\hat{z}\mb{e}_z$ such that $\mb{r}$ corresponds to the classical COM coordinates and $\hat z$ represents the quantum fluctuations of the COM motion along the $z$-axis about the classical trap position. Using Eq.–, one can rewrite the interaction Hamiltonian Eq. as where corresponds to the trap Hamiltonian, stands for the Casimir-Polder (CP) interaction Hamiltonian, and is the driven Casimir-Polder (DCP) interaction. The first term in the above stands for the fluctuating dipole interacting with the classical trap field, and the second term corresponds to the classically driven dipole interacting with the EM field fluctuations at the position of the particle, as depicted by the processes (III) and (IV) in Fig.\[schematic\](b). We study each of these contributions in detail in the following. Classical Trap -------------- The classical trap potential to zeroth order in the COM fluctuations is given as where we have taken a time-average over the electric field. We note that the factor of $1/2$ is introduced to avoid the double sum of the energy associated with the interaction of the induced polarization and electric field [@Jackson]. We have further assumed here that the dielectric particle has negligible internal loss with a real polarizability such that $\alpha\bkt{\omega} = \alpha^\ast\bkt{\omega}$. Expanding $\hat H_\mr{Tr}$ to second order in the COM fluctuations $\hat z$ around the classical equilibrium position $\mb{r}_0$, and ignoring constant energy shifts, one obtains the trap potential as $\hat {V}_\mr{Tr} \equiv \frac{1}{2}M \Omega_\mr{Tr}^2 \hat{z}^2,$ where $\Omega_\mr{Tr} = \sqrt{\frac{ \alpha \bkt{\omega_0 } k_0^2\abs{\mbc{E}_0 \bkt{\mb{r}_0 }}^2}{2M}}$ corresponds to the frequency of the trap due to the classical field. We have assumed here that the electric field amplitude for the standing wave formed by the classical trap field goes as $\mbc{E}_0\bkt{\mb {r}_0 } \sim e^{i k_0 z}$ as a function of $z$. Casimir-Polder Interaction -------------------------- Considering the interaction between field and polarization fluctuations to zeroth order in COM fluctuations $\hat z$, such that $\hat H_\mr{CP}^{(0)}\equiv - \hat{\mb{P}}_f \bkt{\mb{r}}\cdot \hat{\mb{E}}_f \bkt{\mb{r}}$, one can obtain the Casimir-Polder potential as $U_\mr{CP }(\mb{r}) \equiv \frac{1}{2}\tr_F \sbkt{ \hat\rho_F \hat {H}_\mr{CP}^{(0)}}$. This can be evaluated in first order perturbation theory as [@SYB2] where we have assumed that the field density matrix $\hat{\rho}_F$ corresponds to a thermal state with temperature $T$ and $n_\mr{th}\bkt{\omega} = \avg{\hat{\mb{f}}_\lambda^\dagger\bkt{\mb{r},\omega}\cdot\hat{\mb{f}}_\lambda\bkt{\mb{r}, \omega}}= \frac{1}{e^{\hbar \omega/(k_B T) }- 1}$ is the average number of thermal photons in the mode $\omega$. All surface properties enter into consideration through the scattering Green’s tensor $\dbar{G}_{\text{sc}}\bkt{{\bf r}, {\bf r}, i\xi}$ (see Eq.) corresponding to the propagation of a virtual photon from the position $\bkt{{\bf r}}$ of the particle to the surface and back. Given that imaginary frequencies are associated with virtual interactions, the above potential can be physically understood as coming from the interaction between the fluctuations of the dipole and those of the vacuum EM field, summed over all frequencies of virtual photons exchanged between the particle and the surface. The second term corresponds to the scattering and reabsorption of thermal fluctuations of the EM field by the particle off the surface. Drive-induced Casimir-Polder Interaction ---------------------------------------- The linearized part of the interaction Hamiltonian with respect to the classical field gives a drive-induced contribution to zeroth order in the COM fluctuations given by One can derive a corresponding drive-induced Casimir-Polder potential in second-order perturbation theory as [@Fuchs18] (see Appendix\[Appdcp\] for details) The above shift is analogous to the resonant Casimir-Polder shift for the excited state of a two-level atom [@SYB2; @KSDEC; @Fuchs18]. This can be understood as coming from a process wherein a classically-induced dipole scatters a photon off of the surface and reabsorbs it. Total Potential {#utot} --------------- The total potential for the classical coordinate of the particle can be written as the sum of Eq., and as $U _\mr{Tot}\bkt{\mb{r}} = U_\mr{Tr}\bkt{\mb{r}} + U_\mr{CP}\bkt{\mb{r}}+ U_\mr{DCP}\bkt{\mb{r}} $, which yields the classical equilibrium position $\mb{r}_0$ of the particle such that $\partial_zU_\mr{Tot}\bkt{\mb{r}}\vert_{\mb{r}_0} = 0$. Expanding the CP and DCP Hamiltonians to second order in $\hat z$ around $\mb{r}_0$ would lead to additional corrections to the trap frequency. Assuming that the potential associated with the CP and DCP contributions are $\hat V_\mr{(D)CP} \equiv \frac{1}{2}M\Omega_\mr{(D)CP }^2 \hat{z}^2$, the total free Hamiltonian for the particle is the sum of its kinetic energy term and the harmonic trap potential given by where the total trap frequency is defined as $\Omega \equiv \sqrt{\Omega^2_\mr{Tr} + \Omega^2_\mr{CP}+\Omega^2_\mr{DCP}}$. QBM for the particle in the presence of a surface {#results} ================================================= We now study the open system dynamics of the quantized COM motion of the particle as the system of interest, interacting with the fluctuations of the EM field as the bath. It can be seen that in the presence of an external trapping field, to the lowest order in field fluctutations, the coupling between the quantized COM motion and the EM field fluctuations arises due to the drive-induced Casimir-Polder Hamiltonian $\hat H_\mr{DCP}$. Expanding $\hat H_\mr{DCP}$ to first order in the COM motion fluctuations, we obtain an interaction Hamiltonian between the quantized COM motion and the fluctuations of the field as where $\hat{\mc{B}}\bkt{t}$ is the bath operator defined as We remark that while the last two terms in the above with $\partial_z \mb{E}_0\bkt{\mb{r}}$ and $\partial_z \mb{P}_0\bkt{\mb{r}}$ vanish at the field intensity maxima, the equilibrium position $\mb{r}_0$ is shifted from that point due to the presence of the CP and DCP potentials. Moving to a rotating frame of reference with respect to the total free Hamiltonian, we can write the interaction Hamiltonian (Eq.) in the interaction picture as $\tilde{{H}}_{MF}(t)\equiv e^{-i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t}{\hat {H}}_{MF}\bkt{t}e^{i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t} $. In the interaction picture we can thus describe the dynamics of the COM in terms of a Born-Markov master equation as [@BPBook]\ where $\hat\rho_M $ refers to the density matrix for the quantized COM motion of the particle. Performing a trace over the EM field in the above one obtains the following QBM master equation where first term corresponds to trap frequency renormalization, the second term corresponds to dissipation or friction, the third term represents decoherence in the position basis, and the last term corresponds to momentum diffusion. The dissipation and noise kernels in the above master equation are given as (see Appendix\[Appdissnoise\] for details of the derivation) where we have defined the bath operator in the interaction picture as $\tilde {\mc{B}}(t)\equiv e^{-i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t}\hat{\mc{B}}\bkt{t}e^{i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t} $. The kernels $\mc{D}\bkt{\tau }$ and $\mc{N}\bkt{\tau }$ correspond to the standard QBM dissipation and noise kernels, respectively. Here $J\bkt{\omega, \mb{r}_0}\equiv J_\mr{free}\bkt{\omega, \mb{r}_0}+J_\mr{sc}\bkt{\omega, \mb{r}_0}$ is the effective spectral density of the EM field in the presence of the surface, with the free space and scattering contributions given by where we have defined To physically interpret the spectral density obtained above, we note the following features from Eq. - [The spectral density scales as the square of the induced dipole of the dielectric particle. The part of total spectral density that depends on $\bkt{\alpha\bkt{\omega_0}}^2$ arises due to the classically-induced dipole, corresponding to the emission and reabsorption of a photon by the classical dipole. The part of the spectral density that depends on $\bkt{\alpha\bkt{\omega}}^2$ arises from the interactions of the fluctuating dipole with its image via the classical trap field. Terms that go as $\sim { \alpha(\omega_0 )\alpha(\omega )}$ can be understood as coming from processes where a classical dipole scatters a photon, inducing a fluctuating dipole in the medium, which in turn interacts with the classical dipole via the trap field. This can be seen from the derivation of the dissipation and noise kernels in Appendix\[Appdissnoise\].]{} - [Given that the imaginary part of the surface scattering Green’s tensor $\im \dbar {G}_\mr{sc} $ corresponds to the surface loss, the density of modes increases near a lossy surface. This indicates that a lossy surface with a large number of fluctuating degrees of freedom leads to a larger dissipation and decoherence for the quantized COM dynamics, as a result of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Previously it has also been shown that surface loss leads to additional dissipation and decoherence for the internal degrees of the particle [@spinflip1; @spinflip2; @superchip; @Hinds1999; @Schumm2005; @Lin2004; @Jones2003].]{} - [In addition to the surface-induced modifications, there is also dissipation and decoherence due to the interaction of the particle with the free space EM field modes, as given by the free space Green’s tensor contribution. This can be understood as arising from scattering of the classical drive photons by the particle into free space modes.]{} We can now define the dissipation and decoherence coefficients as This shows that the dissipation and decoherence depend only on the effective spectral density evaluated at the mechanical sideband frequencies of the driving field. It can be seen that the above expressions are analogous to those for optomechanical damping and radiation pressure induced noise [@OMRMP]. This allows us to simplify the master equation Eq. as follows where we have defined the renormalized free Hamiltonian for the center of mass as $H_M'$ which includes the frequency renormalization due to the first term in Eq., and ignored the momentum diffusion term [@BPBook]. Decoherence and quantum friction for a dielectric nanosphere {#dissdec} ============================================================ As a concrete example, we now evaluate the decoherence and dissipation for a dielectric nanosphere near a planar half-space. The parameter values corresponding to the particle and surface, and simplifying assumptions are given as follows. Parameter values and Assumptions --------------------------------- - [We consider a dielectric nanosphere made of silica with a radius $R = 72 $nm, and density $\rho \approx 2000 $kg/$\mr{m}^3$ [@Magrini18]. ]{} - [The polarizability of a dielectric nanosphere is given as [@Jackson] where $\mc{V} = \frac{4}{3}\pi R^3$ is the volume of the nanosphere, and $\epsilon_P\bkt{\omega }$ is the dielectric permittivity of the dielectric particle described by the Drude-Lorentz model We use the parameters corresponding to fused silica as $\omega_{p1}=1.75\times10^{14}$ Hz, $\gamma_{1}=4.28\times10^{13}$ Hz, $\omega_{T1}=1.32\times10^{14}$ Hz, $\omega_{p2}=2.96\times10^{16}$ Hz, $\gamma_{2}=8.09\times10^{15}$ Hz, $\omega_{T2}=2.72\times10^{16}$ Hz [@Hemmerich2016]. In the present calculations we will ignore the damping and consider only the real part of the total polarizability. ]{} - [We assume the trap field to be polarized along the $x$-axis, with a wavelength of $\lambda_0 \approx 1064 $$\mu$m and intensity $ I = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_0 \mc{E}_0^2 c\approx 10^{-11} $Wm$^{-2}$, as used in [@Magrini18].]{} - [ We assume that the particle is trapped in a harmonic potential along the $z$ axis, with a trap frequency $\Omega \approx 3$MHz.]{} - [Considering that the classical drive frequency is much larger than that for the mechanical trap $\omega_0 \gg \Omega$, and $\hbar \omega_0 \gg k_B T$ one can simplify Eq. and to obtain the following simple expressions for the dissipation and noise ]{} - [ For the purpose of estimation we consider in the following that the equilibrium position is roughly given by the classical trap field intensity maximum, such that we can approximate the spectral density in Eq. as where we have assumed that $\partial_z \mbc{E}_0 \bkt{\mb{r}_0 }\approx 0$ and defined the free-space and scattering recoil Green’s tensor as where we have assumed the trap field to be polarized along the $x$-axis. ]{} Surface properties ------------------ We calculate the influence of the free space and surface scattered EM field given by the the imaginary part of the Green’s tensor as follows. ### Free space Observing that the free space recoil Green’s tensor is $\mc{G}_{\mr{free}}\bkt{\omega,\mb{r}_0} = \frac{\omega^3}{15\pi c^3 }$, using Eq. the contribution to the spectral density due to the free space EM field modes is given by where we have defined analogous to the dissipation rate of a dipole of strength $ {d}\equiv \sbkt{\frac{\alpha\bkt{\omega_0 } + \alpha\bkt{\omega }}{2}} \abs{\mbc{E}_0}$ interacting with the vacuum EM field. It can be seen from Eq. that this yields a decoherence rate of which corresponds to the position decoherence of the particle arising from the scattering of drive photons into free space modes. ### Perfect conductor For a perfectly conducting planar surface (with the Fresnel coefficients $r_p = 1$ and $r_s = -1$) the scattering part of the recoil Green’s tensor is given as (see Eq.), where $\tilde z \equiv k_0 z $ is the dimensionless distance of the particle from the surface. In the near-field limit $\tilde z \ll 1$, we find that $\mc{G}_\mr{sc, \mr{pc}}^{ \mr{NR}}\bkt{\omega, \mb{r}_0} \approx \frac{\omega^3}{15\pi c^3}$, where NR stands for non-retarded regime. This yields the density of modes in the subwavelength limit as Comparing with Eq., we see that the density of modes is twice that of the free space, which can be understood as a sum of the field radiated by the dipole and its image. The corresponding localization parameter is given as We note that in the absence of surface losses the decoherence of the particle in the near-field regime is independent of its distance from the surface, as can be seen from Fig.\[Fig2\](b). ### Metal For a metal surface we assume the permittivity function to be given by the Drude model The scattering recoil Green’s tensor is given as (see Eq.) where the Fresnel coefficients are as given by Eq.. In the near-field limit the scattering recoil Green’s tensor can be simplified to $\mc{G}^{ \mr{NR}}_{\mr{sc}, \mr{met}}\bkt{\omega, \mb{r}_0} \approx\frac{3 \omega^3}{ 32 \pi \tilde {z}^5c^3} \im\sbkt{ \frac{\epsilon_S\bkt{\omega} - 1}{\epsilon_S\bkt{\omega} + 1}}$, yielding a density of modes near a metal surface as One can thus write the decoherence of the particle near a metal half-space as where $\gamma_\mr{sc}\bkt{\mb{r}_0} \approx \frac{3}{8\tilde z^3}\im \sbkt{\frac{\epsilon_S \bkt{\omega_0 }-1}{\epsilon_S \bkt{\omega_0 }+1}}\gamma_0 \bkt{\omega_0 }$ is surface-modified photon scattering rate (see Eq.). As seen from Fig.\[Fig2\](b), the decoherence of the particle’s COM in the near field regime is well-approximated by the above expression. Correspondence to collisional model of decoherence -------------------------------------------------- We note that the deocherence term in the master equation Eq. is of the position localization decoherence (PLD) form [@MaxBook]. To understand this, we note that a similar form of decoherence term can also be obtained from a collisional model of decoherence, wherein the system in consideration is bombarded by individual scatterers from the environment. As each scattering bath particle interacts with the system via a local interaction and gets correlated, it acquires some information about the system’s position as a result. Thus, upon tracing out the bath, the system exhibits decoherence in the position basis. Particularly in the limit where the scatterer has a much longer de Broglie wavelength compared to the coherence length scale of the system one obtains a decoherence term as in Eq. [@JoosZeh; @MaxBook]. This correspondence in the decoherence dynamics from two different models suggests that the decoherence of a particle near a surface arises due to scattering of virtual photons off of the surface. We note that the decoherence rate due to scattering of photons in free space goes as $\Lambda_\mr{free}\sim k_\mr{eff}^2 \gamma_\mr{eff}$ (see Eq.), where $k_\mr{eff}$ refers to an effective wavevector for the scattered photon and $\gamma_\mr{eff}$ is the rate of scattering. Considering that $\Lambda_\mr{met}^\mr{NR}\sim \gamma_\mr{sc}\bkt{\mb{r}_0 }/z^2$, we deduce from Eq. that the virtual photons inducing decoherence have an effective de Broglie wavelength $\sim k_\mr{eff}^{-1}\sim z$ that scales as the distance of the particle from the surface. We remark that a similar effective de Broglie wavelength was previously also derived in [@KSDEC] in the context of recoil heating of a driven atom near a surface. Discussion ========== To summarize, we have derived a quantum Brownian motion master equation for the quantized center of mass motion of a dielectric particle trapped near a surface. Considering the particle to be trapped with an external classical field, we find that there are three different contributions to the total potential seen by the particle – a classical trap potential, Casimir-Polder potential and driven CP potential, as illustrated in Fig.\[schematic\](b). Taken together, these potentials lead the particle to be trapped close to the first intensity maxima of the standing wave potential formed by the classical field (see Section\[utot\]). The interaction between the quantized COM motion and the fluctuations of the EM field to the lowest order is described by a linear expansion of the driven CP potential (Eq.) about the equilibrium position. Tracing out the EM field fluctutations, we arrive at a second-order Born-Markov master equation describing the dissipative dynamics of the particle’s COM as given by Eq.. The resulting dynamics is governed by a quantum Brownian motion master equation, with an effective spectral density that is determined by the polarizability of the particle, properties of the surface, and the strength of the external trapping field (Eq.). The dissipation and decoherence that arise as a result can be understood as coming from the classically induced dipole scattering field fluctuations, and the fluctuating dipole scattering the drive photons. We then estimate the decoherence and dissipation for a dielectric nanosphere near different surfaces, and find that the quantized COM decoherence and dissipation increase in the presence of a lossy medium (Fig.\[Fig2\]). We further illustrate a correspondence between the resulting decoherence and that from the collisional model in the long-wavelength limit [@JoosZeh; @MaxBook]. Comparing the resulting decoherence due to surface fluctuations with that arising from other sources as a benchmark, we observe that surface-induced decoherence can potentially pose a fundamental limit for preparing a dielectric particle in macroscopic COM quantum states. It can be seen from Appendix\[Appdecother\] that the decoherence due to background gas scattering and blackbody radiation can be reduced significantly by going to lower pressures and temperatures, respectively. In the present analysis we have derived the spectral density that governs the surface-modifications to fluctuation phenomena for the quantized COM of a particle. This could allow one to systematically modify the surface properties and drive strength in order to mitigate the surface-induced dissipation and decoherence. As quantum optical systems are being increasingly miniaturized, and mesoscopic quantum components being regularly interfaced with surfaces and waveguides at nanoscales, our results provide new insights into tailoring fluctuation phenomena in these regimes [@Arod11; @Woods16; @KS2017; @KS2018]. Medium-assisted EM field {#appendixa} ======================== Using the macroscopic QED formalism [@SYB1; @SYB2], the Hamiltonian for the vacuum EM field in the presence of the surface can be written as with $\hat{\mb{f}}^\dagger_\lambda\bkt{\mb{r}, \omega}$ and ${\hat{\mb{f}}_\lambda\bkt{\mb{r}, \omega}}$ as the bosonic creation and annihilation operators respectively that take into account the presence of the media. Physically these can be understood as the ladder operators corresponding to the noise polarization ($\lambda = e$) and magnetization ($\lambda = m$) in the medium-assisted EM field, at frequency $\omega$, created or annihilated at position $\mb{r}$. The medium-assisted bosonic operators obey the canonical commutation relations The electric and magnetic field operators evaluated at the position of the particle are given as respectively, where The coefficients $\dbar{G}_\lambda\bkt{\mb{r}_1,\mb{r}_2,\omega}$ are defined as with $\epsilon(\mb{r},\omega)$ and $\mu(\mb{r},\omega)$ as the space-dependent permittivity and permeability, and $\dbar{G}\bkt{\mb{r},\mb{r}',\omega}$ as the Green’s tensor for a point dipole near a surface [@SYB1; @SYB2]. The Green’s tensor is defined as the solution to the Helmholtz equation in the presence of the boundary conditions The total Green’s tensor can be expressed as where $\dbar{ G}_\mr{free}\bkt{\mb{r}_1,\mb{r}_2,\omega}$ and $\dbar{G}_\mr{sc}\bkt{\mb{r}_1,\mb{r}_2,\omega}$ refer to the free space and scattering components of the total Green’s tensor. Scattering Green’s tensor near a planar surface {#AppGreen} =============================================== For a point dipole located at the position $\mb{r}_1$ near an infinite planar half-space, one can write the scattering Green’s tensor as [@SYB1] with $\abs{{\mb{r}_1-\mb{r}_2} }= r$, ${({\mb{r}_1+\mb{r}_2}) \cdot \mb{e}_z}= \bkt{z_1+z_2}$, and we have defined the relative coordinate vector between the points $\mb{r}_1$ and $\mb{r}_2$ as ${\frac{{\mb{r}_1-\mb{r}_2}}{\abs{\mb{r}_1-\mb{r}_2}}\equiv \bkt{\frac{x_{12}}{r},0,\frac{z_1 - z_2}{r}}^\mr{T}.}$ Here $r_{s,p}$ are the Fresnel reflection coefficients for the $s$ and $p$ polarizations reflecting off the surface, and $\kappa_\perp^2 = -k^2 +k_\parallel^2$, where $k = \omega/c$. Assuming that the medium can be treated as homogeneous and isotropic, and can be well-described in terms of its bulk optical properties at the length scales of the particle-surface separations, we can consider that all the information about the surface material is accounted for in the following Fresnel reflection coefficients In the non-retarded limit $(\tilde z\ll1)$, one can expand the Fresnel coefficients in Eq. to lowest order in $\abs{\sqrt{\epsilon(\omega)-1}\omega/(\kappa_\perp c)}$ as For coincident points $(\mb{r}_1 = \mb{r}_2 = \mb{r}_0)$, one can write the scattering Green’s tensor as [@SYB1] The double $z$-derivative of the $xx$ component of the recoil Green’s tensor (see Eq.) is then given as The free space Green’s tensor between the points $\mb{r}_1$ and $\mb{r}_2$ is given as where $f\bkt{x}\equiv1-ix-x^2$, $h\bkt{x}\equiv3-3ix-x^2$. Derivation of the driven Casimir-Polder potential {#Appdcp} ================================================= Using time-dependent second-order perturbation theory, we can define the energy correction and the modification to the dissipation rate of the system arising due to the driven CP Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_\mr{DCP}^{(0)}\bkt{t}$ (see Eq.) as $U_\mr{DCP }\bkt{\mb{r} } = \hbar \re \chi$, and $\gamma_\mr{sc}\bkt{\mb{r} } = -\im \chi$, where where we have defined the electric field and polarization fluctuation operators in the interaction picture as $\tilde{\mc{O}}(t)\equiv e^{-i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t}\hat{\mc {O}}e^{i\bkt{\hat H_M +\hat H_F}t} $ [@Sakurai]. The average is taken over the thermal state of the field. We note that the shifts and decay rates are consistent with those derived via the second-order Born-Markov master equation [@BPBook]. We further divide the above into 4 separate terms as such that $\mr{\chi =(I) + (II) + (III) + (IV) }$. Let us consider the first term as follows where in the second step we take an average over the field density matrix $\hat\rho_F =\hat \rho_\mr{th}$, such that Physically this is equivalent to saying that the virtual excitations of the EM field emitted and absorbed by the particle occur at the same frequency, position and space coordinate, and have an average number expectation value of $ n_\mr{th}\bkt{\omega}$. We can further simplify $(\mr{I})$ as where in the first step we have made the rotating wave approximation and used the fluctuation-dissipation relation [@SYB1] In the second step while performing the integral over $\tau $, we note that $\int_0 ^\infty \dd\tau e^{i \tau x } = \pi \delta \bkt{x} + i \mc{P}\bkt{\frac{1}{x}}$. To evaluate the principal value term, we make a contour integral over the first and the second quadrants of the upper half complex plane. We can similarly simplify the remaining terms to find that $\mr{(I) = (II) = (III) = (IV)}$. This yields the total potential as This is the driven CP potential as given in Eq., which is in agreement with the result in [@Fuchs18] at zero temperature. We can similarly also find the surface-modified scattering rate as For a particle in the near-field limit of a surface with permittivity $\epsilon_S\bkt{\omega}$, for $n_\mr{th}\bkt{\omega_0 }\ll1$ the above can be approximated as Derivation of the dissipation and noise kernels {#Appdissnoise} =============================================== Let us consider the two-time correlation functions of the bath operators as follows, We further divide the correlator above into sixteen parts as follows such that $\avg{\tilde {\mc{B}} \bkt{t}\tilde {\mc{B}} \bkt{t - \tau}} = \sum_{j = 1}^{16} C_j\bkt{\tau } $. We now consider the first term closely as follows where we have averaged over the thermal state of the field and used the fluctuation-dissipation relation for the Green’s tensor in obtaining the third step. Similarly we obtain Summing together Eq., , , and , we get Similarly, it can be shown that Eq., , , and yield where we have defined Similarly it can be shown Using and we can write the dissipation and noise kernels as Further noting that $2n_\mr{th}\bkt{\omega} +1 = \coth\bkt{\frac{\hbar \omega}{2k_B T}}$, we arrive at Eq. and , with the spectral density given by . Decoherence from other sources {#Appdecother} ============================== As a reference, we compare the surface-fluctuation induced decoherence with that due to other sources that can potentially be a limiting mechanism for preparing macroscopic quantum states as follows. Background gas scattering ------------------------- The decoherence rate due to background gas scattering [@MaxBook] is given as where $P_\mr{gas}$ is the gas pressure, and $m_\mr{gas}\approx 5\times 10^{-26} $kg is the mass of a single gas molecule. For a background gas pressure of $P_\mr{gas} \sim 1$mbar–$10^{-11}$mbar, one obtains a corresponding localization parameter $\Lambda_\mr{gas}\sim 10^{33}$$\mr{Hz}/\text{m}^2$–$10^{20}$$\mr{Hz}/\text{m}^2$. One potential way to circumvent decoherence due to background gas scattering could be to perform the experiment on time scales shorter than those of average successive collisions of the system with gas molecules [@Skatepark]. Scattering of blackbody radiation --------------------------------- The COM decoherence of the dielectric nanosphere induced due to scattering of blackbody radiation is given as [@MaxBook] where $\zeta \bkt{9}\approx1.002$ refers to the Riemann $\zeta$-function, $\omega_\mr{th}\equiv \frac{2 \pi c T}{b}$ is the peak blackbody radiation frequency, with $b$ as the Wien’s displacement constant. For $T \sim 1$K–100K, we find the blackbody radiation induced decoherence as $\Lambda_\mr{BB} \sim 10^{-7}\,\mr{Hz}/\mr{m}^2$–$10^{11}\,\mr{Hz}/\mr{m}^2$. We note that this corresponds to the decoherence arising from a purely thermal background, and for large enough temperatures can potentially exceed the decoherence from the driven CP interaction as we can see from Fig.\[Fig2\](b).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Motivated by the promising advances of deep-reinforcement learning (DRL) applied to cooperative multi-agent systems we propose a model and learning procedure to solve the Capacitated Multi-Vehicle Routing Problem (CMVRP) with fixed fleet size. Our learning procedure follows a centralized-training and decentralized-execution paradigm. We empirically test our model and showed its capability for producing near-optimal solutions through cooperative actions. In large instances, our model generates better solutions than other commonly used heuristics. Additionally, our model can solve arbitrary instances of the CMVRP without requiring re-training.' author: - \| José Manuel Vera and Andres G. Abad\ Industrial Artificial Intelligence (INARI) Research Lab\ Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral bibliography: - 'ma\_vrp\_ref.bib' nocite: '[@]' title: Deep Reinforcement Learning for Routing a Heterogeneous Fleet of Vehicles --- Introduction ============ Given the impressive results of deep neural networks (DNN) in computer vision and natural language processing tasks, there has been recent interest in their incorporation to the reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm to tackle optimal control and sequential decision-making problems. The implementation of RL with DNN algorithms is referred to as deep-reinforcement learning (DRL) and has been recently used to solve combinatorial-optimization problems [@bengio]. In this work, we aim to apply DRL to provide an end-to-end method to solve the Vehicle Routing Problem* (VRP) with multiple vehicles and heterogeneous capacities. We propose a model and a training procedure to route a fleet of vehicles with different capacities to act cooperatively and solve the routing problem. Related Work ============ Most previous works on using neural networks to solve combinatorial-optimization problems as end-to-end methods formulate the problem, either, as a sequence of inputs or as a graph representation. The pioneering work of [@vinyals] proposed an architecture called pointer networks based on recurrent neural networks (RNN), that uses an attention mechanism, as in [@bahdanau], to create pointers to a fixed set as outputs which allows to solve sequential combinatorial problems. Learning was achieved by maximizing the conditional probability of the training set in a supervised-learning manner. The training set consisted of a set of 2D points as inputs, and the solutions obtained from an approximate solver as labels; this method was applied for solving the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP). A drawback of this method was the high computational cost required for generating the training set. In [@bello], DRL was applied to solve the TSP using a pointer network as the policy function and an auxiliary network called critic to learn the expected tour length of an input sequence; training was achieved using the Advantage Actor Critic (A2C) algorithm (see [@sutton]). More recently, [@nazari] applied a DRL model to produce near-optimal solutions for the VRP, generalizing the model in [@bello] by considering a dynamic system. With respect to graph representations, [@dai] used a neural network architecture called structure2vec to represent the problem instance as a latent space vector; together with RL, their method was applied to solve various combinatorial problems. This formulation, however, could not be applied to the VRP since it assumed that the graph is static through time. In [@kool], an attention graph network is used to represent the problem instances as vectors; the method produces competitive solutions for various combinatorial problems, including the VRP. In this work, we extend the model proposed in [@nazari]. Because of its sequential nature and simplicity, it is useful for the formulation of the sequential decision making of multiple agents. Background ========== Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem ----------------------------------- We consider an specific instance of the VRP in which $N$ vehicles, each with specific capacity, must deliver items to $M$ customers, each with finite specific demand. It is further assumed that all demands are smaller than the vehicle capacity. In order to satisfy the demand of each customer the vehicles must create routes starting and ending at a depot node. When the vehicle’s load runs out, it returns to the depot to refill. The objective is to minimize the total route length of all vehicles while satisfying the demand of all customers. This problem can be termed the Fleet Size and Mix Vehicle Routing Problem (FSMVRP) [@gheysens] with a fixed fleet size. We call it the Capacitated Multi-Vehicle Routing Problem (CMVRP) but we will refer to it as the VRP throughout this work. The mathematical programming formulation of this problem yields an exponential number of constraints with respect to the number of customers, making it computationally intractable for medium-to-large size problems. Sequence-to-Sequence Learning ----------------------------- Each agent is sequentially given an input to make a decision at each timestep—the mechanism used to generate the decisions followed by each agent is its policy. Since decisions must be made sequentially, it seems natural to model this policy as a sequence-to-sequence model. Given an input sequence $X_t=\{x_i\}_{i=0}^{t}$ the model finds the conditional probability of the output sequence $Y_t=\{y_i\}_{i=0}^{t}$ [@sutskever]. By assuming the Markov property, we can express this as $$P(y_0,...,y_{T} \| x_0,...,x_T ) = \prod_{t=0}^{T} P(y_{t+1} \| Y_t, X_t ).$$ Recurrent neural networks are commonly used in sequence-to-sequence models to estimate this conditional probability. Attention Mechanism ------------------- A sequence-to-sequence model assumes that the output sequence is formed by elements of a fixed set. Unlike the sequence-to-sequence model, the VRP solution (output) is a permutation of the problem nodes (input). To achieve this required behaviour we use a mechanism called attention (see, for example, [@bahdanau], [@vinyals], and [@nazari]). This technique is used to query information from all elements in the input-nodes set. To construct the output sequence, an affinity function is evaluated, with each node and the last output of the model, to generate a set of scalars. Then, by applying the softmax function to these scalars, we obtain the attention given to each element of the input set at each timestep. Method ====== ![image](casos.eps) Customer locations are considered on a 2D Euclidean space. Customers and depot locations are randomly generated in the unit square. It is assumed that the demand in each node, except the depot node, can take a discrete value uniformly distributed between $1$ and $9$. Throughout this section we will use the terms “agent" and “vehicle" interchangeably. A problem instance $\mathcal{P}$ corresponds to a set of tuples $$\mathcal{P} \doteq \{\textbf{s},\textbf{d},\textbf{l},\textbf{p}\},$$ where - $\textbf{s} = \{s^i\}_{i=1}^M$ are the coordinates of customers; - $\textbf{d} = \{d^i\}_{i=1}^M$ are the demand of customers; - $\textbf{l} = \{l^j\}_{j=1}^N$ are the capacities of vehicles; and - $\textbf{p} = \{p^j\}_{j=1}^N$ are the locations of vehicles. The problem instance can be seen as the initial state of the problem. Agents will act on the problem changing the original state. The state of the problem at timestep $t$ is $X_t \doteq \{\, \textbf{s},\textbf{d}_t, \textbf{l}_t,\textbf{p}_t \, \}$. In our formulation, agents act cooperatively to satisfy the demand of all customers. The policy of each agent is modeled with DNNs and trained using RL. The work of [@lowe] developed an algorithm—following the paradigm of centralize training and decentralize execution—to train agents in cooperative and competitive environments. Here each agent have their own policy which uses only local information at execution. Unlike [@lowe], we propose a training procedure that allows our agents to access the information of all other agents and, thus, the state of the environment is the same for all agents. To train the agents we have to specify the decision procedure that agents follow. This could be set in the following three cases. Case 1: Agents make single, sequential and alternating action at each timestep. In this procedure, the environment is stationary in the eyes of all agents and the VRP is formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP). This implies that each agent requires only information of the last state of the environment to make a decision and do not care about other agents actions (see Figure \[fig:casos\] (a)). The policy of agent $j$ with parameters $\theta_j$ is $$\label{eq:policy} \pi_{\theta_j}(a\| \textbf{s}, \textbf{d}_t, \textbf{l}_t, \textbf{p}_t).$$ The formulation of the problem as an MDP implies that each agent has a policy and the decisions are sequential and following the same order at each timestep. This proposed decision procedure allows us to apply a policy gradient algorithm to train different agents with different characteristics. Case 2: Agents generate routes in a sequential and alternating order. This procedure also considers that the environment is stationary and that all agents have access to the same information. The vehicles are sorted by capacity in descending order. Each agent starts at the depot and make a series of actions until it returns to the depot; then the following agent have to make a series of actions and so on. When an agent is making a decision all other agents are in the depot so its policy does not need the information of positions and loads of the other agents. Thus, the state is defined as $X_t \doteq \{\, \textbf{s},\textbf{d}_t \, \}$. The policy of agent $j$ with parameters $\theta_j$ is $$\pi_{\theta_j}(a\| \textbf{s}, \textbf{d}_t)\label{eq:policy_2}.$$ Figure \[fig:casos\] (b) depicts an example where the first vehicle started to generate a route until it returns to the depot at timestep $k$. Then the next vehicle must generate its route at timestep $k+1$. Case 3: Agents make simultaneous actions at each timestep. This procedure cannot model the problem as an MDP (see Figure \[fig:casos\] (c)). If all agents make an action simultaneously the observation which is based the agent to make an action will change immediately after making an action, so the environment states are not useful to make decisions. Another issue is the difficulty of simultaneously imposing the restrictions of the problem to the actions of all agents. For example, if a customer hasn’t been visited by any agent then, in the next timestep is possible for all agents to visit this customer which is not a desirable behavior for the agents. In what follows, we present a model and training algorithm for generating solutions for the VRP considering the decision procedure described in Case 1. In subsections A and B we will explain how policy in Equation (\[eq:policy\]) is modeled and how the training is performed. Architecture {#sec:architecture} ------------ Following A2C algorithm, we call the policy of each agent the actor network. Additionally, this algorithm uses another neural network called the critic network. The actor network follows the architecture in [@nazari]. We expand on what data is feed into the encoder and also change how the attention mechanism is defined. The actor network consists of a sequence-to-sequence model with an encoder, decoder and attention mechanism (Figure \[fig:actor\_network\]). At each timestep $t$ two inputs are given: $x_t \doteq \{(s^i,d^i_t)_{i}^{M}\}$, which contains the information about the customers; and $z_t \doteq \{(l^j_t,p^j_t)_{j}^{N}\}$, which contains the information about the agents. These inputs are given to an encoder which embeds into latent space vectors. These embedded vectors are combined with the output $h_t$ of a decoder, to output $y_{t+1}$ that points to one of the elements of the input $\textbf{s} \in x_t$. Furthermore, $y_{t+1}$ is the input for the next timestep of the decoder. If the vehicle $j$ is taking an action at timestep $t$ then the input for the decoder $y_t$ is the action taken by the previous vehicle (more specifically, the position of the vehicle to make previous action). This process generates a sequence and ends when a terminating condition is satisfied, e.g., when a specific number of steps are completed. In order to introduce the restrictions of the problem we use a masking procedure in the output of the actor networks which sets the log-probabilities of infeasible actions to $-\infty$. ### Encoder It consists of a series of embeddings, each receiving two inputs: $x_t$ and $z_t$, at timestep $t$. Each input have its own encoder to produce a $D$-dimensional vector. ### Decoder It is an RNN that receives the vehicle position $y_t$ and maintains a hidden state $h_t \in \mathbb{R}^D$. ### Attention Mechanism {#sec:attention} Let $\bar{x}_t= (\bar{s}^i_t, \bar{d}^i_t)$ and $\bar{z}_t=(\bar{l}^i_t, \bar{p}^i_t)$ be the embedded inputs of the problem instance and $h_t$ the hidden state of the decoder at timestep $t$. We concatenate the embedding vectors $\bar{x}_t$ and $\bar{z}_t$ with the hidden state of the decoder $h_t$ and do a linear transformation with the parameters $W$. We then apply a hyperbolic tangent function (tanh) and multiply with the vector $v^T$. Finally, we apply a softmax to the output. Thus, we compute an attention vector as follows: $$u_t = v^T \text{tanh} (W[\bar{x}_t;\bar{z}_t;h_t]).$$ Then, the conditional probability is defined as $$P(y_{t+1} \| Y_t, X_t )= \text{softmax}(u_t).$$ The learnable parameters of the attention mechanism are $v$ and $W$. The agents make a greedy action according to this conditional probability. ![Proposed model for actor network (Case 1).[]{data-label="fig:actor_network"}](modelo.eps) ### Critic The critic is a feed-forward neural network which receives as input the static elements $\textbf{s}$, and returns the estimated total reward of the problem instance. Training {#sec:training} -------- To train the networks we use a policy gradient method known as the A2C algorithm. This algorithm uses two DNNs as function approximators: one is called the actor network that parameterizes the stochastic policy to predict a probability distribution over the next action at any given state; and the other is the critic network that estimates the total reward for any problem instance. We parameterize a stochastic policy $\pi$ with parameters $\theta$ for the embedding, decoder, and attention mechanism. We iteratively improve the policy of each agent $j$ by estimating the gradient of the expected rewards $J(\pi_{\theta_j})$ with respect to the policy parameters, obtained by $$\label{eq:grad_policy} \begin{aligned} \nabla_{\theta_j}J(\pi_{\theta_j}) = \mathbb{E}_{\tau_j \sim \pi_{\theta_j}} \nabla_{\theta_j}\text{log } P(\tau_j \| x;z; \theta_j) \Big( R(\tau_j \| \pi_{\theta_j}; x;z)- \\ V_{\phi}(s_k) \Big) \\ \approx \frac{1}{BT}\sum_{k=1}^{B} \sum_{t=0}^T \nabla_{\theta_j}\text{log } \pi_j(a^k_t \| x^k_t;z^k_t; \theta_j)\Big(R(\tau^k_j\|\pi_j ; x^k;z^k)-\\ V_{\phi}(s_k) \Big). \\ \end{aligned}$$ Here $V_{\phi}(s_k)$ is the critic shared between agents and it estimates the total reward solely from the nodes locations of problem instance $k$, $s_k$; and $R(\tau^k\|\pi;x^k;z^k)$ is the total reward of the tours $\tau^k = \bigcup_j^N \tau^k_j$ given policy $\pi = \bigcup_j^N \pi_{\theta_j}$ and problem instance $k$. To reduce the variance in the gradients, we use the critic network. Thus, the gradient is scaled by the advantage, which is the difference between the total and estimated reward of the problem instance. The critic network is improved via gradient descent according to $$\label{eq:grad_critic} \nabla_{\phi}\frac{1}{B} \sum_{k=1}^{B} \Big(V_{\phi}(s_k)- R(\tau^k \| \pi;x^k;z^k) \Big)^2.$$ The update of the parameters is done following the Adam algorithm [@kingma]. The training procedure is described in Algorithm \[algo:1\] where the generation of the tours of the agents is detailed as well as the learning of the parameters. Initialize the actor network with parameters $\theta_j$ for agent $j$ and critic network with parameters $\phi$. Define number of timesteps $T$, batch size $B$ and vehicles capacities $l^j$ for $j \in \{1,...,N \}$. Randomly sample a batch $\{(s^i,d^i_0)_{i=1}^M\}_{k=1}^B $, where $s^i \in [0,1] \times [0,1]$ and $d_0^i \in [1,9]$ for $i \in \{1,...,M \}$. choose $a^j_t$ according to policy $\pi_{\theta_j}( \cdot \| x_t;z_t;\theta_i)$ observe new state $(x_{t+1},z_{t+1})$ according to transition function $f( \cdot \| a^j_t,x^j_t)$ Compute $\nabla_{\theta_j}$ $\theta_j \gets$Adam ($\theta_j$,$\nabla_{\theta_j}$) Compute $\nabla_{\phi} $ $\phi \gets$ Adam ($\phi$,$\nabla_{\phi}$) \[algo:1\] Experiments =========== We performed the experiments described in Table \[tab1:experiments\] over a test set of size 1000 and present the average tour lengths obtained. Note that testing Case 2 would have resulted in infeasible run times because it does not allows parallel generation of the tours used for training. Name No. Customers No. Vehicles Capacities ------- --------------- -------------- -------------- VRP10 10 3 10, 15, 20 VRP20 20 3 20, 30, 35 VRP50 50 3 60, 70, 80 VRP80 80 3 80, 100, 120 : Experiments \[tab1:experiments\] The purpose of this experiment is to test our representation of the problem and the proposed training procedure to analyze its results in comparison with other methods. For this reason, we avoid to tune the training parameters in order to sincere the results. The extensive research in deep learning has shown that, in general, leveraging computation translates in better results. In this way, we decide to perform a tractable number of iterations. Our proposed method (which we will refer to as DRL) was compared with Google’s OR-Tools [@ortools], Clarke-Wright Savings Heuristic and Sweep Heuristic. We used a successive approximation approach [@juan] with the Clarke-Wright Savings Heuristic (CW) [@clarke]. With the Sweep Heuristic [@wren] we allowed a sequential generation of tours. Given the total capacity of vehicles with respect to the total possible demand of all customers we allow at most two tours per vehicle to encourage the use of all vehicles. This was done to avoid the exploit of the vehicle with the highest capacity which would have created a bottleneck. We formulate the fleet size and mix vehicle routing problem (FSMVRP) [@gheysens] and found an optimal solution using the Gurobi solver [@gurobi]. OR-Tools and FSMVRP assume that each vehicle can make at most one tour, so the sum of capacities of the vehicles must be larger than the total demand. Given this restriction we must get a larger fleet so the algorithms could yield a feasible solution, i.e., having two vehicles of the same capacity is equivalent to having one vehicle making two tours. We were able to find the optimal solution only for the VRP10 experiment. For VRP20 and larger instances, the computation was too large to test on 1000 instances. For example, for an instance of VRP20 with three vehicles it took 2350 seconds to solve a single problem instance with a 10% optimal gap. Given the possibility of using heterogeneous fleet to the solve the VRP, we proposed different problem instances to test this capability. Results and conclusions ======================= Table \[tab2:results\] shows the average tour lengths of the different methods along with our proposed method DRL. The DRL method generates, on average, shorter tour lengths than compared heuristics in large instances. Observe that as larger the instance, greater is the difference between the DRL method and the heuristics. Moreover, it shows that the generated tours of the DRL method had lower standard deviation compared to these heuristics. As for the tours generated by OR-Tools, these, on average, had shorter lengths compared to our proposed method. Note that the decision procedure of Case 1 introduces bias to our method by assuming that the optimal decisions must be in sequential and alternating order between vehicles. This limits the solution space to only the ones that follow this structure and could not be capable of generating better solutions than OR-Tools which has more liberty on how to generate solutions. Since the exact solution is intractable for large instances we do not present these values. \[tab2:results\] Our proposed method shows competitive run times compared to considered heuristics (Table \[tab3:runtimes\]). OR-Tools presented much longer run times in average compared with our proposed method. Gurobi run times are not presented for large instances due to their computational intractability. DRL Sweep CW OR-Tools Gurobi ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- -------- VRP10 0.018 0.009 0.004 0.017 6.697 VRP20 0.025 0.012 0.026 0.035 - VRP50 0.102 0.029 0.315 0.118 - VRP80 0.168 0.078 0.468 0.293 - : Average run time (in seconds) using different baselines over a test set of size 1000 \[tab3:runtimes\] The results obtained showed the potential of DRL for generating better policies to solve the problem of routing a fleet of vehicles with heterogeneous capacities and to automate this task by finding a global optimal policy that can be applied to arbitrary instances. Conclusions and Future Work =========================== We proposed a model and training procedure for finding near-optimal solutions to the problem of routing multiple vehicles with heterogeneous capacities. Our trained model generates better solutions than commonly used heuristics for large instances; falling short to, however, Google’s OR-Tools. It is important to note that our proposed model finds policies that can be used to automate the task of routing a heterogeneous fleet for any configuration of nodes. This is a limitation of methods like OR-Tools that need to set up and solve each instance individually. Furthermore, our proposed method has competitive run times compared to other methods. As future work we are interested in developing a training algorithm for Case 2 that allows parallelization. This will likely generate better solutions since this case is similar to the successive approximation approach. It would also be interesting to develop training algorithms following the decision procedure of Case 3 to allow several agents to make decisions simultaneously that are optimal globally. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to thank Tiendas Industriales Asociadas Sociedad Anonima (TIA S.A.), a leading grocery retailer in Ecuador, for providing necessary funding for this research effort.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| The saddlepoint approximation gives an approximation to the density of a random variable in terms of its moment generating function. When the underlying random variable is itself the sum of $n$ unobserved i.i.d. terms, the basic classical result is that the relative error in the density is of order $1/n$. If instead the approximation is interpreted as a likelihood and maximized as a function of model parameters, the result is an approximation to the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) that is often much faster to compute than the true MLE. This paper proves the analogous basic result for the approximation error between the saddlepoint MLE and the true MLE: it is of order $1/n^2$. The proof is based on a factorization of the saddlepoint likelihood into an exact and approximate term, along with an analysis of the approximation error in the gradient of the log-likelihood. This factorization also gives insight into alternatives to the saddlepoint approximation, including a new and simpler saddlepoint approximation, for which we derive analogous error bounds. In addition, we prove asymptotic central limit theorem results for the sampling distribution of the saddlepoint MLE and for the Bayesian posterior distribution based on the saddlepoint likelihood. Notably, in the asymptotic regime that we consider, the difference between the true and approximate MLEs is negligible compared to the asymptotic size of the confidence region for the MLE. In particular, the true MLE and the saddlepoint MLE have the same asymptotic coverage properties, and the saddlepoint MLE can be used as a readily calculated substitute when the true MLE is difficult to compute. author: - 'Jesse Goodman[^1]' title: Asymptotic accuracy of the saddlepoint approximation for maximum likelihood estimation --- Introduction ============ Let $X$ be a random variable with density function $f(x)$, $x\in\R$. Define $$M(s) = \E(e^{sX}), \qquad K(s) = \log M(s),$$ the moment generating function (MGF) and cumulant generating function (CGF), respectively, associated to $X$. Given $x\in\R$, let $\hat{s}$ be the solution to $$K'(\hat{s}) = x$$ and set $$\label{BasicSPA1d} \hat{f}(x) = \frac{\exp(K(\hat{s}) - \hat{s}x)}{\sqrt{2\pi K''(\hat{s})}}.$$ We call $\hat{f}(x)$ the saddlepoint approximation to the density function $f(x)$. Thinking of $f(x)$ as our object of study, we are led to ask how well $\hat{f}(x)$ approximates $f(x)$ as a function of $x$. For instance, we may naturally ask whether the ratio $\hat{f}(x)/f(x)$ tends to 1 in a suitable limit, and how fast this convergence occurs. The most prominent results of this kind concern what we will call the standard asymptotic regime, in which the observed value $X$ is the sample average of $n$ i.i.d. (but unobserved) values. We describe this limiting setup in greater detail in . In the standard asymptotic regime, the classical basic result is that $\hat{f}(x)/f(x)\to 1$ as $n\to\infty$ (for a precise statement of this kind, see [@Daniels1954] or below). This convergence justifies our description of $\hat{f}(x)$ as an approximation to $f(x)$. Moreover the limit comes with a rate of convergence estimate, $\hat{f}(x)/f(x) = 1+O(1/n)$ as $n\to\infty$. A notable advantage of the saddlepoint approximation is that, under many circumstances, the ratio $\hat{f}(x)/f(x)$ is uniformly bounded, even near the boundary of the support of $X$: see [@Kolassa2006SeriesApproxMethodsStats Theorem 4.6.1] and [@Jensen1988]. Under stronger assumptions including that the true density is log-concave, the ratio $\hat{f}(x)/f(x)$ tends to 1 near the boundary [@B-NKlu1999]. Thus the saddlepoint approximation correctly captures the behaviour of the density in the tails. This is in marked contrast to other density approximations such as normal approximations or Edgeworth expansions, which immediately extrapolate to an unbounded support with Gaussian-like tails even when the underlying random variable has values lying in a compact set. On the other hand, the saddlepoint approximation does not produce a normalised density function. Thus, for instance, we cannot straightforwardly apply the saddlepoint approximation to obtain a random variable $\hat{X}$ whose distribution approximates the distribution of $X$. In this paper, we shift perspectives and consider as an approximation to the likelihood. That is, we now consider $X$ to have a parameter $\theta$ and write the density and CGF as $f(x;\theta),K(s;\theta)$ to emphasise their dependence on the parameter. Instead of we write $$\label{BasicSPA1dL} \hat{L}(\theta;x) = \frac{\exp(K(\hat{s};\theta) - \hat{s}x)}{\sqrt{2\pi K''(\hat{s};\theta)}},$$ the saddlepoint approximation to the likelihood $L(\theta;x) = f(x;\theta)$. Note that the saddlepoint $\hat{s}=\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ is a function of both the parameter $\theta$ and the observed value $x$, defined implicitly by $$K'(\hat{s}; \theta) = x$$ and the derivatives $K',K''$ are with respect to $s$. In this perspective, we think of $x$ as fixed and examine the dependence of $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$ on the parameter $\theta$. In particular, we can form the saddlepoint maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) $$\label{SPMLE} \hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}}(x) = \operatorname{argmax}_\theta \hat{L}(\theta;x)$$ corresponding to an observed value $x$. We then wish to quantify the accuracy of $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ compared to the true MLE $$\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}}(x) = \operatorname{argmax}_\theta L(\theta;x).$$ A central result of this paper is that the MLE approximation error, $\bigabs{\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}}(x) - \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}}(x)}$, is asymptotically of order $1/n^2$. #### Outline of the paper {#outline-of-the-paper .unnumbered} introduces further notation, including conventions for vectors and gradients. In , we formulate the standard asymptotic regime as an explicit limiting framework relating the distribution $X_\theta$, its CGF $K$, the observed value $x$, and the parameter $n$. The main results, Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\], are stated in . explores how these results apply in several examples, including simple distributions and examples from the literature. We also explain why the saddlepoint MLE is always exact for exponential families. gives further general discussion. sets the stage for the proofs by exploring in more detail how the saddlepoint approximation arises. In particular, expresses the saddlepoint procedure as a combination of an exact step (tilting) and an approximation step, and introduces a factorisation and reparametrisation of the likelihood that underlie the rest of the paper. As a by-product, we obtain in a “lower-order” version of the saddlepoint approximation, satisfying analogues of the main results with a different power of $n$. The proofs of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:MLEerror\] are given in , along with a summary in of gradients of quantities related to the saddlepoint approximation. Further proofs and technical details appear in Appendices \[a:invariance\]–\[a:SamplingMLEProof\]. includes a summary, additional discussion, and directions for further inquiry. Main results ============ Setup and notation ------------------ ### Moment and cumulant generating functions We consider a vector-valued random variable $X$ of dimension $m$ depending on a parameter $\theta$ of dimension $p$, and write $X=X_\theta$ to indicate the dependence. We consider the values of $X_\theta$ and $\theta$ to be column vectors, i.e., $m\times 1$ or $p\times 1$ matrices, which we express as $X_\theta\in\R^{m\times 1}, \theta\in R\subset\R^{p\times 1}$ where $R$ is an open subset of $\R^{p\times 1}$. The multivariate MGF and CGF are $$\label{MGFCGF} M(s;\theta) = \E(e^{sX_\theta}), \qquad K(s;\theta) = \log M(s;\theta).$$ At times we will omit the dependence of $M,K$ on $\theta$ and write simply $M(s),K(s)$. On those occasions when we consider more than one random variable, we will write $M_X,M_Y$ and so on to distinguish the respective generating functions. In , $s$ is called the dual variable to $X$, and we interpret it as a row vector, a $1\times m$ matrix, so that $sX$ is a scalar or $1\times 1$ matrix. This convention emphasises that $s$ and $X$, despite being vectors of the same dimension, play quite different roles and are not interchangeable; rather, the space of row vectors is the natural dual space to the space of column vectors. This convention also avoids excessive use of transposes and explicit inner products. We wish to consider $M$ and $K$ for complex-valued $s$, and to this end we must take care of convergence issues in . Let $$\mathcal{S}_\theta=\set{s\in\R^{1\times m}\colon\E(e^{sX_\theta})<\infty}, \qquad \mathcal{S} = \set{(s,\theta)\colon s\in\mathcal{S}_\theta}.$$ Writing $\Re(z)$ for the real part of the complex number $z$, we have $\abs{e^z} = e^{\Re(z)}$ for $z\in\C$. Hence the expectation in converges absolutely whenever $\Re(s)\in\mathcal{S}_\theta$, and we take the domain of $M$ to be $\set{(s,\theta)\in\C^{1\times m}\times R\colon \Re(s)\in\mathcal{S}_\theta}$. Here we interpret $\Re(s)$ coordinatewise for each of the $m$ complex entries of $s$. For certain distributions $X_\theta$, $\mathcal{S}_\theta$ may reduce to the single point $0$ or otherwise become degenerate. Our standing assumption will be that $\mathcal{S}$ has non-empty interior. Note in this regard that $s\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$ does not imply $(s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$. The point $0\in\R^{1\times m}$ belongs to $\mathcal{S}_\theta$ for all $\theta\in R$, although it need not be an interior point of $\mathcal{S}_\theta$, for instance when every entry of $X_\theta$ is non-negative with infinite mean. As soon as the interior $\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$ is non-empty, $M(s;\theta)$ is analytic as a function of $s\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$. ### Gradients and Hessians Given a row vector argument $s=\mat{s_1 & s_2 & \dotsb & s_m}\in\R^{1\times m}$, we interpret the gradient with respect to $s$ as an $m\times 1$ matrix; applied to a function $f_{\mathrm{row}}\colon \R^{1\times m}\to \R^{1\times k}$ with row-vector values, the result is the $m\times k$ matrix. Thus $$\grad_s = \mat{\frac{\partial}{\partial s_1} \\ \vdots \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial s_m}}, \quad \grad_s f_{\mathrm{row}}(s) = f_{\mathrm{row}}'(s) = \mat{\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial s_1} & \dotsb & \frac{\partial f_k}{\partial s_1}\\ \vdots & & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial f_1}{\partial s_m} & \dotsb & \frac{\partial f_k}{\partial s_m} },$$ and the $i,j$ entry of $f_{\mathrm{row}}'$ is $\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial s_i}$. If instead $x$ is $m\times 1$ and $f=f_{\mathrm{col}}\colon\R^{m\times 1}\to\R^{k\times 1}$, then $\grad_x$ has the form of a $1\times m$ matrix and $\grad_x f_{\mathrm{col}}(x)$ is the $k\times m$ matrix whose $i,j$ entry is $\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_j}$. (Strictly speaking, $\grad_x$ should operate on $f_{\mathrm{col}}$ from the right if we wish to preserve the usual matrix-shape conventions.) For either of these cases we have $$\grad_{x^T} = (\grad_x)^T, \qquad \grad_x f = \left( \grad_{x^T} (f^T) \right)^T.$$ For scalar-valued functions, $k=1$, the Hessian matrix of second partial derivatives is $$f_{\mathrm{row}}''(s) = \grad_s \grad^T_s f_{\mathrm{row}}(s) \quad\text{or}\quad f_{\mathrm{col}}''(x) = \grad_x^T\grad_x f_{\mathrm{col}}(x),$$ the $m\times m$ symmetric matrix with $i,j$ entry $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial s_i\partial s_j}$ or $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}$. ### Moments and cumulants With the above conventions, the derivatives $M'(0)$, $M''(0)$ and $K'(0)$, $K''(0)$ give moments and cumulants of $X$: $$\label{M'M''K'K''0} \begin{aligned} M'(0;\theta) &= \E(X_\theta), & M''(0;\theta) &= \E(X_\theta X_\theta^T), \\ K'(0;\theta) &= \E(X_\theta), & K''(0;\theta) &= \Cov(X_\theta,X_\theta). \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $K''(0)$ is positive semi-definite. If $K''(0)$ is singular, then $X$ is supported on a lower-dimensional linear subspace of $\R^{m\times 1}$; in this case we could have discarded one or more entries of $X$ without losing information. We will therefore assume throughout that $$\label{K''PosDef} \det(K''(0))\neq 0.$$ As we will see in , in this case $K''(s)$ is positive definite and has an interpretation as a non-degenerate covariance matrix, for all $s\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$, and in particular $K$ is strictly convex as a function of $s$. ### Multivariate saddlepoint approximation With these preparations we can state the multivariate saddlepoint approximation. For $x\in\R^{m\times 1}$, we form the saddlepoint equation $$\tag{SE}\label{SaddlepointEquation} K'(\hat{s};\theta) = x$$ for $\hat{s}\in\mathcal{S}_\theta$. The strict convexity of $K$ implies that if equation has a solution, then the solution is unique and we call it the saddlepoint $\hat{s}=\hat{s}(\theta;x)$. We write $$\mathcal{X}_\theta = \set{x\in\R^{m\times 1}\colon \exists s\in\mathcal{S}_\theta\text{ solving }K'(s;\theta)=x}, \qquad \mathcal{X} = \set{(x,\theta)\colon x\in\mathcal{X}_\theta}.$$ We will not discuss under what conditions the saddlepoint equation has a solution; see for instance [@Jensen1995Saddlepoint section 2.1] or [@B-N19782014InfoExpFamilies Corollary 9.6]. We merely remark that in many common examples, we can solve for all $x$ in the interior of the convex hull of the support of $X$, but that this may fail if, for instance, $X$ is non-negative with finite mean and infinite variance. Assuming that the saddlepoint $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ solving equation exists, the saddlepoint approximation to the likelihood is $$\tag{SPA}\label{SPA} \hat{L}(\theta;x) = \frac{\exp(K(\hat{s}) - \hat{s}x)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K''(\hat{s}))}},$$ the multivariate analogue of . As in , the saddlepoint MLE $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ is the value of $\theta$ that maximises $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$, if one exists. We will compare $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$ and $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ with the true likelihood $L(\theta;x)$ and true MLE $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$. We are assuming that $X$ has an absolutely continuous distribution, so that the true likelihood $L(\theta;x)$ should be taken to coincide with the density function for $X$. Complications can arise if there is ambiguity in the choice of density function – for instance, if the density function has jumps – and later we will impose decay bounds on $M(s)$ that will imply that $X$ has a continuous, and therefore essentially unique, density function. Note however that the saddlepoint approximation can be applied whether or not $X$ has a density function, and indeed we can apply the saddlepoint approximation even when $X$ has a discrete distribution: see and below. Throughout the paper we will use the symbol $\hat{\,}$ to indicate saddlepoint approximations, rather than estimators based on observations. Thus $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}$ and $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}$ denote two deterministic functions of the formal argument $x$, whose nature depends on our chosen parametric model. Although we will continue to describe $x$ as the observed value of $X$, we will think of $x$ as the arbitrary input value to the functions $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}$ and $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}$, rather than as the result of a random experiment or sampling procedure. When we turn to sampling distributions in , we will introduce further notation to encode the presumed randomness of the observed value. The standard asymptotic regime ------------------------------ When we approximate one quantity by another, justification often stems from verifying that the approximation error becomes negligible in some relevant limit. In the case of the saddlepoint approximation, the most common and mathematically tractable limiting framework is to assume that $X$ is the sum of $n$ unobserved i.i.d. terms, $$\label{SARasSum} X = \sum_{i=1}^n Y^{(i)},$$ where $Y^{(1)},Y^{(2)},\dotsc$ are i.i.d. copies of a random variable $Y_\theta$ whose distribution does not depend on $n$. That is, we consider $$\tag{SAR}\label{SAR} \begin{aligned} M(s;\theta) &= M_0(s;\theta)^n, &&& K(s;\theta) &= n K_0(s;\theta), &&& x &= ny, &&& n\to\infty, \end{aligned}$$ where $M_0$ and $K_0$ are the MGF and CGF corresponding to $Y_\theta$. Throughout the paper, we will assume the relation $x=ny$ implicitly, and we think of $y$ as fixed (or varying within a small neighbourhood) in the limit $n\to\infty$, so that both $x$ and $X$ will be of order $n$. We refer to this limiting framework as the standard asymptotic regime for the saddlepoint approximation. In the standard asymptotic regime, the saddlepoint equation simplifies to $$\tag{$\mathrm{SE}_{\mathrm{SAR}}$}\label{SESAR} K_0'(\hat{s};\theta) = y.$$ Write $\mathcal{Y}_\theta$ for the set of $y$ for which a solution of exists, and write $\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)$ for the function that maps $y\in\mathcal{Y}_\theta$ to the solution of . Note that the saddlepoint $\hat{s}$ does not depend on $n$, and the functions $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ and $\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)$ are related by $$\label{ss0Relation} \hat{s}(\theta;x) = \hat{s}_0(\theta;y)$$ when the relations hold. We will write $\hat{s}$ for the common value in when the distinction is immaterial. The domains of $\hat{s}$ and $\hat{s}_0$ are related by $\mathcal{X}_\theta=\set{ny\colon y\in\mathcal{Y}_\theta}$. In the standard asymptotic regime, the saddlepoint approximation becomes $$\tag{$\mathrm{SPA}_{\mathrm{SAR}}$}\label{SPASAR} \hat{L}(\theta;x) = \frac{\exp\left( n[K_0(\hat{s}) - \hat{s}y] \right)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi nK_0''(\hat{s}))}}.$$ The basic error estimate for the saddlepoint approximation states that, in the standard asymptotic regime and subject to certain technical assumptions, the relative error in the likelihood is of order $1/n$: $$\label{LErrorRough} \frac{\hat{L}(\theta;x)}{L(\theta;x)} = 1+O(1/n) \qquad\text{as }n\to\infty$$ for fixed $(y,\theta)\in\mathcal{Y}$. (Note that the $n$-dependence of $L$ and $\hat{L}$ is omitted from the notation.) See below for a more precise statement. In view of the affine invariance of the saddlepoint approximation (see ), finding the saddlepoint approximation for $X$ is equivalent to finding the saddlepoint approximation for $\overline{Y}=\frac{1}{n}X$, the sample mean of the i.i.d. values $Y^{(1)},\dotsc,Y^{(n)}$ from . It can be helpful to interpret the value $y=x/n$ from equation as the observed value of this sample mean. However, we will consider $X$ rather than $\overline{Y}$, not least because the saddlepoint for $X$ does not depend on $n$. The standard asymptotic regime supposes that the observed value $X$ is the sum of $n$ unobserved i.i.d. terms. That is, we have only a single observation, $X=x$, rather than $n$ observations of the summands $Y^{(1)},\dotsc,Y^{(n)}$. For this reason, the parameter $n$ should not be interpreted as a sample size. On the contrary, if we observe $k$ i.i.d. samples $X^{(1)},\dotsc,X^{(k)}$ from the distribution $X_\theta$, so that the observed data forms a vector of dimension $km$, a quite different asymptotic result applies when $k\to\infty$: see the discussion in . Main results ------------ We prove a general asymptotic error bound for the derivative of the true and saddlepoint log-likelihoods; the resulting error bound for the corresponding MLEs, and distributional limits for the corresponding posterior and sampling distributions. The latter results include the asymptotic normality that applies when using the true likelihood in the limiting framework , which may be of independent interest. Because we wish to understand the true and approximate likelihoods as functions of $\theta$, our central objects of study will be $\grad_\theta \log L$ and $\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}$ rather than $L$ and $\hat{L}$. As we will see in , $L$ and its derivatives can be expressed as integrals involving $M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ and its derivatives, where $s$ is fixed and $\phi$ is integrated over $\R^{1\times m}$. To ensure that these integrals converge, we make the following technical assumptions on the growth or decay of $M_0$ and its derivatives: $$\begin{aligned} \label{DecayBound} &\text{there is a continuous function $\delta\colon\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}\to(0,\infty)$ such that} \\ &\qquad \frac{\abs{M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)}}{\abs{M_0(s;\theta)}} \leq \left( 1+\delta(s,\theta)\abs{\phi}^2 \right)^{-\delta(s,\theta)} \quad \text{for all }\phi\in\R^{1\times m}, (s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S} , \notag \\ \label{GrowthBound} &\text{there is a continuous function $\gamma\colon\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}\to(0,\infty)$ such that} \\ &\qquad \abs{\frac{\partial^{k+\ell} M_0}{\partial\theta_{i_1}\dotsb\partial\theta_{i_k}\partial s_{j_1}\dotsb\partial s_{j_\ell}}(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)} \leq \gamma(s,\theta) (1+\abs{\phi})^{\gamma(s,\theta)} \notag\\ &\qquad\qquad\text{for all $\phi\in\R^{1\times m}$ and $(s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$}, \notag\\ &\qquad\qquad\text{for $k\in\set{0,1}$, $1\leq k+\ell\leq 6$ and for $k=2$, $0\leq\ell\leq 2$}, \notag\\ &\qquad\qquad\text{and with each of these partial derivatives continuous in all its variables} . \notag\end{aligned}$$ Our results for the saddlepoint MLE are based on the following general bound on the difference between the gradients of $\log L$ and $\log\hat{L}$. If , and – hold and $(y,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{Y}$, then $$\grad_\theta \log\hat{L}(\theta;x) = \grad_\theta \log L(\theta;x) + O(1/n) \qquad\text{as }n\to\infty.$$ If $(y,\theta)$ is restricted to a compact subset of $\operatorname{int}\mathcal{Y}$, the bound in the term $O(1/n)$ is uniform. We obtain accuracy bounds for the MLE by applying the gradient error bound from (or rather, its more precise analogues from ) in the neighbourhood of a local maximizer. In the next result, we suppose that we can find a parameter $\theta_0$ that is a local maximizer, not for the full saddlepoint approximation from , but for the function $$\label{RateFunctionImplicit} \theta \mapsto K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta)-\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)y$$ that appears in the leading-order exponential factor of . Under the assumption that the critical point $\theta_0$ is non-degenerate, we show that both the true MLE and the saddlepoint MLE have local maximizers near $\theta_0$, and give estimates for the distances between these two local maximizers. As we will see later, the expressions in – below are the gradient and Hessian, respectively, of the function in ; see and . Let $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $y_0\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{Y}_{\theta_0}$ be related by $$\label{y0K0's0} y_0=K_0'(s_0;\theta_0),$$ and suppose that , and – hold. Suppose in addition that $$\begin{gathered} \label{RateFunctionImplicitCriticalPoint} \grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0) = 0 \qquad\text{and that} \\ \label{RateFunctionImplicitHessianDefinite} \begin{gathered}[t] H=\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0) - (\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0))^T K_0''(s_0;\theta_0)^{-1} (\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0)) \\ \hfill\text{ is negative definite.} \end{gathered}\end{gathered}$$ Then there exist $n_0\in\N$ and neighbourhoods $U\subset R$ of $\theta_0$ and $V\subset\R^{m\times 1}$ of $y_0$ such that, for all $n\geq n_0$ and $y\in V$, the functions $\theta\mapsto \hat{L}(\theta;x)$ and $\theta\mapsto L(\theta;x)$ have unique local maximizers in $U$. Moreover, writing these local maximizers as $\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x)$ and $\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x)$, $$\abs{\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x) - \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x)} = O(1/n^2) \qquad\text{as }n\to\infty$$ uniformly over $n\geq n_0,y\in V$. We next compare $L$ and $\hat{L}$ by considering their shape in a neighbourhood of the maximum. In a Bayesian framework, let the parameter $\Theta$ be drawn according to a prior $\pi_\Theta$ on $R$. For a given observed value $x$, we will consider the posterior distribution $\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ on a neighbourhood $U\subset R$ with $\pi_\Theta(U)>0$, defined by the Radon-Nikodym derivative $$\frac{d\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}}{d\pi_\Theta}(\theta) = \frac{L(\theta;x)\indicator{\theta\in U}}{C} ,\qquad C=C_{U,x}=\int_U L(\theta;x) d\pi_\Theta(\theta).$$ We construct the saddlepoint posterior distribution on $U$, $\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$, by replacing $L$ by $\hat{L}$: $$\label{hatpiFormula} \frac{d\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}}{d\pi_\Theta}(\theta) = \frac{\hat{L}(\theta;x)\indicator{\theta\in U}}{\hat{C}} , \qquad \hat{C}=\int_U \hat{L}(\theta;x) d\pi_\Theta(\theta).$$ Let $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $y_0\in\mathcal{Y}_{\theta_0}$ be related as in , and suppose that , , – and – hold. Suppose also that the prior distribution $\pi_\Theta$ has a probability density function that is continuous and positive at $\theta_0$. Fix $y=y_0$, $x=ny_0$. Then there exists a neighbourhood $U\subset R$ of $\theta_0$ such that $$\text{under $\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ or $\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$,} \quad \sqrt{n}\left( \Theta-\theta_0 \right) \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0,-H^{-1}) \quad\text{as }n\to\infty,$$ where $H$ is the negative definite matrix from . The proof of will follow from a stronger statement, , that removes the assumption $y=y_0$. Theorems \[T:MLEerror\] and \[T:BayesianError\] concern the deterministic functions that map an observed value $x$ to the corresponding MLE or posterior distribution, via either the true likelihood or the saddlepoint approximation. In this description, the observed value $x$ has been treated as deterministic, separate from any consideration of the random process that might have generated this observation. In particular, Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:BayesianError\] do not make any statement about the sampling distribution of an estimator. The next theorem describes the sampling distribution when the observation is itself a random variable $\xi_n$. Since the model assumes that $X$ is a sum of $n$ i.i.d. summands $Y^{(i)}$, as in , it is natural to consider the case $$\label{xinSumofIID} \xi_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \zeta^{(i)} \qquad\text{where $\zeta^{(1)},\zeta^{(2)},\dotsc$ are i.i.d.\ with finite second moments.}$$ As with $X$, we consider $\xi_n$ as a column vector with values in $\R^{m\times 1}$. Then implies $$\label{xinCLT} \frac{\xi_n - n y_0}{\sqrt{n}} \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma)$$ where $y_0\in\R^{m\times 1}$ corresponds to $\E(\zeta^{(1)})$ and the positive semi-definite matrix $\Sigma\in\R^{m\times m}$ corresponds to $\Cov(\zeta^{(1)},\zeta^{(1)})$. In , part \[item:SamplingGeneral\] applies to the mis-specified case where the distributions of $\zeta^{(1)}$ and $\xi_n$ need not equal those of $Y_\theta$ and $X_\theta$, respectively, for any value of $\theta$. Part \[item:SamplingWellSpecified\] applies to the well-specified case where $\zeta^{(1)}$ and $\xi_n$ have the same mean vectors and covariance matrices as $Y_{\theta_0}$ and $X_{\theta_0}$, respectively, in which case some simplification occurs; see also the remarks in below. Note however that does not require $\xi_n$ to have the form , provided that holds. Let $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $y_0\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{Y}_{\theta_0}$ be related as in , suppose that , –, and hold, and suppose that holds for some positive semi-definite matrix $\Sigma\in\R^{m\times m}$. Let $U$ be the neighbourhood of $\theta_0$ given by . Then: 1. \[item:SamplingGeneral\] The joint sampling distribution of the true and saddlepoint MLEs satisfies $$\left( \sqrt{n}\left( \big. \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n) - \theta_0 \right), \sqrt{n}\bigl( \hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n)-\theta_0 \bigr) \right) \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} (Z, Z)\quad\text{as }n\to\infty,$$ with $$Z \sim \mathcal{N}\left( 0, H^{-1} B^T A^{-1} \Sigma A^{-1} B H^{-1} \right)$$ where we have abbreviated $A=K''_0(s_0;\theta_0)$, $B=\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0)$, and $H$ is the negative definite matrix from . 2. \[item:SamplingWellSpecified\] If in addition $y_0=K'_0(0;\theta_0)$ and $\Sigma = K''_0(0;\theta_0)$ then the limiting distribution has $$Z \sim \mathcal{N}\left( 0, -H^{-1} \right).$$ Finally all of these results apply to integer-valued random variables – although, as we shall discuss in , it would be natural to make different and more flexible assumptions in the integer-valued case. Let $X_\theta$ have values in $\Z^{m\times 1}$ and set $L(\theta;x)=\P(X_\theta = x)$, with the restriction $x\in\Z^{m\times 1}$. Then the results of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:SAMPLINGMLE\] hold, with the assumption replaced by the assumption that $\abs{M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)}< M_0(s;\theta)$ for all $(s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $\phi\in(-\pi,\pi)^{1\times m}\setminus\set{0}$. A key conclusion from our results is that the approximation error in using using the saddlepoint MLE in place of the true MLE is negligible, in the limit $n\to\infty$ as in , compared to the underlying inferential uncertainty. Namely, according to , the difference between the true and saddlepoint MLEs is of order $1/n^2$. Asymptotically, this approximation error is much smaller than the spatial scale $1/\sqrt{n}$ corresponding to either sampling variability of the MLE (in the frequentist setup of ) or posterior uncertainty of the parameter (in the Bayesian setup of ). At least to the extent that the assumptions of the standard asymptotic regime apply in a given application, the saddlepoint likelihood and saddlepoint MLE are therefore appropriate as readily-calculated substitutes for the true likelihood and MLE. Examples -------- In this section, we show how the saddlepoint MLE and the results of this paper apply for certain specified distributions, and for a range of applications in the literature. As we shall see, most examples from the literature fall into the standard asymptotic regime either exactly, or with moderate modifications. Let $X_\theta\sim\Poisson(\theta)$, corresponding to $$\begin{gathered} K(s) = \theta (e^s-1), \quad \hat{s} = \log(x/\theta), \\ \hat{f}(x) = \frac{\exp(\theta(x/\theta-1) - x\log(x/\theta))}{\sqrt{2\pi \theta(x/\theta)}} = e^{-\theta}\theta^x\frac{(e/x)^x}{\sqrt{2\pi x}}. \end{gathered}$$ Note that $\hat{f}(x)$ is well-defined even though $X$ does not have a density, and $\hat{f}(x)$ is a reasonable approximation to $\P(X=x)$ for $x\in\N$, corresponding to Stirling’s approximation to $x!$ with relative error of order $1/x$. Note also that as an approximation to the likelihood, the saddlepoint approximation is essentially exact for all $x>0$ since it has the form $c(x)\P(X_\theta=x)$ where $c(x)$ depends on $x$ but not $\theta$. In particular, the saddlepoint MLE is exact. If instead we write $Y_{\theta'}\sim\Poisson(\theta')$ and $X=\sum_{i=1}^n Y^{(i)}_{\theta'}$ in the setup of , then $X\sim\Poisson(n\theta')$. This amounts to a reparametrisation $\theta=n\theta'$, and if we expect an observation $x$ of order $n$ we can set $x=ny$ with $y>0$ of constant order, as in . Indeed the relative error in the likelihood, for an observed value on the scale $x=ny$, is of order $1/n$ as suggested by . The phenomenon of holds more generally: Let $X$ be a sufficient statistic for an exponential family of distributions with natural parameter $\eta\in\R^{1\times m}$, with $$f_X(x;\theta=\eta^T) = h(x) \exp\left( \eta x - \rho(\eta) \right) ,\qquad K_X(s;\eta^T) = \rho(\eta+s)-\rho(\eta)$$ for scalar functions $h,\rho$ with $\rho$ convex. The saddlepoint equation reduces to $$\rho'(\eta+\hat{s}) = x.$$ In particular, the quantity $\hat{\eta}=\eta+\hat{s}$ depends on $x$ alone and is fixed as a function of $\eta$. The saddlepoint approximation can be written as $$\label{SPAExpFamily} \hat{f}(x;\eta^T) = \frac{\exp\left( \rho(\hat{\eta}) - \hat{\eta}x \right)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi\rho''(\hat{\eta}))}} \exp\left( \eta x - \rho(\eta) \right).$$ The first factor need not coincide with $h(x)$, so the saddlepoint approximation need not be exact, but because the first factor depends on $x$ only, the saddlepoint MLE is exact for an exponential family provided that the saddlepoint approximation itself is well-defined. Indeed, the MLE is precisely the quantity $\hat{\eta} = \eta+\hat{s}$ that solves $\rho'(\hat{\eta}) = x$, which we already find in the course of computing the saddlepoint. Let $Z$ have the Gamma distribution with shape parameter $\alpha$ and rate parameter $r$. As is well known, the Gamma family is an exponential family of distributions. However, the details of the saddlepoint approximation, and the way in which the conclusions of apply to MLEs, vary depending on the exact choice of $X$. If we set $Y_1=Z$, then $X_1$ will have the Gamma$(n\alpha,r)$ distribution and we find $$K_{Y_1}(s) = \alpha \log\frac{r}{r-s}, \quad \hat{s}_1 = r-\frac{\alpha}{y}, \quad \hat{f}_1(x) = r^{n\alpha} x^{n\alpha - 1} e^{-rx} \frac{e^{n\alpha}}{(n\alpha)^{n\alpha-1/2}\sqrt{2\pi}}.$$ As a function of $r$, $\hat{f}_1(x)$ is a constant multiple of the true density, so using $\hat{f}_1$ to approximate the MLE for $r$ will be exact. However, the last factor in $\hat{f}_1(x)$ is not a constant multiple of $1/\Gamma(n\alpha)$ – in fact it is the reciprocal of Stirling’s approximation to $\Gamma(n\alpha)$ – so using $\hat{f}_1$ to approximate the MLE for $\alpha$ will not be exact. In the framework of , this corresponds to the observation that $X_1$ (or $Y_1$) is the sufficient statistic for the sub-family in which $r$ varies but $\alpha$ is fixed. If we set $Y_2=\log Z$, we can still compute the MGF and CGF: $$M_{Y_2}(t) = r^{-t}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+t)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}, \quad K_{Y_2}'(t) = \psi(\alpha+t) - \log r,$$ where $\psi(z)=\Gamma'(z)/\Gamma(z)$ denotes the digamma function. The saddlepoint equation has no elementary solution but can be solved numerically. Now $Y_2$ is the sufficient statistic for the sub-family in which $\alpha$ varies and $r$ is fixed, so using $\hat{f}_2$ to find the MLE for $\alpha$ will be exact. Finally we can set $Y_3 = (Z, \log Z)^T$, the bivariate sufficient statistic for the entire Gamma exponential family: $$M_{Y_3}(s, t) = \frac{r^\alpha}{(r-s)^{\alpha+t}}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+t)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}, \quad \frac{\partial K_{Y_3}}{\partial s} = \frac{\alpha+t}{r-s}, \quad \frac{\partial K_{Y_3}}{\partial t} = \psi(\alpha+t) - \log(r-s).$$ The saddlepoint equation does not have an elementary solution, but the quantities $\hat{\alpha}=\hat{\alpha}_3 = \alpha + \hat{t}_3$ and $\hat{r}=\hat{r}_3 = r - \hat{s}_3$ will depend only on the observed value $x_3$ and not on $\alpha$ or $r$. Specifically, if we write $x_3 = ny_3$ with $y_3=(\bar{z},\bar{\ell})^T$, then $\hat{\alpha},\hat{r},\hat{f}_3$ are determined by $$\label{SEGammaBivariate} \psi(\hat{\alpha}) - \log\hat{\alpha} = \bar{\ell} - \log\bar{z}, \quad \hat{r} = \frac{\hat{\alpha}}{\bar{z}}, \quad \hat{f}_3(x_3) = \left( \frac{r^\alpha e^{\alpha\bar{\ell}-r\bar{z}}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \right)^n \frac{\hat{\alpha} \left[ \Gamma(\hat{\alpha}) e^{\hat{\alpha}(1-\Psi(\hat{\alpha}))} \right]^n}{2\pi n\bar{z}\sqrt{\hat{\alpha}\psi(\hat{\alpha})-1}} .$$ Consulting for instance [@GRToISP2007 equation 8.361.3], we see that the function $\alpha\mapsto \psi(\alpha)-\log\alpha$ is strictly increasing and maps $(0,\infty)$ to $(-\infty,0)$. So will have a solution if and only if $\bar{z}>0$ and $\bar{\ell} < \log\bar{z}$. In practice, this means that the saddlepoint approximation for $X_3$ can only be applied when $n\geq 2$. For the case $n=1$, the values of $Y_3$ will lie on the curve $\bar{\ell}=\log\bar{z}$ where $\hat{\alpha}$ is undefined, and $Y_3$ does not have a density; likewise if we take $\bar{z}\decreasesto e^{\bar{\ell}}$, we can verify that $\hat{\alpha}\to\infty$ and $\hat{f}\to\infty$. On the other hand, as soon as $n\geq 2$, $X_3$ is supported in the region where $\bar{\ell}<\log\bar{z}$ (this is Jensen’s inequality applied to the summands $Y_3^{(1)},\dotsc,Y_3^{(n)}$) and $\hat{f}_3$ is finite there. As in , as soon as $n\geq 2$, using $\hat{f}_3$ to find the MLEs for both $r$ and $\alpha$ will be exact. Let $X=AU$, where $A\in\R^{m\times k}$ is a fixed matrix and $U=U_\theta\in\R^{k\times 1}$ is an unobserved random vector whose moment generating function is known. We are interested in the case $k > m$, with $A$ of maximal rank $m$, so that $X$ has non-singular covariance matrix if $U$ does. Since $A$ is not invertible, observing $X$ does not allow us to identify the value of $U$, and a straightforward approach to computing the likelihood for $X$ requires integrating over a $(k-m)$-dimensional subspace of $U$ values compatible with a given $X$ value. However, the moment generating function of $X$ can be readily calculated by $M_X(s)=M_U(sA)$, making the saddlepoint approximation an attractive alternative that avoids lengthy approximate integration. A common case is that the entries of $U$ are independent, so that columns of $A$ with several non-zero entries induce dependencies between the entries of $X$. In the context of our results, assuming that $X$ is the sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, as in , amounts to the assumption that $U$ is itself the sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms. Davison, Hautphenne & Kraus [@DavHauKraParameterLinearBirthDeath] estimate the parameters of a birth-death process observed at discrete observation times, using a saddlepoint approximation to the transition probabilities. In our notation, $X$ is the population size at a given observation time. By the branching process property, $X$ is modelled as the sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, where $n$ is the population size at the previous observation time. Thus the problem falls into the standard asymptotic regime considered in , with $Y$ corresponding to the offspring distribution from a single individual. In practice, multiple observations are made over time, and the observed population size $x_i$ at time step $i$ also plays the role of the number of summands $n_{i+1}$ at the following step. To match the setup of , write the vector of observations as $(x_i)=n (y_i)$. To the extent that we can make $n$ large while keeping the entries $y_i$ bounded away from 0 and $\infty$, the conclusions of will apply. (A slightly different question, which is beyond the scope of this paper, is to understand the asymptotic accuracy when some, but not all, of the entries $x_i$ become large.) It is noteworthy that the applicable value of $n$ is determined by the data (here, the sizes of the population at various times) rather than by the data-collection procedure. Zhang, Bravington & Fewster [@ZhaBraFew2019] consider count data of the form $X=AU$ as in , with applications to capture-recapture in ecological and human contexts. Here the vector $X$ contains counts of various observed capture histories after including the corrupting effects of misidentification. The deterministic matrix $A$ encodes how a true capture history (counted by $U$) may be counted more than once in $X$. Note that a capture-recapture experiment naturally produces only a single observation, the vector of counts of different capture histories across all capture-recapture occasions, rather than a sample of many i.i.d. observations. The vector $U$ is modelled as a Multinomial distribution, with $N$, the unknown overall population size, specifying the number of trials. Thus $U$ is the sum of $N$ i.i.d. vectors encoding the true capture histories, so that $X$ is also the sum of $N$ i.i.d. vectors and the standard asymptotic regime applies with $n=N$. Here the value of $N$ is unknown – indeed it is the main parameter whose value is to be inferred from data. The inferential setup of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\] does not directly apply, because the unknown parameter $N$ is discrete rather than continuous. Nevertheless, our results suggest that inference on $N$ will have little approximation error, particularly if $N$ is large, and this is in line with the empirical findings in [@ZhaBraFew2019]. (In practice, some adaptation is necessary because $X$ typically includes some zero counts, which cause the saddlepoint approximation to fail if not accounted for.) We can adapt the model from [@ZhaBraFew2019] to the inferential setup of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\] by recasting the discrete parameter $N$ as a random variable with a continuous parameter. If we model $N\sim\Poisson(\lambda)$, as is commonly assumed in capture-recapture models, then the entries of $U$ will have independent Poisson distributions with parameters proportional to $\lambda$. As in , if we expect observed counts of order $n$, we should substitute $\lambda=n\lambda'$. Then and the framework of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\] apply, and state that the relative error for approximating $\lambda'_{\mathrm{MLE}}$ by $\hat{\lambda'}_{\mathrm{MLE}}$, and therefore also $\lambda_{\mathrm{MLE}}$ by $\hat{\lambda}_{\mathrm{MLE}}$, will be of order $1/n^2$ in the limit $n\to\infty$. Pedeli, Davison & Fokianos [@PedDavFok2015] fit time series data to an integer-valued autoregressive process given by $X_{i+1}\sim\Binomial(X_i,p)+\epsilon_i$. That is, the process undergoes Binomial thinning at each step, counteracted by i.i.d. integer-valued “innovations” $\epsilon_i$. As in , the saddlepoint approximation is applied to the one-step transition probabilities, $X=X_{i+1}$ with $X_i=x_i$ fixed. This model does not quite fall into the standard asymptotic regime because of the innovations $\epsilon_i$, but if these were absent then the setup of would apply with $n=x_i$ and $Y$ having the Bernoulli$(p)$ distribution. The results in this paper therefore provide a starting point for the analysis of this more elaborate scenario, and it is reasonable to expect similar results to apply. As in , the values of $n$ are determined by the time series data values that are being fit to the model, not the sample size. Aït-Sahalia & Yu [@A-SYu2006] apply saddlepoint techniques to approximate transition probabilities for diffusions, taking $X$ to be the location of the diffusion process after a short time interval $t$. The setup of does not apply; instead, $X$ becomes approximately normal in the limit $t\to 0$, and $t$ plays a role analogous to that of the quantity $1/n$. Discussion ---------- ### Application and scope of the results The scope for applying saddlepoint methods is limited to situations where we know the moment generating function $M(s)$ exactly (or can calculate it to high precision on a computer). We caution that substituting an approximation for $M(s)$ or $K(s)$ (for instance, a Taylor approximation based on finitely many moments or cumulants) may give disappointing results, as the saddlepoint approximation relies on knowing the exact values of $K(\hat{s}),K'(\hat{s})$ even when $\hat{s}$ is far from 0. A special case that skips some of the possible pitfalls is to replace $K(s)$ by its Taylor series of order 2: this amounts to a traditional normal approximation based on the mean and variance of the underlying distribution (see also [@DavHauKraParameterLinearBirthDeath Section 5]). Even with these restrictions, the saddlepoint approximation can be applied in a variety of examples, as in , and gives a robust approximation to the likelihood and MLE. Moreover, it may be simple to compute even when the true likelihood is intractable. The results in this paper show that the saddlepoint MLE offers a high degree of asymptotic accuracy. Most notably, the MLE carries an intrinsic spatial scale of order $1/\sqrt{n}$, and by comparison the saddlepoint approximation error, of order $1/n^2$, is negligible in the limit $n\to\infty$. This encouraging asymptotic result should, like many limiting statements, be interpreted with some caution in practice. In a typical application, we consider only one value of $n$ rather than a sequence tending to infinity. For instance, in practice, rather than verifying that the Hessian from is non-singular at a specified base point $\theta_0$, we should enquire whether the Hessian is nearly singular in a reasonable neighbourhood of the computed saddlepoint MLE $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$. Furthermore, the saddlepoint approximation can be used regardless of whether the model falls into the standard asymptotic regime described here. Indeed, we have followed Butler in thinking of as the special case of where $X$ is a sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, rather than thinking of as the special case of where $n=1$; see [@Butler2007 section 2.2.2]. Even when the model directly assumes a sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, the value of $n$ is in many cases determined by the values of the data, as in Examples \[ex:DavHauKra\]–\[ex:PedDavFok\], rather than the size of the data set. (Here we reiterate, as remarked in , that $n$ does not represent a sample size; see also below.) Thus we may not be able to make $n$ large, whereas we can often envisage increasing the sample size in a traditional large-sample limit. Finally, we note that our results concern local maxima and local neighbourhoods in parameter space. The true likelihood $L(\theta;x)$ may have a complicated structure as a function of $\theta$, with multiple local maxima, and the saddlepoint approximation cannot do better than faithfully replicating this complicated structure. Moreover, the saddlepoint approximation might have greater error in distant parts of parameter space, so that the saddlepoint MLE might fail to exist globally even if the true likelihood has a global maximum. This possibility does not usually arise in practice but seems difficult to rule out a priori. We note however that, because our results hold uniformly in a neighbourhood of a given point $y_0$, they apply in situations such as the setup of : the observed sample means $\frac{1}{n}\xi_n$ are in principle supported on $\R^m$ but will lie in a neighbourhood of $y_0=\E(\zeta^{(1)})$ in the limit $n\to\infty$. ### The integer-valued case On the face of it, the discrete parallels quite closely the continuous Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:SAMPLINGMLE\]: the conclusions are identical, and the hypotheses are quite similar. There is however an important contextual difference: in the discrete case, the restriction to the interiors of $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ excludes values of interest. For instance, suppose $X$ represents count data, $X\in\Z_+^{m\times 1}$. If we observe a count of 0 (or an observed vector including one or more zero counts) then we will be unable to find the saddlepoint $\hat{s}$. Even if we circumvent this issue by interpreting $\hat{s}$ as the limit $s\to-\infty$, the resulting saddlepoint approximation will still diverge, and no MLE can be computed. This problem arises in part because integer-valued random variables are more naturally studied in terms of their probability generating function $G(z) = \E(z^X)$ rather than $M(s)$, corresponding to the change of variables $z=e^s$. Thus the assumption on $M_0$ from is expressed in terms of $G$ by saying that, restricted to $\set{z\colon\abs{z_i}=r_i, i=1,\dotsc,m}$, the function $\abs{G(z)}$ has a unique maximum at $z=\mat{r_1 & \dotsb & r_m}$. Likewise, the assumption simplifies: $M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)$ and its derivatives are periodic as functions of $\phi$, so it suffices to verify that they are continuous. Furthermore, as we shall discuss in , the saddlepoint approximation is fundamentally a (normal) density approximation, and it can be problematic when applied as an approximation for a probability mass function. It is the author’s intention to return to these questions in future research. ### Heuristic for the true MLE and saddlepoint MLE We can give a heuristic argument for how the size of the gradient error from leads to the size of the MLE error in . Namely, fix $x=ny_0$ and assume as a simplification that - the function $\theta \mapsto K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y_0);\theta)-\hat{s}_0(\theta;y_0)y_0$ from – which by – has a non-degenerate local maximum at $\theta=\theta_0$ – is purely quadratic around its maximum value, say $\theta\mapsto a+\tfrac{1}{2}(\theta-\theta_0)^T H (\theta-\theta_0)$ where $H$ is negative definite; - the function $\theta\mapsto -\tfrac{1}{2}\log\det K_0''(\hat{s}(\theta;y_0);\theta)$ is purely affine, say $\theta\mapsto b+u(\theta-\theta_0)$ for some fixed $u\in\R^{1\times p}$; and - the difference $\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}(\theta;x)-\grad_\theta\log L(\theta;x)$ from has the form $\frac{1}{n}v$ for some fixed $v\in\R^{1\times p}$. Under these assumptions $$\label{logLhatHeuristic} \log\hat{L}(\theta;x) = na + \tfrac{1}{2} n (\theta-\theta_0)^T H (\theta-\theta_0) - \tfrac{m}{2}\log (2\pi n) + b + u(\theta-\theta_0)$$ and we can complete the square to find $$\begin{aligned} \log\hat{L}(\theta;x) = \tfrac{1}{2} n \bigl( \theta-\theta_0 &+ \tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T \bigr)^T H \left( \theta-\theta_0+\tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T \right) \notag\\&\qquad - \tfrac{1}{2n} uH^{-1} u^T + na - \tfrac{m}{2}\log (2\pi n) + b.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the saddlepoint MLE comes to $$\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x) = \theta_0 - \tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T.$$ For the true likelihood, define the constants $c_n=\log\hat{L}(\theta_0;x)-\log L(\theta_0;x)$. Then $$\label{logLHeuristic} \log L(\theta;x) = na + \tfrac{1}{2} n (\theta-\theta_0)^T H (\theta-\theta_0) - \tfrac{m}{2}\log (2\pi n) + b + u(\theta-\theta_0) - c_n - \tfrac{1}{n} v(\theta-\theta_0).$$ Comparing with , we see that changing from $\hat{L}$ to $L$ amounts to replacing $u$ by $u-\tfrac{1}{n}v$ and subtracting a constant term $c_n$. We can again complete the square to find $$\begin{aligned} \log L(\theta;x) = \tfrac{1}{2} n \bigl( \theta-\theta_0 &+ \tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T - \tfrac{1}{n^2}H^{-1}v^T \bigr)^T H \left( \theta-\theta_0+\tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T - \tfrac{1}{n^2}H^{-1}v^T \right) \notag\\&\qquad - \tfrac{1}{2n} (u - \tfrac{1}{n}v) H^{-1} (u - \tfrac{1}{n}v)^T + na - \tfrac{m}{2}\log (2\pi n) + b - c_n\end{aligned}$$ leading to $$\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x) = \theta_0 - \tfrac{1}{n}H^{-1}u^T + \tfrac{1}{n^2}H^{-1}v^T,$$ with an extra term of order $1/n^2$ in accordance with . In this heuristic, note that the size of $c_n$ (the error term in the log-likelihood approximation at $\theta=\theta_0$) was irrelevant to the size of the MLE error. So indeed was the term $-\tfrac{m}{2}\log(2\pi n)$ in $\log\hat{L}$. In fact, even if we drop all terms arising from the factor $(\det(2\pi K''(\hat{s})))^{-1/2}$ in the saddlepoint approximation $\hat{L}$, the heuristic above suggests that the resulting MLE approximation would still be within $O(1/n)$ of the true MLE. This intuition is correct: see below. ### The well-specified case In Theorems \[T:MLEerror\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\], some simplification occurs if $$\label{y0Matches} y_0=\E(Y_{\theta_0}),$$ i.e., if the observed sample mean matches with the model mean for some parameter value. In this case we might say that the model is “well-specified at the level of the mean.” If holds, we see that $s_0=0$ is the solution of the saddlepoint equation $K_0'(s_0)=y_0$. Since $K_0(0;\theta)=0$ for all $\theta$, it follows that $$\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0) = 0, \qquad \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0) = 0.$$ Thus the condition holds automatically, and the matrix $H$ from simplifies to $$H = - (\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0))^T K_0''(0;\theta_0)^{-1} (\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0)).$$ The matrix $K_0''(0;\theta_0)$ is already positive definite by assumption, see , so the condition is equivalent to assuming that $$\label{MeanGradientFullRank} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0)\text{ has rank }p.$$ We can recognise the $m\times p$ matrix $\grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(0;\theta_0)$ as the gradient of the mapping $$\theta\mapsto \E(Y_\theta)$$ (evaluated at $\theta_0$) and the condition / is equivalent to saying that the linear approximation (at $\theta_0$) to the mapping $\theta\mapsto\E(Y_\theta)$ is one-to-one. We might describe the condition / as saying that the model is “identifiable at the level of the mean.” Heuristically, if the observed sample mean $y_0$ matches with the model at parameter value $\theta_0$, and if the mapping $\theta\mapsto\E(Y_\theta)$ is one-to-one, then the law of large numbers implies that $y_0$ is an unlikely observation under any other parameter value $\theta\neq\theta_0$. In particular, $\theta_0$ will be a non-degenerate critical point, at least if we consider only the leading-order exponential factor as in . Conversely, if the gradient of $\theta\mapsto \E(Y_\theta)$ has rank $r<p$, there will be a $(p-r)$-dimensional surface around $\theta_0$ along which the mapping $\theta\mapsto\E(Y_\theta)$ is constant to first order. Hence, for all $\theta$ along this surface, $\hat{s}(\theta;y_0)\approx 0$ continues to be an approximate solution of the saddlepoint equation, the leading-order coefficient $K_0(\hat{s};\theta)-\hat{s}y_0$ remains zero to first order, and the heuristic from fails. ### Observing multiple samples As remarked in , the parameter $n$ should not be interpreted as a sample size in the traditional sense since the summands $Y^{(1)},\dotsc,Y^{(n)}$ of are not observed. The usual large-sample limit refers to a model in which, instead of a vector $X$ of fixed dimension, we are given a vector $\vec{X}$ of dimension $km$ containing a large number $k$ of sub-blocks $X^{(1)},\dotsc,X^{(k)}\in\R^m$. In a large-sample limit, we model $X^{(1)},\dotsc,X^{(k)}$ as independent random variables with a common parametric distribution $X_\theta$, and we consider the limit $k\to\infty$ with $n$ fixed. When we apply the saddlepoint approximation to the concatenated vector $\vec{X}$ of dimension $km$, the covariance matrix $K_{\vec{X}}''(\vec{s})$ will be block-diagonal. (In the language of , the tilting step preserves the independence of the $k$ sub-blocks.) It follows that the saddlepoint approximation for $\vec{X}$ factors as a product of $k$ $m$-dimensional saddlepoint approximations for $X^{(1)},\dotsc,X^{(k)}$. However, $n$ is fixed, so the individual saddlepoint approximations – each of which is a saddlepoint approximation applied to the distribution $X_\theta$ – need not be exact. We now turn to the limit $k\to\infty$. In a setup similar to that of , write $\vec{x}_k\in\R^{km}$ for the random variable representing the observed data. Fix a parameter $\theta_0$ and suppose that $\vec{x}_k$ is the concatenation of $k$ vectors $x^{(1)},\dotsc,x^{(k)}$ drawn independently with distribution $X_{\theta_0}$. In other words, suppose that the underlying model is well-specified relative to the data-generating process. Then, under typical conditions, we can expect to find that the true MLE is consistent, $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(\vec{x})\to\theta_0$ in probability as $k\to\infty$. However, the model corresponding to the saddlepoint likelihood $\hat{L}(\theta,\vec{x})$ is different, and in general will be mis-specified relative to the data-generating process. (That is, we assume that there is a parametric model whose likelihood has the form $\tilde{L}(\theta,\vec{x})=c(\vec{x})\hat{L}(\theta;\vec{x})$.) Again under typical conditions, we can expect to find that the saddlepoint MLE converges in probability as $k\to\infty$ to some $\theta_1$, which will be the parameter that minimizes the relative entropy of the data-generating distribution $X_{\theta_0}$ relative to the distribution implied by $\hat{L}(\theta_1;x)$. However, there is no reason to expect $\theta_1$ to equal $\theta_0$. In short, in the limit $k\to\infty$ we expect both true and saddlepoint MLEs to concentrate with increasing precision, but with $n$ fixed there is no reason to expect the saddlepoint MLE to concentrate around the correct limiting value. ### Analogy to Fisher information and Godambe information In the traditional large-sample limit, $k$ samples from the distribution $X_{\theta_0}$ are observed. In the basic result for convergence of the MLE, the resulting MLE is asymptotically normally distributed around the true parameter $\theta_0$, with a spatial scale $1/\sqrt{k}$. A principal assumption for this result is that the Fisher information matrix, which is positive semi-definite by construction, should be non-singular. In our setting, as discussed in , the analogue of this hypothesis is the requirement that the matrix in should have full rank. However, these hypotheses are not the same: for instance, if changing $\theta$ causes the variance of $X_\theta$ to change but not the mean, this will be detectable in the Fisher information matrix but not in . In general, it may not be reasonable to assume that our observations are drawn according to our model with an unknown parameter: that is, our model may be mis-specified. In the large-sample limit, the MLE is still normally distributed with a spatial scale $1/\sqrt{k}$, see for instance [@White1982], with the requirement that the Godambe information matrix, rather than the Fisher information matrix, should be non-singular. In our setting, the analogue is the requirement that the Hessian of should be negative definite. The non-singularity of the Godambe information matrix is still, however, a different hypothesis than . Tilting and the saddlepoint approximation ========================================= In we break down the saddlepoint approximation into two steps: an exact step based on tilting, and an approximation step based on the normal distribution. Because the tilting step is exact, we can use the results of tilting to analyse both the true likelihood and the saddlepoint approximation. Specifically, we factor the likelihood into an exact factor, which encodes the effect of tilting and is shared between the true and approximate likelihoods; and a correction term, a normal approximation of which leads to the saddlepoint likelihood. This factorization establishes the framework in which the proofs will take place, and also gives insight into results from the literature and possibly future directions of inquiry. As a natural by-product of the factorization, we introduce in a simpler but less accurate alternative to the saddlepoint approximation, which satisfies results similar to Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\]. The saddlepoint approximation in two steps ------------------------------------------ If $X$ has density function $f$, the MGF $M({\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ along the imaginary axis gives the Fourier transform of $f$. Consequently we can use the inverse Fourier transform to recover $f$: $$\label{MGFInversion} f(x) = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} M({\mathrm{i}}\phi) e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\phi x} \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( K({\mathrm{i}}\phi) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi x \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.$$ As we will explain later, our assumptions imply that, for sufficiently large $n$, the integral in converges absolutely and defines a continuous density function $f(x)$. In practice, either of the factors $M({\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ or $e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\phi x}$ may be highly oscillatory, and will not typically cancel with each other. To make the integral more manageable, we exponentially tilt the distribution of $X$. Define $$f_{s_0}(x;\theta) = \frac{e^{s_0 x}f(x;\theta)}{M(s_0;\theta)}$$ for all $s_0\in\mathcal{S}_\theta$. Then $f_{s_0}$ is still a density function, corresponding to a tilted distribution $X^{(s_0)}$ having the same support as $X$, and we compute $$M_{X^{(s_0)}}(s) = \frac{M(s_0 + s)}{M(s_0)}, \qquad K_{X^{(s_0)}}(s) = K(s_0+s)-K(s_0).$$ Recalling , we note that $K'(s_0) = \E(X^{(s_0)})$ and $K''(s_0)=\Cov(X^{(s_0)},X^{(s_0)})$, so that $K''(s_0)$ is positive semi-definite for all $s_0\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$. Since $X$ and $X^{(s)}$ have the same support, we note from that $K''(s_0)$ is positive definite for all $s_0\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$. We will use this conclusion without further mention in the rest of the paper. If we apply the inversion formula to $X^{(s)}$, we can solve to find $$\begin{aligned} f(x) &= M(s)e^{-s x} f_{s}(x) \notag\\& = \exp\left( K(s)-s x \right) \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( K(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)-K(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi x \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can choose $s\in\mathcal{S}_\theta$ arbitrarily. To make the integral more tractable, we wish to choose $s$ so that the linear term $-{\mathrm{i}}\phi x$ cancels with $K(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)-K(s)$ to leading order. That is, we choose $s=\hat{s}$, the solution of , provided that $x\in\mathcal{X}_\theta$. Replacing $x$ by $K'(\hat{s})$, we have $$\label{CGFInversionTilted} f(x) = \exp\left( K(\hat{s})-\hat{s} K'(\hat{s}) \right) \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( K(\hat{s}+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)-K(\hat{s}) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K'(\hat{s}) \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.$$ Note at this point that explicit $x$ dependence has been virtually eliminated from ; all $x$ dependence on the right-hand side is now carried implicitly by $\hat{s}$. We introduce new notation to exploit this feature. Along with this new notation, we again switch from considering the density $f$ to the likelihood $L$. Define $$\label{LPformula} \begin{aligned} L^(\theta,s) &= \exp\left( \big. K(s;\theta) - s K'(s;\theta) \right),\\ P(\theta,s) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \big. K(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)-K(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K'(s) \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}, \end{aligned}$$ for all $s\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_\theta$. Setting $x=K'(s;\theta)$, can be reformulated as $$\label{LLP} L(\theta; K'(s;\theta)) = L^(\theta,s) P(\theta,s).$$ We can recognise $\log L^(\theta,s)$ as the negative of the relative entropy (or Kullback-Leibler divergence) for the distribution of $X^{(s)}_\theta$ relative to $X_\theta$. We can also give a probabilistic interpretation of $P(\theta,s)$: it is the density of the tilted distribution $X^{(s)}_\theta$ at its mean $K'(s;\theta)$. We emphasise at this point that all the calculations so far are exact. The factor $L^$ measures the probabilistic “cost” of shifting from the original distribution $X_\theta$ to the tilted distribution $X^{(s)}_\theta$, but no distributional information is lost in the tilting step. The natural next step will be to make an approximation to $P(\theta,s)$. Define $$\hat{P}(\theta,s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K''(s;\theta))}}.$$ Then the saddlepoint approximation becomes $$\label{hatLLP} \hat{L}(\theta;K'(s;\theta)) = L^(\theta, s) \hat{P}(\theta,s).$$ We recognise $\hat{P}(\theta,s)$ as the density (at its mean) of a normal random variable with covariance matrix $K''(s;\theta)$. Comparing and , we see that the saddlepoint approximation amounts to approximating $P(\theta,s)$, the density at its mean of the tilted distribution, by $\hat{P}(\theta,s)$, the density at its mean of the normal random variable with the same covariance matrix. In the remainder of the paper, we will study the two-variable functions $L^(\theta,s)$, $P(\theta,s)$ and $\hat{P}(\theta,s)$ and their gradients. Since the factor $L^(\theta,s)$ appears in both and , it will suffice to compare the gradients of $P$ and $\hat{P}$. Ultimately our interest will be in the case $s=\hat{s}(\theta;x)$, and we will therefore rewrite and as $$\label{LLPhats} \begin{aligned} L(\theta; x) &= L^(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x)) P(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x)),\\ \hat{L}(\theta;x) &= L^(\theta, \hat{s}(\theta;x)) \hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x)), \end{aligned} \qquad\text{for }x\in\mathcal{X}_\theta.$$ A key advantage to studying $L^(\theta,s)$, $P(\theta,s)$ and $\hat{P}(\theta,s)$ is that, because $P$ and $\hat{P}$ both represent densities at the mean, they vary less dramatically as a function of their arguments than the full likelihoods $L(\theta;x)$ and $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$, even in the limit $n\to\infty$ from . As we shall see, both $P$ and $\hat{P}$ and their gradients behave asymptotically as powers of $n$. The only factor that decays exponentially in $n$ is $L^$, and since it is a common factor of $L(\theta;x)$ and $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$ we can circumvent its effects. The representation is also useful for numerical calculation. Recent work by Lunde, Kleppe & Skaug [@LunKleSkaPreprintSaddlepointInversion] calculates densities and likelihoods to high relative precision, even in the tails, using saddlepoint methodology. Expressed in our notation, they evaluate $P(\theta,s)$ by applying a quadrature rule to the integral in . Because $P(\theta,s)$ is a density at the mean, the integral defining $P(\theta,s)$ is much more amenable to numerical integration than the inverse Fourier integral Likewise, the fact that $P$ and $\hat{P}$ both represent densities at the mean helps to explain why the saddlepoint approximation can be so accurate even in the tails. Given $x$ close to the boundary of $\mathcal{X}_\theta$ (or tending to infinity), the corresponding saddlepoint $\hat{s}$ will be close to the boundary of $\mathcal{S}_\theta$ (or will tend to infinity). In such a limit, there is no reason in general to expect the ratio $\hat{P}/P$ to converge to 1; but often the density at the mean remains on the order of the inverse of the standard deviation, so that $\hat{P}/P$ may remain bounded. By contrast, normal approximations and other similar techniques rely on extrapolating a density far from the mean, and such an extrapolation can only be accurate if the true density happens to have the same tail behaviour far from the mean. #### $L^$ and $P$ in the integer-valued case {#l-and-p-in-the-integer-valued-case .unnumbered} When $X\in\Z^{m\times 1}$, the analogue of is $$\P(X=x) = \int_{[-\pi,\pi]^{1\times m}} M({\mathrm{i}}\phi) e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\phi x}\frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} \qquad\text{for }x\in\Z^{m\times 1}.$$ We can repeat the tilting argument above, leading us to define $$\label{PintFormula} P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s) = \int_{[-\pi,\pi]^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \big. K(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)-K(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K'(s) \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.$$ At integer values $x\in\Z^{m\times 1}$, we take the likelihood function to be $L(\theta;x)=\P(X_\theta=x)$, and we will have $$\label{LLPint} L(\theta; x) = L^(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x)) P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x)).$$ However, $P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s)$ is defined whenever $(s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$. Thus we can use as a definition of $L(\theta;x)$ even when $x$ is non-integer, although $L(\theta;x)$ may not represent a probability in that case. A lower-order saddlepoint approximation --------------------------------------- Approximating $P$ using first and second moments is a natural and reasonable step, but is not the only possible approach. As we have seen, the standard saddlepoint approximation selects a density from the family of normal distributions after matching first and second moments. An alternative is to use a different reference family of distributions: this is one approach to non-Gaussian saddlepoint approximations, originally developed by Wood, Booth & Butler [@WooBooBut1993] in a different context and with different tools. An even simpler alternative, however, is to ignore $P$ altogether. Define $$\hat{L}^(\theta;x) = L^(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x))$$ for $x\in\mathcal{X}_\theta$. We could describe $\hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ as the “zeroth-order” saddlepoint approximation to the likelihood. We saw the quantity $\frac{1}{n}\log\hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ and its derivatives in and –, and $I_\theta(x) = -\log\hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ is the large deviations rate function from Cramér’s theorem applied to $X_\theta$. Equivalently, $-\log\hat{L}^(\theta;\cdot)$ is the Legendre transform of $K(\cdot;\theta)$; see for instance [@dH2000 sections I.4 and V.1] or [@Jensen1995Saddlepoint section 1.2]. Form the corresponding maximum likelihood estimator $$\hat{\theta}^_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x) = \operatorname{argmax}_\theta \hat{L}^(\theta;x)$$ when it exists, and likewise define $\hat{\pi}^_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ as in with $\hat{L}$ replaced by $\hat{L}^$. We remark that in the standard asymptotic regime where $x=ny$, the MLE $\hat{\theta}^_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ depends on $y$ but not on $n$; the same is true if we maximise over $\theta$ restricted to a neighbourhood $U$. Applied to $\hat{L}^$, the conclusions of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\] are almost unchanged, except that error terms have powers of $n$ changed by one: 1. \[item:LOGradient\] Under the hypotheses of , $$\grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^(\theta;x) = \grad_\theta \log L(\theta;x) + O(1) \qquad\text{as }n\to\infty,$$ with uniformity if $(y,\theta)$ is restricted to a compact subset of $\operatorname{int}\mathcal{Y}$. 2. \[item:LOMLE\] Under the hypotheses of Theorems \[T:MLEerror\]–\[T:BayesianError\], there exist $n_0\in\N$ and neighbourhoods $U\subset R$ of $\theta_0$ and $V\subset\R^{m\times 1}$ of $y_0$ such that, for all $n\geq n_0$ and $y\in V$, the function $\theta\mapsto \hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ has a unique local maximizer in $U$ and, writing this local maximizer as $\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x)$, $$\abs{\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x) - \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x)} = O(1/n) \qquad\text{as }n\to\infty.$$ 3. \[item:LOBayesian\] Moreover, under $\hat{\pi}^_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ with $x=ny_0$, $$\sqrt{n}\left( \Theta-\theta_0 \right) \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0,-H^{-1}) \quad\text{as }n\to\infty,$$ where $H$ is the negative definite matrix from . 4. \[item:LOSampling\] Under the hypotheses of , $$\sqrt{n}\bigl( \hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n)-\theta_0 \bigr) \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} Z\quad\text{as }n\to\infty,$$ where $Z$ is as in \[item:SamplingGeneral\]. Moreover the convergence occurs jointly with the convergence from \[item:SamplingGeneral\], with the same limiting random variable $Z$ in all cases. 5. \[item:LOIntegerValued\] The above results also apply under the hypotheses of . 6. \[item:LOExpFamily\] Suppose $X$ is the sufficient statistic for an exponential family indexed by the natural parameter $\eta$. Let $\hat{\eta}^_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ be the parameter obtained by maximising $\hat{L}^$, provided the maximiser exists. Then $\hat{\eta}^_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ coincides with the true MLE. It is notable that maximizing $\hat{L}^$ results in an approximation to the MLE whose error as $n\to\infty$ is still smaller than the spatial scale $1/\sqrt{n}$, even though $\hat{L}^$ is no longer an adequate approximation to the likelihood itself in the sense that $\hat{L}^/L\to \infty$ as $n\to\infty$. The proofs of \[item:LOGradient\]–\[item:LOIntegerValued\] are given along with the corresponding proofs of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:INTEGERVALUED\]. Part \[item:LOExpFamily\] holds by the same reasoning as : in the first factor in , we now remove the denominator, and the resulting factor still does not depend on $\eta$. Proofs of Theorems 1-2 ====================== The proof of is based on two key results, and , that refine the statement of using the factorisation from . follows using a scaling analysis and the Implicit Function Theorem. We begin with some derivative formulas; see for their derivation. Summary of saddlepoint derivatives ---------------------------------- Under the scaling of , the quantities $\log L^(\theta,s)$, $\log L^(\theta,\hat{s}(\theta;x))$ and their gradients are proportional to $n$. Define $$\begin{gathered} L^_0(\theta,s) = \exp\left( K_0(s;\theta) - sK'_0(s;\theta) \right), \\ \hat{L}^_0(\theta;y) = L^_0(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) = \exp\left( K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta) - \hat{s}_0(\theta;y) y \right), \end{gathered}$$ so that $$\label{LL0} \begin{aligned} \log L^(\theta,s) &= n\log L^_0(\theta,s), \quad \grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^(\theta;x) = n \grad_\theta\log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y) \end{aligned}$$ and so on, where $$\label{L0Gradients} \begin{aligned} \grad_\theta\log L^_0(\theta,s) &= \grad_\theta K_0(s;\theta) - s \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s;\theta),\\ \grad_s \log L^_0(\theta,s) &= -K_0''(s;\theta)s^T,\\ \grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y) &= \grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta),\\ \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y) &= \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}) - \left( \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}) \right)^T K''_0(\hat{s})^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}) \end{aligned}$$ By contrast, $\hat{s}, \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \log\hat{P}$ do not depend on $n$: $$\label{s0hatPGradients} \begin{aligned} \hat{s}(\theta;x) &= \hat{s}_0(\theta;y),\\ \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) &= \grad_\theta\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y) = - K''_0(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta),\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s) &= -\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\left( K''_0(s;\theta)^{-1} \frac{\partial K''_0}{\partial t}(s;\theta) \right). \end{aligned}$$ For the remainder of the proofs, we will emphasise that $P(\theta,s)$, $P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s)$, $L(\theta;x)$, $\hat{L}(\theta;x)$, $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$, $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ depend on $n$ by writing them as $P_n(\theta,s)$, $P_{\mathrm{int},n}(\theta,s)$, $L_n(\theta;x)$, $\hat{L}_n(\theta;x)$, $\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x,n)$, $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x,n)$. The $n$-dependences of $M(s;\theta)$, $K(s;\theta)$, $\log L^$ and $\log\hat{L}^$ are simple in form and we will handle them by directly substituting the formulas in and . We remark that the expression in reduces to $\log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y_0)$, and – amount to the assertion that $\theta_0$ is a non-degenerate critical point for $\theta\mapsto\log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y_0)$. Note that $\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)$ also depends on $n$ in a simple way, $$\label{hatPn} \hat{P}_n(\theta,s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi n K_0''(s;\theta))}} = \frac{n^{-m/2}}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta))}},$$ but by the gradients $\grad_s\log\hat{P}(\theta,s),\grad_\theta\log\hat{P}(\theta,s)$ do not depend on $n$ and we will omit the subscript in those cases. Proof of Theorem 1 ------------------ Unlike $L^$ and $\hat{P}_n$, the quantity $P_n$ has no closed form and is instead given as an integral as in . In the standard asymptotic regime given by , we can substitute $K=nK_0$ to obtain $$\label{PformulaK} P_n(\theta,s) = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( n[K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi) - K_0(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K_0'(s)] \right)\frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.$$ Note that the integrand in has the form $h(\phi)e^{ng(\phi)}$ with $g(0)=0$ and $g'(0)=0$. This is the standard setup for applying the multivariate Laplace method, see [@Wong2001; @BleiNor1986]. Thus the limiting framework of , in which $X$ is the sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, leads us to expect that $P_n(\theta,s)$, after suitable rescaling by a power of $n$, will have an asymptotic series expansion in powers of $1/n$. Let the scalar $t$ denote one of the coordinates $\theta_i$ or $s_j$. As we will show later, for large enough $n$ we may differentiate under the integral sign: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}(\theta,s) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( n[K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi) - K_0(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K_0'(s)] \right) \notag\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\cdot n\left[ \frac{\partial K_0}{\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi) - \frac{\partial K_0}{\partial t}(s) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi\frac{\partial K'_0}{\partial t}(s) \right] \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} . \label{dPdtFormulaK}\end{aligned}$$ A key observation motivating is that $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}(\theta,s)$ scales according to the same $n$-dependent factor as $P_n(\theta,s)$. Indeed, the values of both integrals arise primarily from the region where $\phi$ is of order $1/\sqrt{n}$, and the extra factor in is of order 1 in that region. We could summarise by saying that taking gradients of $P_n(\theta,s)$ with respect to $\theta$ or $s$ does not substantially change the nature of the $n$-dependence. When we turn to MLEs, we will need to control the dependence of $P_n(\theta,s)$ (and its gradients) on $\theta$, $s$ and $n$ simultaneously. Specifically, the proof of is based on the Implicit Function Theorem, which requires continuous differentiability. We will therefore prove the following result, which is more precise than is necessary for . Under the hypotheses of , with $t$ being one of the entries $\theta_i$ or $s_j$, there are continuously differentiable functions $q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon),q_2(\theta,s,\epsilon)$, defined on an open set $\mathcal{Q}$ containing $\set{(\theta,s,0)\colon (s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}}$, such that $q_1(\theta,s,0)=q_2(\theta,s,0)=0$ and $$\label{PddtPErrorFormula} \begin{aligned} P_n(\theta,s) &= \hat{P}_n(\theta,s)\left( 1 + q_1(\theta,s,1/n) \right), \\ \frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}(\theta,s) &= \hat{P}_n(\theta,s) \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s) + q_2(\theta,s,1/n) \right) \end{aligned}$$ whenever $n$ is large enough that $(\theta,s,1/n)\in\mathcal{Q}$. An almost identical statement holds in the integer-valued case: Under the hypotheses of , the conclusions of hold with $P(\theta,s)$ replaced by $P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s)$. The proofs of Propositions \[P:PDDTPERROR\]–\[P:PDDTPERRORINT\] use many of the elements of standard proofs of Laplace’s method. Additional care is needed to ensure that $q_1,q_2$ are continuously differentiable, and we defer the details to . Everything we will use from Propositions \[P:PDDTPERROR\]–\[P:PDDTPERRORINT\] can be encapsulated in the following corollary, or its analogue for $P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s)$. Under the hypotheses of , there is a continuously differentiable function $q_3(\theta,y,\epsilon)$, with values in $\R^{1\times p}$, defined on an open set $\mathcal{Q}'$ containing $\set{(\theta,s,0)\colon (s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}}$, such that $q_3(\theta,y,0)=0$ and $$\label{gradlogDifferenceshat} \grad_\theta \left( \Big. \log P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta,y)) \right) = \grad_\theta \left( \log\hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta,y)) \right) + q_3(\theta,y,1/n)$$ whenever $(\theta,s,1/n)\in\mathcal{Q}'$. The proof is again deferred to . now follows immediately. Use and cancel the factor $L^$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \grad_\theta\log L(\theta;x) - \grad_\theta\log\hat{L}(\theta;x) &= \grad_\theta \left( \Big. \log P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) \right) - \grad_\theta \left( \Big. \log \hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) \right) \notag\\& = q_3(\theta,y,1/n) . \label{gradDifferenceAsq6}\end{aligned}$$ By , $q_3$ is continuously differentiable and $q_3(\theta,y,0)=0$. An application of the Mean Value Theorem completes the proof. The first assertion of also follows easily: Since already gives a bound on $\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}-\grad_\theta\log L$, it suffices to show that $\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}-\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}^=O(1)$. From and , $\grad_\theta\log(\hat{L}(\theta;x)/\hat{L}^(\theta;x))=\grad_\theta\log\hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y))$ is constant with respect to $n$, so it is $O(1)$ in the limit $n\to\infty$. Since it also depends continuously on $\theta$ and $y$, uniformity follows. Proof of Theorem 2 ------------------ To study the MLE $\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$, we will show that the function $\theta\mapsto \log L_n(\theta;x)$ has a unique maximum when $\theta$ is restricted to lie in a suitably chosen neighbourhood $U$. In fact it will be more convenient to consider the rescaled function $$R_{x,n}(\theta) = \tfrac{1}{n}\log L_n(\theta;x) = L^_0(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) + \tfrac{1}{n} \log P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)),$$ where we have substituted and . Use and to compute $$\begin{aligned} R_{x,n}'(\theta) &= \grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta) + \tfrac{1}{n} q_3(\theta,y,1/n) + \tfrac{1}{n} \grad_\theta \log\hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) \notag \\&\quad - \tfrac{1}{n} \grad_s^T \log\hat{P}(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) K_0''(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta)^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta) .\end{aligned}$$ Recalling the change of variables $\epsilon=1/n$, we will define a function $F(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)$ such that a solution of $F=0$ corresponds to a critical point of $R_{x,n}$. Define the functions $$\begin{gathered} \label{F1F2FDefinition} F(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) = \mat{ F_1(s^T,\theta;y) \\ F_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) } ,\qquad F_1(s^T,\theta;y) = K_0'(s;\theta) - y, \\ \begin{aligned} F_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) &= \grad_\theta^T K_0(s;\theta) + \epsilon q_3(\theta,y,\epsilon)^T \notag\\&\quad + \epsilon \left( \grad_\theta^T \log \hat{P}(\theta,s) - \left( \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s;\theta) \right)^T K''_0(s;\theta)^{-1}\grad_s \log \hat{P}(\theta,s) \right) . \end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$ We think of $F_1,F_2,F$ as column-vector-valued functions of column-vector arguments, with $(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)$ and $F(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)$ interpreted as column vectors expressed in block form, of sizes $(2m+p+1)\times 1$ and $(m+p)\times 1$ respectively. We will show that we can solve $F=0$ to define $\theta$ and $s$ implicitly as functions of $y$ and $\epsilon$; to indicate this, we will merge the column vectors $s^T$ and $\theta$ and write $\mat{s^T\\\theta}=G(y,\epsilon)\in\R^{(m+p)\times 1}$ such that $F(G(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon)=0$. By , the function $F$ is continuously differentiable with respect to all its parameters. Our assumptions imply that $F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)=0$ and $\grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)$ is non-singular; see . We can therefore apply the Implicit Function Theorem to find neighbourhoods $U,V,W$ of $\theta_0,y_0,s_0$, a neighbourhood $[-1/n_0,1/n_0]$ of $0$, and a continuously differentiable function $G(y,\epsilon)$ defined on $V\times [-1/n_0,1/n_0]$ such that, for all $y\in V$, $\epsilon\in[-1/n_0,1/n_0]$, the point $\mat{s^T \\ \theta}=G(y,\epsilon)$ is the unique solution in $U\times W$ of $F(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)=0$. Finally, as outlined above, when $\epsilon=1/n$, the solution of $F=0$ corresponds to the MLE: Possibly after shrinking $U,V$ and increasing $n_0$, we have $$G(y,1/n) = \mat{\hat{s}_0^T(\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n); y) \\ \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)}$$ for all $y\in V$ and $n\geq n_0$, including the assertion that the maximum of $L_n(\theta;x)$, restricted to $\theta\in U$, is attained uniquely. We defer the proof to . We now turn to the saddlepoint MLE, which amounts to omitting the term $\epsilon q_3$: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{F}_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) &= \grad_\theta^T K_0(s;\theta) + \epsilon \grad_\theta^T \log \hat{P}(\theta,s) \notag\\&\quad - \epsilon \left( \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s;\theta) \right)^T K''_0(s;\theta)^{-1} \grad_s \log \hat{P}(\theta,s) , \notag\\ \hat{F}(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) &= \mat{ F_1(s^T,\theta;y) \\ \hat{F}_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) }.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\hat{F}$ and its gradients agree with $F$ and its gradients at $(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)$, so that (after shrinking $U$, $V$, $W$ and increasing $n_0$ if necessary) the Implicit Function Theorem again produces a function $\hat{G}(y,\epsilon)$ giving the unique solution $\mat{s^T \\ \theta}$ in $U\times W$ of $\hat{F}(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)=0$. Moreover the analogue of applies, with the same proof, so that $$\hat{G}(y,1/n) = \mat{\hat{s}_0^T\bigl( \hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n); y \bigr) \\ \hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)}.$$ For later convenience write $\hat{G}$ in block form as $\hat{G}=\mat{\hat{G}^T_s\\ \hat{G}_\theta}$. To compare $G(y,\epsilon)$ with $\hat{G}(y,\epsilon)$, note that $F_2$ and $\hat{F}_2$ are close: $$F_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) = \hat{F}_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) + \epsilon q_3(\theta,y,\epsilon).$$ In particular, $F(\hat{G}(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon)$ is almost zero: $$F(\hat{G}(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon)=\mat{F_1(\hat{G}(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon) \\ \hat{F}_2(\hat{G}(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon)} + \mat{0\\ \epsilon q_3(\hat{G}_\theta(y,\epsilon), y,\epsilon)}.$$ The first term in the right-hand side vanishes by definition. In the second term, note that $q_3(\hat{G}_\theta(y,\epsilon),y,\epsilon)$ is a continuously differentiable function of $(y,\epsilon)$ that vanishes whenever $\epsilon=0$ (since $q_3$ has the same property by ). We can therefore conclude that $$\label{FofhatG} F\bigl( \hat{G}(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon \bigr) = \epsilon^2 q_4(y,\epsilon)$$ where $\abs{q_4(y,\epsilon)}\leq C$ for $(y,\epsilon)$ in a suitable neighbourhood of $(y_0,0)$. To make use of , we define an augmented version of $F$ that is locally invertible. Let $$\widetilde{F}(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) = \mat{F(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon)\\y\\ \epsilon} , \quad\text{so that}\quad \grad_{s^T,\theta,y,\epsilon}\widetilde{F} = \mat{\grad_{s^T,\theta} F & \grad_y F & \grad_\epsilon F \\ 0 & I_{m\times m} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 }$$ in block form. Thus $\grad_{s^T,\theta,y,\epsilon}\widetilde{F}(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)$ is an invertible $(2m+p+1)\times(2m+p+1)$ matrix, and by the Inverse Function Theorem [@RudinPoMA Theorem 9.24], after shrinking the domain of $\widetilde{F}$ if necessary, $\widetilde{F}$ has a continuously differentiable inverse function $\widetilde{G}(u;y,\epsilon)$. As above, we may shrink the domain further to make the partial derivatives of $\widetilde{G}$ uniformly bounded. The inverse function $\widetilde{G}$ is related to the implicit function $G$ by $\widetilde{G}(0;y,\epsilon) = \mat{G(y,\epsilon)\\y\\ \epsilon}$. From and the definition of $\widetilde{F}$ we have $$\widetilde{F}\bigl( \hat{G}(y,\epsilon); y,\epsilon \bigr) = \mat{ \epsilon^2 q_4(y,\epsilon)\\ y\\ \epsilon } \quad\text{and so}\quad \widetilde{G}(\epsilon^2 q_4(y,\epsilon);y,\epsilon) = \mat{\hat{G}(y,\epsilon) \\ y \\ \epsilon}.$$ Thus, setting $\epsilon=1/n$ for $n$ sufficiently large, $$\begin{aligned} \abs{\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) - \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)} &\leq \abs{\hat{G}(y,1/n) - G(y,1/n)} \notag\\& =\abs{ \widetilde{G}(n^{-2} q_4(y,1/n);y,1/n) - \widetilde{G}(0;y,1/n) }.\end{aligned}$$ The boundedness of $q_4$ and of the partial derivatives of $\widetilde{G}$ imply that this upper bound is $O(1/n^2)$, uniformly over $y$ in a suitable neighbourhood of $y_0$. The corresponding assertion from has a similar proof: Note that $\theta=\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ and $s=\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ are solutions of $F(s^T,\theta;y,0)=0$. (The proof is the same as for , with the relation $\grad_\theta^T \hat{L}^(\theta;x)=F_2(\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),\theta;y,0)$ in place of ; see .) Then $$\bigabs{\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) - \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)} \leq \abs{G(y,0) - G(y,1/n)}$$ and the conclusion follows from the fact that $G$ is continuously differentiable. Conclusion ========== A long-established result tells us that the saddlepoint approximation gives a relative error of order $1/n$. That is, applied to a random variable given as a sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms, the saddlepoint approximation estimates the values of the density (or likelihood) up to a factor of the form $1+O(1/n)$: see or . Very commonly, however, we are not interested in the likelihood for its own sake but rather as a step towards computing the MLE. This paper gives the analogous basic result, , for the approximation error between the true MLE and saddlepoint MLE: it is of order $1/n^2$. It is worth mentioning that this MLE error estimate is sharper than what we obtain from the basic likelihood error estimate. Knowing that $\log\hat{L}(\theta;x)$ has a maximum at $\theta=\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)$ and knowing that the true log-likelihood satisfies $\bigabs{\log L(\theta;x)-\log\hat{L}(\theta;x)}=O(1/n)$, we can only conclude that $\bigabs{\theta_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)-\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{MLE}}(x)}=O(1/n)$ (since this is the size of the region in which $\log L$ is within $O(1/n)$ of its maximum). Although an MLE error bound of size $O(1/n)$ is small compared to the scale of the inferential uncertainty in estimating $\theta$, see Theorems \[T:BayesianError\]–\[T:SamplingMLE\] and the remarks at the end of , it is still a significant overestimate compared to the true MLE error $O(1/n^2)$. The results in this paper help to explain why saddlepoint MLEs in practice often turn out to be so much more accurate than expected. A key point in the analysis is to ask how well the saddlepoint approximation captures the shape* of the log-likelihood as a function of the parameter $\theta$. Specifically, it is error bounds on the gradient of the log-likelihood, as in and , that control the size of the MLE approximation error. This is the logic behind the finding of that saddlepoint MLEs are exact for exponential families: errors in the saddlepoint approximation to the log-likelihood are irrelevant if the size of the errors do not depend on the parameter. Seen in this light, it is less surprising that a lower-order saddlepoint approximation, $\hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ from , can give a good approximation to the MLE (see ) despite being a poor approximation to the likelihood with $\hat{L}^(\theta;x)/L(\theta;x)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. We remark that since $\hat{L}^(\theta;x)$ is even less computationally demanding than the usual saddlepoint approximation, it may be a useful tool for high-dimensional and computationally intensive applications, or for initialising the search for a true or saddlepoint MLE. In the other direction, refinements of the saddlepoint approximation that improve likelihood accuracy may be less effective than anticipated when applied to MLEs. For instance, normalising the saddlepoint approximation $\hat{f}(x;\theta)$ to make it a density (as a function of $x$) often brings the saddlepoint density values closer to the true density (see for instance [@Butler2007]). However, this operation is slow and is often not pursued: cf. [@Daniels1982]. Using the viewpoint developed in this paper, we can reframe the issue by asking: does normalising bring the saddlepoint log-gradient closer to the true log-gradient? The general answer is far from clear. Indeed, for an exponential family such as the Poisson family, for which the saddlepoint MLE is already exact as in , normalising will actually make the MLE worse. This paper has considered likelihoods and MLEs in a particularly tractable limiting framework, the standard asymptotic regime in which the observation is a sum of $n$ i.i.d. terms. In particular, we have seen that the basic likelihood accuracy estimate does not directly lead to the correct MLE error estimate, which is markedly better. It would be of interest to extend these results in several directions, including non-Gaussian saddlepoint approximations, as in [@WooBooBut1993]; non-i.i.d. sums; integer-valued random variables; exact upper bounds; and applications based on approximating tail probabilities rather than likelihoods. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The author extends thanks to Rachel Fewster and Joey Wei Zhang, whose use of saddlepoint MLEs sparked the author’s interest in this question, and to Rachel for helpful comments on drafts of this paper. This work was supported in part by funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand. [10]{} Yacine A[ï]{}t-Sahalia and Jialin Yu. Saddlepoint approximations for continuous-time [M]{}arkov processes. , 134(2):507–551, October 2006. O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and C. Kl[ü]{}ppelberg. Tail exactness of multivariate saddlepoint approximations. , 26(2):253–264, 1999. Ole E. Barndorff-Nielsen. . Wiley series in probability and statistics. John Wiley [&]{} Sons, Ltd, 2014. Norman Bleistein and Richard A. Handelsman. . Dover Publications, New York, 1986. Ronald W. Butler. . Cambridge series on statistical and probabilistic mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. H. E. Daniels. Saddlepoint approximations in statistics. , 25(4):631–650, 1954. H. E. Daniels. The saddlepoint approximation for a general birth process. , 19(1):20–28, 1982. Anthony C. Davison, Sophie Hautphenne, and Andrea Kraus. Parameter estimation for discretely-observed linear birth-and-death processes. arXiv:1802.05015 \[math.ST\], 2018. Frank den Hollander. . Fields Institute Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2000. I. S. Gradshteyn and M. Ryzhik. . Academic Press, 7th edition, 2007. Edited by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel Zwillinger. J. L. Jensen. Uniform saddlepoint approximations. , 20(3):622–634, 1988. Jens Ledet Jensen. . Oxford statistical science series 16. Clarendon Press, Oxford ; New York, 1995. John Edward Kolassa. , volume 88 of [ Lecture notes in statistics]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 3rd edition, 2006. Berent . S. Lunde, Tore S. Kleppe, and Hans J. Skaug. Saddlepoint adjusted inversion of characteristic functions. arXiv:1811.05678\[stat.CO\], 2018. Xanthi Pedeli, Anthony C. Davison, and Konstantinos Fokianos. Likelihood estimation for the [INAR(p)]{} model by saddlepoint approximation. , 110(511):1229–1238, 2015. Walter Rudin. . McGraw-Hill New York, 3d ed. edition, 1976. Shayle R. Searle, George Casella, and Charles E. McCulloch. . Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Applied probability and statistics. Wiley, New York, 1992. Halbert White. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. , 50(1):1–25, 1982. R. Wong. , volume 34 of [ Classics in applied mathematics]{}. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001. Andrew T. A. Wood, James G. Booth, and Ronald W. Butler. Saddlepoint approximations to the [CDF]{} of some statistics with nonnormal limit distributions. , 88(422):680–686, 1993. W. Zhang, M. V. Bravington, and R. M. Fewster. Fast likelihood-based inference for latent count models using the saddlepoint approximation. , 75(3):723–733, 2019. Invariance properties of the saddlepoint approximation ====================================================== [\[a:invariance\]]{} If $b\in\R^{m\times 1}$ and $Y=X+b$, the corresponding saddlepoint approximations are related by $$\label{hatLY=X+b} \hat{L}_Y(\theta;y) = \hat{L}_X(\theta;y-b),$$ with the same saddlepoint $\hat{s}$ in both approximations. If $A\in\R^{k\times m}$ and $Z=AX$, then $$\label{KsKsA} K_Z(s) = K_X(sA),$$ and it follows that $$\label{K''AKAT} K_Z''(s) = A K_X''(s) A^T.$$ In particular, if $A$ is $m\times m$ and invertible, then $\det(K_Z''(s)) = \det(A)^2 \det(K_X''(s))$ and $$\label{hatLZ=AX} \hat{L}_Z(\theta;z) = \frac{\hat{L}_X(\theta;A^{-1}z)}{\abs{\det(A)}},$$ with the saddlepoints related by $\hat{s}_Z = \hat{s}_X A^{-1}$. Equations and show that, under invertible affine transformations of the random variables, the saddlepoint approximation transforms in the same way that densities do. In particular, such transformations will not affect the MLE or saddlepoint MLE, and in the standard asymptotic regime we may equivalently consider $\overline{Y}=\frac{1}{n}X$, the sample mean of the $n$ unobserved values $Y^{(1)},\dotsc,Y^{(n)}$, in place of $X$. We have chosen to consider $X$ because the saddlepoint for $\overline{Y}$ scales with $n$ for a fixed value of $y$, whereas the saddlepoint for $X$ does not. Derivatives of saddlepoint quantities ===================================== [\[a:DerivativesDerivation\]]{} We will need to differentiate the quantities $\log L^$, $\hat{s}$, $\log L^(\theta,\hat{s})$ and $\hat{P}$. The first of these is simple since $L^$ is exact and explicitly computable: $$\label{logLGradients} \begin{aligned} \grad_\theta\log L^(\theta,s) &= \grad_\theta K(s;\theta) - s \grad_s\grad_\theta K(s;\theta),\\ \grad_s \log L^(\theta,s) &= K'(s;\theta) - K'(s;\theta) - K''(s;\theta)s^T = -K''(s;\theta)s^T. \end{aligned}$$ For $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$, suppose $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ with $K'(s_0;\theta_0)=x_0$. The function $(s,\theta,x)\mapsto K'(s;\theta)-x$ is continuously differentiable and its gradient with respect to $s^T$, i.e., $K''(s;\theta)$, is positive definite and hence non-singular. Hence the Implicit Function Theorem (see for instance [@RudinPoMA Theorem 9.28]) implies that $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ is uniquely defined and continuously differentiable for $\theta,x$ in a neighbourhood of $\theta_0,x_0$. We next state two versions of the chain rule, which are slightly different for row vectors and column vectors. If $f_{\mathrm{row}}(s)\colon \R^{1\times m}\to\R^{1\times k}$ and $g_{\mathrm{row}}(v)\colon \R^{1\times j}\to\R^{1\times m}$ are differentiable then $h_{\mathrm{row}}(v)=f_{\mathrm{row}}(g_{\mathrm{row}}(v))$ has $$\label{ChainRuleRow} \grad_v h_{\mathrm{row}}(v) = \grad_v g_{\mathrm{row}}(v) \grad_s f_{\mathrm{row}}(g_{\mathrm{row}}(v)).$$ Similarly, if $f_{\mathrm{col}}(t)\colon \R^{p \times 1}\to\R^{k\times 1}$ and $g_{\mathrm{col}}(w)\colon \R^{j\times 1}\to\R^{p\times 1}$ are differentiable then $h_{\mathrm{col}}(w)=f_{\mathrm{col}}(g_{\mathrm{col}}(w))$ has $$\label{ChainRuleCol} \grad_w h_{\mathrm{col}}(w) = \grad_t f_{\mathrm{col}}(g_{\mathrm{col}}(w)) \grad_w g_{\mathrm{col}}(w).$$ We now find the gradients of $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$. Note that $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$ is a row-vector-valued function of column vector arguments. To match, we will consider the transpose $\hat{s}^T(\theta;x)$ instead, and to differentiate we will think of $K'(s;\theta)=\grad_s K(s;\theta)$ as a column-vector-valued function of two column vector arguments, $\theta$ and $s^T$. Applying , $$\label{SEgradtheta} \begin{aligned} 0 = \grad_\theta x &= \grad_\theta\left( \Big. \grad_s K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \right) \\& =\grad_s\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) + \grad_s\grad_{s^T} K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) . \end{aligned}$$ Note our convention for gradients and composite functions: in , an expression such as $\grad_s\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)$ means the $m\times p$ matrix of mixed partial derivatives $\frac{\partial^2 K}{\partial s_i\partial\theta_j}$ evaluated with $s$ replaced by $\hat{s}(\theta;x)$, whereas $\grad_\theta\left( \Big. \grad_s K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \right)$ means the gradient of the composite function $\theta\mapsto \grad_s K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)$. In , $\grad_s\grad_{s^T} K = \grad_s\grad_s^T K = K''$ is non-singular, so we can solve to find $$\label{gradthetashat} \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) = - K''(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)$$ Similarly, with $I_{m\times m}$ representing the $m\times m$ identity matrix, $$I_{m\times m} = \grad_x x = \grad_x\left( \Big. \grad_s K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \right) = \grad_s\grad_{s^T} K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \grad_x \hat{s}^T(\theta;x)$$ so that $$\grad_x\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) = K''(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)^{-1}.$$ Turning to $\log\hat{L}^(\theta;x) = \log L^(\theta,\hat{s}) = K(\hat{s})-\hat{s}K'(\hat{s})$, recall that $K'(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta)=x$ by definition. Noting that $\hat{s} x = x^T\hat{s}^T$, we find that $$\begin{aligned} \grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^(\theta;x) &= \grad_\theta\left( \big. K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) - x^T\hat{s}^T \right) \notag\\& = \grad_\theta K(\hat{s}) + \grad_{s^T}K(\hat{s}(\theta;x)) \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) - x^T \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) \notag\\& = \grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \label{logLGradient}\end{aligned}$$ since $\grad_{s^T}K(\hat{s}) = (\grad_s K(\hat{s}))^T = x^T$. (Alternatively, use the relations .) Transposing then differentiating again, $$\begin{aligned} \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta \log\hat{L}^(\theta;x) &= \grad_\theta \left( \big. \grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \right)^T \notag\\& = \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}(\theta;x)) + \grad_\theta^T\grad_{s^T} K(\hat{s}(\theta;x);\theta) \grad_\theta\hat{s}^T(\theta;x) \notag\\& = \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}) - \left( \grad_s\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}) \right)^T K''(\hat{s})^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K(\hat{s}). \label{logLHessian}\end{aligned}$$ Equations – verify the assertion before that the quantities in – are the gradient and Hessian of the function in . For $\log\hat{P}$, we first show how to differentiate a determinant. Suppose that $A(t)\colon \R\to\R^{m\times m}$ is a differentiable matrix-valued function of a scalar parameter $t$. Then $$\label{LOGDETDERIVATIVE} \frac{d}{dt} \log\det A(t) = \operatorname{tr}(A(t)^{-1} A'(t)).$$ This formula appears as [@SeaCasMcC1992 Appendix M.7.f, equation (49)]. They derive the formula under the assumption that $A$ is symmetric, but the formula is true in all cases, and we include a proof for completeness. Supposing without loss of generality that we wish to differentiate at $t=0$, write $$A(t) = A_0 + tB(t)$$ with $B(t)$ a continuous matrix-valued function, so that $B(0)=A'(0)$. We are interested in the derivative of $\log\det A(t)$ so we will suppose for convenience that $\det A_0\neq 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \det A(t) &= \det A_0 \det\left( I + t A_0^{-1}B(t) \right) \notag\\& =\det A_0 \left( 1 + t\operatorname{tr}(A_0^{-1}B(t)) + O(t^2) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ To see this, recall the expansion $$\det\left( I + t A_0^{-1}B(t) \right) = \sum_\pi \operatorname{sign}(\pi) \prod_{i=1}^m \left( I + t A_0^{-1}B(t) \right)_{i \pi(i)}$$ where the sum is over permutations $\pi$ of $\set{1,2,\dotsc,m}$. If $\pi$ is different from the identity permutation, then at least two of the pairs $(i,\pi(i))$ refer to off-diagonal entries containing one factor of $t$ each; all the corresponding terms are $O(t^2)$. In the term in which $\pi$ is the identity permutation, expand the product $\prod_{i=1}^m (1+t (A_0^{-1}B(t))_{ii})$ to obtain $1+t\sum_{i=1}^m (A_0^{-1}B(t))_{ii} + O(t^2)$. Thus $$\det A(t) = \det A_0 + t\det A_0 \operatorname{tr}(A_0^{-1}B(0)) + O(t^2),$$ showing that $\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right\vert_{t=0}\det A(t) = \det A(0) \operatorname{tr}(A(0)^{-1}A'(0))$. The point $t=0$ plays no special role, so we can rearrange to obtain . Applying to $\log\hat{P}=-\tfrac{1}{2}\log\det(2\pi K'')$, $$\label{loghatPDerivative} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s) = -\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\left( K''(s;\theta)^{-1} \frac{\partial K''}{\partial t}(s;\theta) \right).$$ We will apply with the scalar $t$ being one of the coordinates $\theta_i$ or $s_j$. Proof of Proposition 15 and Corollary 17 ======================================== [\[a:MainPropProof\]]{} The proof of is based on an asymptotic expansion of $P_n(\theta,s)$ and its derivatives when $n$ is large. We will need to justify the interchange of integration and differentiation in –, and we state a sufficient condition in below. In addition, passing from the discrete parameter $n$ to the continuous parameter $\epsilon$ will require us to define an analogue of for non-integer $n$. Some care is required because, away from the real axis, $K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)=\log M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ may have branch cuts at zeros of $M_0$. These make no difference in provided that $n$ is an integer, because the combination $\exp(nK_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi))$ can be unambiguously interpreted as $M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)^n$. We will circumvent this by modifying $K_0$ away from the real axis. This modification introduces error terms indexed by $n\in\N$, which will prove to be negligible as $n\to\infty$. We will use Lemmas \[L:SequenceToC1\]–\[L:FunctionsToC1\] to show that these error terms can be extended to be indexed by $\epsilon\geq 0$ in a continuously differentiable way. Let $U\subset\R^{k\times 1}$ be open, let $\mu$ be a measure on a space $\mathcal{Y}$, let $h(y)\geq 0$ be a measurable function with $\int h(y)\, d\mu(y)<\infty$, and let $g(x,y):U\times \mathcal{Y}\to\R$ be such that $$f(x) = \int_{\mathcal{Y}} g(x,y) \, d\mu(y)$$ converges for all $x\in U$. 1. \[item:ContinuityIntegral\] If $\abs{g(x,y)}\leq h(y)$ for all $x\in U$ and if $g(\cdot,y)$ is continuous at $x_0$ for $\mu$-almost every $y$, then $f$ is continuous at $x_0$. 2. \[item:DerivativeIntegral\] Fix an entry $x_i$ of $x$ and suppose that $g(x,y)$ is continuously differentiable as a function of $x_i$, for all fixed values of $y$ and $x_j, j\neq i$. Suppose in addition that $\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}(x,y)$ is jointly measurable and $\bigabs{\tfrac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}(x,y)} \leq h(y)$ for all $x\in U$. Then $$\label{DerivOfIntegral} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x) = \int_{\mathcal{Y}} \frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}(x,y) \, d\mu(y)$$ for all $x\in U$. 3. \[item:ContinuityGradientIntegral\] If in addition $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(\cdot,y)$ is continuous at $x_0$ for $\mu$-almost every $y$, then $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}$ is continuous at $x_0$. For part \[item:ContinuityIntegral\], the integrand $g(x,y)$ converges $\mu$-a.e. to $g(x_0,y)$ as $x\to x_0$ and is bounded by the integrable function $h$. So the Dominated Convergence Theorem gives the result. For part \[item:DerivativeIntegral\], let $e_i$ denote the unit vector in the $i^\text{th}$ coordinate direction. Then given $x\in U$, we can write $$\label{DiffAsIntOfDeriv} \frac{f(x+te_i)-f(x)}{t} = \int_{\mathcal{Y}} \int_0^1 \frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}(x+tue_i, y) \, du \, d\mu(y)$$ for all $t\neq 0$ sufficiently small. The integrand in is bounded by the integrable function $h(y)\indicatorofset{[0,1]}(u)$ and converges pointwise as $t\to 0$, so follows by the Dominated Convergence Theorem. Finally part \[item:ContinuityGradientIntegral\] follows by applying part \[item:ContinuityIntegral\] to . The next result explains when we can interpolate a given sequence by a continuously differentiable function. Here and elsewhere, continuous differentiability on a set with boundary points includes differentiability at the boundary (interpreting derivatives as one-sided derivatives as appropriate) and the derivatives are required to be continuous up to and including the boundary. Let $\epsilon_n$ be a sequence with $0<\epsilon_{n+1}<\epsilon_n\in[0,1]$ for all $n\in\N$ and $\epsilon_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, and let $r_n$ be a real-valued sequence defined for $n\in\N, n\geq n_0$. Then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} r_n=0, \qquad \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{r_n-r_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} = 0,$$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a continuously differentiable function $f:[0,1]\to\R$ satisfying $f(0)=0$, $f'(0)=0$ and $f(\epsilon_n) = a_n$ for all $n\geq n_0$. For necessity, $r_n\to 0$ follows by taking $f(\epsilon)\to f(0)=0$ along $\epsilon=\epsilon_n$. We can write $\frac{r_n-r_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} = \int_0^1 f'(u\epsilon_n + (1-u)\epsilon_{n+1})\,du$, and the integrand tends uniformly to $f'(0)=0$ as $n\to\infty$. For sufficiency, fix a smooth function $\eta:\R\to\R$ whose support is a compact subset of $(0,1)$ and such that $\int_0^1 \eta(u)du = 1$. Define $$\label{fepsilonFormula} h(\epsilon)=\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty \frac{r_n-r_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} \eta\left( \frac{\epsilon-\epsilon_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} \right), \qquad f(\epsilon) = \int_0^\epsilon h(y) \, dy.$$ We claim that $f$ has the required properties. Note that the $n^\text{th}$ term contributing to $h(\epsilon)$ is supported in $(\epsilon_{n+1},\epsilon_n)$. Hence around each fixed $\epsilon>0$ there is a neighbourhood in which at most two summands contribute to $h$, and it follows that $h$ is continuous on $\ocinterval{0,1}$. Moreover $h(0)=0$, and $\frac{r_n-r_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ implies that $h(\epsilon)\to 0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$. (Here we have used the disjointness of the intervals $(\epsilon_{n+1},\epsilon_n)$ and the boundedness of $\eta$.) Thus $h$ is continuous and bounded on $[0,1]$, implying that $f$ is continuously differentiable. It remains to verify that $f(\epsilon_n)=a_n$ or equivalently that $\int_0^{\epsilon_n} h(\epsilon) \, d\epsilon = r_n$, for all $n\geq n_0$. By the choice of $\eta$, $\int_{\epsilon_{n+1}}^{\epsilon_n} h(\epsilon) \, d\epsilon = r_n-r_{n+1}$, and a finite sum implies $\int_{\epsilon_{N+1}}^{\epsilon_n} h(\epsilon) \, d\epsilon = r_n-r_{N+1}$. Take $N\to\infty$. The Dominated Convergence Theorem applies, so the integral converges to $\int_0^{\epsilon_n} h(\epsilon) \, d\epsilon$, while $r_{N+1}\to 0$ by assumption. Let $\epsilon_n$ be a sequence with $0<\epsilon_{n+1}<\epsilon_n\in[0,1]$ for all $n\in\N$ and $\epsilon_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. Let $S\subset\R^k$ and let $r_n\colon S_n\to R$, $n\in\N$, be continuously differentiable functions defined on subsets $S_n\subset S$. Suppose that for each $x_0\in\operatorname{int}S$, there exists a neighbourhood $G\subset S$ of $x_0$ and $n_0\in\N$ such that $G\subset S_n$ for all $n\geq n_0$ and $$\label{rnxConditions} \begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{x\in G} r_n(x)=0, \qquad \lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{x\in G} \frac{r_n(x)-r_{n+1}(x)}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} = 0, \\ \lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{x\in G} \frac{\grad_x r_n(x)-\grad_x r_{n+1}(x)}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} = 0. \end{gathered}$$ Then there exist a subset $\mathcal{Q}\subset S\times[0,1]$, open relative to $S\times[0,1]$ and containing $\set{(x,0)\colon x\in\operatorname{int}S}$, and a continuously differentiable function $f(x,\epsilon)$ defined on $\mathcal{Q}$, such that $f(x,0)=0$, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial\epsilon}(x,0)=0$ and $f(x,\epsilon_n) = r_n(x)$ whenever $(x,\epsilon_n)\in\mathcal{Q}$. Let $\tilde{r}_n(x)$ be a continuously differentiable function defined on $\R^k$ that agrees with $r_n(x)$ on $\set{x\colon d(x, S_n^c)\geq 1/n}$. Such a function can be constructed by, for instance, taking an infinitely differentiable function $\eta(t)$ with $\eta(t)=1$ if $t\geq 1/n$ and $\eta(t)=0$ if $t\leq 1/2n$, and setting $\tilde{r}_n(x)=r_n(x)\eta(nd(x,S^c))$. Let $x_0\in\operatorname{int}S$ with the corresponding neighbourhood $G$ and $n_0\in\N$. We can choose an open ball $\tilde{G}_{x_0}\subset G$ containing $x_0$ and $n_1\in\N$ such that every $x\in\tilde{G}_{x_0}$ satisfies $d(x,G^c)\geq 1/n_1$. Write $\tilde{n}(x_0)=\max\set{n_0,n_1}$. Then, for all $n\geq\tilde{n}(x_0)$, $r_n$ is defined on $\tilde{G}_{x_0}$ and agrees with $\tilde{r}_n$ there. In particular, remains true when we replace $r_n$, $r_{n+1}$ and $G$ by $\tilde{r}_n$, $\tilde{r}_{n+1}$ and $\tilde{G}_{x_0}$. For each $x_0\in\operatorname{int}S$, apply with $r_n$ replaced by $\tilde{r}_n(x_0)$, noting that the assumptions apply because of , to produce functions $\epsilon\mapsto f(x_0,\epsilon)$ and $\epsilon\mapsto h(x_0,\epsilon)$. By construction, $f(x_0,0)=0$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial\epsilon}(x_0,0)=0$. Moreover $f(x_0,\epsilon_n) = \tilde{r}_n(x_0)$ for all $n\in\N$, and therefore $f(x,\epsilon_n)=r_n(x)$ for all $x\in\tilde{G}_{x_0}$ and $n\geq\tilde{n}(x_0)$. Thus if we set $\mathcal{Q}=\bigunion_{x\in\operatorname{int}S} \tilde{G}_x \times \cointerval{0, \epsilon_{\tilde{n}(x)}}$ then $f(x,\epsilon_n)=r_n(x)$ whenever $(x,\epsilon_n)\in\mathcal{Q}$, as required. It remains to show that $f$ is continuously differentiable. By construction, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial\epsilon}(x,\epsilon)=h(x,\epsilon)$, so it suffices to show that $h$ and $\grad_x f$ are continuous as functions of both variables. Note that the partial sums of the series that define $h(x,\epsilon)$ are continuously differentiable. By the same argument as in the proof of , it follows that $h$ and $\grad_x h$ are both continuous for $\epsilon>0,x\in U$, and $\grad_x h(x,\epsilon)=\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty \frac{\grad_x r_n(x)-\grad_x r_{n+1}(x)}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}}\eta\left( \frac{\epsilon-\epsilon_{n+1}}{\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1}} \right)$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Since $h(x,0)$ is identically zero we have $\grad_x h(x,0)=0$. By the assumptions, both $h(x,\epsilon)$ and $\grad_x h(x,\epsilon)$ converge to 0 as $\epsilon\to 0$, uniformly in $x$, so it follows that $h$ and $\grad_x h$ are also continuous (as functions of two variables) at $\epsilon=0,x\in U$. Finally implies that $$\grad_x f(x,\epsilon) = \int_0^\epsilon \grad_x h(x,y) \, dy = \int_0^1 \grad_x h(x,y) \indicator{y\leq\epsilon} dy.$$ Since $\indicator{y\leq\epsilon}$ is continuous at $\epsilon_0$ for almost all $y$, a further application of implies that $\grad_x f$ is continuous. We are now ready to prove . We first claim that we can find a continuous function $\delta(s,\theta)$ defined on $\mathcal{S}$ such that for all $(s,\theta)\in\mathcal{S}$, $$\label{ReM0BoundedBelow} \Re M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)>\delta(s,\theta) \qquad\text{for all $\phi\in\R^{1\times m}$ with $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$}$$ and $$\label{K''BoundedBelow} v\Re K''_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta) v^T\geq \delta(s,\theta)\abs{v}^2\qquad\text{for all $v,\phi\in\R^{1\times m}$ with $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$,}$$ as well as the bounds –. In particular, we can locally define $K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)=\operatorname{Log}M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)$ for $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$, where $\operatorname{Log}$ denotes the standard branch of the logarithm with a branch cut along the negative real axis. (Note that we did not need to specify this choice of branch cut for the logarithm in order to state because $K'_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)$ is given unambiguously as $K'_0 = M_0'/M_0$ in all cases.) The function $K_0$ thus defined has the same smoothness properties as $M_0$. For , the Mean Value Theorem and with $k=0,\ell=1$ show that if $\abs{\phi}\leq \min\set{M_0(s;\theta)/4\gamma(s,\theta) 3^{\gamma(s,\theta)}, 1}$ then $\Re M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)\geq\frac{1}{2}M_0(s;\theta)$. In all of the assertions, we are free to replace $\delta(s,\theta)$ by a smaller positive quantity, so the first part of the claim follows by replacing the function $\delta(s,\theta)$ from – by $$\min\set{\delta(s,\theta), M_0(s;\theta)/4\gamma(s,\theta) 3^{\gamma(s,\theta)}, 1, \tfrac{1}{2}M_0(s;\theta)}.$$ The bound follows by a similar argument using with $k=0$ and $\ell\in\set{1,2,3}$. Fix an infinitely differentiable function $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)$ with values in $[0,1]$ and satisfying $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)=0$ if $\abs{\phi}\geq 2\delta(s,\theta)$ and $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)=1$ if $\abs{\phi}\leq 1$. We may assume moreover that $\phi\mapsto\eta(s,\theta,\phi)$ is radially symmetric for each fixed $(s,\theta)\in\mathcal{S}$. (For instance, we may find an infinitely differentiable function $\tilde{\delta}(s,\theta)$ such that $\frac{2}{3}\delta(s,\theta)\leq \tilde{\delta}(s,\theta)\leq \delta(s,\theta)$. Then set $\eta(s,\theta,\phi) = \tilde{\eta}(\abs{\phi}/\tilde{\delta}(s,\theta))$ where $\tilde{\eta}$ is infinitely differentiable with $\tilde{\eta}(r)=0$ for $r\geq 2$ and $\tilde{\eta}(r)=1$ for $r\leq\frac{3}{2}$.) In addition, all derivatives of $\eta$ are supported in the region $\delta(s,\theta)\leq\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$. In the rest of the proof, we will construct the functions $q_1,q_2$. In order to show continuous differentiability, we will focus our attention on a fixed but arbitrary point $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$, and suitable chosen neighbourhoods $U$ of $\theta_0$ and $W$ of $s_0$. This will not entail any loss of generality because continuous differentiability is a local property, while, as we shall see, the construction of $q_1,q_2$ does not depend on the choice of $(s_0,\theta_0)$, $U$ or $W$. Let $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ be given. Since $\delta(s,\theta)$ and $\gamma(s,\theta)$ are continuous, we may choose neighbourhoods $U$, $W$ and constants $\delta_0>0$, $\gamma_0<\infty$ such that $$\delta(s,\theta)\geq\delta_0, \quad \gamma(s,\theta)\leq\gamma_0 \qquad\text{for all $s\in W$, $\theta\in U$}.$$ The numbers $\delta_0,\gamma_0$ and the neighbourhoods $U,W$ will now be fixed for the remainder of the proof. We remark that the bounds – and – are monotone in $\delta$ and $\gamma$, so they hold uniformly over $U,W$ with $\delta(s,\theta)$, $\gamma(s,\theta)$ replaced by $\delta_0,\gamma_0$. Recall that $K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ can be defined for $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$, but may not be defined globally. We will therefore rewrite the integrals in – by defining $$\label{I1I2Formula} \begin{aligned} w(s,\phi,\theta) &= \frac{M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta)e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\phi K_0'(s;\theta)}}{M_0(s)}, \\ I_1(\theta,s,n) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} w(s,\phi,\theta)^n \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}, \\ I_2(\theta,s,n) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} w(s,\phi,\theta)^{n-1} n\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} \end{aligned}$$ Let $\tau$ denote another entry $\theta_i$ or $s_j$ (possibly the same entry as $t$) and define $$\label{I3Formula} I_3 = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} w(s,\phi,\theta)^{n-2} \left[ n(n-1)\frac{\partial w}{\partial\tau}(s,\phi,\theta)\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta) + n \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta)\right] \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}.$$ Thus the integrands for $I_2,I_3$ are $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ and $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau\partial t}$ of the integrand for $I_1$. Throughout the proof we will think of $t$ and $\tau$ as fixed but arbitrary; thus our conclusions about $I_2$ will apply mutatis mutandis* to the integral with $\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}$ replaced by $\frac{\partial w}{\partial\tau}$. It is readily verified that $\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}$, $\frac{\partial w}{\partial\tau}$ and $\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial\tau\partial t}$ can be expressed as multivariate polynomials in the arguments $\phi$, $M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)/M_0(s)$, $\frac{\partial M_0}{\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0}{\partial\tau}(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$ and $\frac{\partial^2 M_0}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi)$; the same quantities evaluated at $\phi=0$; $\frac{\partial M_0'}{\partial t}(s)$, $\frac{\partial M_0'}{\partial\tau}(s)$ and $\frac{\partial^2 M_0'}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s)$; and $1/M_0(s)$. By , it follows that $$\label{wDerivativeBounds} \max\bigset{\abs{\tfrac{\partial w}{\partial t}}, \abs{\tfrac{\partial w}{\partial\tau}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^2 w}{\partial\tau\partial t}}} \leq C(1+\abs{\phi})^\alpha$$ for some $C,\alpha<\infty$ that depend only on $\delta_0$, $\gamma_0$. On the other hand, implies $$\label{wBound} \abs{w(s,\phi,\theta)}\leq (1+\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2)^{-\delta_0}$$ since the upper bound in is monotone in $\delta$. So the integrands in – can be bounded by $$\label{IntegrandBoundphi} n^2 (C^2+C+1)(1+\abs{\phi})^{2\alpha} (1+\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2)^{-\delta_0(n-2)}$$ uniformly in $\theta,s$, and the function in is integrable (for fixed $n$) as soon as $2\delta_0(n-2)-2\alpha>m$. Thus if we define $n_0=3+(m+2\alpha)/2\delta_0$ then the integrands in – are dominated by integrable functions for each $n\geq n_0$. In particular, by , for all $n\geq n_0$, $$\label{PartialsOfI12} I_1(\theta,s,n)=P_n(\theta,s), \quad I_2=\frac{\partial I_1}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}, \quad I_3=\frac{\partial I_2}{\partial\tau}$$ with $I_1,I_2,I_3$ continuous for fixed $n$. Define $$\begin{gathered} h(s,\phi,\theta)=\eta(s,\theta,\phi)\left[ K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}\phi;\theta) - K_0(s;\theta) - {\mathrm{i}}\phi K_0'(s;\theta) \right] \\ + (1-\eta(s,\theta,\phi)) \left[ - \tfrac{1}{2}\phi K_0''(s;\theta)\phi^T \right].\end{gathered}$$ Note that $h$ is well-defined since by construction $\eta$ is supported in the region where $K_0$ is well-defined. We remark that $h$ behaves quadratically in $\phi$ for $\abs{\phi}$ small. To emphasise this, apply Lagrange’s form of the remainder term, $$\label{LagrangeForm2} f(1) - f(0) - f'(0) = \int_0^1 (1-u) f''(u)\, du,$$ with the function $$\label{fForLagrangeForm} f(u)=\eta(s,\theta,\phi)K_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)-\tfrac{1}{2}u^2(1-\eta(s,\theta,\phi))\phi K_0''(s)\phi^T.$$ Thus, writing $$g(s,\phi,\theta,u) = \eta(s,\theta,\phi) K_0''(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi;\theta) + (1-\eta(s,\theta,\phi)) K_0''(s),$$ we can rewrite $h$ as $$\label{hAsphigphi} h(s,\phi,\theta) = - \int_0^1 (1-u)\phi g(s,\phi,\theta,u) \phi^T \, du .$$ Then implies $$\label{ghBound} v \Re g(s,\phi,\theta,u)v^T \geq \delta_0\abs{v}^2, \qquad \Re h(s,\phi,\theta) \leq -\tfrac{1}{2}\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2.$$ Since $K_0'' = M_0''/M_0 - (M_0'/M_0)^2$, the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}$, $\frac{\partial g}{\partial\tau}$ and $\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial\tau\partial t}$ can be expressed as multivariate polynomials in the arguments $\frac{\partial M_0}{\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0}{\partial\tau}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial^2 M_0}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0'}{\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0'}{\partial\tau}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial^2 M_0'}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0''}{\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial M_0''}{\partial\tau}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, $\frac{\partial^2 M_0''}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$, and $1/M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$; the same quantities evaluated at $\phi=0$; and $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)$ and its derivatives. Note that $1/M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)$ may become unbounded if $M_0$ has zeros, but powers $1/M_0(s+{\mathrm{i}}u\phi)^k$ only appear in combination with a factor $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)$ or one of its derivatives, all of which are supported in the region $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$ where applies. It follows that each such combination is uniformly bounded. Hence, by , $g$ and its partial derivatives (and hence, by , $h$ and its partial derivatives) grow at most polynomially in $\phi$: $$\label{partialghBounds} \max\bigset{\abs{\tfrac{\partial g}{\partial t}}, \abs{\tfrac{\partial g}{\partial\tau}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^2 g}{\partial\tau\partial t}}, \abs{\tfrac{\partial h}{\partial t}}, \abs{\tfrac{\partial h}{\partial\tau}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^2 h}{\partial\tau\partial t}}} \leq C'(1+\abs{\phi})^{\alpha'}$$ for some $C',\alpha'<\infty$ that depend only on $\delta_0$, $\gamma_0$. The same argument (involving up to 3 $s$-derivatives of $M_0''$ and $\frac{\partial M_0''}{\partial t}$) shows that $$\label{gradphigBounds} \max\bigset{\bigabs{\tfrac{\partial g}{\partial\phi_i}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^2 g}{\partial\phi_i\partial\phi_j}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^3 g}{\partial\phi_i\partial\phi_j\partial\phi_k}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^2 g}{\partial\phi_i\partial t}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^3 g}{\partial\phi_i\partial\phi_j\partial t}}, \bigabs{\tfrac{\partial^4 g}{\partial\phi_i\partial\phi_j\partial\phi_k\partial t}}} \leq C''(1+\abs{\phi})^{\alpha''}$$ for some $C'',\alpha''<\infty$ that also depend only on $\delta_0$, $\gamma_0$. By analogy with –, define $$\label{J1J2J3Formula} \begin{aligned} J_1(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \epsilon^{-1} h(s,\phi,\theta) \right) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} , \\ J_2(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \epsilon^{-1} h(s,\phi,\theta) \right) \epsilon^{-1} \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta) \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m} , \\ J_3(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \epsilon^{-1} h(s,\phi,\theta) \right) \left[ \epsilon^{-1} \frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta) \right. \\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \left. + \, \epsilon^{-2} \frac{\partial h}{\partial\tau}(s,\phi,\theta)\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta) \right] \frac{d\phi}{(2\pi)^m}. \end{aligned}$$ The bounds – imply that the integrands in can be bounded by $$\label{IntegrandBoundphih} \epsilon^{-2}((C')^2+C'+1)(1+\abs{\phi})^{2\alpha'}\exp\left( -\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{-1}\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2 \right)$$ uniformly in $\theta,s$, which is integrable for any fixed $\epsilon>0$. So applies and shows $$\label{PartialsOfJ12} J_2=\frac{\partial J_1}{\partial t}, \quad J_3=\frac{\partial J_2}{\partial\tau} \qquad\text{for all }\epsilon>0.$$ Furthermore $J_1,J_2,J_3$ are continuous in all three variables in the region $\epsilon>0$. We will next show that, for $k=1,2,3$, $$r_n^{(k)}(\theta,s) = \frac{I_k(\theta,s,n) - J_k(\theta,s,1/n)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)}$$ satisfies $r_n^{(k)}(\theta,s) = o(n^{-2})$ uniformly over $\theta\in U,s\in W$. Note that the integrands defining $I_k(\theta,s,n)$ and $J_k(\theta,s,1/n)$ agree over the region $\abs{\phi}\leq\delta_0$ because $\eta(s,\theta,\phi)=1$ and $\exp(h)=w$ there. When $n\geq n_0$ and $\abs{\phi}\geq\delta_0$, the quantities in and (with $\epsilon^{-1}$ replaced by $n$) are bounded by $$\begin{gathered} \label{ExpDecayingBound} C''' (1+\abs{\phi})^{2\alpha'''} \left( (1+\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2)^{-\delta_0(n_0-2)} + \exp(-\tfrac{1}{2} n_0\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2) \right) \\ \cdot n^2 \left( (1+\delta_0^3)^{-\delta_0(n-n_0)} + \exp(-\tfrac{1}{2} (n-n_0)\delta_0^3) \right)\end{gathered}$$ uniformly in $\theta,s$. Integrating over $\phi$ leads to the conclusion that $I_k(\theta,s,n) - J_k(\theta,s,1/n)$ decays exponentially in $n$, uniformly in $\theta,s$. Since $\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)^{-1}=O(n^{m/2})$, uniformly in $\theta,s$, we have $$\label{rnkon-2} r_n^{(k)}(\theta,s) = o(n^{-2})\text{ uniformly over }\theta\in U,s\in W,$$ as asserted. Next we apply to $r_n^{(k)}(\theta,s)$ for $k=1,2$. We set $\epsilon_n = 1/n$, so that $\epsilon_n-\epsilon_{n+1} \sim n^{-2}$. Recalling and , the identity $$\label{ZoverhatP} \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} \left( \frac{Z}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} \right) = \frac{\frac{\partial Z}{\partial\tau}}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} - \frac{Z}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s)$$ with $Z=I_k-J_k$ allows us to express the gradients $\grad_\theta r_n^{(k)}$ and $\grad_s r_n^{(k)}$ for $k=1,2$ in terms of $r_n^{(2)}$ (or rather, the analogue of $r_n^{(2)}$ with $t$ replaced by $\tau$) and $r_n^{(3)}$. Since $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s)$ is bounded and continuous in $\theta,s$, and does not depend on $n$, it follows that $\grad_\theta r_n^{(k)}$ and $\grad_s r_n^{(k)}$ are continuous and $o(n^{-2})$, uniformly in $\theta,s$, for $k=1,2$. By we can find continuously differentiable functions $\tilde{f}_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)$, $\tilde{f}_2(\theta,s,\epsilon)$ such that $$\label{tildefPJhatP} \tilde{f}_1(\theta,s,1/n) = \frac{P_n(\theta,s) - J_1(\theta,s,1/n)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)}, \qquad \tilde{f}_2(\theta,s,1/n) = \frac{\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}(\theta,s) - J_2(\theta,s,1/n)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)}$$ for $\theta\in U$, $s\in W$, $n\geq n_0$. We claim that $J_k(\theta,s,1/n)/\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)$, $k=1,2$, can be extended to be continuously differentiable functions of $\theta,s,\epsilon=1/n$, including at $\epsilon=0$. We have already defined $J_k$ for all $\epsilon>0$, and we can extend $\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)$ by declaring that holds whether or not $n>0$ is an integer. To handle the extension to $\epsilon=0$, substitute $\phi=\psi\sqrt{\epsilon}$, $d\phi=\epsilon^{m/2}d\psi$ in and use : $$\begin{aligned} \frac{J_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)}{\hat{P}_{1/\epsilon}(\theta,s)} &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \exp\left( \epsilon^{-1} h(s,\phi,\theta) \right) \frac{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta))}}{(2\pi)^m \epsilon^{m/2}} d\phi \notag\\& = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\int_0^1 (1-u)\psi g(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} d\psi . \label{J1Pratio}\end{aligned}$$ Similar considerations hold for $J_2$ and $J_3$. Define $$\begin{aligned} f_1(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\int_0^1 (1-u)\psi g(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} d\psi , \notag\\ f_2(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\int_0^1 (1-u)\psi g(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} \notag\\&\qquad\cdot \left( -\int_0^1 (1-u)\psi \frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \right) d\psi , \notag\\ f_3(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\int_0^1 (1-u)\psi g(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} \notag\\&\qquad\cdot \left( \int_0^1 (1-v)\psi \frac{\partial g}{\partial\tau}(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,v) \psi^T \, dv \int_0^1 (1-u)\psi \frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \right. \notag\\&\qquad\quad \left. - \int_0^1 (1-u)\psi \frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial\tau\partial t}(s,\psi\sqrt{\epsilon},\theta,u) \psi^T \, du \right) d\psi \label{f1f2f3Formula}\end{aligned}$$ for $\epsilon\geq 0$. applied repeatedly to confirms that $$\label{fkJkhatP} f_k(\theta,s,\epsilon) = \frac{J_k(\theta,s,\epsilon)}{\hat{P}_{1/\epsilon}(\theta,s)}$$ for all $\epsilon>0$. The integrands in are continuous in all of their variables, including at $\epsilon=0$, and by – are bounded by $$\label{IntegrandBoundpsi} ((C')^2+C'+1)(1+\abs{\psi}^2)^{2\alpha'+2}\exp\left( -\tfrac{1}{2}\delta_0\abs{\psi}^2 \right)$$ for all $\epsilon\in[0,1]$. The function in is integrable, so implies that $f_1,f_2,f_3$ are continuous. By another application of with $Z=f_k$, $k=1,2$, the continuity of $f_2,f_3$ implies that $\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial\tau},\frac{\partial f_2}{\partial\tau}$ are continuous. To complete the claim that $f_1,f_2$ are continuously differentiable, it suffices to show that $\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial\epsilon}$ and $\frac{\partial f_2}{\partial\epsilon}$ are continuous. This is less clear: the integrands in are typically not differentiable at $\epsilon=0$ because of the $\sqrt{\epsilon}$. However, in a Taylor expansion, the $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ term is odd as a function of $\psi$ and therefore makes no contribution to the integral. To see this, note that the integrands defining $f_1,f_2$ can be written in the form $H_k(\psi, \psi\sqrt{\epsilon})$, where $$\begin{aligned} H_1(v,\phi) &= \frac{\exp\bigl( -\int_0^1 (1-u)v g(s,\phi,\theta,u) v^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}}, \\ H_2(v,\phi) &= - H_1(v,\phi) \int_0^1 (1-u)v \frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(s,\phi,\theta,u) v^T \, du. \end{aligned}$$ (For convenience we omit the dependence on $\theta,s$.) Apply with $f(u)=H_k(v,u\phi)$ to find $$H_k(\psi, \psi\sqrt{\epsilon}) = H_k(\psi,0) + \sqrt{\epsilon} \psi\grad_\phi H_k(\psi,0) + \epsilon \int_0^1 (1-u)\psi \grad_\phi\grad_\phi^T H_k(\psi, u\psi\sqrt{\epsilon}) \psi^T \, du.$$ The quantities $H_k(v,\phi)$ are even as functions of $v$ for each fixed $\phi$, so that $\grad_\phi H_k(v,\phi)$ is also even as a function of $v$. Hence $\psi\grad_\phi H_k(\psi,0)$ is odd as a function of $\psi$. From and it is straightforward to verify that $H_k(v,\phi)$, $\frac{\partial H_k}{\partial\phi_i}(v,\phi)$, $\frac{\partial^2 H_k}{\partial\phi_i\phi_j}(v,\phi)$, $\frac{\partial^3 H_k}{\partial\phi_i\phi_j\phi_\ell}(v,\phi)$, for $k=1,2$ and $i,j,\ell=1,\dotsc,m$, can all be bounded by $$\label{HkBound} C'''' (1+\abs{\phi}+\abs{v})^{\alpha''''} \exp\left( -\tfrac{1}{2}\delta_0\abs{v}^2 \right)$$ for some constants $C'''',\alpha''''$ depending only on $\delta_0,\gamma_0$. In particular, the term $\psi\grad_\phi H_k(\psi,0)$ is integrable, so that oddness implies that its integral is zero. Thus $$\label{fWithoutOdd} f_k(\theta,s,\epsilon) = \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \left( H_k(\psi,0) + \epsilon \int_0^1 (1-u)\psi \grad_\phi\grad_\phi^T H_k(\psi, u\psi\sqrt{\epsilon}) \psi^T \, du \right) d\psi .$$ In , the integrand is now continuously differentiable even at $\epsilon=0$, and implies that its derivative with respect to $\epsilon$ is bounded by an integrable function. Thus applies and verifies that $\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial\epsilon}$ and $\frac{\partial f_2}{\partial\epsilon}$ are continuous, as claimed, and hence $f_1,f_2$ are continuously differentiable. Finally define $q_k(\theta,s,\epsilon)=\tilde{f}_k(\theta,s,\epsilon)+f_k(\theta,s,\epsilon) - f_k(\theta,s,0)$ for $\epsilon\in[0,1/n_0]$, so that $q_1,q_2$ are continuously differentiable and $q_k(\theta,s,0)=0$ by construction. Combining and , $$\label{Pnfq} \begin{aligned} \frac{P_n(\theta,s)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} &= \frac{I_1(\theta,s,n)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} = \tilde{f}_1(\theta,s,1/n) + f_1(\theta,s,1/n) = f_1(\theta,s,0) + q_1(\theta,s,1/n) , \\ \frac{\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial t}(\theta,s)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} &= \frac{I_2(\theta,s,n)}{\hat{P}_n(\theta,s)} = \tilde{f}_2(\theta,s,1/n) + f_2(\theta,s,1/n) = f_2(\theta,s,0) + q_2(\theta,s,1/n) . \end{aligned}$$ We need to extend $q_k$ to be defined for $\epsilon\in[-1/n_0,1/n_0]$ (this is for convenience only, since the Implicit Function Theorem typically assumes that the base point belongs to the interior of the domain) and this can be done arbitrarily as long as $q_k$ remains continuously differentiable. Since $q_k(\theta,s,0)$ vanishes identically, one way to make this extension is to require $q_k$ to be an odd function of $\epsilon$. Lastly follows from by noting $g(s,0,\theta,u) = K_0''(s;\theta)$, $\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(s,0,\theta,u) = \frac{\partial K_0''}{\partial t}(s;\theta)$ and calculating the Gaussian integrals $$\begin{aligned} f_1(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\frac{1}{2}\psi K_0''(s;\theta) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} d\psi = 1, \\ f_2(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= -\int_{\R^{1\times m}} \frac{\exp\bigl( -\frac{1}{2}\psi K_0''(s;\theta) \psi^T \, du \bigr)}{\sqrt{\det(2\pi K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1})}} \frac{1}{2} \psi \frac{\partial K_0''}{\partial t}(s,\phi) \psi^T d\psi \\ &= -\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\left( K_0''(s;\theta)^{-1} \frac{\partial K_0''}{\partial t}(s;\theta) \right) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$ To prove , we first state an intermediate result. Under the hypotheses of , there are continuously differentiable functions $q_5(\theta,s,\epsilon),q_6(\theta,s,\epsilon)$, with values in $\R^{1\times p}$ and $\R^{m\times 1}$ respectively, defined on an open set $\mathcal{Q}'$ containing $\set{(\theta,s,0)\colon (s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}}$, such that $q_5(\theta,s,0)=0$, $q_6(\theta,s,0)=0$ and $$\label{gradlogDifference} \begin{aligned} \grad_\theta \log P_n(\theta,s) &= \grad_\theta \log\hat{P}(\theta,s) + q_5(\theta,s,1/n) , \\ \grad_s \log P_n(\theta,s) &= \grad_s \log\hat{P}(\theta,s) + q_6(\theta,s,1/n) \end{aligned}$$ whenever $(\theta,s,1/n)\in\mathcal{Q}'$. Let $t$ denote one of the entries $\theta_i$ or $s_j$ and consider $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log P_n(\theta,s)$. Comparing with the ratio of the two quantities in , set $$\begin{aligned} q_t(\theta,s,\epsilon) &= \frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s) + q_2(\theta,s,\epsilon)}{1 + q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)} - \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s) \notag\\& =\frac{q_2(\theta,s,\epsilon) - q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}(\theta,s)}{1 + q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)} .\end{aligned}$$ We have immediately that $q_t(\theta,s,0)=0$. By and , $q_1,q_2$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log\hat{P}$ are continuously differentiable, so $q_t$ will be as well provided that $q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)\neq -1$. Since $q_1(\theta,s,0)=0$ and $q_1$ is continuous, we can rule out $q_1(\theta,s,\epsilon)=-1$ by shrinking $\mathcal{Q}'$ to be a suitable subset of $\mathcal{Q}$. The functions $q_5,q_6$ are obtained by performing this construction $p+m$ times, for each of the entries of $\theta$ and $s$. From we have $$\grad_\theta \left( \Big. \log P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) \right) = \left( \big. \grad_\theta\log P_n \right) (\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) + \left[ \left( \big. \grad_s^T \log P_n \right) (\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)) \right] \grad_\theta \hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),$$ so that if we set $$q_3(\theta,y,\epsilon) = q_5(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y),\epsilon) + q_6(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y),\epsilon)^T \grad_\theta \hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y)$$ then the relation holds. The continuous differentiability of $q_3$ and the relation $q_3(\theta,y,0)=0$ follow from the corresponding properties for $q_5,q_6$ from and the fact that $\grad_\theta\hat{s}_0^T$ is continuously differentiable, see . Proofs of Proposition 16 and Theorem 5 ====================================== [\[a:IntegerValuedProof\]]{} The proof of is almost identical to that of , and we outline where and how they differ. The local bounds – use only and , so they continue to hold (after possibly decreasing $\delta(s,\theta)$) under the hypotheses of . We may in addition assume that $$\delta(s,\theta) < \tfrac{1}{2}\pi$$ so that the region $\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(s,\theta)$, and therefore the support of $\eta$, are subsets of the region $(-\pi,\pi)^{1\times m}$. The bound depends only on and therefore remains valid; indeed, as remarked in , the quantity $w$ is $2\pi$-periodic in each entry of $\phi$, so it is enough to know that $w$ is continuous. We must establish an analogue of the bound , which cannot be valid for all $\phi$ because of periodicity. From and the argument that led to , we can conclude that, uniformly over suitable neighbourhoods $U$ and $W$, $$\abs{w(s,\phi,\theta)} \leq \exp\left( -\tfrac{1}{2}\delta_0\abs{\phi}^2 \right) \quad\text{for }\abs{\phi}\leq 2\delta(\theta,s).$$ On the other hand, by the assumption in , $$\max_{\phi\in[-\pi,\pi]^{1\times m}\colon \abs{\phi}\geq 2\delta(\theta,s)} \abs{w(s,\phi,\theta)} < 1 \quad\text{for all }(s,\theta)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S},$$ and by continuity and compactness, this maximum is continuous as a function of $(s,\theta)$. It follows that, shrinking $\delta_0$ if necessary, $w$ satisfies the bound for all $\phi\in[-\pi,\pi]^{1\times m}$. Let $\tilde{w}(s,\phi,\theta)=w(s,\phi,\theta)\indicatorofset{[-\pi,\pi]^{1\times m}}(\phi)$. Differentiation with respect to $t$ or $\tau$ does not affect the indicator, so $\tilde{w}$ satisfies the bounds –. With these bounds given, we can define $\tilde{I}_1,\tilde{I}_2,\tilde{I}_3$ as in – with $w$ replaced by $\tilde{w}$, and the same argument shows that holds with $I_k$ and $P_n$ replaced by $\tilde{I}_k$ and $P_{\mathrm{int},n}$. The rest of the argument is proceeds as in the proof of : the construction and bounding of $h$ and $g$ use only –; the exponentially decaying bound still follows from –, applied to $\tilde{w}$ and $h$; and the definition and analysis of the functions $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_3$, and of $q_1$, $q_2$, are unchanged. Analogues of Corollaries \[C:GRADLOGPHATSERROR\] and \[C:ddtlogPError\] for $P_{\mathrm{int}}(\theta,s)$ follow from by the same argument as in . The proofs of and \[item:LOIntegerValued\] are then identical to the proofs of Theorems \[T:GradientError\]–\[T:SAMPLINGMLE\] and \[item:LOGradient\]–\[item:LOSampling\] since all of those proofs use only the result of . Derivatives of F and proof of Lemma 18 ====================================== [\[a:FandMLEproof\]]{} In this section we verify that $F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)=0$ and $\grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)$ is non-singular, as asserted in the proof of , and we prove . Since $\epsilon=0$, the assertions $F_1(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)=0$ and $F_2(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)=0$ reduce to and , respectively. The gradient of $F$ with respect to its first two variables (which we combine into a single column vector by concatenating $s^T$ and $\theta$) has the block decomposition $$\begin{aligned} \grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0) &= \mat{\grad_s^T F_1(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0) & \grad_\theta F_1(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0) \\ \grad_s^T F_2(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0) & \grad_\theta F_2(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)} \notag\\& =\mat{K''_0(s_0;\theta_0) & \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0) \\ \left( \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0) \right)^T & \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta K_0(s_0;\theta_0)} ,\end{aligned}$$ with the diagonal blocks symmetric. Abbreviate this as $$\label{gradFBlockForm} \grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0) = \mat{A & B\\B^T & D}.$$ Then, with $I$ and $0$ denoting the identity matrix and zero matrix of the indicated sizes, $$\label{gradFRowColOps} \mat{I_{m\times m} & 0_{m\times p} \\-B^T A^{-1} & I_{p\times p}} \mat{A & B\\B^T & D} \mat{I_{m\times m} & -B^T A^{-1} \\0_{p\times m} & I_{p\times p}} =\mat{A & 0_{m\times p}\\0_{p\times m} & D-B^T A^{-1}B}.$$ The matrix $A=K''_0(s_0;\theta_0)$ is positive definite, and we recognise $D-B^T A^{-1}B$ as the negative definite matrix $H$ from . In particular, both are non-singular, and hence $\grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0)$ is non-singular also, as claimed. Consider a solution $s=s_1,\theta=\theta_1$ of $F(s^T,\theta;y,1/n)=0$. The condition $F_1(s^T,\theta;y)=0$ reduces to the saddlepoint equation so that $s_1=\hat{s}_0(\theta;y)$. Note that $$\label{R'xnFromF2} R'_{x,n}(\theta)^T = F_2(\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),\theta;y,1/n)$$ so the condition $F_2(s^T,\theta;y,1/n)=0$ shows that $\theta_1$ is a critical point of $R_{x,n}$. To complete the proof it suffices to show that, possibly after shrinking $U,V$ and increasing $n_0$, the Hessian $R''_{x,n}(\theta)$ is negative definite for all $\theta\in U,y\in V,n\geq n_0$. From and we have $$\begin{aligned} R''_{x,n}(\theta) &= \grad_\theta \left( F_2(\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),\theta;y,1/n) \right) \notag\\ &= \grad_\theta F_2(\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),\theta;y,1/n) \notag\\&\quad - \grad_s^T F_2(\hat{s}_0^T(\theta;y),\theta;y,1/n) K''_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta)^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y);\theta) . \label{RxnHessian}\end{aligned}$$ We note that $$\label{RxnHessianepsilon} h(s,\theta,y,\epsilon) = \grad_\theta F_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) - \grad_s^T F_2(s^T,\theta;y,\epsilon) K''_0(s;\theta)^{-1} \grad_s\grad_\theta K_0(s;\theta)$$ is a continuous function. Moreover $h(s_0,\theta_0,y_0,0)$ reduces to the negative definite matrix $D-B^T A^{-1} B = H$ from and . By continuity, it follows that $h(s,\theta,y,\epsilon)$ has only negative eigenvalues for $s,\theta,y,\epsilon$ in a suitable neighbourhood of $s_0,\theta_0,y_0,0$. From we have $R''_{x,n}(\theta)=h(\hat{s}_0(\theta;y),\theta,y,1/n)$ which is therefore negative definite for all $\theta,y$ in suitable neighbourhoods and all $n$ large enough, as required. Proof of Theorem 3 ================== [\[a:BayesianErrorProof\]]{} contains two separate assertions, about $\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ and about $\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$. We prove a stronger statement that removes the restriction $y=y_0$ and also applies to $\hat{\pi}^_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ from \[item:LOBayesian\]. To state it, define $$\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y) = \operatorname{argmax}_{\theta\in U} \hat{L}^_0(\theta;y)$$ and note that $$\label{hatthetaxny} \hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) = \hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y)$$ depends only on $y$ and not $n$; see . Suppose $(s_0,\theta_0)\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $y_0\in\mathcal{Y}_{\theta_0}$ are related as in , and suppose that , , – and – hold. Suppose in addition that the prior distribution $\pi_\Theta$ has a probability density function that is continuous and positive at $\theta_0$. Then there exist neighbourhoods $U\subset R$ of $\theta_0$ and $V\subset \R^{m\times 1}$ of $y_0$ such that, for all $y\in V$, $$\begin{aligned} &\text{under $\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$, $\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ or $\hat{\pi}^_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$,} \notag\\&\qquad \left( \sqrt{n}\left( \big. \Theta-\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) \right), \sqrt{n}\bigl( \Theta-\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) \bigr), \sqrt{n}\bigl( \Theta-\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) \bigr) \right) \notag\\&\qquad\qquad \overset{d}{\to} (Z, Z, Z) \quad\text{as }n\to\infty ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$Z \sim \mathcal{N}( 0,-H(y)), \qquad H(y) = \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}^_0(\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y);y).$$ Note that $H(y)$ generalizes the Hessian $H$ from , which corresponds to $H(y_0)$. Start with $U$ and $V$ satisfying the conclusions of and \[item:LOMLE\]. Let $f_\Theta(\theta)$ denote the prior density for $\Theta$. Since $f_\Theta(\theta_0)>0$ and $f_\Theta$ is continuous, we can shrink $U$ if necessary so that $\log f_\Theta(\theta)$ is bounded and continuous over $\theta\in U$. Choose $\tilde{\pi}_n$ to be one of the posteriors $\pi_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$, $\hat{\pi}_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$ or $\hat{\pi}^_{\Theta\,\vert\,U,x}$, let $\tilde{L}_n(\theta;x)$ be the corresponding choice out of $L_n(\theta;x), \hat{L}_n(\theta;x)$ or $\hat{L}^_n(\theta;x)$, respectively, and let $\tilde{\theta}(x,n)$ denote the corresponding choice out of $\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$, $\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ or $\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$, respectively. Let $Q_n(\theta;y)$ be the corresponding choice out of the functions $P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y))$, $\hat{P}_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y))$ or the constant function 1, respectively, so that $$\label{tildeLLQ} \log\tilde{L}_n(\theta;x) = n\log\hat{L}^_0(\theta;y) + \log Q_n(\theta;y).$$ Note from , \[item:LOMLE\] and that $$\label{tildethetaLimit} \lim_{n\to\infty} \tilde{\theta}(x,n) = \hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y)$$ for fixed $y\in V$ and all three choices for $\tilde{\theta}$. The Hessian matrix $H(y_0)=\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}_0^(\theta_0;y_0)$ is negative definite by , so continuity allows us to shrink $U$ if necessary and choose $\delta>0$ small enough to ensure that $$\label{L0HessianBound} v^T \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}_0^(\theta;y) v \leq -\delta \abs{v}^2$$ for all $\theta\in U$, $y\in V$ and $v\in\R^{p\times 1}$. Shrinking $U$ and $V$ further if necessary, we may assume that $U$ is a bounded convex neighbourhood and that the Hessians $\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log Q_n$ and $\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}^_0$ are bounded and uniformly continuous over $\theta\in U$ and $n$ sufficiently large. This is evident if $Q_n(\theta;y)$ is the constant 1 or the function $\hat{P}_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y))$ since both have gradients that do not depend on $n$ and are continuously differentiable functions of $\theta$. For $P_n(\theta,\hat{s}_0(\theta;y))$ the statement follows from . Let $\tilde{f}_{Z_n}(z)$ denote the posterior density function for $Z_n=\sqrt{n}(\Theta-\tilde{\theta}(x,n))$ under $\tilde{\pi}_n$. By construction, $\tilde{f}_{Z_n}$ is chosen to have the form $$c_n \tilde{L}_n\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+z/\sqrt{n};x \bigr) f_\Theta\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+z/\sqrt{n} \bigr) \indicator{z\in\mathrm{supp}Z_n},$$ provided it is possible to choose $c_n=c_n(y,n)$ to make $\int \tilde{f}_{Z_n}(z)dz =1$. Apply Lagrange’s form of the Taylor series remainder term, $$\label{LagrangeFormg} g(1) = g(0) + g'(0) + \int_0^1 (1-u) g''(u)du,$$ with $g(u) = \log\tilde{L}_n(\tilde{\theta}(x,n)+uz/\sqrt{n};x)$. By construction, $\tilde{\theta}(x,n)$ is a critical point of $\theta\mapsto\tilde{L}_n(\theta;x)$, so that $g'(0)=0$, while $$\label{g''zTHz} g''(u) = n^{-1} z^T \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\tilde{L}_n\left( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+\frac{z}{\sqrt{n}};x \right) z.$$ Combining and –, we compute $$\begin{aligned} &\log\tilde{L}_n\left( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+\frac{z}{\sqrt{n}};x \right) \notag\\&\quad = \log\tilde{L}_n\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n);x \bigr) + \int_0^1 (1-u) z^T \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log \hat{L}^_0\left( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+\frac{uz}{\sqrt{n}};y \right) z \, du \notag\\&\qquad + \frac{1}{n} \int_0^1 (1-u) z^T \grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log Q_n\left( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+\frac{uz}{\sqrt{n}};y \right) z \, du . \label{logtildeLnFormula}\end{aligned}$$ In the right-hand side of , the first term is constant with respect to $z$ and does not affect $\tilde{f}_{Z_n}$. By and uniform continuity, the second and third term converge to $\frac{1}{2}z^T H(y) z$ and $0$, respectively. Since $\tilde{\theta}(x,n)$ converges to an interior point of $U$, it follows that $\indicator{z\in\mathrm{supp}Z_n}$ and $f_\Theta\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+z/\sqrt{n} \bigr)$ converge pointwise to 1 and $f(\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y))$, respectively. Thus $$\tilde{L}_n\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+z/\sqrt{n};x \bigr) f_\Theta\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n)+z/\sqrt{n} \bigr) \indicator{z\in\mathrm{supp}Z_n} / \tilde{L}_n\bigl( \tilde{\theta}(x,n);x \bigr)$$ converges pointwise to $c(y)\exp\left( \frac{1}{2}z^T H(y) z \right)$, while the bound and the boundedness of $f_\Theta$ and $\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log Q_n$ show that it is bounded by $C\exp\left( (-\frac{1}{2}\delta+C/n)\abs{z}^2 \right)$. By the Dominated Convergence Theorem, it follows that $\tilde{f}_{Z_n}(z)$ converges to the limiting density $c'\exp\left( \frac{1}{2} z^T H(y) z \right)$ and $Z_n$ converges under $\tilde{\pi}_n$ to the corresponding distribution, which is $\mathcal{N}(0,-H^{-1})$ as claimed. Finally the joint convergence follows because, by and \[item:LOMLE\], the differences between the three MLEs are $O(1/n)$ or $O(1/n^2)$ and are negligible compared to the $\sqrt{n}$ scaling. These are the special case $y=y_0$ from , and we note that taking $y=y_0$ gives $\hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n) = \hat{\theta}^_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y_0) = \theta_0$, so that $\grad_\theta^T\grad_\theta\log\hat{L}^_0(\hat{\theta}^*_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U; \, 0}(y_0);y_0)$ reduces to the matrix $H$ from . Proof of Theorem 4 ================== [\[a:SamplingMLEProof\]]{} follows by an application of the delta method to the function $G$ from . Note that in the setup of , $x$ and $y$ from are replaced by $\xi_n$ and $\tfrac{1}{n}\xi_n$ respectively. Write $$\bar{\zeta}_n = \frac{1}{n}\xi_n$$ so that is the assertion $$\label{zetanCLT} \sqrt{n}\left( \bar{\zeta}_n - y_0 \right) \overset{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma).$$ The assumptions give a neighbourhood $V$ of $y_0$ and $n_0\in\N$ such that $\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ and $\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ exist for all $y\in V$ and $n\geq n_0$. Shrinking $U,V$ and increasing $n_0$ if necessary, we can assume that the constructions involving $G$ from the proof of in , including , apply for $y\in V,n\geq n_0$. (Shrinking $U$ will not affect the values $\hat{\theta}_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ or $\theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(x,n)$ provided they still lie within $U$.) For $n\geq n_0$, define the event $$E_n = \set{\bar{\zeta}_n\in V} = \set{\frac{1}{n}\xi_n\in V}.$$ The assumption implies that $\bar{\zeta}_n$ converges in probability to $y_0$, so $\P(E_n)\to 1$ as $n\to\infty$. On the event $E_n$, gives $$\begin{aligned} \mat{\hat{s}^T\bigl( \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n), \xi_n \bigr) \\ \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n)} = G(\bar{\zeta}_n,1/n) . \end{aligned}$$ Since $G$ is continuously differentiable, $$\begin{aligned} &\sqrt{n} \mat{\hat{s}^T\bigl( \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n), \xi_n \bigr) - s_0^T \\ \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n) - \theta_0} \notag\\&\quad = \sqrt{n}\left( G(\bar{\zeta}_n,1/n) - G(y_0,0) \right) \notag\\&\quad = \sqrt{n} \left( \grad_{y,\epsilon} G(y_0,0) \mat{\bar{\zeta}_n - y_0 \\ 1/n} + o_\P\left( \big. \abs{\bar{\zeta}_n-y_0} + 1/n \right) \right) \notag\\&\quad = \grad_y G(y_0,0) \left[ \big. \sqrt{n} \left( \bar{\zeta}_n - y_0 \right) \right] + O(1/\sqrt{n}) + o_\P(1)\end{aligned}$$ where $o_\P(B_n)$ denotes a random variable $A_n$ such that $A_n/B_n$ converges to 0 in probability as $n\to\infty$. Restricting our attention to the second sub-block of this vector, $$\begin{aligned} &\sqrt{n} \left( \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n) - \theta_0 \right) = \mat{0_{p\times m} & I_{p\times p}} \grad_y G(y_0,0) \left[ \big. \sqrt{n} \left( \bar{\zeta}_n - y_0 \right) \right] + o_\P(1) .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\sqrt{n}\left( \theta_{{\mathrm{MLE}}\,\mathrm{in}\,U}(\xi_n,n) - \theta_0 \right)$ will converge to a limiting distribution $Z$ that is asymptotically normal with mean 0. To calculate the covariance matrix of $Z$, and note that $$\begin{aligned} \grad_y G(y_0,0) &= \grad_{y,\epsilon} G(y_0,0) \mat{I_{m\times m}\\ 0_{1\times m}} \\ &= \left[ \Big. - (\grad_{s^T,\theta} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0))^{-1} \grad_{y,\epsilon}F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0) \right] \mat{I_{m\times m}\\ 0_{1\times m}} . \end{aligned}$$ We compute $$\grad_{y,\epsilon} F(s_0^T,\theta_0;y_0,0) \mat{I_{m\times m}\\ 0_{1\times m}} = - \mat{I_{m\times m}\\ 0_{p\times m}}$$ and recalling – in which $D-B^T A^{-1} B=H$, $$\begin{aligned} \mat{0 & I} \grad_y G(y_0,0) &= - \mat{0 & I} \left( \grad_{s^T,\theta} F \right)^{-1} \left[ \left( \grad_{y,\epsilon} F \right) \mat{I\\ 0} \right] \notag\\& = - \mat{0 & I} \left[ \mat{I & -A^{-1}B\\ 0 & I} \mat{A^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & H^{-1}} \mat{I & 0\\ -B^T A^{-1} & I} \right] \left[ - \mat{I\\ 0} \right] \notag\\& = \mat{0 & I} \mat{A^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & H^{-1}} \mat{I \\ -B^T A^{-1}} = - H^{-1} B^T A^{-1} .\end{aligned}$$ From , it follows that the covariance matrix of $Z$ is $H^{-1} B^T A^{-1} \Sigma \left( H^{-1} B^T A^{-1} \right)^T$. Since $H$ and $A$ are symmetric, this reduces to the expression in part \[item:SamplingGeneral\]. To handle the joint convergence in \[item:SamplingGeneral\] and \[item:LOSampling\], we again observe that the differences between the three MLEs are negligible in the $\sqrt{n}$ scaling of . Finally part \[item:SamplingWellSpecified\] follows from the observation, discussed in , that $s_0=0$ gives $D=0$ and $H=-B^T A^{-1} B$. If in addition $\Sigma=A$ then $H^{-1} B^T A^{-1} \Sigma A^{-1} B H^{-1}$ simplifies to $-H^{-1}$, as claimed. [^1]: Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Inference and learning of graphical models are both well-studied problems in statistics and machine learning that have found many applications in science and engineering. However, exact inference is intractable in general graphical models, which suggests the problem of seeking the best approximation to a collection of random variables within some tractable family of graphical models. In this paper, we focus on the class of planar Ising models, for which exact inference is tractable using techniques of statistical physics. Based on these techniques and recent methods for planarity testing and planar embedding, we propose a simple greedy algorithm for learning the best planar Ising model to approximate an arbitrary collection of binary random variables (possibly from sample data). Given the set of all pairwise correlations among variables, we select a planar graph and optimal planar Ising model defined on this graph to best approximate that set of correlations. We demonstrate our method in simulations and for the application of modeling senate voting records.' bibliography: - 'planar.bib' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Graphical models are widely used to represent the statistical relations among a set of random variables [@Lauritzen; @MacKay]. Nodes of the graph correspond to random variables and edges of the graph represent statistical interactions among the variables. The problems of inference and learning on graphical models arise in many practical applications. The problem of inference is to deduce certain statistical properties (such as marginal probabilities, modes etc.) of a given set of random variables whose graphical model is known. It has wide applications in areas such as error correcting codes, statistical physics and so on. The problem of learning on the other hand is to deduce the graphical model of a set of random variables given statistics (possibly from samples) of the random variables. Learning is also a widely encountered problem in areas such as biology, anthropology and so on. The Ising model, a class of binary-variable graphical models with pairwise interactions, has been studied by physicists as a simple model of order-disorder transitions in magnetic materials [@onsager]. Remarkably, it was found that in the special case of an Ising model with zero-mean $\{-1,+1\}$ binary random variables and pairwise interactions defined on a planar graph, calculation of the partition function (which is closely tied to inference) is tractable, essentially reducing to calculation of a matrix determinant [@kacward; @sherman; @kasteleyn; @fisher]. These methods have been used in machine learning [@schraudolph; @globerson]. We address the problem of approximating a collection of binary random variables (given their pairwise marginal distributions) by a zero-mean planar Ising model. We also consider the related problem of selecting a non-zero mean Ising model defined on an outer-planar graph (these models are also tractable, being essentially equivalent to a zero-field model on a related planar graph). There has been a great deal of work on learning graphical models. Much of these have focused on learning over the class of thin graphical models [@deshpande; @bach; @karger; @shahaf] for which inference is tractable by converting the model to a junction tree. The simplest case of this is learning tree models (treewidth one graphs) for which it is tractable to find the best tree model by reduction to a max-weight spanning tree problem [@chowliu]. However, the problem of finding the best bounded-treewidth model is NP-hard for treewidths greater than two [@karger], and so heuristic methods are used to select the graph structure [@deshpande; @karger]. Another popular method is to use convex optimization of the log-likelihood penalized by $\ell_1$ norm of parameters of the graphical model so as to promote sparsity [@banerjee; @lee]. To go beyond low-treewidth graphs, such methods either focus on Gaussian graphical models or adopt a tractable approximation of the likelihood. Other methods learn only the graph structure itself [@ravikumar; @abbeel] and are often able to demonstrate asymptotic correctness of this estimate under appropriate conditions. In contrast to existing approaches, this paper explores planarity as an alternative restriction on the model class to both make learning tractable and to offer a qualitatively different graph topology in which the number of edges learned is linear in the number of variables. Preliminaries {#sec:prelim} ============= In this section, we develop our notation and briefly review the necessary background theory. Divergence and Likelihood {#subsec:entropy} ------------------------- Suppose we want to calculate how well a probability distribution $Q$ approximates another probability distribution $P$ (on the same sample space $\chi$). For any two probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ on some sample space $\chi$, we denote by $D(P,Q)$ the Kullback-Leibler divergence (or relative entropy) between $P$ and $Q$ as $D(P,Q) = \sum_{x \in \chi} P(x) \log \frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}$. The log-likelihood function is defined as $LL(P,Q) = \sum_{x \in \chi} P(x) \log Q(x)$. The probability distribution in a family $\mathcal{F}$ that maximizes the log-likelihood of a probability distribution $P$ is called the maximum-likelihood estimate of $P$ in $\mathcal{F}$, and this is equivalent to the minimum-divergence projection of $P$ to $\mathcal{F}$, so that $P_\mathcal{F} = \operatorname{arg\,max}_{Q \in \mathcal{F}} LL(P,Q) = \operatorname{arg\,min}_{Q \in \mathcal{F}} D(P,Q)$. Graphical Models and The Ising Model {#subsec:brush} ------------------------------------ We will be dealing with binary random variables throughout the paper. We write $P(x)$ to denote the probability distribution of a collection of random variables $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Unless otherwise stated, we work with undirected graphs $G=(V,E)$ with vertex (or node) set $V$ and edges $\{i,j\} \in E \subset {V \choose 2}$. For vertices $i,j \in V$ we write $G+ij$ to denote the graph $(V,E \cup \{i,j\})$. A pairwise graphical model is a probability distribution $P(x) = P(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ that is defined on a graph $G = (V,E)$ with vertices $V = \{1,..,n\}$ as $$\label{eq:graphical_model} \begin{split} P(x) & \propto \quad \prod_{i \in V} \psi_i(x_i) \prod_{\{i,j\} \in E} \psi_{ij}(x_i,x_j) \\ & \propto \quad \exp \biggr\{ \sum_{i \in V} f_i(x_i) + \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} f_{ij}(x_i,x_j) \biggr\} \end{split}$$ where $\psi_i,\psi_{ij} \geq 0$ are non-negative node and edge compatibility functions. For positive $\psi$’s, we may also represent $P(x)$ as a Gibbs distribution with potentials $f_i = \log \psi_i$ and $f_{ij} = \log \psi_{ij}$. An Ising model on binary random variables $x = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and graph $G=(V,E)$ is the probability distribution defined by $$\begin{aligned} P(x) &= \frac{1}{Z(\theta)} \exp\biggr\{\sum_{i \in V} \theta_i x_i + \!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\} \in E}\!\!\theta_{ij}x_ix_j\biggr\}, \\ Z(\theta) &= \sum_x \exp\biggr\{\sum_{i \in V} \theta_i x_i + \!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\} \in E}\!\!\theta_{ij}x_ix_j\biggr\},\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i\in \{-1,1\}$. The partition function $Z(\theta)$ serves to normalize the probability distribution. Formally, this defines an exponential family $P_\theta(x) = \exp\{ \theta^T \phi(x) - \Phi(\theta)\}$ [@barndorff; @wainwright] based on sufficient statistics $(\phi_i(x)=x_i, i \in V)$ and $(\phi_{ij}(x) = x_i x_j, \{i,j\} \in E)$, parameters $(\theta_i, i \in V)$ and $(\theta_{ij}, \{i,j\} \in E)$ and moment parameters $(\mu_i = \mathbb{E}[x_i], i \in V)$ and $(\mu_{ij} = \mathbb{E}[x_i x_j], \{i,j\} \in E)$. The function $\Phi(\theta) = \log Z(\theta)$ is a convex function of $\theta$ and has the moment generating properties: $\nabla \Phi(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_\theta[\phi(x)] = \mu$ and $\nabla^2 \Phi(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_\theta[(\phi(x) - \mu)(\phi(x) - \mu)^T]$. In fact, any pairwise graphical model among binary variables can be represented as an Ising model: $$\begin{aligned} \theta_i &= \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_{x_i} x_i f_i(x_i) + \tfrac{1}{4} \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} \sum_{x_i,x_j} x_i f_{ij}(x_i,x_j),\\ \theta_{ij} &= \tfrac{1}{4} \sum_{x_i,x_j} x_i x_j f_{ij}(x_i,x_j) . \end{aligned}$$ The moments can be computed as: $\mu_i = \sum_{x_i} x_i P(x_i)$ and $\mu_{ij} = \sum_{x_i,x_j} x_i x_j P(x_i,x_j)$. Inversely, the marginals are computed by: $$\begin{aligned} P(x_i) &= \tfrac{1}{2} (1 + \mu_i x_i), \\ P(x_i,x_j) &= \tfrac{1}{4} (1 + \mu_i x_i + \mu_j x_j + \mu_{ij} x_i x_j) .\end{aligned}$$ An Ising model is said to be zero-field if $\theta_i = 0$ for all $i \in V$. It is zero-mean if $\mu_i = 0$ ($P(x_i = \pm 1) = \tfrac{1}{2}$) for all $i \in V$. The Ising model is zero-field if and only if it is zero-mean. Although the zero-field assumption appears very restrictive, a general Ising model can be represented as a zero-field model by adding one auxiliary variable node connected to every other node of the graph [@globerson]. The parameters and moments of the two models are then related as follows: \[prop:zeromeantononzero\] Consider the Ising model on $G=(V,E)$ with $V = \{1,\dots,n\}$, parameters $\{\theta_i\}$ and $\{\theta_{ij}\}$, moments $\{\mu_i\}$ and $\{\mu_{ij}\}$ and partition function $Z$. Let $\widehat{G} = (\widehat{V},\widehat{E})$ denote the extended graph based on nodes $\widehat{V} = V \cup \{n+1\}$ with edges $\widehat{E} = E \cup \{\{i,n+1\}, i \in V \})$. We define a zero-field Ising model on $\widehat{G}$ with parameters $\{\widehat\theta_{ij}\}$, moments $\{\widehat\mu_{ij}\}$ and partition function $\widehat{Z}$. If we set the parameters according to $$\widehat\theta_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \theta_i ~\mbox{if}~ j=n+1\\ \theta_{ij} ~\mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ then $\widehat{Z} = 2 Z$ and $$\widehat\mu_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \mu_i ~\mbox{if}~ j=n+1\\ \mu_{ij} ~\mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ Thus, inference on the corresponding zero-field Ising model on the extended graph $\widehat{G}$ is equivalent to inference on the (non-zero-field) Ising model defined on $G$. Proof given in the Supplement. Inference for Planar Ising Models {#subsec:partfunc_planarising} --------------------------------- A graph is planar if it may be embedded in the plane without any edge crossings. It is known that any planar graph can be embedded such that all edges are drawn as straight lines. The motivation for our paper is the following result on tractability of inference for the planar zero-field Ising model. \[thm:partfunc\_planarising\] [@kacward; @sherman; @loebl] Let $G$ be a planar graph with specified straight-line embedding in the plane and let $\phi_{ijk} \in [-\pi,+\pi]$ denote the clockwise rotation between the directed edges $(i,j)$ and $(j,k)$. We define the matrix $W \in \mathbb{C}^{2 \|E\| \times 2 \|E\|}$ indexed by directed edges of the graph as follows: $W = A D$ where $D$ is the diagonal matrix with $D_{ij,ij} = \tanh \theta_{ij} \triangleq w_{ij}$ and $$A_{ij,kl} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \exp(\tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{-1} \phi_{ijl}), & j=k ~\mbox{and}~ i \neq l \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ Then, the partition function of the zero-field planar Ising model is given by the Kac-Ward determinant formula: $$Z = 2^n \biggr(\prod_{\{i,j\}\in E} \cosh \theta_{ij}\biggr) \det(I-W)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ Another related method for computing the Ising model partition function is based on counting perfect matchings of planar graphs [@kasteleyn; @fisher]. Thus, calculating the partition function reduces to calculating the determinant of a matrix; therefore, using the generalized nested dissection algorithm to exploit sparsity of the matrix, the complexity of these calculations is $O(n^{3/2})$ [@liptonrose; @liptontarjan; @galluccio]. Thus, inference of the zero-field planar Ising model is tractable and scales well with problem size. The gradient and Hessian of the log-partition function $\Phi(\theta) = \log Z(\theta)$ can also be calculated efficiently from the Kac-Ward determinant formula. Derivatives of $\Phi(\theta)$ recover the moment parameters of the exponential family model as $\nabla \Phi(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_\theta[\phi] = \mu$ [@barndorff; @wainwright]. Thus, inference of moments (and node and edge marginals) are tractable for the zero-field planar Ising model. \[prop:gradienthessiancalc\] Let $\mu = \nabla \Phi(\theta)$, $H = \nabla^2 \Phi(\theta)$. Let $S = (I-W)^{-1} A$ and $T = (I+P) (S \circ S^T) (I+P^T)$ where $A$ and $W$ are defined as in Theorem 1, $\circ$ denotes the element-wise product and $P$ is the permutation matrix swapping indices of directed edges $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$. Then, $$\begin{split} \mu_{ij} &= w_{ij} - \tfrac{1}{2} (1-w^2_{ij}) (S_{ij,ij} + S_{ji,ji}) \\ H_{ij,kl} &= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1-\mu_{ij}^2, & ij = kl \\ - \tfrac{1}{2} (1-w^2_{ij}) T_{ij,kl} (1-w^2_{kl}), & ~\mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. \end{split}$$ Calculating the full matrix $S$ requires $O(n^3)$ calculations. However, to compute just the moments $\mu$ only the diagonal elements of $S$ are needed. Then, using the generalized nested dissection method, inference of moments (edge-wise marginals) of the zero-field Ising model can be achieved with complexity $O(n^{3/2})$. Computing the full Hessian is more expensive, requiring $O(n^3)$ calculations. #### Inference for Outer-Planar Graphical Models We emphasize that the above calculations require both a planar graph $G$ and a zero-field Ising model. Using the graphical transformation of Proposition 1, the latter zero-field condition may be relaxed but at the expense of adding an auxiliary node connected to all the other nodes. In general planar graphs $G$, the new graph $\widehat{G}$ may not be planar and hence may not admit tractable inference calculations. However, for the subset of planar graphs where this transformation does preserve planarity inference is still tractable. A graph $G$ is said to be outer-planar if there exists an embedding of $G$ in the plane where all the nodes are on the outer face. In other words, the graph $G$ is outer-planar if the extended graph $\widehat{G}$ (defined by Proposition 1) is planar. Then, from Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 it follows that: [@globerson] The partition function and moments of any outer-planar Ising graphical model (not necessarily zero-field) can be calculated efficiently. Hence, inference is tractable for any binary-variable graphical model with pairwise interactions defined on an outer-planar graph. This motivates the problem of learning outer-planar graphical models for a collection of (possibly non-zero mean) binary random variables. Learning Planar Ising Models {#sec:main} ============================ This section addresses the main goals of the paper, which are two-fold: 1. Solving for the maximum-likelihood Ising model on a given planar graph to best approximate a collection of zero-mean random variables. 2. How to select (heuristically) the planar graph to obtain the best approximation. We address these problems in the following two subsections. The solution of the first problem is an integral part of our approach to the second. Both solutions are easily adapted to the context of learning outer-planar graphical models of (possibly non-zero mean) binary random variables. Maximum-Likelihood Parameter Estimation {#subsec:convexopt} --------------------------------------- Maximum-likelihood estimation over an exponential family is a convex optimization problem based on the log-partition function $\Phi(\theta)$. In the case of the zero-field Ising model defined on a given planar graph it is tractable to compute $\Phi(\theta)$ via a matrix determinant described in Theorem 1. Thus, we obtain an unconstrained, tractable, convex optimization problem for the maximum-likelihood zero-field Ising model on the planar graph $G$ to best approximate a probability distribution $P(x)$: $$\begin{aligned} &\max_{\theta} \{ \mu^T \theta - \Phi(\theta) \} = \\ &\max_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{\|E\|}} \!\biggl\{ \!\sum_{ij} (\mu_{ij} \theta_{ij} - \log\cosh \theta_{ij}) - \tfrac{1}{2} \log\det (I-W(\theta)) \!\biggr\}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mu_{ij} = \mathbb{E}_P[x_i x_j]$ for all edges $\{i,j\} \in G$ and the matrix $W(\theta)$ is as defined in Theorem 1. If $P$ represents the empirical distribution of a set of independent identically-distributed (iid) samples $\{x^{(s)}, s=1,\dots,S\}$ then $\{\mu_{ij}\}$ are the corresponding empirical moments $\mu_{ij} = \frac{1}{S} \sum_s x^{(s)}_i x^{(s)}_j$. #### Newton’s Method We solve this unconstrained convex optimization problem using Newton’s method with step-size chosen by back-tracking line search [@boyd]. This produces a sequence of estimates $\theta^{(t)}$ calculated as follows: $$\theta^{(t+1)} = \theta^{(t)} + \lambda_t H(\theta^{(t)})^{-1} ( \mu(\theta^{(t)}) - \mu)$$ where $\mu(\theta^{(t)})$ and $H(\theta^{(t)})$ are calculated using Proposition 2 and $\lambda_t \in (0,1]$ is a step-size parameter chosen by backtracking line search (see [@boyd]: Chapter 9, Section 2 for details). The per iteration complexity of this optimization is $O(n^3)$ using explicit computation of the Hessian at each iteration. This complexity can be offset somewhat by only re-computing the Hessian a few times (reusing the same Hessian for a number of iterations), to take advantage of the fact that the gradient computation only requires $O(n^\frac{3}{2})$ calculations. As Newton’s method has quadratic convergence, the number of iterations required to achieve a high-accuracy solution is typically 8-16 iterations (essentially independent of problem size). We estimate the computational complexity of solving this convex optimization problem as roughly $O(n^3)$. Greedy Planar Graph Selection {#subsec:problem} ----------------------------- We now consider the problem of selection of the planar graph $G$ to best approximate a probability distribution $P(x)$ with pairwise moments $\mu_{ij} = \mathbb{E}_P[x_i x_j]$ given for all $i,j \in V$. Formally, we seek the planar graph that maximizes the log-likelihood (minimizes the divergence) relative to $P$: $$\widehat{G} = \operatorname{arg\,max}_{G \in \mathcal{P}_V} LL(P,P_G) = \operatorname{arg\,max}_{G \in \mathcal{P}_V} \max_{Q \in \mathcal{F}_G} LL(P,Q)$$ where $\mathcal{P}_V$ is the set of planar graphs on the vertex set $V$, $\mathcal{F}_G$ denotes the family of zero-field Ising models defined on graph $G$ and $P_G = \operatorname{arg\,max}_{Q \in \mathcal{F}_G} LL(P,Q)$ is the maximum-likelihood (minimum-divergence) approximation to $P$ over this family. We obtain a heuristic solution to this graph selection problem using the following greedy edge-selection procedure. The input to the algorithm is a probability distribution $P$ (which could be empirical) on $n$ binary $\{-1,1\}$ random variables. In fact, it is sufficient to summarize $P$ by its pairwise correlations $\mu_{ij} = \mathbb{E}_P[x_i x_j]$ on all pairs $i,j \in V$. The output is a maximal planar graph $G$ and the maximum-likelihood approximation $\theta_G$ to $P$ in the family of zero-field Ising models defined on this graph. A maximal planar graph is a planar graph for which no new edge can be added that would maintain planarity. $G = \emptyset, \theta_G = 0$ $\Delta = \left\{ \{i,j\} \subset V \| \{i,j\} \notin G, G+ij \in \mathcal{P}_V \right\}$ $\tilde\mu_\Delta = \{ \tilde\mu_{ij} = \mathbb{E}_{\theta_G}[x_i x_j], \{i,j\} \in \Delta \}$ $G \leftarrow G \cup \displaystyle \operatorname{arg\,max}_{e \in \Delta} D(P_e, \tilde{P}_e)$ $\theta_G = \mbox{PlanarIsing}(G,P$) The algorithm starts with an empty graph and then sequentially adds edges to the graph one at a time so as to (heuristically) increase the log-likelihood (decrease the divergence) relative to $P$ as much as possible at each step. Here is a more detailed description of the algorithm along with estimates of the computational complexity of each step: - Line 3. First, we enumerate the set $\Delta$ of all edges one might add (individually) to the graph while preserving planarity. This is accomplished by an $O(n^3)$ algorithm in which we iterate over all pairs $\{i,j\} \not\in G$ and for each such pair we form the graph $G + ij$ and test planarity of this graph using known $O(n)$ algorithms [@chrobak]. - Line 4. Next, we perform tractable inference calculations with respect to the Ising model on $G$ to calculate the pairwise correlations $\tilde{\mu}_{ij}$ for all pairs $\{i,j\} \in \Delta$. This is accomplished using $O(n^{3/2})$ inference calculations on augmented versions of the graph $G$. For each inference calculation we add as many edges to $G$ from $\Delta$ as possible (setting $\theta = 0$ on these edges) while preserving planarity and then calculate all the edge-wise moments of this graph using Proposition 2 (including the zero-edges). This requires at most $O(n)$ iterations to cover all pairs of $\Delta$, so the worst-case complexity to compute all required pairwise moments is $O(n^{5/2})$. - Line 5. Once we have these moments, which specify the corresponding pairwise marginals of the current Ising model, we compare these moments (pairwise marginals) to those of the input distribution $P$ by evaluating the pairwise KL-divergence between the Ising model and $P$. As seen by the following proposition, this gives us a lower-bound on the improvement obtained by adding edge $\{i,j\}$ (see Supplement for proof): \[prop:lboundKLD\] Let $P_G$ and $P_{G+ij}$ be projections of $P$ on $G$ and $G+ij$ respectively. Then, $$D(P, P_{G}) - D(P, P_{G+ij}) \geq D\left( P(x_i,x_j) , P_G(x_i,x_j) \right)$$ where $P(x_i,x_j)$ and $P_G(x_i,x_j)$ represent the marginal distributions on $x_i,x_j$ of probabilities $P$ and $P_G$ respectively. Thus, we greedily select the next edge $\{i,j\}$ to add so as to maximize this lower-bound on the improvement measured by the increase on log-likelihood (this being equal to the decrease in KL-divergence). - Line 6. Finally, we calculate the new maximum-likelihood parameters $\theta_G$ on the new graph $G \leftarrow G +ij$. This involves solving the convex optimization problem discussed in the preceding subsection, which requires $O(n^3)$ complexity. This step is necessary in order to subsequently calculate the pairwise moments $\tilde\mu$ which guide further edge-selection steps, and also to provide the final estimate. We continue adding one edge at a time until a maximal planar graph (with $3n-6$ edges) is obtained. Thus, the total complexity of our greedy algorithm for planar graph selection is $O(n^4)$. #### Non-Maximal Planar Graphs Since adding an edge always improves the log-likelihood, the greedy algorithm always outputs a maximal planar graph. However, this might lead to over-fitting of the data especially when the input probability distribution is an empirical distribution. Note that at $3n-6$ edges, the maximal planar graph is sparse and our empirical work indicates that over-fitting is often not an issue. In the case that over-fitting is a concern, we could terminate the algorithm when adding an edge to the graph would only improve the log-likelihood by less than some threshold $\gamma$. An experimental search can be performed for a suitable value of this threshold (e.g. so as to minimize some estimate of the generalization, such as in cross validation methods [@zhang]). Or, one could use some heuristic value for $\gamma$ based on the number of samples such as Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) or Shwarz’s Bayesian information criterion (BIC) [@akaike; @schwarz]. #### Outer-Planar Graphs and Non-Zero Means The greedy algorithm returns a zero-field Ising model (which has zero mean for all the random variables) defined on a planar graph. If the actual random variables are non-zero mean, this may not be desirable. For this case we may prefer to exactly model the means of each random variable but still retain tractability by restricting the greedy learning algorithm to select outer-planar graphs. This model faithfully represents the marginals of each random variable but at the cost of modeling fewer pairwise interactions among the variables. This is equivalent to the following procedure. First, given the sample moments $\{\mu_i\}$ and $\{\mu_{ij}\}$ we convert these to an equivalent set of zero-mean moments $\widehat\mu$ on the extended vertex set $\widehat{V} = V \cup \{n+1\}$ according to Proposition 1. Then, we select a zero-mean planar Ising model for these moments using our greedy algorithm. However, to fit the means of each of the original $n$ variables, we initialize this graph to include all the edges $\{i,n+1\}$ for all $i \in V$ (requiring that these are present in our final estimate of the graph $\widehat{G}$). After this initialization step, we use the same greedy edge-selection procedure as before. This yields the graph $\widehat{G}$ and parameters $\theta_{\widehat{G}}$. Lastly, we convert back to a (non-zero field) Ising model on the subgraph of $\widehat{G}$ defined on nodes $V$, as prescribed by Proposition 1. The resulting graph $G$ and parameters $\theta_G$ is our heuristic solution for the maximum-likelihood outer-planar Ising model. We remark that it is not essential to choose between the zero-field planar Ising model and the outer-planar Ising model. The greedy algorithm may instead select something in between—a partial outer-planar Ising model where only nodes of the outer-face are allowed to have non-zero means. This is accomplished simply by omitting the initialization step of adding edges $\{i,n+1\}$ for all $i \in V$. Experiments =========== \ We present the results of experiments evaluating our algorithm on known models with simulated data to evaluate the correctness of the learned models. We generate two styles of known Ising models: a $7 \times 7$ grid ($n=49$) with zero-field; and a $12$-node outer planar model where nodes have non-zero mean; shown in Figures \[fig:7x7grid\_input\] and \[fig:outerplanar\_input\]. The edge parameters are chosen uniformly randomly between $-1$ and $1$ with the condition that the absolute value be greater than a threshold (chosen to be $0.05$) so as to avoid edges with negligible interactions. We use Gibbs sampling to obtain samples from this model and calculate empirical moments from these samples which are then passed as input to our algorithm. We run 10 trials of randomly generated edge parameters and data samples. Though our algorithm can run on graphs with many more nodes, we choose small examples here to illustrate the result effectively. On the outer planar model, we ensure that the first moments of all the nodes are satisfied by starting our algorithm with the auxiliary node connected to all other nodes. As the planar learning algorithm adds edges to the model, the likelihood of the training data is guaranteed to increase. We assess how adding edges affects the likelihood of out-of-sample test data. Figures \[fig:7x7grid\_loglik\_edges\] and \[fig:outerplanar\_loglik\_edges\] demonstrate that likelihood on test sets generally increases as edges are added up to the maximal planar graph. The true number of edges in each synthetic graph is marked with a vertical dotted line. On the smallest datasets ($100$ samples) the out-of-sample performance begins to degrade, a sign of over-fitting the training data; yet the likelihood of the maximal graph is not significantly worse than the best likelihood obtained (with fewer edges). We also compare against a Markov random field (MRF) learning algorithm for binary data [@schmidt2008structure], as implemented in the undirected graphical model learning Matlab package, UGMLearn[^1]. UGM is not restricted to learning planar graphs. The objective is optimized via projected gradient descent. We try two versions of the objective function, one using pseudo-likelihood and the other using loopy belief propagation for inference. UGM employs a regularization parameter which we set using two different methods. First, we used the tuning method on validation data as detailed in [@schmidt2008structure]. That is, we split the data into two parts, train on half the data using 7 different values for the parameter, measure the data likelihood of the other half of the data and vice-versa, then select the parameter value that maximizes the validation data likelihood across both folds. The learned model is trained on the full training data with the tuned regularization parameter value. The second method for setting the regularization parameter we call the oracle method, where we select the learned model at the true number of edges, $k$, in our known models. For UGM, we set the regularization parameter via linear search until $k$ edges are learned. We compare the likelihood of test data from the various learned models in Figures \[fig:7x7grid\_loglik\] and \[fig:outerplanar\_loglik\_comp\]. For comparison, we selected the maximal planar graph that our algorithm learns, `Planar maximal`; as well as the planar graph learned if the algorithm were stopped when the true number of edges are learned, `Planar oracle`. We compare against `UGM pseudo tuned` and `UGM loopy tuned`, both of which tune the regularization parameter on validation data; but the former uses pseudo-likelihood in learning and the latter uses loopy belief propagation. The tuning method is the most common way of selecting the regularization parameter, but tends to produce relatively dense graphs. For fair comparison, we also show the likelihood of `UGM pseudo oracle` and `UGM loopy oracle`; that is, the model with the known true number of edges. Figures \[fig:7x7grid\_loglik\] and \[fig:outerplanar\_loglik\_comp\] show that our greedy planar Ising model learning algorithm is at least as accurate and often better than the UGM learning algorithms on these inputs. As mentioned earlier, we see that `Planar maximal` and `Planar oracle` fit test data nearly equally well. On the outer planar model, `UGM pseudo tuned` performs nearly as well as our planar algorithm, yet on the larger grid model it performs quite poorly at the smaller sample sizes. `UGM loopy tuned` performs more consistently close to our planar algorithm, but it seems that loopy belief propagation performs worse at large sample sizes. On the largest dataset ($10^5$ samples) of the $7 \times 7$ grid model, UGM was aborted after running for 40 hours without reaching convergence on a single run, and so results are not available. Application: Modeling Correlations of Senator Voting ==================================================== We consider an interesting application of our algorithm to model correlations of senator voting following [@banerjee]. We use senator voting data from the years 2009 and 2010 to calculate correlations in the voting patterns among senators. A Yea vote is treated as $+1$ and a Nay vote is treated as $-1$. We also treat non-votes as $-1$, but only consider senators who voted in at least $\frac{3}{4}$ of the votes to limit bias. The data includes $n=108$ variables and 645 samples. To accommodate the non-zero mean data we add an auxiliary node and allow the algorithm to select the connections between it and other nodes. We run a 10-fold cross-validation, training on 90% of the data and measuring likelihood on the held-out 10% of data. Figure \[fig:senate\_loglik\] shows that the likelihood of test data increases as edges are added. We also show the likelihood of cross-validation test data for the `UGM pseudo` and `UGM loopy` algorithms for two different methods of choosing the value of the regularization parameter: (1) the value that produces the same number of edges as the maximal planar graph (at 318 edges); and (2) the value selected by tuning with validation data (at a variable number of edges, typically a dense graph). The likelihood of the sparse UGM models are significantly worse than the planar model. Only the `UGM loopy` algorithm at a very dense (nearly fully connected) graph has better fit to test data. The maximal planar graph learned from the full dataset, shown in Figure \[fig:senatorgraph\], conveys many facts that are already known to us. For instance, the graph shows Sanders with edges only to Democrats which makes sense because he caucuses with Democrats. Same is the case with Lieberman. The graph also shows the senate minority leader McConnell well connected to other Republicans though the same is not true of the senate majority leader Reid. The learned UGM models can be seen in the Supplement, and they show that the non-planar models are qualitatively different, learning one or two densely connected components. Conclusion and Future Work ========================== We provide a greedy heuristic to obtain the maximum-likelihood planar Ising model approximation to a collection of binary random variables with known pairwise marginals. The algorithm is simple to implement with the help of known methods for tractable exact inference in planar Ising models, efficient methods for planarity testing and embedding of planar graphs. Empirical results of our algorithm on sample data and on the senate voting record show that it is competitive with arbitrary (non-planar) graph learning. Many directions for further work are suggested by the methods and results of this paper. Firstly, we know that the greedy algorithm is not guaranteed to find the best planar graph. In the Supplement, we provide an enlightening counterexample in which the combination of the planarity restriction and greedy method prevent the correct model from being learned. That counterexample suggests strategies one might consider to further refine the estimate. One strategy would be to allow the greedy algorithm to prune edges which turn out to be less important once later edges are added. It would also be feasible to implement a multi-step greedy look-ahead search technique for selection of which edge to add (or prune) next. Another limitation is that our current framework only allows learning planar graphical models on the set of observed random variables and requires that all variables are observed in each sample. One could imagine extensions of our approach to handle missing samples or to try to identify hidden variables that were not seen in the data. This concept offers another avenue to achieve a better fit to data that is not well-approximated by a planar graph among just the set of observed nodes, but might be well-approximated as the marginal distribution of a planar model with more nodes. Supplementary Appendix {#supplementary-appendix .unnumbered} ====================== Proofs ====== Let the probability distributions corresponding to $G$ and $\widehat{G}$ be $P$ and $\widehat{P}$ respectively and the corresponding expectations be $\mathbb{E}$ and $\widehat{\mathbb{E}}$ respectively. For the partition function, we have that $$\begin{array}{rl} \widehat{Z} &= \displaystyle \sum_{x_{\widehat{V}}} \exp\left( \displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\} \in \widehat{E}} \widehat{\theta}_{ij}x_ix_j \right) \\ &= \displaystyle \sum_{x_{\widehat{V}}} \exp\left( x_{n+1}\displaystyle \sum_{i \in V} \theta_{i}x_i+\displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} \theta_{ij}x_ix_j\right) \\ &= \displaystyle \sum_{x_{V}} \exp\left( \displaystyle \sum_{i \in V} \theta_{i}x_i+\displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} \theta_{ij}x_ix_j \right) \\ &\;\; + \displaystyle \sum_{x_{V}} \exp\left( -\displaystyle \sum_{i \in V} \theta_{i}x_i+\displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} \theta_{ij}x_ix_j \right) \\ &= 2\displaystyle \sum_{x_{V}} \exp\left( \displaystyle \sum_{i \in V} \theta_{i}x_i+\displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\} \in E} \theta_{ij}x_ix_j \right) \\ &= 2Z \end{array}$$ where the fourth equality follows from the symmetry between $-1$ and $1$ in an Ising model. For the second part, since $\widehat{P}$ is zero-field, we have that $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_i] = 0 \; \forall \; i \in \widehat{V}$$ Now consider any $\{i,j\} \in E$. If $x_{n+1}$ is fixed to a value of $1$, then the model is the same as original on $V$ and we have $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_ix_j \mid x_{n+1}=1] = \mathbb{E}[x_ix_j]\; \forall \; \{i,j\} \in E$$ By symmetry (between $-1$ and $1$) in the model, the same is true for $x_{n+1}=-1$ and so we have $$\begin{array}{rl} &\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_ix_j]\\ &=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_ix_j \mid x_{n+1}=1]\widehat{P}(x_{n+1}=1)\\ &\;+ \widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_ix_j \mid x_{n+1}=-1]\widehat{P}(x_{n+1}=-1)\\ &= \mathbb{E}[x_ix_j] \end{array}$$ Fixing $x_{n+1}$ to a value of $1$, we have $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_i \mid x_{n+1}=1] = \mathbb{E}[x_i]\; \forall \; i \in V$$ and by symmetry $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_i \mid x_{n+1}=-1] = -\mathbb{E}[x_i]\; \forall \; i \in V$$ Combining the two equations above, we have $$\begin{array}{rl} &\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_ix_{n+1}]\\ &=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}[x_i \mid x_{n+1}=1]\widehat{P}(x_{n+1}=1)\\ &\;+ \widehat{\mathbb{E}}[-x_i \mid x_{n+1}=-1]\widehat{P}(x_{n+1}=-1)\\ &= \mathbb{E}[x_i] \end{array}$$ From Theorem $1$, we see that the log partition function can be written as $$\Phi(\theta) = n \log 2 + \displaystyle \sum_{\{i,j\}\in E} \log \cosh \theta_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} \log \det(I-AD)$$ where $A$ and $D$ are as given in Theorem $1$. For the derivatives, we have $$\begin{array}{rl} \frac{\partial\Phi(\theta)}{\partial \theta_{ij}} &= \tanh \theta_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} \mbox{Tr}\left((I-AD)^{-1} \frac{\partial(I-AD)}{\partial \theta_{ij}}\right)\\ &= \tanh \theta_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} \mbox{Tr}\left((I-AD)^{-1} A D'_{ij}\right)\\ &= w_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} (1-w_{ij})^2 \left( S_{ij,ij}+S_{ji,ji}\right) \end{array}$$ where $D'_{ij}$ is the derivative of the matrix $D$ with respect to $\theta_{ij}$. The first equality follows from chain rule and the fact that $\nabla K = K^{-1}$ for any matrix $K$. Please refer to [@boyd] for details. For the Hessian, we have $$\begin{array}{rl} \frac{\partial^2\Phi(\theta)}{\partial \theta_{ij}^2} &= \frac{1}{Z(\theta)}\frac{\partial^2 Z(\theta)}{\partial \theta_{ij}^2} - \frac{1} {Z(\theta)^2}\left( \frac{\partial Z(\theta)}{\partial \theta_{ij}} \right)^2 \\ &= 1 -\mu_{ij}^2 \end{array}$$ For $\{i,j\}\neq \{k,l\}$, following [@boyd], we have $$\begin{array}{rl} \frac{\partial^2\Phi(\theta)}{\partial \theta_{ij}\partial \theta_{kl}} &= -\frac{1}{2}\mbox{Tr}\left( SD'_{ij}SD'_{kl}\right) \\ &= -\frac{1}{2} (1-w_{ij}^2) \left( S_{ij,kl}S_{kl,ij}+S_{ji,kl}S_{kl,ji} \right. \\ &\;\;\;\;\left. +S_{ij,lk}S_{lk,ij}+S_{ji,lk}S_{lk,ji}\right) (1-w_{kl}^2) \end{array}$$ On the other hand, we also have $$\begin{array}{rl} T_{ij,kl} &= e_{ij}^T (I+P) (S\circ S^T) (I+P) e_{kl} \\ &= (e_{ij} + e_{ji})^T (S\circ S^T) (e_{kl} + e_{lk}) \\ &= (S\circ S^T)_{ij,kl} + (S\circ S^T)_{ij,lk} \\ &\;\;\;+ (S\circ S^T)_{ji,kl} + (S\circ S^T)_{ji,lk} \\ &= S_{ij,kl} S_{kl,ij}+S_{ji,kl}S_{kl,ji} \\ &\;\;\;+S_{ij,lk}S_{lk,ij}+S_{ji,lk}S_{lk,ji} \end{array}$$ where $e_{ij}$ is the unit vector with $1$ in the $ij^{\mbox{th}}$ position and $0$ everywhere else. Using the above two equations, we obtain $$H_{ij,kl} = -\frac{1}{2} (1-w_{ij}^2) T_{ij,kl} (1-w_{kl}^2)$$ The proof follows from the following steps of inequalities. $$\begin{array}{rl} D(P,P_G) &= D(P,P_{G+ij}) + D(P_{G+ij},P_G) \\ &= D(P,P_{G+ij}) + \\ &\;\;\;D(P_{G+ij}(x_i,x_j),P_G(x_i,x_j)) + \\ &\;\;\;D(P_{G+ij}(x_{V-ij}),P_G(x_{V-ij})) \\ &\geq D(P,P_{G+ij}) + \\ &\;\;\;D(P_{G+ij}(x_i,x_j),P_G(x_i,x_j)) + \\ &\geq D(P,P_{G+ij}) + \\ &\;\;\;D(P(x_i,x_j),P_G(x_i,x_j)) \end{array}$$ where the first step follows from the Pythagorean law of information projection [@amari], the second step follows from the conditional rule of relative entropy [@cover], the third step follows from the information inequality [@cover] and finally the fourth step follows from the property of information projection to $G+ij$ [@wainwright]. Experiments: Counter Example ============================ The result presented in Figure \[fig:counterexample\] illustrates the fact that our algorithm does not always recover the exact structure even when the underlying graph is planar and the algorithm is given exact moments as inputs. This counterexample gives insight into how the greedy algorithm works. The basic idea is that graphical models can have nodes which are not neighbors but are more correlated than some other nodes which are neighbors. If the spurious edges corresponding to these highly correlated nodes are added early on in the algorithm, then the actual edges may have to be left out because of the planarity restriction. [ ![Example graphical models. (a) Counter example. (b) The recovered graphical model has one spurious edge $\{a,e\}$ and one missing edge $\{c,d\}$. []{data-label="fig:counterexample"}](fig1a.pdf "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} \[fig:counterexample\_input\] ]{} [ ![Example graphical models. (a) Counter example. (b) The recovered graphical model has one spurious edge $\{a,e\}$ and one missing edge $\{c,d\}$. []{data-label="fig:counterexample"}](fig1b.pdf "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} \[fig:counterexample\_output\] ]{} We define a zero-field Ising model on the graph in Figure \[fig:counterexample\_input\] with the edge parameters as follows: $\theta_{bc}=\theta_{cd}=\theta_{bd}=0.1$ and $\theta_{ij}=1$ for all the other edges. Figure \[fig:counterexample\_input\] shows the edge parameters in the graph pictorially using the intensity of the edges - higher the intensity of an edge, higher the corresponding edge parameter. With these edge parameters, the correlation between nodes $a$ and $e$ is greater than the correlation between any other pair of nodes. This leads to the edge between $a$ and $e$ to be the first edge added in the algorithm. However, since $K5$ (the complete graph on $5$ nodes) is not planar, one of the actual edges is missed in the output graph as shown in Figure \[fig:counterexample\_output\]. Example Application: UGM Learned Models ======================================= For comparison to our planar learning algorithm, we provide the results of using the UGM MRF learning algorithm on the senate voting data. For all figures, we use a force-directed graph drawing algorithm [@fruchterman1991graph]. Figure \[fig:senate\_ugm\] presents the graph learned using pseudolikelihood, `UGM pseudo`, from the full dataset with the regularization parameter set to obtain the same number of edges as learned in the planar case (318 edges). Figure \[fig:senate\_ugm\_tune\] presents the graph learned using pseudolikelihood, `UGM pseudo tuned`, from the full dataset after selecting the regularization parameter from cross-validation tuning. Figure \[fig:senate\_ugmloop\] presents the graph learned using loopy belief propagation, `UGM loopy`, from the full dataset with the regularization parameter set to obtain 318 edges. The graph learned using `UGM loopy tuned` is not displayed because it is a nearly fully-connected graph providing no visual information. ![image](senate_ugm_crop.pdf){width="\textwidth"} ![image](senate_ugm_tune.pdf){width="60.00000%"} ![image](senate_ugmloop.pdf){width="\textwidth"} [^1]: <http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/L1CRF>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper addresses how to improve the computational efficiency and estimation reliability in cascading outage analysis. We first formulate a cascading outage as a Markov chain with specific state space and transition probability by leveraging the Markov property of cascading outages. It provides a rigorous formulation that allows analytic investigation on cascading outages in the framework of standard mathematical statistics. Then we derive a sequential importance sampling (SIS) based simulation strategy for cascading outage simulation and blackout risk analysis with theoretical justification. Numerical experiments manifest that the proposed SIS strategy can significantly bring down the number of simulations and reduce the estimation variance of cascading outage analysis compared with the traditional Monte Carlo simulation strategy.' author: - 'Jinpeng Guo, Feng Liu, Jianhui Wang, Junhao Lin, and Shengwei Mei, [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]' bibliography: - 'ESORef0915.bib' title: 'Towards High-Efficiency Cascading Outage Simulation and Analysis in Power Systems: A Sequential Importance Sampling Approach' --- [Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Journals]{} Cascading outage; Markov chain; sequential importance sampling; blackout risk. Introduction ============ outage is a sequence of component outages triggered by one or several initial disturbances or failures of system components [@r1; @r2]. In certain extreme conditions, cascading outages can lead to unacceptably serious consequences. A number of blackouts happened in the power systems worldwide in recent years is a case in point [@r4; @r5]. Despite that the probability of blackouts due to cascading outage is tiny, the catastrophic consequence and vast influential range raise great attention to the investigation of cascading outages, especially in large-scale interconnected power systems. Due to the random nature of cascading outages, statistics and probability analysis are extensively deployed as basic mathematic tools to analyze cascading outages based on historical data [@r6; @r7; @r8]. However, it is difficult to acquire accurate and adequate data in practice as blackouts are essentially rare events and very limited information has been recorded to date. In this regard, several high-level statistic models were proposed for analyzing cascading outages, such as CASCADE model [@r9] and branching process model [@r10; @r11]. These models aim to capture the macroscopic features of the overall system in the sense of statistics while omitting the details of cascading outage process. To achieve a closer sight into cascading outages, researchers, however, consider to pick up such details back, including the uncertain occurrence of initial disturbances, action of protection and dispatch of control center. This consequentially results in different blackout models, such as hidden failure model [@r12; @r13], ORNL-PSerc-Alaska (OPA) model [@r14; @r15], AC-OPA model [@r16], to name a few. As this kind of approaches are capable of analyzing the cascading outage process in a detailed way, it is expected to exploit mechanisms behind cascading outages by carrying massive simulations on these models. Regarding every simulation as an independent identical distribution (i.i.d.) sample, the simulation-based cascading outage analysis is essentially a statistic analysis based on a sample set produced by Monte Carlo simulations (MCS). In the past decade, the MCS approach contributes a lot to reveal the underlying physical mechanism of cascading outages and has been popularly used. However, the intrinsic deficiency of the MCS seriously limits its practicability and deployments. The main obstacle stems from the notorious “curse of computational dimensionality”. It is recognized that a realistic large-scale power system is always composed of numerous components, such as transmission lines, transformers, and generators. The possible evolutionary paths of cascading outages diverge dramatically. Hence a specific cascading outage with serous consequence is indeed an extremely rare event. In this context, the MCS analysis turns out to be computationally intractable as a huge number of simulations are required to achieve a reliable estimation of the probability distribution of cascading outages. Empirical results also confirm that the estimation variance can remain unacceptably large even if thousands of simulations have been conducted for a system with only tens of buses. This crucial issue, however, has not been cared seriously enough in the literature and the reliability of the MCS-based blackout analysis could be overestimated to a large extent. This motivates two essential questions: 1) how many simulations are required to guarantee the reliability of the estimation? and 2) whether or not the number of simulations can be effectively reduced without degrading the reliability of the estimation? In [@r17], a condition is proposed to characterize the relationship between the estimation accuracy and the sample size of the MCS, answering the first question. As for the second question is still kept open to date. This paper aims to bridge the gap both theoretically and algorithmically. Noting that the theoretic results given in [@r17] are built on the standard MCS, it is intuitive to expect that the sample size could be shrunken by adopting certain advanced sampling techniques instead of the naive Monte Carol sampling strategy. In the literature, importance sampling (IS) is an effective method to improve the efficiency of the MCS [@r18; @r19], which has already been successfully deployed in various fields including power systems, such as security analysis for power grids [@r20] and risk management in electricity market [@r21]. It has also been intuitively used in cascading outage simulations in a heuristic manner [@r28; @r29; @r30; @r31]. Nevertheless, due to the absence of solid mathematical formulation of cascading outages, it is difficult to carry on the analytic investigation in a rigorous fashion. It is also unknown what are the scope and the conditions of the application of the IS strategy in cascading outage simulations, and how to set the parameters of the IS in simulations. Sequential importance sampling (SIS) is an extension of the IS method, which decomposes the IS into a sequence of sampling steps to facilitate the implementation for multi-period random process [@r18; @r22]. Inspired by the success of IS/SIS in diverse fields, this paper applies the SIS to derive a novel simulation strategy for the sake of achieving a high-efficiency and reliable cascading outage analysis. The main contributions of this paper are twofold: 1. The process of cascading outage in power systems is formulated as a Markov chain. Differing from the current formulations in the literature, we specifically define the state space and transition probability associated with the Markov chain, resulting a well-defined analytic model of cascading outages. Based on the formulation, rigorous mathematical statistics analysis is allowed. 2. Benefiting from the proposed analytic formulation, a high-efficiency cascading outage simulation strategy is derived based on the SIS with theoretical guarantees. Taking full advantage of the Markov property of cascading outages, it is capable of considerably reducing both the number of simulations and the estimation variance. We demonstrate the proposed formulation and simulation strategy outperforms the traditional MCS strategy using the data of standard IEEE 300-bus system and a real provincial power grid in China.The rest of this paper is organized as follows: traditional blackout modeling and the MCS based analysis are briefly reviewed in Section II. Section III gives the new formulation of cascading outages based on Markov chain. Then the SIS based simulation strategy associated with the theoretic analysis are presented in Section IV. Case studies in Section V show the benefits and efficiency of the proposed simulation strategy. Finally, Section VI concludes the paper with remarks. MCS-based Analysis on Cascading Outages ======================================== In cascading outage analysis, load shedding is usually adopted to evaluate the severity of the cascading outage. To characterize load shedding distribution as a consequence of cascading outages, various kinds of blackout models are built by emulating the cascading outage process in a “[descriptive]{}” way. Massive simulations on such models can provide a number of i.i.d. samples for statistical analyses. This approach is essentially based on the MCS if one simply regards each simulation as a sample. Though there are many kinds of blackout models, the simulation principles are quite similar. In simple terms, at the $j$-th stage of the $i$-th sampling of a cascading outage, the blackout model for simulation determines the outage probability of each component in the system at the next stage, depending on the system states $x_j^i$ and other related factors, such as weather and maintenance conditions. Then the outage components at stage $j$ are sampled and the system state $x_j^i$ transits to ${x_{j+ 1}^{i }}$. Repeating the above steps until there is no occurrence of new outages , one simulation is completed. It gives a sample of load shedding $Y$[^5], denoted by $y_M^i$. Define the sample sets as ${Y_M}: = \{ y_M^i,i = 1, \cdot \cdot \cdot {N_M}\} $ obtained after $N_M$ simulations. Then the probability distribution of load shedding can be estimated by statistics based on $Y_M$. We care about the probability of a given incident $A$ that describes the load shedding being greater than a certain level $Y_{0} $. The unbiased estimation of the true probability $\mu (A)$ is given by $$\label{eq1} \tilde{\mu} (A)=\frac{1}{N_M} \sum \nolimits_{i=1}^{N_M}\delta _{\{ {y_M^i} \ge Y_{0} \} }$$ where $\delta _{\{ \cdot \} } $ is the indicator function of set $\{ y^{i}_M \ge Y_{0} \} $, which means $\delta _{\{ y^{i}_M \ge Y_{0} \} } =1$ if $ y_{i} \ge Y_{0}$; otherwise, $\delta _{\{ y^{i}_M \ge Y_{0} \} } =0$. It is easy to see ${\delta _{\{ \cdot \} }} = \delta _{\{ \cdot \} }^2$. The variance of the estimation on $N_M$ samples is given by $$\label{eq2} \sigma ^2(A) = D(A)={\frac{1}{N_M}\left( \mu (A)(1-\mu (A)) \right)}$$ In addition to probability distribution of the load shedding, another important indicator in the cascading outage analysis is the blackout risk. Theoretically, the blackout risk of a power system can be defined as the expectation of such load shedding greater than the given level, $Y_0$. That is $$\label{eq3} Risk(Y_0)=\mathbb{E} (Y \cdot \delta _{\{ Y \ge Y_{0} \} } )$$ Similar to the probability estimation, it can be estimated by $$\label{eq4} \tilde Ris{k}(Y_0) =\frac{1}{{{N_M}}}\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{{N_M}} {y_M^i \times {\delta _{\{ y_M^i \ge {Y_0}\} }}}$$ The definition of the blackout risk in represents the risk of cascading outages with serious consequences. It is closely related to the well-known risk measures, value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR) [@r23; @r24]. Actually, the risk measure, Risk, defined in is CVaR$_\alpha$ times $(1-\alpha )$, provided VaR$_\alpha$ is known as the risk associated to the given load shedding level $Y_{0}$ with a confidence level of $\alpha$. With the sample set obtained by repeatedly carrying out simulations on the cascading outage model, the probability of load shedding and the blackout risk can be estimated by using and , respectively. However, it should be noted that, to achieve acceptably small variance of estimation, a tremendous number of samples are usually required even if the system merely has tens or hundreds of buses. To illustrate this matter of fact, we use the IEEE 300-bus system as an example. Based on OPA model, the probability of load shedding is estimated by using based on 10 groups of simulations, where each group contains 2000 i.i.d. simulations. As shown in Fig. \[fig.1\], the variance of the probability estimation is quite large. It is also found that the simulations capture few events with the load shedding larger than 800MW, showing that the traditional MCS approach might be neither efficient nor reliable enough to cope with the cascading outage analysis in large-scale power systems. To the best of our knowledge, this issue has not been paid enough attention in the literature. ![Probability estimation of the load shedding[]{data-label="fig.1"}](image1.eps){width="40.00000%"} A Markov Chain Based Formulation ================================= A cascading outage is always triggered by one or several initial disturbances or componentwise failures. As a consequence, the protection devices and the control center begin to take actions, and then the system state changes sequentially according to these actions. Such state changes happen in a random way, implying that a cascading outage could be formulated as a stochastic process. To this end, the state space of the cascading outage as well as the associated state-transition probability have to be defined appropriately. In this paper, the system configuration is taken as the random state variables. Note that the system configuration defined here is generic, which can incorporate either controlled or uncontrolled changes, such as line tripping, shunt capacitor switching and On-Load Tap Changer regulation. We denote $X_j$ as the state variable at stage $j$ of a cascading outage. All possible system states span the state space, denoted by $\mathcal X$. Assume the system has $N_c$ components and denote $N:=\{1,2,\cdots n\}(n\in\mathbb{Z^+})$ as the total stages of cascading outages. Then an $n$-stage cascading outage can be defined below. \[cascadingoutage\] An $n$-stage cascading outage is a stochastic sequence $ Z:= \{ {X_1, X_2, ..., X_j, ..., X_n}, \forall j\in N, X_j\in {\mathcal X} \} $ with respect to the random state space $\mathcal X$ and a given joint probability distribution $f(X_{n} ,\cdots X_{2} ,X_{1} )$. In the above definition, $j$ is the stage label of the cascading outage, while $n$ is the total number of stages, or the length of the cascading outage. State variable $X_{j} $ is a discrete random vector with the dimension of $N_c$. Each element of $X_j$ stands for a state of the corresponding component at stage $j$ during the cascading outage. Correspondingly, $\mathcal X$ is a $N_c$-dimensional state space. Moreover, denoting the number of possible states of component $k$ by $s^k$, there is $$\label{eq5} \|\mathcal X\|= \prod \limits _{k = 1}^{{N_c}} {{s^k}}$$ where $\|\mathcal X\|$ denotes the number of elements in $\|\mathcal X\|$. For simplicity, we abuse the notation $Z:=\{X_j^N\}$ to denote a cascading outage. Then the joint probability distribution $f(X_{n} ,\cdots X_{2} ,X_{1} )$ is simplified into $f(Z)$. On the other hand, since the number of components in the system is finite, the number of possible stochastic sequences representing the cascading outages is finite as well. We denote $\mathcal{Z}$ as the set of all possible cascading outages in a system. Thus, $\|\mathcal{Z}\|$ is finite. It is worthy of noting that, the joint probability distribution $f(Z)$ is practically difficult to obtain, even if the probability distribution functions (PDFs) of individual components are known. Next we show this issue can be circumvented by using the intrinsic Markov properties of cascading outages. In Definition 1, for a given $n$-stage cascading outage, the associated load shedding is merely a stochastic variable being a function of the stochastic sequence $\{X_j^N\}$, which is denoted by $Y=h(X_{1} ,\cdots, X_{n} )=h(Z)$ . Note that in a cascading outage process, all the actions of protections, controls and operations at arbitrary stage $i$ are completely determined by the previous stage $i-1$. In this context, the cascading outage $\{ X_j^N\} $ in the definition above is indeed a Markov chain. Then invoking the conditional probability formula and the Markov property, the joint probability distribution $f(Z)$ should satisfy $$\label{eq6} \begin{array}{rcl} f(Z) & = &f({X_n}, \cdots, {X_2},{X_1}) \\ &= &f_n({X_n}\|{X_{n - 1}} \cdot \cdot \cdot {X_1})\cdot f_{n-1}({X_{n - 1}}\|{X_{n - 2}} \cdots {X_1}) \\ & & \cdots f_2(X_2\|X_1)\cdot f_1({X_1}) \\ &= &f_n({X_n}\|{X_{n - 1}})\cdot f_{n-1}({X_{n - 1}}\|{X_{n - 2}}) \cdot \cdot \cdot f_1({X_1}) \end{array}$$ where $f_{j+1}({X_{j+1}}\|{X_j})$ is the related conditional probability. Assume in the sampling process, $x^i_j$ is the sample of the state at stage $j$ of the $i$-th sampling, while the length of the cascading outage in the $i$-th sampling is $n^i$. Then we have $$\label{eq7} \begin{aligned} & {\mathbf{Pr}({X_{n^i}} = {x^i_n}\|{X_{{n^i} - 1}} = {x^i_{{n^i} - 1}}, \cdots {X_2} = {x^i_2},{X_1} = {x^i_1})} \\ =&{ \mathbf{Pr}({X_{n^i}} = {x^i_n}\|{X_{{n^i} - 1}} = {x^i_{{n^i} - 1}})} \\ \end{aligned}$$ Eqs. and mathematically indicate that, a cascading outage can be simulated following the sequential conditional probability, other than directly using the joint probability distribution. Specifically, denote ${F^i_{j}} $ as the set of outage components at stage $j$ of the $i$-th sampling of the cascading outage, and $\bar {F}^i_{j} $ as the set of the normal components after stage $j$ of the $i$-th sampling. Let $$\label{eq8} p_{j,k}^i = {\varphi _k}(x_j^i)$$ as the outage probability of component $k$ at stage $j$ of the $i$-th sampling, where $\varphi _k$ is the corresponding PDF. Then the transition probability, $\hat{p}^i_{j,j+1}$, from state ${x^i_{j}} $ to state ${x^i_{j + 1}} $ is $$\label{eq9} {\hat{p}^{i}_{j,j + 1}} = f({x^i_{j + 1}}\|{x^i_{j}}) = \prod\limits_{k \in {F^i_{j}}} {p^i_{j,k}} \prod\limits_{k \in {\bar{F}^i_{j}}} {(1 - p^i_{j,k})}$$ Based on , the probability of the $i$-th sample of the cascading outage (the complete path), denoted by $p_c^i$, is given by $$\label{eq10} {p_c^{i}} = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^{n^i-1} {{\hat{p}^i_{j,j + 1}}}$$ \[R1\] This sequential treatment actually has been heuristically used in most cascading outage simulations albeit without justifying its validity. By strictly defining cascading outages as a Markov chain with appropriate state space and transition probability distribution, our work provides not only a justification for such a extensively-used treatment, bust also a solid mathematical foundation for deriving efficient cascading outage simulation strategies and carry out theoretical analysis, as we discuss in Section IV. \[R2\] Eq. indicates that the probability of a cascading outage can be very small as it is the product of a series of small probabilities. Particularly, a cascading outage with a severe consequence usually involves many stages with very small probabilities, resulting in an extremely small probability. It is the main cause that blackout events can hardly be captured by using traditional MCS. As a consequence, insufficient samples of rare events may further give unreliable estimation results of the blackout risk with biased expectation and/or large variance. This problem, theoretically, cannot be alleviated effectively in large-scale system by merely increasing the number of simulations, as the size of state space $\mathcal X$ expands dramatically when the number of system components increases (according to Eq. ). Cascading Outage Simulation Based on SIS ======================================== Importance Sampling for Cascading Outage Simulations ---------------------------------------------------- For improving the sampling efficiency and depressing the estimation variance, importance sampling (IS) technique is recognized an effective tool. Its basic idea is to sample the stochastic process under a proposal joint probability distribution $g(X_{n} ,X_{n-1} ,\cdots , X_{1} )$ ($g(Z)$ for short) instead of the true joint probability distribution $f(Z)$. Specially, the probability of arbitrary possible cascading outage under the proposal joint probability distribution needs to be positive, i.e., $g(Z)>0,Z \in \mathcal Z$. Then after $N_{s} $ i.i.d. simulations, we can obtain a sample set of cascading outages, $Z_s:=\{z_s^i, i =1, 2, \cdots, N_s\}$, where, ${z_s^i} = \{{x^i_{1}}, x^i_2, \cdots, {x^i_{n^i}}\} $ is the $i^{th}$ sample of cascading outages; $n^i$ the length of the sampled cascading outage in the $i^{th}$ simulation; $x^i_j$ the sampled state at stage $j$ of the $i^{th}$ simulation. Afterward, we can obtain the sample set of load shedding, $Y_s:=\{ y^i_{s}, i=1\cdots N_{s} \} $, where $y^i_{s}=h(z^i_{s})$. For simplicity, we abuse the notation $\delta_{Y_0}$ throughout to stand for $\delta_{\{ h(Z) \ge Y_0\}}$. As $\|\mathcal Z\|$ is finite, the true probability of event $A$ defined previously is given by $$\label{eq11} \mu (A) =\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {{\delta _{ Y_0}}f(Z)}$$ As the true probability $\mu(A)$ cannot be obtained accurately, we usually estimate it through Eq. based on $N_M$ samples given by the MCS under the original joint probability distribution $f(Z)$. The variance of estimation, $D(A)$, is given by . We are interested in the expectation and variance based on the IS under the proposal probability distribution $g(Z)$. To this end, we let $w(Z)=f(Z)/g(Z)$, yielding $$\label{eq12} \mu (A)= \sum _{Z \in \mathcal Z} {{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z)} g(Z)$$ As the IS with the proposal joint probability distribution $g(Z)$ is deployed, the unbiased estimation of $\mu (A)$ based on $N_{s}$ samples turns to be $$\label{eq13} {{\tilde {\mu}} _{IS}(A)= \frac{1}{{{N_{s}}}}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{N_{s}}} {{w}({z^i_s}) }\cdot {\delta _{\{ {y^i_s} \ge {Y_0}\} }}\right)}$$ where $w(z^i_s)>0$ is the sampling weight subject to $$\label{eq14} {w}({z_s^i}) = \frac{{f({z^i_s})}}{{g({z^i_s})}}$$ Moreover, the variance of the probability estimation is $$\label{eq15} \begin{array}{ll} {{D _{IS}}(A)} &{ = \frac{{\mathbb{E}{{\{ {\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z) - \mathbb{E}[{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z)]\} }^2}}}{{{N_{s}}}} } \\ &{ = \frac{{\mathbb{E}\{ {{[{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z)]}^2}\} - {{\{ \mathbb{E}[{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z)]\} }^2}}}{{{N_{s}}}}}\\ &{ = \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2{w^2}(Z)g(Z)} - {{[\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(Z)g(Z)} ]}^2}}}{{{N_{s}}}} } \end{array}$$ Let $$\label{eq16} {w_0} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2{w^2}(Z)g(Z)} }}{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2w(Z)g(Z)} }}$$ Then substituting and into yields $$\label{eq17} \begin{array}{ll} {D _{IS} (A)} &{=\frac{1}{{{N_{s}}}} \left( {{w_0}\sum\limits_{z \in {\mathcal Z}} {{\delta _{{Y_0} }}w(z)g(z)} - {\mu^2}(A)} \right)} \\ &{=\frac{1}{N_{s} } \left( w_{0} \mu(A)-\mu^{2} (A) \right)} \end{array}$$ Next we present some important propositions. \[p1\] Given $g(Z)$, $w(Z)$ and $\mathcal Z$, there must be $${w_0} \in [\mathop {min}\limits_{Z \in {\mathcal Z}} w(Z),\mathop {\max }\limits_{Z \in {\mathcal Z}} w(Z)]$$ Since $w(Z)$ and $g(Z)$ are non-negative, we have $${w_0} \le \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2w(Z)g(Z)\mathop {max}\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} w(Z)} }}{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal{Z} } {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2w(Z)g(Z)} }} = \mathop {max}\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} w(Z)$$ Similarly, we have $${w_0} \ge \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2w(Z)g(Z)\mathop {min}\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} w(Z)} }}{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {\delta _{{Y_0} }^2w(Z)g(Z)} }} = \mathop {\min }\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} w(Z)$$ \[p2\] Let $D _{IS} (A)$ and $D (A)$ be the variances of the probability estimation of event $A$ defined previously by using the IS and the MCS, respectively. If $N_s=N_M$, then $D _{IS} (A)<D (A)$ holds if and only if the proposal joint probability distribution $g(Z)$ satisfies $w_0<1$, or equivalently, $$\label{eq18} w_{0} \mu(A)<\mu(A)$$ \[p3\] Let $D _{IS} (A)$ and $D (A)$ be the variances of the probability estimation of event $A$ defined previously by using the IS and the MCS, respectively. If $D_{IS}(A)=D(A)$, then $N _{IS}<N_M$ holds if and only if the proposal joint probability distribution $g(Z)$ satisfies $w_0<1$, or equivalently, $$\label{eq19} w_{0} \mu(A)<\mu(A)$$ It is easy to prove Proposition 2 and Proposition 3 by directly comparing with . Proposition 1 guarantees the existence of $w_0$, while Propositions 2 and 3 give the necessary and sufficient conditions that the IS can reduce sample size and estimation variance compared with that obtained by the MCS. In practice, it may be difficult to check the conditions or . A more convenient way is to use the following sufficient condition: $$\label{eq20} g(Z)>f(Z), \forall Z\in \{Z \in \mathcal Z\|\; h(Z)>Y_0\}$$ Similar conclusion can be drawn for the blackout risk assessment. Given $g(Z)$ for the IS, then the blackout risk is $$\label{eq21} Risk_{IS} (Y_0) = \mathbb{E}(Y \cdot w(Z)\cdot \delta_{Y_0})$$ The estimation of blackout risk based on $N_s$ samples is $$\label{eq22} \tilde Ris{k_{IS}}(Y_0) = \frac{1}{{{N_{s}}}}\left( \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{N_{s}}} {y_s^iw(y_s^i){\delta _{\{ y_s^i \ge {Y_0}\} }}}\right)$$ Then the estimation variance of and are given by $$\label{eq23} D (R) = \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {{h^2}(Z){\delta _{{Y_0} }}f(Z)} - {Risk(Y_0)}^2}}{N_M}$$ and $$\label{eq24} {D _{IS}}(R) = \frac{{\sum\limits_{Z \in \mathcal Z} {{w^2}(Z){h^2}(Z){\delta _{{Y_0} }}g(Z)} - {Risk(Y_0)}^2}}{{{N_{s}}}}$$ respectively. According to and , the condition of the variance reduction can be obtained accordingly. The theoretical analysis indicates that the IS can reduce both the sample size and the estimation variance, provided an appropriately selected proposal probability distribution $g(Z)$ . Considering the unbiasedness of the estimation using the IS and the MCS, the lower variance indicates that the IS has a better estimation performance than the MCS [@r26]. Sequential Importance Sampling based Simulation Strategy -------------------------------------------------------- Similar to , for $g(Z)$ we have $$\label{eq25} \begin{array}{ll} g(Z)&=g(X_{n} ,\cdot \cdot \cdot X_{2} ,X_{1} )\\ &{=g_n(X_{n} \|X_{n-1} )\cdot g_{n-1}(X_{n-1} \|X_{n-2} )\cdot \cdot \cdot g_1(X_{1} )} \end{array}$$ It means the proposal joint probability distribution $g(Z)$ can be chosen sequentially at individual stages in a cascading outage. Thus the problem of choosing $g(Z)$ turns out to be one of choosing the series $g_{j+1}(X_{j+1} \|X_{j} )$ sequentially. For the purpose of acquiring more information about the cascading outage with severe load shedding, $g_{j+1}(X_{j+1} \|X_{j} )$ should be carefully chosen to amplify the probability of cascading outages in future stages versus original $f_{j+1}(X_{j+1} \|X_{j} )$. Heuristically, we modify the outage probability of components given in into $$\label{eq26} q_{j,k}^i = \min (\eta p_{j,k}^i,\max (\varphi _k))$$ where $q^i_{j,k}$ is the modified component’s outage probability; $\eta $ is the SIS parameter stands for the amplification factor of component’s outage probability. Correspondingly the modified transition probability becomes $$\label{eq27} \hat q_{j,j + 1}^i = \prod\limits_{k \in F_j^i} {q_{j,k}^i} \prod\limits_{k \in \bar F_j^i} {(1 - q_{j,k}^i)}$$ For the $i$-th sample, the original load shedding probability $p_c^i $ is given by while the modified probability $q_c^i $ is given by $$\label{eq28} q_c^i = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^{{n^i-1}} {\hat q_{j,j + 1}^i}$$ The corresponding sampling weight is $$\label{eq29} w(z_s^i) = \frac{{p_c^i}}{{q_c^i}} = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^{{n^i-1}} {\frac{{\hat p_{j,j + 1}^i}}{{\hat q_{j,j + 1}^i}}}$$ Simulating cascading outages with sampling weights given by , the load shedding probability and the blackout risk can be estimated by using and , respectively. According to the previous analyses, both the number of simulations and the variance of estimations can be reduced, provided appropriately selected sampling weights . To guarantee high sampling efficiency of the SIS, $\eta$ should be choose carefully so that or is satisfied. Unfortunately, it is not really a trivial work because, in the light of the necessary and sufficient condition, $w_0$ cannot be known a priori. However, noticing $p^i_{j,k}$ in and and $q^i_{j,k}$ in are usually very small, we have $(1-p^i_{j,k}) \approx (1-q^i_{j,k}) \approx 1$. It implies that the following condition holds $$w(z_s^i) = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^{{n^i}} {\frac{{\hat p_{j,j + 1}^i}}{{\hat q_{j,j + 1}^i}}} \approx \prod\limits_{j = 1}^{{n^i}} {\frac{{\prod\nolimits_{k \in F_j^i} {p_{j,k}^i} }}{{\prod\nolimits_{k \in F_j^i} {q_{j,k}^i} }}}$$ for most samples. Thus, if $\eta$ is selected such that $\eta>1$, then the sufficient condition can hold approximately. Numerical experiments empirically support this conclusion. Algorithm --------- The algorithm of the SIS based strategy is given as follows ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - [Step 1: Data preparation.]{} Initialize the system data and parameters. Specifically, choose $\eta>1$. - [Step 2: Sampling states.]{} For the $i$-th sampling, according to the system state, $ x_j^i $ at stage $j$ , and the outage probability of components based on and , simulate the component outages and acquire the new state $ x_{j+1}^i$ at the next stage. Afterward, calculate the state transition probability and the sampling weight using and , respectively. - [Step 3: Termination judgment.]{} If $x_j^i $ is the same as $x_{j+1}^i$, the $i$-th sample of cascading outage simulation is completed at stage $j$ and the $i$-th sample $z_s^i = \{ x_1^i \cdot \cdot \cdot x_j^i\} $ is obtained. If all $N_{s} $ simulations are completed, the sampling process is ended; otherwise let $i=i+1$ and go back to Step . - [Step 4: Data analysis.]{} According to and , estimate the probability of load shedding and blackout risk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition to the IS/SIS, the SPLITTING method has been used for effectively improving the rare events analysis in power systems [@r32; @r33; @r34]. Its main idea is to divide the path of cascading outages into multiple sub-paths to dramatically increase the probability of rare events of interest. Similar to the IS/SIS, its simulation settings and parameters must be tuned carefully. As the SPLITTING is still a MCS-based method essentially, the simulations for each sub-path may still need a huge number of samples as the state space is large. It is interesting that this problem can be surmounted by using the IS/SIS. This further motivates an improved approach that combines both the IS/SIS and the SPLITTING methods, which is our ongoing work. Case Studies ============ In this section, numerical experiments are carried out on two systems based on the simplified OPA model without slow dynamic [@r14]. One test system is the IEEE 300-bus system with a total load of $24,000$ MW, while the other is a real provincial power grid in China, with $1,122$ buses ,$1,792$ transmission lines or transformers and $52,000$ MW total load. Case 1: IEEE 300-bus System --------------------------- ### Efficiency of Probability Distribution Estimation In this case, the probability of load shedding in IEEE 300-bus system is estimated by using the MCS and the SIS, respectively. The sample size of the MCS is 50,000 while that of the SIS is only 2,000 as the MCS requires much more samples to achieve a small variance of estimation. As mentioned previously, both the MCS and the SIS strategies give unbiased estimation on the load shedding probability. According to the estimation results shown in Fig. \[fig.2\], the two strategies output almost the same estimations on the probability distribution as the load shedding less than 1,000MW. This result justifies that the SIS simulation strategy can achieve a given estimation accuracy with much less number of simulations, and thus it is of higher efficiency than the MCS strategy. ![Probability estimation of the load shedding with MCS and SIS[]{data-label="fig.2"}](image2.eps){height="4.0cm" width="6.5cm"} In terms of the load shedding greater than 1,000MW (the corresponding probability is less than $10^{-4}$ ), the MCS fails to find any event in 50,000 simulations and cannot come up to estimation for such very rare events. In the contrary, the SIS strategy successfully finds out many rare events with load shedding as large as 1,400MW in only 2,000 simulations (the corresponding probability is nearly $10^{-8}$ ). It indicates that the SIS strategy can considerably facilitate capturing very rare events of cascading outages even with much less simulations. It also implies that the blackout risk analysis based on the the MCS might not be reliable enough since the captured rare events are usually far from being sufficient. ### Variance of Probability Distribution Estimation In this case, we compare the variance of probability estimation with the two strategies (see Fig. \[fig.3\]) in IEEE 300-bus system. Since the true variance of probability estimation cannot be obtained directly, the sample variance is used as a surrogate. Take the MCS as an example. Denote $\tilde{\mu}^m (A)$ as the estimation of $m$-th sample sets, then the sample variance is $\tilde D(A)=\frac{1}{{{m_{\max }} - 1}}\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{{m_{\max }}} {{{[{\mu^m}(A) - (\frac{1}{{{m_{\max }}}}\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{{m_{\max }}} {{\mu^m}(A)} )]^2}}}$, where ${m_{\max }}$ is the number of i.i.d sample sets, which is set as 75 here. For comparison, the sample sizes of the MCS and the SIS are both set as 2,000. The SIS parameter is selected as $\eta=1.5$. As shown in Fig. \[fig.3\], the estimation variance for the SIS is lower than the MCS. The equivalent sampling weight bound $w_0P(A)$ is given in Fig \[fig.4\]. It shows that the sufficient condition is satisfied almost everywhere, empirically verifying the theoretic analysis in Remark 4. ![Variance of probability estimations with MCS and SIS[]{data-label="fig.3"}](image3.eps){height="4.0cm" width="6.5cm"} ![$w_0P(A)$ v.s. $P(A)$[]{data-label="fig.4"}](image4.eps){height="4.0cm" width="6.5cm"} Fig. \[fig.5\] presents the estimation variances decrease along with the increase of sample size. Here, the probability is estimated according to cascading outages with load shedding larger than (a)650MW, (b)750MW and (c)850MW, respectively. As shown in Fig. \[fig.5\], the estimation variances of the SIS decrease much faster compared with that of the MCS, demonstrating that SIS simulation strategy is capable of achieving more reliable estimation results with much less simulations. ![Convergence of the variance of the probability estimation[]{data-label="fig.5"}](image5.eps){height="7.6cm" width="50.00000%"} ### Impacts of the SIS Parameters $\eta$ In this case, we analyze the influence of the SIS parameter $\eta$ on the estimation variance of cascading outages in IEEE 300-bus system (see Fig. \[fig.6\]). Here, $\eta$ is selected as 1.2, 1.5, 2, respectively, while other conditions are the same as the previous cases. It is found that $\eta$ can impact on the probability estimation of cascading outages in twofold: On the one hand, as a larger $\eta$ is adopted, more detailed information of the rare events can be captured. From Fig. \[fig.6\], it is observed that the SIS with $\eta=2$ obtains blackout samples with load shedding even over 2,000MW (the corresponding probability is nearly $10^{-16}$), while the SIS with a smaller $\eta$, say 1.2 or 1.5, does not capture such rare events. ![ Variance of probability estimation with different SIS parameters[]{data-label="fig.6"}](image6.eps){height="5.6cm" width="53.00000%"} On the other hand, whereas more rare event samples are captured, the estimation variance of normal events with lower load shedding increases. In this case, the SIS with $\eta=2$ exhibits larger variance of the probability estimation of the load shedding less than 600MW versus either the SIS with smaller parameters or the MCS. However, when $\eta$ is scaled down to 1.5 or 1.2, the variance of the probability estimation of normal events drops down to the same as the MCS, albeit much less rare events can be found. This case empirically indicates, a larger SIS parameter can facilitate capturing more rare events with higher load shedding, at the expense of increasing the estimation variance of normal events. This expense, nevertheless, does make sense and is acceptable as we mainly are concerned with the potential blackouts with quite large load shedding. This feature of the SIS also allows to purposely adjust resolution of cascading outage analysis according to desired levels of load shedding by carefully tuning the SIS parameter. ### Blackout Risk Estimation In this part, we deploy the SIS and the MCS simulation strategies to analyze the blackout risk defined as in , where the load shedding level $Y_0$ is set as 750MW. The mean value and the variance are obtained based on 75 sample sets. In each of sample set, 2,000 simulations are carried out with the SIS and the MCS, separately. The curves of the mean value and the variance along with the sample size are shown in Fig. \[fig.7\], showing that the SIS can significantly improve both the efficiency and the reliability of blackout risk analysis. Case 2: A Real Power System --------------------------- For further demonstrating the practicality of the SIS based strategy, we compare it with the MCS strategy in a large real power grid in China. The sample size is still set as 2,000. Similar to th previous case, both strategies can give unbiased estimation. Because of the space limitation, the results about the unbiasedness of estimation are omitted here, while the estimation variance of load shedding probability and blackout risk are shown in Tab. \[t1\] and Tab. \[t2\], respectively. In this case, the SIS outperforms the MCS again. As for small ${Y_0}$, the estimation variance of the SIS is smaller compared with the MCS. When ${Y_0}$ increases, the difference is getting more and more significant. When ${Y_0}$ is large enough, say, $4,000$ MW in this case, the MCS cannot obtain any effective samples to carry out statistic analysis on rare events, while the SIS is still effective for capturing those rare events . This case further exhibits the proposed SIS strategy can remarkably improve the efficiency and the reliability of cascading outage analysis compared with the traditional MCS strategy, especially when extremely rare blackouts are involved. ${Y_0}$(MW) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 ------------- -------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ------------------ MCS $5.6$ $5.6{e^{ - 1}}$ $9.6{e^{ - 2}}$ - - - SIS $7.8 $ $4.1{e^{ - 1}}$ $4.8{e^{ - 3}}$ $4.3{e^{ - 3}}$ $2.8{e^{ -5}}$ $2.0{e^{ - 11}}$ : Estimation variance of load loss probability ($\times 10^{-7}$)[]{data-label="t1"} ${Y_0}$(MW) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 ------------- -------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ MCS $1.13$ $0.21$ $6.1{e^{ - 2}}$ - - - SIS $0.77$ $2.7{e^{ - 2}}$ $7.5{e^{ - 3}}$ $9.4{e^{ - 5}}$ $8.1{e^{ - 5}}$ $1.3{e^{ - 10}}$ : Estimation variance of blackout risk with MCS and SIS[]{data-label="t2"} Conclusion ========== In this paper, we have formulated a cascading outage in power systems as a Markov chain with specific state space and transition probability, based on which we have further derived a sequential importance sampling strategy for cascading outage simulations. Theoretical analysis and case studies show that 1. The Markov chain based formulation of cascading outages is well defined, which admits standard and strict stochastic analysis. With the formulation, it is expected that more powerful analytic tools can be applied. 2. The SIS based simulation strategy can significantly enhance the computational efficiency and the estimation reliability of cascading outage analysis. 3. The SIS based simulation strategy can dramatically improve the capability of capturing very rare events in cascading outage simulations. Whereas the Markov chain based formulation and the SIS based simulation strategy are derived for the cascading outage analysis in power systems in this paper, it could provide a generic framework for cascading outage analysis of a broad class of complex networks. We believe Our ongoing work is to quantitatively characterize the confidence bounds of the estimation results of SIS based simulation strategies. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to thank S. H. Low and L. Guo for very helpful discussions. [^1]: Manuscript received XXX, XXXX; revised XXX, XXX. (Corresponding author: Feng Liu). [^2]: Jinpeng Guo, Feng Liu, and Shengwei Mei are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China (e-mail: [email protected]). [^3]: Jianhui Wang is with the the Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 USA (e-mail: [email protected]) [^4]: Junhao Lin is with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Hong Kong, HKSAR, Hong Kong (e-mail: [email protected]). [^5]: Here, load shedding, $Y$, is recognized as a random variable, as we will strictly define later on.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper is devoted to an elementary new construction of $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin modules using complex geometry. We introduce a universal ring $\mathcal D_v$ together with the vector space $\mathcal S=\mathcal S(\mathcal D_v)$ with basis $\mathcal B_v = \mathcal B(\mathcal D_v)$ consisted of some local distributions such that $\mathcal S$ is a natural $\mathcal D_v$-module. For any homomorphism of rings $\mathcal U(\mathfrak{h}) \to \mathcal D_v$, where $\mathfrak{h}$ is a Lie algebra, it follows that $\mathcal S$ is also an $\mathfrak{h}$-module. We observe that the homomorphism of rings constructed in [@FO] is a homomorphism of type $\mathcal U(\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)) \to \mathcal D_v$. Using this observation we obtain a construction of the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module from [@Futorny].' --- [Elizaveta Vishnyakova]{} Introduction ============ This paper is devoted to a new elementary geometric construction of the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin module. Denote $\mathfrak g_k:=\mathfrak{gl}_k(\mathbb C)$, where $k=1,\ldots n$, and consider the flag $\mathfrak g_1\subset \mathfrak g_2 \subset\cdots \subset \mathfrak g_{n-1} \subset \mathfrak g_n$ of Lie algebras, where $\mathfrak g_{k-1} \subset \mathfrak g_k$ is the inclusion with respect to the left top corner. This flag gives rise to the following flag of universal enveloping algebras $$\mathcal U(\mathfrak g_1)\subset \mathcal U(\mathfrak g_2) \subset\cdots \subset \mathcal U(\mathfrak g_{n-1}) \subset \mathcal U(\mathfrak g_n).$$ Denote by $\mathcal Z_k$ the center of $\mathcal U(\mathfrak g_{k})$. Then the subalgebra $\Gamma\subset \mathcal U(\mathfrak g_n)$, generated by $\mathcal Z_k$, where $k = 1, \ldots, n$, is a maximal commutative subalgebra [@Ov1]. It is called the [Gelfand-Tsetlin subalgebra]{}. A $\mathcal U(\mathfrak g_n)$-module $M$ is called a [Gelfand-Tsetlin module]{} if the action of $\Gamma$ on $M$ is locally finite. In the classical Gelfand-Tsetlin theory [@Gelfand] an explicit construction of an action of $\mathfrak g_n$ with respect to a basis consisting of Gelfand-Tsetlin tableaux is given providing explicit formulas for $\mathfrak g_n$-action. These formulas for $\mathfrak g_n$-action are called [classical Gelfand-Tsetlin formulas]{}. It was noticed in [@DFO1; @DFO2; @DFO3; @DFO4] that the classical Gelfand-Tsetlin formulas may be used to obtain a family of infinite dimensional Gelfand-Tsetlin modules: so-called [generic regular Gelfand-Tsetlin modules]{}. An essential progress in the theory of Gelfand-Tsetlin modules was done in [@Ov1; @Ov2] and later in [@FO]. In particular the following important construction was obtained there. Let $V\simeq \mathbb C^{n(n+1)/2}$ be the vector space of all Gelfand-Tsetlin tableaux of fixed order $n$, see the main text for details. Denote by $\gimel$ a certain abelian group acting freely on $V$ and by $\mathcal M\star \gimel$ the sheaf of meromorphic functions on $V$ with values in $\gimel$. Then there exists a ring structure on $\mathcal R:=H^0(V,\mathcal M \star \gimel)$ such that the classical Gelfand-Tsetlin formulas define a ring homomorphism $\Phi: \mathcal U(\mathfrak g_n) \to \mathcal R$. In the case when $\Im\Phi$ is holomorphic at a neighborhood of the orbit $\gimel(v)$ of a point $v\in V$, we can define a $\mathfrak g_n$-module structure on the vector space with the basis $\{ev_v, \,\, v\in \gimel(v)\}$, where $ev_v$ is the evaluation map at the point $v$. These $\mathfrak g_n$-modules are exactly generic regular Gelfand-Tsetlin modules. This construction does not work if $\Im\Phi$ is not holomorphic in any neighborhood of $\gimel(v)$. The study of the case when $\Im\Phi$ is not holomorphic in $\gimel(v)$ but has at most one simple pole, or in other words $\Im\Phi$ is $1$-singular, was initiated by V. Futorny, D. Grantcharov and E. Ramirez in [@Futorny]. The authors [@Futorny] constructed the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module using additional formal variables that were called [derivative tableaux]{}. For another construction of the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module see [@Zad], which was posted to the arXiv when the present paper was in preparation. In the present paper we define a subring $\mathcal D_v$ of $\mathcal R$, where $v$ is a certain point of a $1$-singular $\gimel$-orbit. To the ring $\mathcal D_v$ we associate the vector space $\mathcal S=\mathcal S(\mathcal D_v)$ with basis $\mathcal B = \mathcal B(\mathcal D_v)$ consisting of some local distributions supported at $\gimel(v)$ such that $\mathcal S$ is a natural $\mathcal D_v$-module. In particular this implies the following universal property of $ \mathcal D_v$: for any homomorphism of rings $\Psi: \mathcal U(\mathfrak h) \to \mathcal D_v$ the vector space $\mathcal S$ is also an $\mathfrak h$-module. Due to this we call the ring $ \mathcal D_v$ the [universal ring]{}. Further, we observe that $\Phi (\mathcal U(\mathfrak g)) \subset \mathcal D_v$. Hence our construction gives rise to a $\mathfrak g$-module structure on $\mathcal S$ that is isomorphic to the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin module obtained in [@Futorny]. Our observation leads to a new geometric interpretation of the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin module from [@Futorny] that allows to simplify proofs from [@Futorny] and avoid the use of formal variables. Moreover, similar ideas that we present here can be used in the case of other singularities, see [@EMV]. Acknowledgements: E. V. was partially partially supported by SFB TR 191 and by the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Preliminaries ============= A Gelfand-Tsetlin tableau is a tableau $(a_{ki})$ of complex numbers, where $1\leq i \leq k \leq n$ and $n\geq 2$. Further we will consider the set $V$ of all Gelfand-Tsetlin tableaux as a complex manifold that is isomorphic to $\mathbb C^{n(n+1)/2}$. Let $\gimel \simeq \mathbb Z^{n(n-1)/2}$ be the free abelian group generated by $\sigma_{st}$, where $1\leq t \leq s \leq n-1$. We fix the following action of $\gimel$ on $V$: $\sigma_{st} (x) = (x_{ki} +\delta_{ki}^{st})$, where $x = (x_{ki})\in V$ and $\delta_{ki}^{st}$ is the Kronecker delta. This is $\delta_{ki}^{st}=1$ if $(ki) = (st)$ and $\delta_{ki}^{st}=0$ otherwise. Further we put $G=S_1\times S_2\times \cdots \times S_n$, so $G$ is the product of symmetric groups $S_i$. The group $G$ acts on $V$ in the following way $(s (x))_{ki} = x_{k s_k(i)},$ where $s=(s_1,\ldots, s_n)\in G$. Denote by $\mathcal M$ and by $\mathcal O$ the sheaves of meromorphic and holomorphic functions on $V$, respectively. Let us take $f\in H^0(V,\mathcal M)$, $s\in G$ and $\sigma\in \gimel$. We set $$\sigma(f) = f\circ \sigma^{-1}, \quad s(f) = f\circ s^{-1},\quad s(\sigma) = s\circ \sigma\circ s^{-1}.$$ These formulas define an action of $\gimel$ on $H^0(V,\mathcal M)$ and actions of $G$ on $H^0(V,\mathcal M)$ and on $\gimel$, respectively. Denote by $\mathcal M\star \gimel$ the sheaf of meromorphic functions on $V$ with values in $\gimel$. An element of $H^0(V,\mathcal M\star \gimel)$ is a finite sum $\sum\limits_i f_i \sigma_i$, where $f_i\in \mathcal M$ and $\sigma_i\in \gimel$. In other words, $\mathcal M\star \gimel$ is the sheaf of meromorphic sections of the trivial bundle $V\times \bigoplus_{\sigma\in \gimel} \mathbb C \sigma \to V$. There exists a structure of a skew group ring on $H^0(V,\mathcal M\star \gimel)$, see [@FO]. Indeed, $$\sum_if_i \sigma_i \circ \sum_j f'_j \sigma'_j := \sum_{ij} f_i \sigma_i(f'_j) \sigma_i\circ \sigma'_j.$$ Here $f_i, f'_j\in H^0(V,\mathcal M)$ and $\sigma_i,\sigma'_j \in \gimel$. This skew group ring we denote by $\mathcal R$. To simplify notations we use $\circ$ for the multiplication in $\mathcal R$ and for the product in $\gimel$. On $H^0(V,\mathcal M\star \gimel)$ we will consider also the following multiplication $AB := B\circ A$. Recall that a Gelfand-Tsetlin tableau is called [generic]{} if $x_{rt} - x_{rs} \notin \mathbb Z$ for any $r$ and $s\ne t$. The definition of a standard Gelfand-Tsetlin tableau can be found in [@Futorny]. The classical Gelfand-Tsetlin formulas have the following form in terms of generators of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$, see for instance [@Futorny], Theorems $3.6$ and $3.8$, for details. $$\label{eq G-Ts generators} \begin{split} E_{k,k+1}(v) &= - \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{\prod_{j= 1}^{k+1} (x_{ki}- x_{k+1,j})}{\prod_{j\ne i}^k (x_{ki}- x_{kj})} (v + \delta_{ki});\\ E_{k+1,k} (v) & = \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{\prod_{j= 1}^{k-1} (x_{ki}- x_{k-1,j})}{\prod_{j\ne i}^k (x_{ki}- x_{kj})} (v - \delta_{ki});\\ E_{k,k} (v) & = \Big( \sum_{i=1}^k (x_{ki} +i-1) - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} (x_{k-1,i} +i-1) \Big) (v), \end{split}$$ Here $E_{st}\in \mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$ are standard generators and $v\in V$ is either a standard or generic Gelfand-Tsetlin tableau with coordinates $v=(x_{ki})$ and $(v \pm \delta_{ki}) = \sigma^{\pm 1}_{ki}(v)$. Assume that $v$ is a generic Gelfand-Tsetlin tableau. Theorem $3.8$ in [@Futorny] says that Formulas (\[eq G-Ts generators\]) define a $\mathfrak g$-module structure on the vector space spanned by the elements of the orbit $\gimel(v)$. Let us identify the point $v\in V$ with the evaluation map $ev_v: H^0(V,\mathcal O)\to \mathbb C$. Then we can define the map $E_{st} \mapsto \Phi(E_{st})\in \mathcal R$ using the equality $ev_{v} \circ \Phi(E_{st}) = E_{st} (v)$ for $v$ generic. Since generic points are dense in $V$, $\Phi(E_{st})$ is a well-defined element of $\mathcal R$. For example, $$E_{k,k+1} = - \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{\prod_{j= 1}^{k+1} (x_{ki}- x_{k+1,j})}{\prod_{j\ne i}^k (x_{ki}- x_{kj})} \sigma^{-1}_{ki}.$$ In [@FO] the following theorem was proved. \[teor Fut Ovs\] The map $\Phi: \mathcal U(\mathfrak g) \to \mathcal R$ is a homomorphism of rings. Here $E_{st} \mapsto \Phi(E_{st})$, where $E_{st}\in \mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$, is as above.* [Remark.]{} Note that $\Im(\Phi)$ is $G$-invariant. This fact can be verified directly. From Theorem \[teor Fut Ovs\] it follows that for any generic $x\in V$ the formula $ \Phi(E_{st}) (ev_y) = ev_y \circ \Phi(E_{st})$ defines an action of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$ on the vector space spanned by local distributions $ev_y$, where $y\in \gimel(x)$. Here $ev_y\circ (f\sigma) = ev_y(f) ev_y\circ \sigma$ and $ev_y\circ \sigma(g) = ev_y(\sigma(g))$ for $g\in \mathcal O$. Since elements $\Phi(E_{st})$ are holomorphic in a sufficiently small neighborhood of the orbit $\gimel(x)$, the expression $ev_y \circ \Phi(E_{st})$ is well-defined. More generally, any homomorphism of rings $\Psi: \mathcal U(\mathfrak h) \to \mathcal R$, where $\mathfrak h$ is any Lie algebra, such that the image $\Psi(\mathfrak h)$ is holomorphic in a neighborhood of $\gimel(x)$ defines an action of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$ on the vector space spanned by the local distributions $ev_y$, where $y\in \gimel(x)$. The interpretation of a point $y\in V$ as a local distribution $ev_y$ suggests the possibility to define a $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module structure on other local distributions, i.e. on linear maps $D_y: \mathcal O_y\to \mathbb C$ with $\mathfrak m_y^p\subset \Ker(D_y)$, where $p>0$ and $\mathfrak m_y$ is the maximal ideal in the local algebra $\mathcal O_y$. This idea we develop in the present paper. The main problem is that the ring $\mathcal R$ does not act on the vector space of local distributions, because of singularities. In the next section we will construct the universal ring $\mathcal D_v\subset \mathcal R^{G_v}$, where $v$ is a certain $1$-singular point in $V$ and $G_v\subset G$ is the stabilizer of $v$. We will show that $\mathcal D_v$ acts on $G_v$-invariant holomorphic functions $H^0(V,\mathcal O^{G_v})$, where the action is given by $(f\circ \sigma) (F) = f F \circ \sigma^{-1}$. This action induces an action $(f\circ \sigma)(D_y) = D_y \circ (f\circ \sigma)$ of $(\mathcal D_v,)$ on $G_v$-invariant holomorphic local distributions $D: H^0(V,\mathcal O^{G_v}) \to \mathbb C$ supported at $\gimel(v)$. By Theorem \[teor Fut Ovs\] we have also a structure of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module on the vector space of these local distributions. Further we will consider local distributions $ev_v\circ A : H^0(V,\mathcal O^{G_v}) \to \mathbb C$, where $A\in \mathcal D_v$. Clearly this vector space is $\mathcal D_v$- and hence $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-submodule. The last step is to find a basis $\mathcal B_v$ for the vector space spanned by $\{ev_{v} \circ A,\,\,\|\,\, A\in \mathcal D_v\}$. This basis we call the universal basis for the universal ring $\mathcal D_v$. Our construction implies that for any homomorphism $\Psi: \mathcal U(\mathfrak h) \to \mathcal D_v$, where $\mathfrak h$ is a Lie algebra, $\mathcal B_v$ is a basis for the corresponding $\mathfrak h$-module. We will see that $\Im (\Phi) \subset \mathcal D_v$ and that $\mathcal B_v$ coincide with the basis constructed in [@Futorny]. We develop these ideas in the case of any point $x\in V$ in [@EMV]. Main result =========== A point $x=(x_{kj})\in V$ is called [$1$-singular]{} if there exist $x_{ki}$ and $x_{kj}$, where $i\ne j$, such that $x_{ki} - x_{kj}\in \mathbb Z$ and $x_{rs} - x_{rt}\notin \mathbb Z$, where $s\ne t$, for each $(r,s,t)\ne (k,i,j)$. Note that the generators from (\[eq G-Ts generators\]) have one simple pole at the orbit $\gimel(x)$ for any $1$-singular point $x$. Let us fix an $1$-singular point $x^0=(x^0_{kj})\in V$ such that $x^0_{ki} - x^0_{kj}\in \mathbb Z$. We put $z_1= x_{ki} - x_{kj}$, $z_2=x_{ki} + x_{kj}$ and we denote by $z_3,z_4,\ldots$ other coordinates $(x_{st})$ in $V$. So $(z_i)$ are new coordinates in $V$. From now on we fix a point $v=(0,z^0_2,\ldots, z^0_n)\in \gimel(x^0)$ and a sufficiently small neighborhood $W$ of the orbit $\gimel(v) = \gimel(x^0)$ that is invariant with respect to the group $\gimel$ and with respect to $\tau\in G$, where $\tau$ is defined by $\tau(z_1)=-z_1$ and $\tau(z_i)=z_i$, $i>1$. From now on we will consider restrictions of elements of $\mathcal R$ on $W$. We denote by $G_v =\{\id,\tau\}\subset G$ the stabilizer of $v$. We say that an element $A\in\mathcal R$ is at most $1$-singular at $v$, if $A=\sum_ih_i\sigma_i$, where $h_i$ are holomorphic at $v$ or have the form $h_i=g_i/z_1$, where $g_i$ are holomorphic at $v$. We need the following proposition. \[prop A\_1 ...A\_n is 1 sing\] [ Let $A_j = \sum\limits_i (H^j_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}\in \mathcal R^{G_v}$, where $j=1,\ldots,m$ and $H^j_{i}$ are holomorphic in $W$. Then the product $A_1\circ \cdots \circ A_m$ is at most $1$-singular at $v$.* ]{} [Proof.]{} Assume by induction that for $k=m-1$ our statement holds. In other words, assume that $A_1\circ \cdots \circ A_{m-1} = \sum\limits_i(G_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}$, where $G_{i}$ are holomorphic at $v$. We have $$\begin{aligned} A_1\circ \cdots \circ A_{m} = \sum\limits_{i,j} \frac{G_{i} \sigma_i(H^m_{j})}{z_1\sigma_i(z_1)} \sigma_{i} \circ \sigma_{j}. \end{aligned}$$ Assume that this product is two singular at $v$. Note that $\sigma_i(H^m_{j})$ is holomorphic in $W$. Therefore, $\sigma_{i_0}(z_1) = z_1$ for a certain $i_0$ and, hence, $\tau(\sigma_{i_0}) = \sigma_{i_0}$. Further, $\tau(\sum\limits_i(G_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}) = \sum\limits_i(G_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}$, since $A_1\circ \cdots \circ A_{n}$ is $\tau$-invariant. Therefore $\tau(G_{i_0}/z_1 \sigma_{i_0}) = \tau(G_{i_0}/z_1) \sigma_{i_0} = G_{i_0}/z_1 \sigma_{i_0}$. Hence $\tau(G_{i_0}/z_1)$ is also $\tau$-invariant and $\tau(G_{i_0}) = -G_{i_0}$. Therefore, $G_{i_0} = z_1G'_{i_0}$, where $G'_{i_0}$ is holomorphic at $v$. Therefore, $G_{i_0} \sigma_{i_0}(H^m_{j})/ z_1\sigma_{i_0}(z_1) = G'_{i_0} \sigma_{i_0}(H^m_{j})/ z_1$ is $1$-singular. The proof is complete.$\Box$ [Remark.]{} Elements $A_j = \sum\limits_i (H^j_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}$ as in Proposition \[prop A\_1 ...A\_n is 1 sing\] generate a subring $\mathcal D_{v}$ in $\mathcal R^{G_v}$. We call this ring the [universal ring of]{} $v$. By Proposition \[prop A\_1 ...A\_n is 1 sing\] any element in $\mathcal D_{v}$ is at most $1$-singular at $v$. If $A = \sum\limits_i (H_{i}/z_1)\sigma_{i}$ is a generator of $\mathcal D_{v}$ and $F\in H^0(W,\mathcal O^{G_v})$, then $A(F) = F'/z_1$ is at most $1$-singular at $v$, holomorphic in $W\setminus\{v \}$ and $G_v$-invariant. Therefore $\tau(F') = -F'$ and hence $A(F)$ is holomorphic. So we defined an action of $\mathcal D_{v}$ on $H^0(W,\mathcal O^{G_v})$. We put $g_i:= z_1h_i$, where $\sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i\in \mathcal R$. Consider the following set of $G_v$-invariant local distributions defined on $H^0(W,\mathcal O^{G_v})$: $$\label{eq diff operator basis} \begin{split} D^1_{\sigma}:=\frac12 ev_v \circ (\sigma + \tau(\sigma) ),\quad D^2_{\sigma'}:= ev_v \circ \frac{(\sigma' - \tau(\sigma') )}{2z_1}, \quad \sigma, \sigma' \in \gimel, \,\,\tau(\sigma')\ne \sigma'. \end{split}$$ Note that $(\sigma' - \tau(\sigma'))/ z_1$ and $\sigma + \tau(\sigma)$ are elements of $\mathcal D_{v}$, hence Formulas (\[eq diff operator basis\]) are well-defined. Moreover we have the following equalities $$\label{eq relations n=1} D^1_{\tau(\sigma)} = D^1_{\sigma} \quad \text{and} \quad D^2_{\tau(\sigma')} = - D^2_{\sigma'}.$$ Denote $\Delta: = \{\sigma\in \gimel\,\,\|\,\, \sigma(x_{ki},x_{ki}) = (x_{ki}+m_1,x_{ki}+m_2), \,\, m_1 \leq m_2 \}$ and consider the set $\mathcal B_v:= \{D^1_{\sigma}, D^2_{\sigma'}\,\, \| \,\, \sigma,\sigma'\in \Delta,\,\, \tau(\sigma')\ne \sigma' \}$. The set $\mathcal B_v$ is a set of linearly independent distributions defined on $H^0(W,\mathcal O^{G_v})$. To see this we should apply $D^i_{\sigma}$ to a linear combination $\alpha + \beta z_1^2$ of $G_v$-invariant functions $1$ and $z_1^2$. Hence $\mathcal B_v$ is a basis of the vector subspace $S$ in $H^0(W,\mathcal O^{G_v})^$ spanned by elements from $\mathcal B_v$. In the next proposition we show that $S$ is a $\mathcal D_v$- and $\mathfrak {gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module. This $\mathfrak {gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module is isomorphic to the universal $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin module constructed in [@Futorny], see Section $4$ for details. \[prop formulas n=1\] Let us take $\sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i\in \mathcal D_v$. Then we have $$\label{eq formula n=1, sing} \begin{split} ev_v \circ (\sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i) = \sum\limits_i g_i(v) \cdot D^2_{\sigma_i} + \sum\limits_i\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial z_1}(v) D^1_{\sigma_i}, \end{split}$$ where $g_i = z_1 h_i$. Note that in the case if $h_i$ is holomorphic, we have $g_i(v)=0$ and $\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial z_1}(v) = h_i(v)$. Therefore, $S$ is a $\mathcal D_v$-module with basis $\mathcal B_v$.* [Proof.]{} Using the series expansion $g_i = g_i\|_{z_1=0} + \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial z_1}\|_{z_1=0} z_1 + \cdots$, we get $$ev_v \circ \sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i = \sum\limits_i g_i(v) ev_v \circ \frac{\sigma_i}{z_1} + \sum\limits_i \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial z_1}(v) ev_v \circ \sigma_i.$$ Note that $ev_v \circ z_1^m\sigma_i =0$ for $m>1$. Using the symmetrization $2ev_v \circ \sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i = ev_v \circ \sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i + \tau(ev_v \circ \sum\limits_ih_i\sigma_i)$, we obtain the result.$\Box$ Let $X$ be one of generators (\[eq G-Ts generators\]). Clearly $\Phi(X)\in \mathcal D_v$, see Remark after Theorem \[teor Fut Ovs\]. \[teor main\][\[Main result 1\]]{} The vector space $S$ spanned by elements of $\mathcal B$ is a $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module. The action is given by Formulas (\[eq formula n=1, sing\]). [Proof.]{} The result follows from Theorem \[teor Fut Ovs\] and Proposition \[prop formulas n=1\]. Indeed, $\Im(\Phi)\subset \mathcal D_v$, hence we get a $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module.$\Box$ In fact we proved a more general result than it is formulated in Theorem \[teor main\]. \[teor main general\][\[Main result 2\]]{} Let $\mathfrak h$ be a Lie algebra and $\Psi : \mathcal U(\mathfrak h) \to \mathcal D_v$ be a homomorphism of rings. Then the vector space $S$ spanned by elements from $\mathcal B$ is an $\mathfrak h$-module. In other words the basis $\mathcal B$ is universal for any homomorphisms $\Psi : \mathcal U(\mathfrak h) \to \mathcal D_v$. Appendix ======== Theorem \[teor main\] recovers one of the main results of [@Futorny], a construction of the universal $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module. Another main result of [@Futorny] is that in many cases the $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$-module $S$ is irreducible, see Theorem $4.14$. Let us give an explicit correspondence between the basis constructed in [@Futorny] and our basis $\mathcal B$. We use notations from [@Futorny]. In [@Futorny] the authors consider the basis $\{ T(\sigma(v)),\,\, \mathcal {D}T(\sigma'(v)) \}$, where $\sigma,\sigma'\in \gimel$, such that $T(\sigma(v)) - T(\tau(\sigma(v)))=0$, $ \mathcal {D}T(\sigma'(v)) + \mathcal {D}T(\tau(\sigma'(v)))=0$ and $\tau(\sigma')\ne \sigma'$, see Remark $4.5$ in [@Futorny]. The element $T(\sigma(v))$ was considered as a point in $V$ and $\mathcal {D}T(\sigma'(v))$ was considered as a formal additional variable. (In our notations, $T(\sigma(v))$ is just $\sigma(v)\in V$, where $v$ as above.) Further, in [@Futorny] the action of $\mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C)$ is given by the following formulas, [@Futorny Theorem 4.11]: $$\begin{aligned} E_{rs} (T(\sigma(v)))& = ev_{v}\circ\frac{\partial}{\partial z_1} z_1 E_{rs}(T(\sigma(x)));\\ E_{rs} (\mathcal {D}T(\sigma'(v))& = ev_{v}\circ\frac{\partial}{\partial z_1} E_{rs}(T(\sigma'(x))), \,\,\, E_{rs}\in \mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb C),\end{aligned}$$ where $x=(x_{ki})$ are coordinates in a neighborhood of $v$. The explicit correspondence between the bases is given by the following formulas $$\begin{aligned} &2D^2_{\sigma}(T(v)) = \mathcal {D}T(\sigma'(v)) - \mathcal {D}T(\tau(\sigma'(v))), \quad 2D^1_{\sigma}(T(v)) = T(\sigma(v)) + T(\tau(\sigma(v))).\end{aligned}$$ [99]{} Yu. Drozd, S. Ovsienko, V. Futorny, Irreducible weighted $\mathfrak{sl}(3)$-modules. (Russian) Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. [23]{} (1989), no. 3, 57–58; translation in Funct. Anal. Appl. [23]{} (1989), no. 3, 217–218 (1990). Yu. Drozd, S. Ovsienko, V. Futorny, On Gelʹfand-Zetlin modules. Proceedings of the Winter School on Geometry and Physics (Srn[í]{}, 1990). Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. No. [26]{} (1991), 143–147. Yu. Drozd, S. Ovsienko, V. Futorny, Gelʹfand-Zetlin modules over Lie algebra $SL(3)$. Proceedings of the International Conference on Algebra, Part 2 (Novosibirsk, 1989), 23–29, Contemp. Math., [131]{}, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992. Yu. Drozd, S. Ovsienko, V. Futorny, Harish-Chandra subalgebras and Gelʹfand-Zetlin modules. Finite-dimensional algebras and related topics (Ottawa, ON, 1992), 79–93, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., [424]{}, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1994. N. Early, V. Mazorchuk, E. Vishnyakova, Canonical Gelfand-Zeitlin modules over orthogonal Gelfand-Zeitlin algebras. arXiv:1709.01553. I.M. Gelfand, M.L. Tsetlin, Finite-dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 71 (1950), 825-828 (Russian). English transl. in: I. M. Gelfand, “Collected papers”. Vol II, Berlin: Springer-Verlag 1988, pp. 653-656. V Futorny, D. Grantcharov, E. Ramirez, Singular Gelfand-Tsetlin modules of $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$. Advances in Mathematics, Volume 290, 26 February 2016, Pages 453-482 V. Futorny, S. Ovsienko, Fibers of characters in Gelfand-Tsetlin categories. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [366]{} (2014), no. 8, 4173–4208. S. Ovsienko, Finiteness statements for Gelfand-Zetlin modules. (Ukrainian) Third International Algebraic Conference in the Ukraine, 323–338, Natsional. Akad. Nauk Ukraine, Inst. Mat., Kiev, 2002. S. Ovsienko, Strongly nilpotent matrices and Gelfand-Zetlin modules. Special issue on linear algebra methods in representation theory. Linear Algebra Appl. [365]{} (2003), 349–367. P. Zadunaisky, A new way to construct $1$-singular Gelfand-Tsetlin modules. Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, Volume 23 (2017). Number 1, pp. 180-193. Communicated by V.M. Futorny, received by the editors: 21.03.2017, and in final form 30.03.2017. E. V.: Departamento de Matem[á]{}tica, Instituto de Ci[ê]{}ncias Exatas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Ant[ô]{}nio Carlos, 6627, Caixa Postal: 702, CEP: 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BRAZIL, email: [VishnyakovaEgooglemail.com]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We propose a method to generate quadrature squeezed states of a moving mirror in a Fabry-Perot cavity. This is achieved by exploiting the fact that when the cavity is driven by an external field with a large detuning, the moving mirror behaves as a parametric oscillator. We show that parametric resonance can be reached approximately by modulating the driving field amplitude at a frequency matching the frequency shift of the mirror. The parametric resonance leads to an efficient generation of squeezing, which is limited by the thermal noise of the environment.' author: - 'Jie-Qiao Liao' - 'C. K. Law' title: Parametric generation of quadrature squeezing of mirrors in cavity optomechanics --- Introduction ============ Cavity optomechanics [@Review-Kippenberg; @Review-Marquardt; @Review-Karrai; @Review-Aspelmeyer], as an interaction interface between a cavity field and a moving mirror, is an exciting research area for exploring quantum behavior in macroscopic systems as well as applications in quantum information processing. With the recent advances of cooling techniques in optomechanical systems [@Wilson-Rae2007; @Marquardt2007; @Aspelmeyer2006; @Heidmann2006; @Bouwmeester2006; @Kippenberg2008; @Gene2008; @Wang2009], it is becoming possible to overcome thermal noise and study quantum state engineering of mechanical mirrors. Indeed, recent studies have already shown that various kinds of non-classical states can be generated by optomechanical coupling. These include quantum superposition states [@Bose1997; @cat1], entangled states [@Tombesi; @Vedral2006; @Vitali2007; @Paternostro2007; @Hartmann2008], and squeezed states of light [@Fabre1994; @Tombesi1994; @Heidmann1994; @Gong2009] and mirrors [@Ian2008; @Zoller2009; @Eisert2009; @Wallquist2010; @Girvin2010]. Specifically, achieving squeezed states in mechanical oscillators (mirrors) is an important goal because of the applications in ultrahigh precision measurements such as the detection of gravitational waves [@Caves1980; @Ligo1992; @Weiss1999]. Several schemes have been proposed to create quantum squeezing of the moving mirror in cavity optomechanics. For example, squeezing can be transferred from a squeezed light driving the cavity to the mirror [@Zoller2009], and recently Mari and Eisert have shown that squeezing can be generated directly by a periodically modulated driving field [@Eisert2009]. We note that a basic mechanism for creating quadrature squeezing is to introduce a parametric coupling for the motional degree of freedom of the mirror. In particular, efficient squeezing can be achieved at the parametric resonance, such that the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture takes the form $H_I \propto b^2 + b^{\dag 2}$ \[where $b$ and $b^\dag$ are operators of the oscillator in Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\_S\])\] and the corresponding evolution operator is a squeezed operator. Therefore an interesting question is how the parametric resonance can be reached in cavity optomechanical systems. One of the difficulties here is the dynamical shift of the mechanical resonance frequency due to the optomehanical coupling, which is sensitive to the intensity of the cavity field. In this paper we show that in the large detuning limit, the frequency shift can be compensated by modulating field amplitude at a suitable frequency, and hence parametric resonance can be reached approximately. We will present an explicit form of the driving amplitude, and analyze the time development of squeezing in the presence of thermal noise. Model ===== The system under consideration is an optical cavity formed by a fixed mirror and a moving mirror connected with a spring (Fig. \[setup\]). We consider a single-mode field in the cavity and model the moving mirror as a harmonic oscillator. The Hamiltonian of the system reads $$\begin{aligned} H_{S}&=&\hbar\omega_{c}a^{\dag}a+\hbar\omega_{m} b^{\dagger}b-\hbar ga^{\dag}a(b^{\dagger}+b)\notag\\ &&+\hbar\Omega(t)e^{-i\omega_{d}t}a^{\dag}+\hbar\Omega^{\ast}(t)e^{i\omega_{d}t}a, \label{Hamiltonian_S}\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{\dag }$ ($b^{\dagger }$) and $a$ ($b$) are the creation and annihilation operators associated with the single-mode cavity field (mirror) with frequency $\omega_{c}$ ($\omega_m$). Assuming $m_{\textrm{eff}}$ is the effective mass of the mirror, then the position and momentum operators of the mirror are $x=x_{\textrm{zpf}}(b^{\dag}+b)$ and $p=im_{\textrm{eff}}\omega _{m}x_{\textrm{zpf}}({b}^{\dag}-b)$, where $x_{\textrm{zpf}}=\sqrt{\hbar/(2m_{\textrm{eff}}\omega_{m})}$ is the zero-point fluctuation of the mirror’s position. The third term in Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\_S\]) describes a radiation pressure coupling with the coupling strength $g=\omega_{c}x_{\textrm{zpf}}/L$, where $L$ is the rest length of the cavity. In addition, the cavity is driven by an external field with a main frequency $\omega_d$ and the time-varying amplitude $\Omega(t)$. To include damping in our model, we follow the standard approach by coupling the system with oscillator baths such that the quantum Langevin equations (in a rotating frame with frequency $\omega_{d}$) for the operators $a$ and $b$ are given by \[Langevineq\] $$\begin{aligned} \dot{a}&=-i\Delta_{c}a+iga(b^{\dagger}+b)-i\Omega(t)-\frac{\gamma_{c}}{2}a+a_{in},\\ \dot{b}&=-i\omega_{m}b+iga^{\dag}a-\frac{\gamma_{m}}{2}b+b_{in},\end{aligned}$$ with the detuning $\Delta_{c}=\omega_{c}-\omega_{d}$ and the cavity (mirror) decay rate $\gamma_{c}$ ($\gamma_{m}$). Under the assumption of Markovian baths, the noise operators $a_{in}$ and $b_{in}$ have zero mean values and they are characterized by the correlation functions $\langle a_{in}(t)a^{\dagger}_{in}(t')\rangle=\gamma_{c}\delta(t-t')$, $\langle a^{\dagger}_{in}(t)a_{in}(t')\rangle=0$, $\langle b_{in}(t)b^{\dagger}_{in}(t')\rangle=\gamma_{m}(\bar{n}_{m}+1)\delta(t-t')$, and $\langle b^{\dagger}_{in}(t)b_{in}(t')\rangle=\gamma_{m}\bar{n}_{m}\delta(t-t')$, where $\bar{n}_{m}=\{\exp[\hbar\omega_{m}/(k_{B}T_{m})]-1\}^{-1}$ is thermal excitation number of the mirror’s bath at temperature $T_{m}$ and $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. Here we have assumed that the bath coupled to the cavity field is effectively a vacuum, and the rotating-wave approximation has been employed to describe the system-bath interaction [@Dobrindt2008; @Rodrigues2010]. ![(Color online) Schematic diagram of the cavity optomechanical system. An externally driven Fabry-Perot cavity is formed by a fixed end mirror and a harmonically bound end mirror.[]{data-label="setup"}](fig1.eps){width="3.3"} Linearized system: Formal solution of fluctuations ================================================== Next we write $a=\langle a \rangle +\delta{a}$ and $b=\langle b \rangle +\delta{b}$ such that the fluctuations about the expectation values are described by operators $\delta{a}$ and $\delta b$. Assuming the fluctuations are sufficiently small, then we may linearize Eq. (\[Langevineq\]) to obtain the equation of motion for $\delta a$ and $\delta b$: $$\begin{aligned} \delta\dot{a}&=-i\Delta(t)\delta a+ig\langle a(t)\rangle(\delta b^{\dagger }+\delta b)-\frac{\gamma_{c}}{2}\delta a+a_{in},\label{Leqda}\\ \delta \dot{b}&=-i\omega_{m}\delta b+ig[\langle a^{\dagger}(t)\rangle\delta a+\langle a(t)\rangle \delta a^{\dag }]-\frac{\gamma_{m}}{2}\delta b+b_{in},\label{Leqdb}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta(t)=\Delta_{c}-g[\langle b(t)\rangle+\langle b^{\dagger}(t)\rangle]$. The expectation values $\langle a(t)\rangle$ and $\langle b(t)\rangle$ are governed by equations of motion: $\dot{ \langle {a} \rangle} =-[i\Delta(t)+\frac{\gamma_{c}}{2}]\langle {a} \rangle-i\Omega(t)$ and $\dot{\langle {b} \rangle} =-(i\omega_{m}+\frac{\gamma_{m}}{2}) \langle {b} \rangle +ig\vert \langle {a} \rangle \vert ^{2}$. For convenience, we introduce the quadrature operators by $\delta X_{s=a,b}=(\delta s^{\dag}+\delta s)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\delta Y_{s=a,b}=i(\delta s^\dag - \delta s)/\sqrt{2}$. Then Eq. (3) can be concisely expressed as $$\dot{\mathbf{v}}(t)=\mathbf{M}(t)\mathbf{v}(t)+\mathbf{N}(t)\label{linearopoeq}$$ where $\mathbf{v}=(\delta{X}_{a},\delta{Y}_{a},\delta{X}_{b}, \delta{Y}_{b})^{T}$, and ${\bf M}$ is $$\mathbf{M}(t)=\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} -\frac{\gamma _{c}}{2} & \Delta(t)& -\sqrt{2 }g\langle Y_{a}(t)\rangle & 0 \\ -\Delta(t)& -\frac{\gamma_{c}}{2} & \sqrt{2 }g\langle X_{a}(t)\rangle & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{\gamma _{m}}{2} & \omega _{m}\\ \sqrt{2}g\langle X_{a}(t)\rangle & \sqrt{2}g\langle Y_{a}(t)\rangle & -\omega _{m} & -\frac{\gamma _{m}}{2} \end{array} \right],\label{Mmatrix}$$ with $\langle X_{s=a,b}(t)\rangle=[\langle s^{\dagger}(t)\rangle+\langle s(t)\rangle]/\sqrt{2}$ and $\langle Y_{s=a,b}(t)\rangle=i[\langle s^{\dagger}(t)\rangle-\langle s(t)\rangle]/\sqrt{2}$. The noise vector in Eq. (\[linearopoeq\]) is defined by $\mathbf{{N}}=({X}_{a}^{in}, {Y}_{a}^{in}, {X}_{b}^{in}, {Y}_{b}^{in})^{T}$, with ${X}_{s=a,b}^{in}=(s_{in}^{\dag }+s_{in})/\sqrt{2}$ and ${Y}_{s=a,b}^{in}=i(s_{in}^{\dag }-s_{in})/\sqrt{2}$. Equation (\[linearopoeq\]) is a first-order linear inhomogeneous differential equation with variable coefficients. Its formal solution is $$\mathbf{v}(t)=\mathbf{G}(t)\mathbf{v}(0)+\mathbf{G}(t) \int_{0}^{t}\mathbf{G}^{-1}(\tau)\mathbf{{N}}(\tau) d\tau,\label{formsoluofr}$$ where the matrix $\mathbf{G}(t)$ satisfies $ \mathbf{\dot{G}}(t)=\mathbf{M}(t)\mathbf{G}(t)$ and the initial condition $\mathbf{G}(0)=I$ ($I$ is the identity matrix). In the present system, interesting quantities are the quadrature fluctuations of the cavity and the mirror. Hence, we define a covariance matrix $\mathbf{R}(t)$ by the elements $\mathbf{R}_{ll'}(t)=\langle \mathbf{v}_{l}(t)\mathbf{v}_{l'}(t)\rangle$ for $l,l'=1,2,3,4$. Obviously, the four diagonal elements of $\mathbf{R}(t)$ are the expectation values of the square of the four quadrature operators of the system. They are $\mathbf{R}_{11}(t)=\langle\delta{X}^{2}_{a}(t)\rangle$, $\mathbf{R}_{22}(t)=\langle\delta{Y}^{2}_{a}(t)\rangle$, $\mathbf{R}_{33}(t)=\langle\delta{X}^{2}_{b}(t)\rangle$, and $\mathbf{R}_{44}(t)=\langle\delta{Y}^{2}_{b}(t)\rangle$. For the mirror’s rotating quadrature operator ${X}_{b}(\theta,t) \equiv \cos\theta {X}_{b}(t)+\sin\theta {Y}_{b}(t)$, the corresponding variance is given by $\langle \delta {X}_{b}^{2}(\theta,t)\rangle=\cos^{2}\theta \mathbf{R}_{33}(t)+\sin ^{2}\theta \mathbf{R}_{44}(t)+\frac{1}{2}\sin 2\theta [\mathbf{R}_{34}(t)+\mathbf{R}_{43}(t)]$. Since $[{X}_{b}(\theta,t),{X}_{b}(\theta+\pi/2,t)]=i$, quadrature squeezing occurs when $\langle \delta{X}_{b}^{2}(\theta,t)\rangle<1/2$. To test the dynamical quadrature squeezing, we need to determine the covariance matrix $\mathbf{R}(t)$, which has the formal expression: $$\mathbf{R}(t)=\mathbf{G}(t)\mathbf{R}(0) \mathbf{G}^{T}(t)+\mathbf{G}(t)\mathbf{Z}(t)\mathbf{G}^{T}(t).\label{solofR}$$ where $\mathbf{Z}(t)$ is defined by $$\mathbf{Z}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\int_{0}^{t}\mathbf{G}^{-1}(\tau) \mathbf{C}(\tau,\tau')[\mathbf{G}^{-1}(\tau')]^{T}d\tau d\tau' . \label{defZmatrix}$$ Here $\mathbf{C}(\tau,\tau')$ is the two-time noise operator correlation matrix defined by the elements: $ \mathbf{C}_{nn'}(\tau,\tau')=\langle \mathbf{{N}}_{n}(\tau) \mathbf{{N}}_{n^{\prime }}(\tau ^{\prime})\rangle$ for $n,n'=1,2,3,4$. For Markovian baths, we have $\mathbf{C}(\tau,\tau')=\mathbf{C}\delta(\tau-\tau^{\prime})$, where the constant matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is given by $$\mathbf{C}=\frac{1}{2}\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \gamma_{c}& i\gamma_{c} & 0 & 0 \\ -i\gamma_{c} & \gamma_{c} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \gamma_{m}(2\bar{n}_{m}+1) & i\gamma_{m} \\ 0 & 0 & -i\gamma_{m} & \gamma_{m}(2\bar{n}_{m}+1) \end{array} \right].$$ Generation of quadrature squeezing ================================== Having obtained the formal equations for the evolution of quadrature fluctuations of the mirror, we now ask how the external driving amplitude $\Omega(t)$ can be chosen to generate a large degree of quadrature squeezing of the mirror. We approach the problem by considering the large detuning regime ($\Delta_{c}\gg\omega_{m}$) so that by adiabatic approximation we have $$\delta a\approx\frac{g} {\Delta_{c}-i \gamma_c/2} \langle a(t)\rangle(\delta b^{\dagger}+\delta b)+F_{in},\label{adiabaticapp}$$ with $F_{in}=\int_{0}^{t}a_{in}(t')e^{(i\Delta_{c}+\gamma_{c}/2)(t'-t)}dt'$. Here, we have also assumed $\Delta_{c}\gg g\langle X_{b}(t)\rangle$ and hence $\Delta(t)\approx\Delta_{c}$. Correspondingly, the equation of motion (\[Leqdb\]) for $\delta b$ becomes $$\delta \dot{b}=-i\omega_{m}\delta b+i\eta \|\langle a(t)\rangle\|^2 (\delta b^{\dagger }+\delta b)-\frac{\gamma_{m}}{2}\delta b+F'_{in},\label{effeqofdb}$$ where $\eta = \frac{2g^2 \Delta_{c}} {\Delta_{c}^2 + \gamma_c^2/4}$ and the noise operator consists of two parts $F'_{in} \equiv F^{a}_{in}+b_{in}$. The part $F^{a}_{in}=ig\langle a^{\dagger}(t)\rangle F_{in}+ig\langle a(t)\rangle F^{\dagger}_{in}$ comes indirectly from the cavity’s bath and depends on the mean field solution, while the second part $b_{in}$ comes directly from the mirror’s bath. Next we observe that if the external driving amplitude is chosen as $$\Omega(t) = \Omega_0 \sin\left[\left(\omega_{m}-\xi_{0}\right)t\right]\label{Omegatform},$$ with $\Omega_0$ being a constant and $\xi_{0}=g^{2} \Omega_0^2\Delta_{c}/(\Delta_c ^2+\gamma_{c}^{2}/4)^{2}$, then by the adiabatic solution $\langle a(t)\rangle\approx-\Omega(t)/(\Delta_{c}-i\gamma_{c}/2)$ and the assumption $\omega_{m}\gg \xi_{0}$, Eq. (\[effeqofdb\]) can be approximated by $$\delta \dot{B}=-i\frac{\xi_{0}}{2} \delta B^{\dag} -\frac{\gamma_{m}}{2}\delta B+F'_{in}e^{i(\omega_{m}-\xi_{0})t},\label{eqofB}$$ where $\delta B=\delta b e^{i(\omega_{m}-\xi_{0})t}$ is defined. In deriving Eq. (\[eqofB\]), we have made use of a rotating wave approximation such that counter-rotating terms with the rapidly oscillating phase factors $e^{\pm 2i(\omega_{m}-\xi_{0})t}$ and $e^{\pm 4i(\omega_{m}-\xi_{0})t}$ have been dropped. ![(Color online) Time evolution of $\langle \delta {X}_{b}^{2}(\pi/4,t)\rangle$ at various temperatures $T_{m}$. From the bottom up, the three curves correspond to $k_{B}T_{m}/(\hbar\omega_{m})=0,20$, and $50$, respectively. The standard quantum limit $1/2$ is indicated by dashed black line. The parameters are given in the text.[]{data-label="dissipativecase"}](fig2.eps){width="3.3"} We notice that Eq. (\[eqofB\]) precisely corresponds to the equation of motion of a damped parametric oscillator at resonance. If damping can be ignored, a mirror initially prepared in the ground state would display exponential squeezing as time increases: $\langle \delta {X}_{b}^{2}(\pi/4,t)\rangle =\frac{1}{2}e^{-\xi_{0}t}$. Such an efficient squeezing can be understood by inspecting Eq. (\[effeqofdb\]) in which our choice of $\Omega(t)$ matches the average value of the shifted resonance frequency of the mirror $ \omega_m - \eta {\|\langle a(t)\rangle\|}^2$, and therefore the parametric resonance can be reached approximately. Note that $\xi_{0}$ is the average value of such a frequency shift and it also plays the role of an effective strength of the parametric process. However, it should be noted that for practical purposes, $\xi_0$ in Eq. (\[eqofB\]), which decreases as $\Delta_c^{-3}$, has to be strong enough to overcome noises of the baths, i.e., the detuning $\Delta_c$ cannot be arbitrarily large. For realistic choices of $\Delta_c$, the quality of squeezing has to be examined in the presence of noise without making use of the adiabatic approximation. To this end, we employ the linear formalism above and solve directly the covariance matrix in Eq. (\[solofR\]) numerically. For simplicity, we assume that the system is initially prepared in its ground state $\|0\rangle_{c}\otimes\|0\rangle_{m}$ through a state preparation process. Such an initial state may be achievable in future experiments based on ground-state cooling techniques. In addition, we consider the following systems parameters: $\omega_{m}=2\pi\times 1$ MHz, $\Delta_{c}=2\pi\times 10$ MHz, $\gamma_{m}=2\pi\times 100$ Hz, $\gamma_{c}=2\pi\times 100$ kHz, $\Omega_{0}\approx31.6$ GHz and $g=2\pi\times 100$ Hz, which are realistic under current experimental conditions [@Aspelmeyer2009; @Gorodetsky2010]. In Fig. \[dissipativecase\] we plot the time-dependence of quadrature variance of the mirror at various temperatures based on the form of $\Omega (t)$ in Eq. (\[Omegatform\]), the evidence of squeezing is clearly shown at sufficiently low temperatures. In fact, for not too large $\Delta_c= 10 \omega_m$ chosen in Fig. \[dissipativecase\], our exact numerical results agree well with the adiabatic approximation. If the temperature of the mirror’s bath is higher than a critical value, $T^{c}_{m}$, then there will no longer be squeezing in the mirror (Fig. \[dissipativecase\], blue line). A rough estimation of the damping effect can be made by considering that the noise is mainly from the mirror’s bath, so that $$\langle\delta X^{2}_{b}(\pi/4,t)\rangle \approx \frac{1}{2}e^{-(\gamma_{m}+\xi_{0})t}+ \frac{\gamma_{m}(\bar{n}_{m}+1/2)}{(\gamma_{m}+\xi_{0})}\left(1-e^{-(\gamma_m+\xi_0)t}\right).$$ Therefore squeezing occurs if the thermal excitation number $\bar{n}_{m}$ is below a critical number, $\bar{n}^{c}_{m} = \frac{\xi_{0}} { 2\gamma_{m}}$. For the parameters used in Fig. \[dissipativecase\], our estimation gives $T^{c}_{m}\approx 4.8$ mK or $k_{B}T^{c}_{m}/\hbar\omega_{m} \approx 50.5$, and this agrees with the numerical value $50$ shown in Fig. \[dissipativecase\]. We remark that in deriving Eq. (14), the effect of noise $a_{in}$ has been neglected. This can be justified by a lengthly calculation which shows that $\langle\delta X_b^{2} \rangle $ due to the cavity field noise is of the order of $\xi_0(\gamma_{m}+\xi_0+\gamma_{c})/[4\Delta_{c}(\gamma_{m}+\xi_0)]$ in the long time limit, and hence it can be made small compared with the contribution from the thermal bath of the mirror by a large detuning. Conclusion ========== To conclude, we have presented a method to generate quadrature squeezing of a mirror in cavity optomechanics. Specifically, we have shown that in the large detuning regime with $\Delta_c \gg \omega_m \gg \xi_0$ and $\Delta_c \gg g \|\langle X_b (t) \rangle\|$, the driving field of the form $\Omega(t)$ given in Eq. (12) can generate squeezing dynamically [@rmk]. The squeezing is supported by direct numerical calculations for realistic parameters. We should point out that our scheme is different from that in Ref. [@Eisert2009] because the large detuning regime considered here enable us to eliminate the cavity field and formally map the mirror to a parametric oscillator. In addition, parametric resonance can be fine tuned by our driving field $\Omega(t)$ so that the frequency shift of the mirror due to coupling to the cavity field can be compensated approximately. One of us (J.Q.L.) would like to thank Yu-Quan Ma and Nan Zhao for technical support. This work is supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China (Project No. CUHK401810). [99]{} T. J. Kippenberg and K. J. Vahala, Science 321, 1172 (2008). F. Marquardt and S. M. Girvin, Physics 2, 40 (2009). I. Favero and K. Karrai, Nat. Photonics 3, 201 (2009). M. Aspelmeyer, S. Gröblacher, K. Hammerer, and N. Kiesel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, A189 (2010). I. Wilson-Rae, N. Nooshi, W. Zwerger, and T. J. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093901 (2007). F. Marquardt, J. P. Chen, A. A. Clerk, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093902 (2007). S. Gigan, H. R. Böhm, M. Paternostro, F. Blaser, G. Langer, J. B. Hertzberg, K. C. Schwab, D. Bäuerle, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature (London) 444, 67 (2006). O. Arcizet, P.-F. Cohadon, T. Briant, M. Pinard, and A. Heidmann, Nature (London) 444, 71 (2006). D. Kleckner and D. Bouwmeester, Nature (London) 444, 75 (2006). A. Schliesser, R. Rivière, G. Anetsberger, O. Arcizet, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nat. Physics 4, 415 (2008); A. Schliesser, O. Arcizet, R. Rivière, G. Anetsberger, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nat. Physics 5, 509 (2009). C. Genes, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, S. Gigan, and M. Aspelmeyer, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033804 (2008). Y.-S. Park and H. Wang, Nat. Physics 5, 489 (2009). S. Bose, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4175 (1997). W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 130401 (2003); D. Kleckner, I. Pikovski, E. Jeffrey, L. Ament, E. Eliel, J. van den Brink, and D. Bouwmeester, New J. Phys. [10]{}, 095020 (2008). S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88]{}, 120401 (2002); C. Genes, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 77, 050307 (2008); C. Genes, A. Mari, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032316 (2008). A. Ferreira, A. Guerreiro, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. [96]{}, 060407 (2006); D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. R. Böhm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. Aspelmeyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030405 (2007). M. Paternostro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [99]{}, 250401 (2007). M. J. Hartmann and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [101]{}, 200503 (2008). C. Fabre, M. Pinard, S. Bourzeix, A. Heidmann, E. Giacobino, and S. Reynaud, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1337 (1994). S. Mancini and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4055 (1994). A. Heidmann and S. Reynaud, Phys. Rev. A 50, 4237 (1994). Z. R. Gong, H. Ian, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 80, 065801 (2009). H. Ian, Z. R. Gong, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 78, 013824 (2008). K. Jähne, C. Genes, K. Hammerer, M. Wallquist, E. S. Polzik, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 79, 063819 (2009). A. Mari and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 213603 (2009). M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Zoller, C. Genes, M. Ludwig, F. Marquardt, P. Treutlein, J. Ye, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 81, 023816 (2010). A. Nunnenkamp, K. B[ø]{}rkje, J. G. E. Harris, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. A 82, 021806 (2010). C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, and M. Zimmermann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980). A. Abramovici et al., Science 256, 325 (1992). B. C. Barish and R. Weiss, Phys. Today 52, 44 (1999). J. M. Dobrindt, I. Wilson-Rae, and T. J. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 263602 (2008). D. A. Rodrigues and A. D. Armour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 053601 (2010). S. Gröblacher, K. Hammerer, M. R. Vanner, and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature (London) 460, 724 (2009). M. L. Gorodetsky, A. Schliesser, G. Anetsberger, S. Deleglise, and T. J. Kippenberg, Opt. Express, 18, 23236 (2010). The condition $\Delta_c \gg g \|\langle X_b (t) \rangle\|$ is equivalent to $\omega_m \gg \xi_0 (1+ \gamma_c^2 / \Delta_c^2)$ according to adiabatic approximation. For $\gamma_c < \Delta_c$, the operation condition for our scheme is also $\Delta_c \gg \omega_m \gg \xi_0$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'V.N.Melekhin' date: 15 January 1997 title: 'NEW EXPRESSION FOR THE TRANSVERSE DEFLECTION OF RELATIVISTIC PARTICLE IN HIGH-FREQUENCY FIELDS AND CORRELATION WITH PANOFSKY-WENZEL THEOREM' --- [Abstract]{} It is shown that change in transverse momentum of a relativistic particle, crossing an accelerating cavity parallel to its axis ($z-$axis), may be presented as an integral over trajectory, the integrand of which is proportional to $z-$component of magnetic field. The changes in $x-$ and $y-$components of momentum are equal in value but opposite in sign. The obtained result is compared with Panofsky-Wenzel theorem. Some general theorem was demonstrated by Panofsky and Wenzel \[1\] for a beam of fast particles passing through a cavity parallel to its axis. The transverse momentum $p_{\perp}$ imparted to the particle (charge $e$) can be presented as $$p_{\perp} =e \int_0^d \nabla_{\perp}(A_z) \cdot dz, \eqno (1)$$ where $z$ is the distance along the axis of the cavity, the ends of which corresponds to $z=0,\;d$ and ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential. This equation was derived for the special case of a cavity being some part of waveguide and having no transit holes. However, in paper \[2\] eq.(1) was extended to the common case, when cavity has an arbitrary shape and has transit holes. For any TE-mode (no component of electric field ${\bf E}$ parallel to the axis) eq.(1) gives $p_{\perp}=0\;$. Here and throughout this paper the physical reason of such a result is as follows: the actions of transverse electric and magnetic fields cancel each other being integrated over trajectory. For a TM-mode (no component of magnetic field ${\bf H}$ parallel to the axis) the equation (1) was presented in paper \[1\] as some integral of $E_{\perp}$ only, independently of particle velocity. However, this conclusion generally is in contradiction with Bell’s paper \[3\] in which it was shown that TM-mode, excited in circular cavity with round transit holes, gives $p_{\perp} \to 0$ at $v_z \to c$. We will discuss below the reason of such a discrepancy. The latter result is of great importance for electron accelerators because it inhibits, at first sight, high-frequency (HF) focusing of electrons by accelerating field. However, in our paper \[4\] the method of HF focusing was proposed which consists in using not round but oval transit holes, may be slits, or in using of noncircular cavities. In both cases the circular symmetry is broken and in some direction the focusing by electric field exceeds the magnetic field defocusing whereas in perpendicular direction one has the reverse situation. This method was successfully used in classical microtron (see \[4\] and \[5\]) and recently it was used for calculation of race-track microtron \[6\]. In all these papers only circular or rectangular cavities were considered. Let us calculate the particle deflection in the common case with the only restriction that a cavity has $x=0$ and $y=0$ planes of symmetry. In this case, taking the cavity symmetry into consideration, we can write approximate formulae $$E_x=f_x x,\;\; E_y=f_y y,\;\; H_x=g_x y,\;\; H_y=g_y x,\;\; H_z=g_z xy, \eqno (2)$$ where $x$ and $y$ are small deviations of a particle trajectory from the cavity axis, all coefficients $f$ and $g$ are certain functions of $z$ and an electromagnetic field inside the cavity can be written as ${\bf E} cos(\omega t + \phi_{\circ})$, ${\bf H} sin(\omega t + \phi_{\circ})$ with a frequency $\omega$ and an arbitrary initial phase $\phi_{\circ}$. Now one can obtain the following relations, using one of the Maxwell equations: $$g_z-\frac{dg_x}{dz} = k f_y,\;\; \frac{dg_y}{dz}-g_z=k f_x, \eqno (3)$$ where $k=\frac{\omega}{c}$ is wave number. Integrating by parts, we can write $$\int_0^d g_{\perp} \sin(\frac{kz}{\beta})\,dz = \frac{\beta}{k} \left[g_{\perp}(0)-g_{\perp}(d)\cos(\frac{kz}{\beta}) +\int_0^d \frac{dg_{\perp}}{dz}\cos(\frac{kz}{\beta})\,dz \right ], \eqno (4)$$ where $\frac{k z}{\beta}=\omega t + \phi_{\circ}$, $\beta =\frac{v_z}{c} \approx\!const$ and $g_{\perp}$ is $g_x$ or $g_y$. First and second terms in eq.(4) reduce to zero if the initial $(z=0)$ and final $(z=d)$ points of trajectory are situated outside the cavity. Taking eqs. (3) and (4) into account, one can derive: $$\frac{p_x}{x} = \frac{e}{\omega \beta} \int_0^d \left [ (1-\beta^2) \frac{dg_y}{dz}-g_z \right ] \cos(\frac{kz}{\beta})\,dz , \nonumber$$ $$\frac{p_y}{y} = -\frac{e}{\omega \beta} \int_0^d \left [ (1-\beta^2) \frac{dg_x}{dz}-g_z \right ] \cos(\frac{kz}{\beta})\,dz. \eqno (5)$$ We see that at $\beta \to 1$, that usually takes place in electron accelerators, the first terms of the integrands in both equations vanish, the result depends only on $z-$component of magnetic field and we have the following relationships: $$\frac{p_x}{x} = - \frac{p_y}{y} = -\frac{e}{\omega \beta} \int_0^d g_z \cos(\frac{kz}{\beta})\,dz . \eqno (6)$$ The obtained result is interesting in some respects. First, one can see that at any shape of cavity and transit holes HF focusing in some direction is accompanied by defocusing in transverse direction the same as it takes place for usual quadrupole focusing. Next, it follows from eqs.(6) that $p_{\perp}=0$ for TM-mode at $v_z \to c$, the same as it follows from eq.(1) for TE-mode at any velocity. Such a TM-mode may arise, for example, in a cavity of cylindrical symmetry and this result corresponds to that of paper \[3\]. Such mode may also be excited in rectangular cavity having such transit holes that parameters $G=\alpha'=\alpha''$ which appear in eq.(4.13) of monograph \[5\]. It is worth mentioning that first of the relations (6) follows from eqs. (4.13) and (4.14) of this monograph for the calculated there circular and rectangular cavities. This result, concerning TM-mode, obviously is in contradiction with the formula (7) of paper \[1\], in which $p_{\perp} \ne 0$ at any velocity. Such a discrepancy arises not only due to different boundary conditions. The mentioned formula (7) is incorrect because it was derived from the correct equation (3) of paper \[1\], which corresponds to eq.(1) of this paper, under the assumption $\nabla_{\perp}(A_z) \propto E_{\perp}$ (see eq.(4) in paper \[1\]), which is valid only for a waveguide, not for a cavity. In any cavity mode the mentioned values are displaced in time by quarter of a period. At the same time eq.(6) is agreed upon the equation (1) first obtained by Panofsky and Wenzel \[1\]. Here the equations (6) were derived for a cavity of an arbitrary shape having two planes of symmetry. In this common case TM-modes also can exist if the cavity is extended in some of these planes as much that it corresponds to transit holes asymmetry. If there is no such an accordance then magnetic lines penetrate into holes from the cavity and week component $H_z$ arises. However, despite low level of this component and the fact that Lorentz force does not depend on $H_z$, the resulting focusing at $\beta \to 1$ is proportional to $H_z$ as it follows from eq.(6). So, it follows from paper \[1\] together with this paper, that high-energy electrons can be deflected or focused only by such HF fields that have all six components and, hence, they are nor TE- nor TM-modes. The relations (6) are of practical importance for the numerical calculation of HF focusing. Such calculation is hampered by the fact that great focusing and defocusing impulses, produced by quasi-static electric field near transit holes and by HF magnetic field inside the cavity, are subtracted from each other and final value is little compared to initial ones. For this reason one needs to know the field distribution with very high accuracy that is conjectural. Taking this into account, the equations (6) can be used to check a result of numerical calculations. I am grateful to V.I.Shvedunov and N.P.Sobenin called my attention to the papers \[1\] and \[2\]. [99]{} bW.K.H.Panofsky, W.A.Wenzel, [Rev.Sci.Instr.]{}, [27]{}, (1956) bM.J.Browman, [Proc. 1993 Particle Accelerator Conf.]{} (USA), IEEE, p.800 bJ.S.Bell, [Proc. Phys. Soc.]{}, [B66]{}, p.802, (1953) bV.N.Melekhin, [JETP]{}, [42]{}, p.821 (1962, in Russian). bS.P.Kapitza and V.N.Melekhin, [The Microtron]{} (Moscow, Science, 1969, in Russian) or (Harwood, London, 1978). bV.N.Melekhin, A.I.Karev, V.I.Shvedunov, N.P.Sobenin, W.P.Trower, in [Proc. 1996 European Particle Conf. - EPAC-96, v.2, p.1380]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Given a space $X$ and a simplicial complex $K$ with $m$-vertices, the arrangement of partially diagonal subspaces of $X^m$, called the dragonal arrangement, is defined. We decompose the suspension of the diagonal arrangement when $2(\dim K+1)<m$, which generalizes the result of Labassi [@L]. As a corollary, we calculate the Euler characteristic of the complement $X^m-\Delta_K(X)$ when $X$ is a closed connected manifold.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Sakai, 599-8531, Japan' - 'Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan' author: - Kouyemon Iriye - Daisuke Kishimoto title: Homotopy decomposition of diagonal arrangements --- Introduction and statement of results ===================================== A homotopy decomposition is a powerful tool in studying the topology of subspace arrangements and their complements. Ziegler and Zivaljević [@ZZ] give a homotopy decomposition of the one point compactification of affine subspace arrangements, from which one can deduce the well known Goresky-MacPherson formula [@GM]. Bahri, Bendersky, Cohen, and Gitler [@BBCG] give a homotopy decomposition of polyhedral products, a generalization of coordinate subspace arrangements and their complements, after a suspension, from which one can deduce Hochster’s formula on related Stanley-Reisner rings. A homotopy decomposition of polyedral products due to Grbić and Theriault [@GT] and the authors [@IK1; @IK2] also implies the Golod property of several related simplicial complexes. In this paper, we consider a homotopy decomposition of diagonal arrangements which is defined as follows. Given a space $X$, we assign a partially diagonal subspace of $X^m$ corresponding to a subset $\sigma\subset[m]=\{1,\ldots,m\}$ as $$\Delta_\sigma(X)=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in X^m\,\vert\,x_{i_1}=\cdots=x_{i_k}\text{ for }\{i_1,\ldots,i_k\}=[m]-\sigma\}.$$ Throughout the paper, let $K$ be a simplicial complex on the index set $[m]$, possibly with ghost vertices, where we always assume that the empty subset of $[m]$ is a simplex of $K$. We define the arrangement of partially diagonal subspaces of $X^m$ as $$\Delta_K(X)=\bigcup_{\sigma\in K}\Delta_\sigma(X),$$ which is called the diagonal arrangement associated with $K$. Since $\Delta_K(X)$ is actually the union of the partially diagonal subspaces $\Delta_F(X)$ for facets $F$ of $K$, it is also called the hypergraph arrangement associated with the hypergraph whose edges are facets of $K$. Diagonal arrangements include many important subspace arrangements. For example, if $K$ is the $(m-3)$-skeleton of $(m-1)$-simplex, $\Delta_K(X)$ is the braid arrangement of $X$. Topology and combinatorics of diagonal arrangements have been studied in several directions. See [@Ko; @PRW; @Ki; @KS; @L; @MW; @M] for example. We are particularly interested in the homotopy type of $\Delta_K(X)$. Labassi [@L] showed that the suspension $\Sigma\Delta_K(X)$ decomposes into a certain wedge of smash products of copies of $X$ when $K$ is the $(m-d-1)$-skeleton of the $(m-1)$-simplex and $2d>m$, in which case $\Delta_K(X)$ consists of all $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in X^m$ such that at least $d$-tuple of $x_i$’s are identical. The proof for this decomposition in [@L] heavily depends on the symmetry of the skeleta of simplices, and then it cannot apply to general $K$. The aim of this note is to generalize this result to arbitrary $K$ with $2(\dim K+1)<m$ by a new method, where the result is best possible in the sense that if $2(\dim K+1)\ge m$, the decomposition does not hold as is seen in [@L]. \[main\] If $X$ is a connected CW-complex and $2(\dim K+1)<m$, then $$\Sigma\Delta_K(X)\simeq\Sigma(\bigvee_{\sigma\in K}\widehat{X}^{\|\sigma\|}\vee\widehat{X}^{\|\sigma\|+1})$$ where $\widehat{X}^k$ is the smash product of $k$-copies of $X$ for $k>0$ and $\widehat{X}^0$ is a point. As a corollary, we calculate the Euler characteristic of the complement of the diagonal arrangement ${\mathcal{M}}_K(X)=X^m-\Delta_K(X)$. \[euler-char\] Let $X$ be a closed connected $n$-manifold. If $2(\dim K+1)<m$, the Euler characteristic of ${\mathcal{M}}_K(X)$ is given by $$\chi({\mathcal{M}}_K(X))=\chi(X)^m-(-1)^{mn}\chi(X)(1+\sum_{\emptyset\ne\sigma\in K}(\chi(X)-1)^{\|\sigma\|}).$$ Corollary \[euler-char\] does not hold without compactness of $X$. For example, if $X={\mathbb{R}}$ (hence $n=1$) and $K$ consists only of the empty subset of $[m]$, ${\mathcal{M}}_K(X)$ is the off-diagonal subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ which has the homotopy type of $S^{m-2}$. Then $\chi({\mathcal{M}}_K(X))=1+(-1)^{m}$, which differs from Corollary \[euler-char\]. ### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Acknowledgement</span> {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} The authors are grateful to Sadok Kallel for introducing the paper [@L] to them. Proofs ====== Before considering the proof of Theorem \[main\], we prepare two lemmas on homotopy fibrations. \[[[@F Proposition, pp.180]]{}\] \[hocolim-fibration\] Let $\{F_i\to E_i\to B\}_{i\in I}$ be an $I$-diagram of homotopy fibrations over a fixed connected base $B$. Then $$\underset{I}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,F_i\to\underset{I}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,E_i\to B$$ is a homotopy fibration. \[decomp\] Consider a homotopy fiberation $F\xrightarrow{j}E\xrightarrow{\pi}B$ of connected CW-complexes. If $\Sigma j:\Sigma F\to\Sigma E$ has a homotopy retraction, then $$\Sigma E\simeq\Sigma B\vee\Sigma F\vee\Sigma(B\wedge F).$$ Let $r:\Sigma E\to\Sigma F$ be a homotopy retraction of $\Sigma j$, and let $\rho$ be the composite $$\Sigma E\to\Sigma E\vee\Sigma E\vee\Sigma E\xrightarrow{\Sigma\pi\vee r\vee\Delta}\Sigma B\vee\Sigma F\vee\Sigma(E\wedge E)\xrightarrow{1\vee 1\vee(\pi\wedge r)}\Sigma\check{B}$$ where $\check{A}=A\vee F\vee(A\wedge F)$ for a space $A$. Since $\Sigma E$ and $\Sigma B\vee\Sigma F\vee\Sigma(B\wedge F)$ are simply connected CW-complexes, it is sufficient to show that $\rho$ is an isomorphism in homology by the J.H.C. Whitehead theorem. We first observe the special case that there is a fiberwise homotopy equivalence $\theta:B\times F\to E$ over $B$. Then it is straightforward to see $$\rho_\circ\theta_(b\times f)=b\times\hat{\theta}_(f)+\sum_{\|b_i\|<\|b\|}b_i\times f_i$$ for singular chains $b,b_i$ in $B$ and $f,f_i$ in $F$, where we omit writing the suspension isomorphism of homology and $\hat{\theta}$ is a self-homotopy equivalence of $F$ given by the composite $$\Sigma F\xrightarrow{j}\Sigma(B\times F)\xrightarrow{\theta}\Sigma E\xrightarrow{r}\Sigma F.$$ This readily implies that the map $\rho\circ\theta$ is an isomorphism in homology, and then so is $\rho$. For non-connected $B$, the above is also true if we assume that $r$ is a homotopy retraction of the suspension of the fiber inclusion on each component of $B$. We next consider the general case. Let $B_n$ be the $n$-skeleton of $B$, and let $E_n=\pi^{-1}(B_n)$. We prove that the restriction $\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n}:\Sigma E_n\to\Sigma\check{B}_n$ is an isomorphism in homology by induction on $n$. Since $B$ is connected, $j$ is homotopic to the composite $$F\simeq\pi^{-1}(b)\xrightarrow{\text{incl}}E$$ for any $b\in B$. Then $\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_0}:\Sigma E_0\to\Sigma\check{B}_0$ is an isomorphism in homology. Consider the following commutative diagram of homology exact sequences. $$\label{rho} \xymatrix{ \cdots\ar[r]&H_(E_{n-1})\ar[r]\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_{n-1}})_}&H_(E_n)\ar[r]\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_}&H_(E_n,E_{n-1})\ar[r]\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_}&\cdots\\ \cdots\ar[r]&H_(\check{B}_{n-1})\ar[r]&H_(\check{B}_n)\ar[r]&H_(\check{B}_n,\check{B}_{n-1})\ar[r]&\cdots}$$ By the induction hypothesis, $(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_{n-1}})_$ is an isomorphism. Since $B_{n-1}$ is a subcomplex of $B_n$, there is a neighborhood $U\subset B_n$ of $B_{n-1}$ which deforms onto $B_{n-1}$. By the excision isomorphism, there is a commutative diagram of natural isomorphisms $$\xymatrix{H_(E_n,E_{n-1})\ar[r]^(.48)\cong\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_}&H_(E_n,\pi^{-1}(U))\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_}&H_(E_n-E_{n-1},\pi^{-1}(U)-E_{n-1})\ar[d]^{(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_}\ar[l]_(.63)\cong\\ H_(\check{B}_n,\check{B}_{n-1})\ar[r]^(.54)\cong&H_(\check{B}_n,\check{U})&H_(\check{B}_n-\check{B}_{n-1},\check{U}-\check{B}_{n-1})\ar[l]^(.63)\cong}$$ where we may chose the basepoints of $B_n$ and $U$ in $U-B_{n-1}$ since $B$ is connected. Since each connected component of $B_n-B_{n-1}$ is contractible, $E_n-E_{n-1}$ is fiberwise homotopy equivalent to $(B_n-B_{n-1})\times F$ over $B_n-B_{n-1}$, and then so is also $\pi^{-1}(U)-E_{n-1}$ to $(U-B_{n-1})\times F$ over $U-B_{n-1}$. As in the 0-skeleton case, we see that $\Sigma r$ restricts to a homotopy retraction of the suspension of the fiber inclusion on each component of $\Sigma(B_n-B_{n-1})$. Then by the above trivial fibration case, we obtain that the map $$(\rho\vert_{\Sigma(E_n-E_{n-1})})_:H_(E_n-E_{n-1},\pi^{-1}(U)-E_{n-1})\to H_(\check{B}_n-\check{B}_{n-1},\check{U}-\check{B}_{n-1})$$ is an isomorphism, hence so is the right $(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_$ in . Thus by the five lemma, the middle $(\rho\vert_{\Sigma E_n})_$ in is an isomorphism. We finally take the colimit to get that the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism in homology as desired, completing the proof. If we assume further that $F$ is of finite type, it immediately follows from the Leray-Hirsch theorem that the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism in cohomology with any field coefficient, implying that $\rho$ is an isomorphism in the integral homology by [@H Corollary 3A.7]. We now consider the diagonal arrangement $\Delta_K(X)$. Suppose that $2(\dim K+1)<m$, or equivalently, $2\|\sigma\|<m$ for any $\sigma\in K$. Then for $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in\Delta_K(X)$, there is unique $x\in X$ such that $x_{i_1}=\cdots=x_{i_k}=x$ with $i_1<\cdots<i_k$ and $2k>m$. Then by assigning such $x$ to $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in\Delta_K(X)$, we get a continuous map $$\pi:\Delta_K(X)\to X.$$ For $\tau\subset[m]$, let $X^\tau=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in X^m\,\vert\,x_i=\text{ for }i\in[m]-\tau\}$, and we put $$X^K=\bigcup_{\sigma\in K}X^\sigma$$ which is called the polyhedral product or the generalized moment-angle complex associated with the pair $(X,)$ and $K$. Observe that for $2(\dim K+1)<m$, we have $\pi^{-1}()=X^K$. \[fibration\] If $X$ is a CW-complex and $2(\dim K+1)<m$, then $X^K\to\Delta_K(X)\xrightarrow{\pi}X$ is a homotopy fibration. For each $\sigma\in K$, the map $\pi\vert_\sigma:\Delta_\sigma(X)\to X$ is identified with the projection from the product of copies of $X$. Then it follows from Lemma \[hocolim-fibration\] that $$\underset{K}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,X^\sigma\to\underset{K}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,\Delta_\sigma(X)\to X$$ is a homotopy fibration. Since the inclusions $X^\sigma\to X^\tau$ and $\Delta_\sigma(X)\to\Delta_\tau(X)$ for any $\sigma\subset\tau\subset[m]$ are cofibrations, we have $$\underset{K}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,X^\sigma\simeq\underset{K}{\mathrm{colim}}\,X^\sigma=X^K\quad\text{and}\quad\underset{K}{\mathrm{hocolim}}\,\Delta_\sigma(X)\simeq\underset{K}{\mathrm{colim}}\,\Delta_\sigma(X)=\Delta_K(X),$$ completing the proof. Put $\widehat{X}^K=\bigvee_{\emptyset\ne\sigma\in K}\widehat{X}^{\|\sigma\|}$. In [@BBCG], it is proved that there is a homotopy equivalence $$\label{BBCG} \epsilon_X:\Sigma X^K\xrightarrow{\simeq}\Sigma\widehat{X}^K$$ which is natural with respect to $X$, i.e. for a map $f:X\to Y$, the square diagram $$\xymatrix{\Sigma X^K\ar[r]^\epsilon\ar[d]_{\Sigma f^K}&\Sigma\widehat{X}^K\ar[d]^{\Sigma\hat{f}^K}\\ \Sigma Y^K\ar[r]^\epsilon&\Sigma\widehat{Y}^K}$$ is homotopy commutative, where the vertical arrows are induced from $f$. \[retraction\] If $X$ is a CW-complex and $2(\dim K+1)<m$, the inclusion $j:X^K\to\Delta_K(X)$ has a homotopy retraction after a suspension. Let $E:X\to\Omega\Sigma X$ be the suspension map. Since $\Sigma E$ has a retraction, we easily see that the induced map $\Sigma\widehat{E}^K:\Sigma\widehat{X}^K\to\Sigma\widehat{\Omega\Sigma X}{}^K$ has a retraction, say $r$. If $Y$ is an H-space, the map $$Y\times Y^K\to\Delta_K(Y),\quad(y,(y_1,\ldots,y_m))\mapsto(y\cdot y_1,\ldots,y\cdot y_m)$$ is a map between homotopy fibrations with common base and fiber, and then is a weak homotopy equivalence. Hence if $Y$ has the homotopy type of a CW-complex, the map is a homotopy equivalence, implying that there is a homotopy retraction $r':\Delta_K(Y)\to Y^K$ of the inclusion $j:Y^K\to\Delta_K(Y)$. Combining the above maps, we get a homotopy commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{\Sigma\widehat{X}^K\ar@{=}[r]\ar@{=}[dd]&\Sigma\widehat{X}^K\ar[r]^{\epsilon^{-1}}\ar[dd]^{\Sigma\widehat{E}^K}&\Sigma X^K\ar[r]^(.45){\Sigma j}\ar[d]^{\Sigma E^K}&\Sigma\Delta_K(X)\ar[d]^{\Sigma\Delta_K(E)}\\ &&\Sigma(\Omega\Sigma X)^K\ar[r]^(.45){\Sigma j}\ar@{=}[d]&\Sigma\Delta_K(\Omega\Sigma X)\ar@{=}[d]\\ \Sigma\widehat{X}^K&\Sigma\widehat{\Omega\Sigma X}{}^K\ar[l]_r&\Sigma(\Omega\Sigma X)^K\ar[l]_\epsilon&\Sigma\Delta_K(\Omega\Sigma X)\ar[l]_{\Sigma r'}}$$ where $\Delta_K(E):\Delta_K(X)\to\Delta_K(\Omega\Sigma X)$ is induced from $E$. Thus the composite $$\Sigma\Delta_K(X)\xrightarrow{\Sigma\Delta_K(E)}\Sigma\Delta_K(\Omega\Sigma X)\xrightarrow{\Sigma r'}\Sigma(\Omega\Sigma X)^K\xrightarrow{\epsilon}\Sigma\widehat{\Omega\Sigma X}{}^K\xrightarrow{r}\Sigma\widehat{X}^K\xrightarrow{\epsilon^{-1}}\Sigma X^K$$ is the desired homotopy retraction. \[Proof of Theorem \[main\]\] If $2(\dim K+1)<m$, there is a homotopy fibration $X^K\to\Delta_K(X)\to X$, where the fiber inclusion has a homotopy retraction after a suspension by Proposition \[retraction\]. Then by Lemma \[decomp\], we get a homotopy equivalence $$\Sigma\Delta_K(X)\simeq\Sigma X\vee\Sigma X^K\vee\Sigma(X\wedge X^K).$$ Therefore the proof is completed by . \[Proof of Corollary \[euler-char\]\] Since $X$ is a compact manifold, $\Delta_K(X)$ is a compact, locally contractible subset of an $mn$-manifold $X^m$. Then by the Poincaré-Alexander duality [@H Proposition 3.46], there is an isomorphism $$H_i(X^m,{\mathcal{M}}_K(X);{\mathbb{Z}}/2)\cong H^{mn-i}(\Delta_K(X);{\mathbb{Z}}/2),$$ implying that $\chi(X^m,{\mathcal{M}}_K(X))=(-1)^{mn}\chi(\Delta_K(X))$. Thus since $\chi(\widehat{X}^k)=(\chi(X)-1)^k+1$ for $k\ge 1$, it follows from Theorem \[main\] that $$\chi(X^m,{\mathcal{M}}_K(X))=(-1)^{mn}\chi(X)(1+\sum_{\emptyset\ne\sigma\in K}(\chi(X)-1)^{\|\sigma\|}).$$ Therefore the proof is completed by the equality $\chi(X^m)=\chi(X^m,{\mathcal{M}}_K(X))+\chi({\mathcal{M}}_K(X))$. [KS]{} A. Bahri, M. Bendersky, F.R. Cohen, and S. Gitler, [The polyhedral product functor: a method of decomposition for moment-angle complexes, arrangements and related spaces]{}, Advances in Math. [225]{} (2010), 1634-1668. E.D. Farjoun, [Cellular spaces, null spaces and homotopy localization]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [1622]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996. M. Goresky and R. MacPherson, [Stratified Morse Theory]{}, Ergebnisse der Math. [14]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1988. J. Grbić and S. Theriault, [The homotopy type of the complement of a coordinate subspace arrangement]{}, Topology [46]{} (2007), 357-396. A. Hatcher, [Algebraic Topology]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. K. Iriye and D. Kishimoto, [Decompositions of polyhedral products for shifted complexes]{}, Advances in Math. [245]{} (2013), 716-736. K. Iriye and D. Kishimoto, [Topology of polyhedral products and the Golod property of the Stanley-Reisner rings]{}, <arXiv:1306.6221>. S. Kallel and I. Saihi, [Homotopy groups of diagonal complements]{}, <arXiv:1306.6272>. S. Kim, [Shellable complexes and topology of diagonal arrangements]{}, Discrete Comput. Geom. [40]{} (2008), 190-213. D.N. Kozlov, [A class of hypergraph arrangements with shellable intersection lattice]{}, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A [86]{} (1999), 169-176. F. Labbasi, [Sur les diagonales épaisses et leurs complémentaires]{}, to appear in Homotopy and Related Structures. M.S. Miller, [Massey products and k-equal manifolds]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN [2012]{}, no. 8, 1805-1821. M. Miller and M.Wakefield, [Formality of Pascal arrangements]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [139]{} (2011), no. 12, 4461-4466. I. Peeva, V. Reiner, and V. Welker, [Cohomology of real diagonal subspace arrangements via resolutions]{}, Compositio Math. [117]{} (1999), 99-115. G.M. Ziegler and R.T. Zivaljević, [Homotopy types of subspace arrangements via diagrams of spaces]{}, Math. Ann. [295]{}, (1993), 527-548.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| By introducing a kind of special functions namely exponent-like function, cosine-like function and sine-like function, we obtain explicitly the basic structures of solutions of initial value problem at the original point for this kind of linear pantograph equations. In particular, we get the complete results on the existence, uniqueness and non-uniqueness of the initial value problems at a general point for the kind of linear pantograph equations. Key words: pantograph equation; functional differential equation; exponent-like function; special function author: - \| Cheng-shi Liu\ Department of Mathematics\ Northeast Petroleum University\ Daqing 163318, China\ Email: [email protected] title: Basic theory of a kind of linear pantograph equations --- Introduction ============ Usual functional differential equations such as $y'(x)=y(x-x_0)$ also namely time-delay differential equation have been expansively studied from theories and applications\[1\]. Here, we consider another kind of functional differential equations with the form $y'(x)=y(\alpha x)$ where $0<\alpha<1$, which is also named as pantograph equation. Due to the following several reasons, it is rather difficult to study them. Firstly, even for the simplest homogenous linear pantograph $y'(x)=y(\alpha x)$, its solution can not be presented in terms of elementary functions. Secondly, even for the simplest non-homogenous linear pantograph equation $y'(x)=\lambda y(\alpha x)+q(x)$, we cannot solve it by the routine methods such as the variation of constant and the Laplace transformation. Thirdly, for the initial value problems of the linear pantograph equation, for the different choices of initial points, the existence and uniqueness of the solutions have crucial differences. In general, at a general point, the solution of the initial value problem perhaps doesn’t exist, or is not unique. These facts are against intuition. Finally, we know that the energy is a conservative quantity for the second order vibration equation $y''(t)=-y(t)$, but for the equation $y''(t)=-\alpha y(\alpha t)$, the energy is not conserved since it is not invariant under the time translation. In fact, letting $z(t)=y(t+T)$, we have $z''(t)=-\alpha y(\alpha t+\alpha T)\neq -\alpha z(\alpha t)=-\alpha y(\alpha t+ T)$. This implies that the original point of time has a special meaning and can not be taken arbitrarily. Therefore, although there are many analogies between usual ordinary (and functional) differential equations and the pantograph equations, the most basic structures of the solutions of the linear pantograph equations are still open. The pantograph equations (including the case of $\alpha>1$) have been studied for a long time. In 1940, Mahler\[2\] had introduced such type functional differential equations in number theory. In 1971, Fox et al\[3\] and Ockendon et al\[4\] proposed this kind of equations as the models to study some industrial problems. Kato and Mcleod \[5\] studied the asymptotic properties of the solution of the equation $y'(x)=ay(\lambda x)+by(x)$. Carr and Dyson \[6,7\] studied the related problems on complex domain. In 1972, Morris, Feldstein and Bowen published an important paper\[8\] in which they obtained some very important results on the subject. In particular, they proved that the solution of the equation $y'(x)=-y(\alpha x)$ with $y(0)=1$ has an infinity of positive zeroes, which means that at such zero points, the solutions of initial value problem will be not unique or do not exist. It is Prof.Iserles who called this kind of functional differential equations with the multiplication delay as the pantograph equations\[9\]. Up to now, there have been a large number of papers to study this kind of equations in theory and applications(see, for example,\[9-23,25-28\]). Among these, Iserles\[9,11\] studied the generalized and nonlinear pantograph equations and gave some deep results, and Derfel and Iserles\[12\] dealt with the equation on the complex plane. Iserles and Liu\[18\] studied the integro-differential pantograph equation. Mallet-Paret and Nussbaum\[19\] discussed the analyticity and non-analyticity of solutions. As application, Van Brunt and Wake\[21\] studied a model in cell growth. Because there exist in general no solutions in terms of elementary functions and known special functions even for the simplest equation $y'(x)=y(\alpha x)$, Iserles and Liu\[22\] used the generalized hypergeometric functions to solve some integro-differential pantograph equations. Feldstein, Iserles and Levin\[23\] studied the embedding of this kind of equations into the infinite-dimensional ODE systems. Recently, Atiyah and Moore discussed a kind of functional differential equations such as $y'(x)=k(y(x-x_0)+y(x+x_0))$ in the study of some problems arising in fundamental physics \[24\]. This kind of delay differential equations can be solved by elementary functions. Atiyah and Moore pointed out that relativistic invariance implied that one must consider both advanced and retarded terms in the equations, and they named them as shifted equations and showed that the shifted Dirac equation had some novel properties and a tentative formulation of shifted Einstein-Maxwell equations naturally incorporates a small but nonzero cosmological constant. Following Atiyah and Moore\[24\], Kong and Zhang \[25\] also studied the pantograph type equations. If we notice that there is an original point of time for our universe which arises from the big bang, this kind of equations will become a possible mathematical tool to describe the corresponding physics. Another possible application of pantograph equations is elastic-plastic mechanics\[29\] in which the strain of the material depends on substraction delay type memory of the stress. Indeed, for instance, for an elastic-plastic spring, a memory effect can in general be represented in terms of a delay function $h(t)$ such that the force at the time $t$ depends on the displacement at the time $t-h(t)$. For simplicity, a routine way is to take a constant delay function $h(t)=h_0$ which leads to a usual delay differential equation. But there exist some weaknesses for this choice. For example, the memory in $t<h_0$ can not be considered. Moreover, the fixed $h_0$ is only suitable for short period memory. For long time memory, a reasonable memory function should be a real function depending on a time variable $t$. The simplest choice is $h(t)=\beta t$ with $0<\beta<1$, and hence $t-h(t)=(1-\beta)t=\alpha t$ with $\alpha=1-\beta$. This treatment leads naturally to a multiplication delay differential equation. Therefore, if replacing the substraction delay by multiplication delay, the corresponding vibration equation will be $y''(t)=-Ky(\alpha t)$ where $0<\alpha<1$. Some new applications can be found in \[26-28\]. In the present paper, we introducing a kind of special functions namely exponent-like function, cosine-like function and sine-like function, and explicitly solve the initial value problems of these equations including the first order linear pantograph equation, the high order linear pantograph equation, the system of linear pantograph equations, and the boundary value problem of the second order pantograph equation. We give some important and interesting properties of these special functions. By these special functions, the structures of the solutions of these linear pantograph equations are recovered and obtained clearly. In particular, we obtain the basic results on the existence, uniqueness and non-uniqueness of the solutions of initial value problem at a general point for linear pantograph equations. These results show some crucial differences between the usual linear differential equations and linear pantograph equations. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, as preliminary, the existence and uniqueness theorems for the initial value problem at the original point of linear pantograph equations are listed. Section 3 is a key section of the paper, in which three special functions namely exponential-like function $E_{\alpha}(x)$, sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ are introduced and some properties are obtained by detailed analysis. These functions are the foundation of solving and studying the linear pantograph equations. In section 4, we give the basic theorems on linear pantograph equations. The non-homogenous pantograph equation $y'(t)=py(\alpha t)+q(x)$ is solved by the power series method and a useful formula is given. This is a key result by which the structure of the solutions of the system of linear pantograph equations is obtained. In section 5, the solutions of the second order pantograph equation $y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+ qy(\alpha^2 x)=0$ are classified and its initial value problem at the original point is solved. In section 6, the system of the linear pantograph equations is solved in details and the structure of the solutions is given. In section 7, an operator method is used to solve the high order linear pantograph equations and the corresponding formula of the solution is obtained. In section 8, we consider the initial value problem at a general point for linear pantograph equations, and obtain the complete results on the existence and uniqueness and non-uniqueness of solutions. In section 9, the boundary value problem of the second order linear pantograph equation is solved and the corresponding eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are given. Preliminary: existence and uniqueness theorems at original point ================================================================ Since the existence and uniqueness theorems are the foundations of the further studies, we give them as the preliminary in this section. For the following initial value problem of the first order pantograph equation $$y'(x)= f(y(\alpha x)),$$ $$y(0)=y_0,$$ where $0<\alpha<1$, if $f$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition, the existence and uniqueness of the local solution can be proven by the Banach fixed point theorem. In the paper, we only consider the linear equation, and hence we need not this result. By the standard method in usual ODE theory\[30\], we can easily prove the following theorems (see the theorem 1 in \[5\]). Theorem 2.1. There is a unique analytic solution for the initial value problem $$\frac{\mathrm{d}X(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=AX(\alpha t)+b(t),$$ $$X(0)=X_0,$$ where $X(t)=(x_1(t),\cdots,x_n(t))^T$ is a $n$ dimensional column vector, $b(t)$ is a known column vector function and $A=(a_{ij})_{n\times n}$ is a constant matrix. Theorem 2.2. If $X_1(t),\cdots,X_n(t)$ are $n$ linear independent basic solutions of the homogenous equation of Eq.(3), and $X^(t)$ is a special solution of the non-homogenous equation, then the general solution of non-homogenous equation can be represented by linear combination of these basics solutions adding a special solution, i.e., $$X(t)=c_1X_1(t)+\cdots+c_nX_n(t)+X^(t).$$ For example, for the first order linear pantograph equation $$y'(x)= \beta y(\alpha x),$$ $$y(0)=y_0,$$ or the second equation $$y''(x)= \beta y(\alpha x),$$ $$y(0)=y_0, y'(0)=v_0,$$ there is the unique analytic solution. Corollary 2.1. If $y_1(x)$ and $y_2(x)$ are two linear independent solutions of the equation $y''(x)=\beta y(\alpha x)$ with initial values $y_1(0)=1, y'(0)=0$ and $y_2(0)=0, y'(0)=1$ respectively, the general solution can be represented by $$y(x)=c_1y_1(x)+c_2y_2(x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are toe arbitrary constants. Proof. Firstly, by initial conditions, it is easy to see that these two solutions $y_1$ and $y_2$ are linear independent. Let $y(x)$ be a solution with initial conditions $y(0)=c_1$ and $y'(0)=c_2$, and take $z(x)=c_1y_1(x)+c_2y_2(x)$. Then $y(x)$ and $z(x)$ have the same initial values. From the unique theorem 2.1, it follows that $y(x)=z(x)$. Theorem 2.3. For the $n$-th order linear pantograph equation $$y^{(n)}(x)+p_{n-1}y^{(n-1)}(\alpha x)+p_{n-2}y^{(n-2)}(\alpha^2 x)+\cdots+p_1y'(\alpha^{n-1} x)+p_0y(\alpha^n x)=f(t),$$ $$y(0)=c_1, y'(0)=c_2,\cdots,y^{(n-1)}(0)=c_{n-1},$$ where $f(t)$ is a known analytic function, there is a unique analytic solution, and the general solution of the Eq.(11) can be represented by linear combination of the basics solutions of homogenous equation adding a special solution of non-homogenous equation. Proof. letting $x_1(t)=y(t), x_2(t)=x'_1(\frac{t}{\alpha}),\cdots, x_n(t)=x'_{n-1}(\frac{t}{\alpha})$, the equation (11) is transformed to the first order linear equations system. By theorem 2.2, the proof is completed. We can easily prove the following theorem. Theorem 2.4. For the $n$-th order linear pantograph equation (11), if $y_k(x)$ is the special solution of the equation (11) with $f(t)=f_k(t)$, then $$y(x)=y_1(x)+\cdots+y_m(x)$$ is a special solution of Eq.(11)with $f(t)=\sum_{k=1}^m f_k(t)$. Exponent-like function $E_{\alpha}(x)$, cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$ =================================================================================================================== In the section, we introduce three special functions which are the nontrivial generalizations of the usual exponential function, cosine function and sine function, and have some interesting properties such as infinite addition formulae. This section plays an important role in the paper since these special functions are the key mathematical tools and the foundation of all following studies. We denote $E_{\alpha}(x)$ the unique analytic solution of the following initial value problem $$y'(x)=y(\alpha x),$$ $$y(0)=1.$$ Then its power series expansion is given as follows $$E_{\alpha}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{x^n}{n!}.$$ Replacing $x$ by $ix$ yields $$E_{\alpha}(ix)= C_{\alpha}(x)+iS_{\alpha}(x),$$ where $i^2=-1$ and $$C_{\alpha}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(-1)^n \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{x^{2n}}{(2n)!},$$ $$S_{\alpha}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(-1)^n \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}.$$ It is also easy to see that $$C_{\alpha}(x)=\frac{E_{\alpha}(ix)+E_{\alpha}(-ix)}{2},$$ and $$S_{\alpha}(x)=\frac{E_{\alpha}(ix)-E_{\alpha}(-ix)}{2i}.$$ We call these three functions respectively the exponent-like function $E_{\alpha}(x)$, cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$. When $\alpha=1$, they all become the usual exponential function, cosine function and sine function. It is easy to show that these three special functions are analytic functions on whole complex plane, that is, they are entire functions, and $C_{\alpha}(x)$ is an even function and $S_{\alpha}(x)$ is an odd function, with $C_{\alpha}(0)=1$, $C'_{\alpha}(0)=0$, $S_{\alpha}(0)=0$ and $S'_{\alpha}(0)=1$. Further, we can easily prove that the orders of them are zero. In particular, we can easily prove the following important properties. Remark 3.1. The power series form of the function $E_{\alpha}(x)$ had been obtained in some papers such as \[5,9,16\]. Here, I give it a suitable name and symbol so that it can be studied as an independent mathematical object and used as a convenient mathematical tool. Proposition 3.1. For the first order derivative, we have $$E'_{\alpha}(x)=E_{\alpha}( \alpha x),$$ $$C'_{\alpha}( x)=- S_{\alpha}( \alpha x),$$ $$S'_{\alpha}( x)= C_{\alpha}( \alpha x),$$ where prime means the derivative with respect to $x$. Proposition 3.2. For the second order derivative, we have $$C''_{\alpha}(x)=- \alpha C_{\alpha}( \alpha^2 x),$$ $$S''_{\alpha}( x)=-\alpha S_{\alpha}(\alpha^2 x),$$ where prime means the derivative with respect to $x$. Furthermore, we have the following addition formulae. Proposition 3.3 (Addition formulae). The exponent-like function $E_{\alpha}(x)$, cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$ satisfy the addition formulae $$E_{\alpha}(x+y)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{x^n}{n!}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^ny)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{y^n}{n!}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^nx);$$ $$C_{\alpha}(x+y)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n}}{(2n)!}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}y)-\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y);$$ $$S_{\alpha}(x+y)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n}}{(2n)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}y)+\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y).$$ Remark 3.2. When $\alpha=1$, these formulae are just the usual addition formulae $\exp(x+y)=\exp(x)\exp(y), \cos(x+y)=\cos(x)\cos(y)-\sin(x)\sin(y)$ and $ \sin(x+y)=\sin(x)\cos(y)+\cos(x)\sin(y)$. Proof. Since the corresponding series are uniform convergent, the following summations can exchange orders. By direct computation, we have $$E_{\alpha}(x+y)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{1}{n!}(x+y)^n$$ $$= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}x^ky^{n-k}$$ $$= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{x^n}{n!}\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\alpha^{\frac{m(m-1)}{2}}\frac{y^m}{m!}\alpha^{mn}$$ $$= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{x^n}{n!}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^ny)$$ $$=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\frac{y^n}{n!}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^nx).$$ From the first formula (26), we have $$C_{\alpha}(x+y)+C_{\alpha}(x-y)= 2\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n}}{(2n)!}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}y);$$ $$S_{\alpha}(x+y)+S_{\alpha}(x-y)=2\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y);$$ $$C_{\alpha}(x+y)-C_{\alpha}(x-y)= -2\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y);$$ $$S_{\alpha}(x+y)-S_{\alpha}(x-y)= 2\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n}}{(2n)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}y).$$ By the above these formulae, we obtain the last two formulae (27) and (28). The proof is completed. Remark 3.3. We define $y=L_{\alpha}(x)$ to be the inverse function of $x=E_{\alpha}(y)$ and call it the logarithm-like function. Therefore, we have $$\frac{\mathrm{d}y(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}=\frac{1}{x(\alpha y)}.$$ By letting $1+x=E_{\alpha}(y)$ and using $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}=\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}x}\frac{\mathrm{d}} {\mathrm{d}y}=\frac{1}{E_{\alpha}(\alpha y)}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}y}$, we derive the power series expansion of $L_{\alpha}(1+x)$ as follows $$L_{\alpha}(1+x)=x-\frac{\alpha }{2!}x^2+\frac{\alpha^2(3-\alpha) }{3!}x^3-\frac{\alpha^3(\alpha^3-6\alpha+11) }{4!}x^4+\cdots$$ If $\alpha=1$, it is just the power series of the usual logarithm function $\ln(1+x)$. On the zeros of cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$, we have the following theorems. Theorem 3.1. For $0<\alpha\leq 1$, the cosine-like function $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$ have respectively an infinity of real zeroes. Proof. We only need to prove the result of $C_{\alpha}(x)$. Since $C_{\alpha}(x)$ satisfies the equation $$y''(x)=-\alpha y(\alpha^2 x),$$ with $y(0)=1, y'(0)=0$, this means that the graph of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ starts at the point $(0,1)$ and moves to the right with slope beginning at zero. By the equation itself, we know that $y''(x)=-\alpha y(\alpha^2 x)$, so when the curve is above the $x$ axis, $C''_{\alpha}(x)$ is negative that increases as the curve decreases, and hence the curve $C_{\alpha}(x)$ bends down and crosses the $x$ axis at some point $\eta_0$. Then at the point $ \frac{\eta_0}{\alpha^2}$ we have $C''_{\alpha}(\frac{\eta_0}{\alpha^2})=0$ so the curve has an inflection point, and then the curve goes down continuously to the local lowest point $\alpha\rho_1$ where $\rho_1$ is the first positive zero point of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ which exists by a similar discussion with $C_{\alpha}(x)$, and then the curve bends up and crosses $x$ axis at some point $\eta_1$. This process will be continuous forever and gives an infinity of zeros. The proof is completed. Next we give other properties of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and $S_{\alpha}(x)$. Denote $\rho_0=0, \pm\rho_1,\cdots,\pm\rho_n,\cdots$ and $ \pm\eta_1,\cdots,\pm\eta_n,\cdots$ as the zeros of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$ respectively. It is easy to see that $S_{\alpha}(\rho_n)=0$ implies $C'_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha})=0$ and vice versa. $C_{\alpha}(x)$ is convex on the intervals $[\eta_{2k}/\alpha,\eta_{2k+1}/\alpha]$, and $C_{\alpha}(x)$ is concave on the intervals $[\eta_{2k+1}/\alpha,\eta_{2k+2}/\alpha]$. The similar results hold for $S_{\alpha}(x)$. Furthermore, we have the following theorem. Theorem 3.2. All real zeros of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and $S_{\alpha}(x)$ are alternative each other, and their positive zeros satisfy $$0=\rho_0<\alpha \eta_1<\eta_1<\alpha\rho_1<\rho_1<\alpha\eta_2<\eta_2<\alpha\rho_2<\rho_2<\cdots.$$ Proof. Since $S_{\alpha}(\rho_n)=S_{\alpha}(\rho_{n+1})=0$, by Roll’s theorem, there exists a point $r_n\in(\rho_n,\rho_{n+1})$, such that $S'_{\alpha}(r_n)=0$, that is $$C_{\alpha}(\alpha r_n)=S'_{\alpha}(r_n)=0.$$ It follows that $\alpha r_n$ is the $(n-1)$-th positive zero of $C_{\alpha}(x)$, that is, $\eta_{n-1}=\alpha r_n$, and then, $$\alpha\rho_{n-1}<\eta_n<\alpha\rho_{n}.$$ Similarly, we have $$\alpha\eta_n<\rho_n<\alpha\eta_{n+1}.$$ The proof is completed. We can give another proof by using the theorem about the relation of entire function and its derivative. We omit it. Theorem 3.3 (The comparison theorem of the first positive zero). If $y(x)$ is the solution of equation $$y''(x)=-k y(\alpha^2 x),$$ with $k>0$ and initial conditions $y(0)=1, y'(0)=0$ or $y(0)=0, y'(0)=1$, then the first positive zero $x_0$ is a decreasing function as a function of $k$ with $\alpha$ fixed. Proof. We only consider the case $y(0)=1, y'(0)=0$. Let $y(x)$ and $z(x)$ be respectively solutions of equations $$y''(x)=-k_1 y(\alpha^2 x),$$ $$z''(x)=-k_2 z(\alpha^2 x),$$ with $0<k_1<k_2$ and the same initial conditions. It is easy to see that $z(x)=y(\sqrt{\frac{k_2}{k_1}}x)$ is the solution of the second equation with the initial conditions $z(0)=1, z'(0)=0$. We assume that $x_0$ is the first positive zero of $y(x)$, then $x_1=\sqrt{\frac{k_1}{k_2}}x_0<x_0$ is the first positive zero of $z(x)$ since $z(x_1)=y(x_0)=0$. The conclusion in the case $y(0)=0, y'(0)=1$ can be proven by similar method. The proof is completed. Theorem 3.4. At any ray, $S_{\alpha}(z)$ and $C_{\alpha}(z)$ are unbounded. As a special case, $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$ are unbounded functions in real axis. Proof. Since the orders of $S_{\alpha}(z)$ and $C_{\alpha}(z)$ are zero, by Phragmén-Lindelôf theorem see, \[31\]), we get the conclusion. The proof is completed. Theorem 3.5. $S_{\alpha}(z)$ and $C_{\alpha}(z)$ have only real zeros. Proof. We only consider $C_{\alpha}(z)$. Firstly, we know that the function can be written as $$C_{\alpha}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{2n^2}\frac{(-(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)^2)^n}{(2n)!}.$$ Denote $z=-(\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)^2$, then $$C_{\alpha}(x)=G(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{2n^2}\frac{z^n}{(2n)!}.$$ According to the power series of cosine function, we know that $$F(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\frac{z^n}{(2n)!},$$ has only real zeros, and its infinite product is $$F(z)=\prod_{n=0}^{+\infty}(1+\frac{z}{z_n}),$$ where $z_n=(n+\frac{1}{2}\pi)^2$. In addition, $\{q_n=\alpha^{2n^2}\}_{n=0}^{+\infty}$ is a multiplier sequence(see, Pólya and Schur \[32\]). Therefore, by the Laguerre’s theorem\[33\], $C_{\alpha}(z)$ only has real zeros which number is infinite. Similarly, we can get the same conclusion on $S_{\alpha}(z)$. The proof is completed. Proposition 3.4. $\rho_m$ and $\eta_m$ satisfy the following identity, $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^n(\rho_m-\eta_m)^{2n}}{(2n)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}\eta_m)$$ $$+\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^n(\rho_m-\eta_m)^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}\eta_m)=0.$$ Proof. Taking $x=\rho_m-\eta_m$ and $y=\eta_m$ in the formula (28) gives the result. The proof is completed. This is a complicated relation between these zeros. Naturally, an interesting problem is to study whether there exists a simple relation between the $n$-th zeroes $\rho_m$ and $\eta_m$ of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$. I leave it as an open problem. On the integrals of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and $S_{\alpha}(x)$, we have the following results. Proposition 3.5. $$\int_{\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha}}^{\frac{\rho_{n+1}}{\alpha}}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^2 x)\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\alpha\rho_n}^{\alpha\rho_{n+1}}C_{\alpha}(x)\mathrm{d}x=0,$$ $$\int_{\frac{\eta_n}{\alpha}}^{\frac{\eta_{n+1}}{\alpha}}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^2 x)\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\alpha\eta_n}^{\alpha\eta_{n+1}}S_{\alpha}(x)\mathrm{d}x=0.$$ Proof. By $C''_{\alpha}(x)=-\alpha C_{\alpha}(\alpha^2 x)$ and $C'_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha})=0$, we have $$\int_{\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha}}^{\frac{\rho_{n+1}}{\alpha}}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^2 x)\mathrm{d}x=-\frac{1}{\alpha}\int_{\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha}}^{\frac{\rho_{n+1}}{\alpha}}C''_{\alpha}(x)\mathrm{d}x =-\frac{1}{\alpha}(C'_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_{n+1}}{\alpha})-C'_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_n}{\alpha}))=0.$$ Using variable transformation gives $\int_{\alpha\rho_n}^{\alpha\rho_{n+1}}C_{\alpha}(x)\mathrm{d}x=0$. Similarly, the last identity can be proven. The proof is completed. Remark 3.4. On the computation of the first positive zeros of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ and $S_{\alpha}(x)$, we now don’t have a good method. Here, I propose an approximate approach to deal with it. Of course, it is not strict. Denote $\eta_1(\alpha)$ as the first positive zero of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ which can be considered as a function of $\alpha$. Here, what we want to do is to find its first order approximation. Since $C_{\alpha}(x)$ is the solution of the equation $y''(x)=-\alpha y(\alpha^2x)$ with the initial conditions $y(0)=1$ and $ y'(0)=0$, we know that if $\alpha=0$, the solution is $y(x)=1$ which has no zero, and if $\alpha=1$, the solution is $y(x)=\cos(x)$ whose first positive zero is $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Therefore, we can conclude that $\eta_1(\alpha)$ is not an analytic function of $\alpha$, and has a singularity at $\alpha=0$. Based on this observation, we assume that $\eta_1(\alpha)$ has the following form $$\eta_1(\alpha)=\alpha^{\kappa}\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}x_m\alpha^m,$$ where $\kappa$ is the index of singularity and $x_m's$ are the parameters undetermined. Under the first approximation, we can assume that $x_0+x_1=\frac{\pi}{2}$. Substituting $\eta_1(\alpha)$ into the power series expansion of $C_{\alpha}(x)$ yields $$C_{\alpha}(\eta_1)=1-\frac{\alpha^{2\kappa+1}}{2}(x_0+x_1\alpha+\cdots)^2+\cdots=0.$$ By taking the first order approximation, we have $$1-\frac{\alpha^{2\kappa+1}}{2}x^2_0=0,$$ which means $$2\kappa+1=0,$$ and then $$1-\frac{x_0^2}{2}=0.$$ So we obtain $\kappa=-\frac{1}{2}$ and $x_0=\sqrt{2}$, and hence give the first order approximation $\eta_1(\alpha)=\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt2+x_1\alpha)$. By using $x_1=\frac{\pi}{2}-x_0$, we have the following interesting formula $$\eta_1(\alpha)\simeq \alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}\{(1-\alpha)\sqrt2+\alpha\frac{\pi}{2}\}.$$ We should notice that $\sqrt2$ and $\frac{\pi}{2}$ are respectively just the first positive zeros of the solution $y(x)=1-\frac{x^2}{2}$ (for $\alpha=0$) and the solution $y(x)=\cos(x)$ (for $\alpha=1$) of the equation $y''(x)=-y(\alpha x)$ with $y(0)=1,y'(0)=0$. By using the same method to deal with $\frac{S_{\alpha}(x)}{x}$, we have the first order approximation formula of the first positive zero $\rho_1$ of $S_{\alpha}(x)$, $$\rho_1(\alpha)\simeq \alpha^{-\frac{3}{2}}\{(1-\alpha)\sqrt6+\alpha\pi\}.$$ Next we consider the number theoretical properties of the zeroes of the sine-like function $S_{\alpha}(x)$. Proposition 3.6. Notice that $\rho_0=0,\pm\rho_1,\cdots, \pm\rho_n, \cdots$ are all real zeroes of the function $S_{\alpha}(x)$. We will have the following interesting formula $$\frac{1}{\rho^2_1}+\frac{1}{\rho^2_2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{\rho^2_n}+\cdots=\frac{\alpha^3}{6},$$ $$\frac{1}{\rho^{4}_1}+\frac{1}{\rho^{4}_2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{\rho^{4}_n}+\cdots=\frac{1}{36}\alpha^{6} -\frac{1}{60}\alpha^{10}.$$ Proof. Since the order of $S_{\alpha}(z)$ is zero, we know that for any positive real number $\epsilon$, the following series $$\frac{1}{\rho^{\epsilon}_1}+\frac{1}{\rho^{\epsilon}_2}+\cdots+\frac{1}{\rho^{\epsilon}_n}+\cdots$$ is convergent. Then by Hadamard’s factorization theorem, the infinite product of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ can be written as $$\frac{S_{\alpha}(x)}{x}=(1-\frac{x}{\rho_1})(1+\frac{x}{\rho_1})\cdots(1-\frac{x}{\rho_n})(1+\frac{x}{\rho_n})\cdots,$$ and by the series expansion of $S_{\alpha}(x)$, we can obtain the formula (41). By considering the fourth order terms, we can get the formula (42). The proof is completed. Remark 3.5. It is easy to see that this formula gives the classical Euler’s formulas if we take $\alpha=1$, $$1+\frac{1}{2^2}+\frac{1}{3^2}+\cdots=\frac{\pi^2}{6},$$ and $$1+\frac{1}{2^4}+\frac{1}{3^4}+\cdots=\frac{\pi^4}{90}.$$ Of course, by some efforts, we can give high order formulas. If more detailed information of zero points is known, we can get more exact formulas. I hope that these secrets will be recovered in future. Open problem 3.1. Give the exact values of the zeros of the functions $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$. In another paper \[34\], I will give the asymptotic formulas of zeros of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$. Power series method for the first order linear non-homogenous pantograph equation ================================================================================== If non-homogenous term is a general smooth function, we do not know how to solve the first order linear pantograph equation since the method of the variation of constant can not be applied in this case. Indeed, for the non-homogenous pantograph equation $y'(x)=\beta y(\alpha x)+q(x)$, the general solution of corresponding homogenous equation is $y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\beta x)$. According to the variation of constant method, we can suppose that the special solution of the non-homogenous equation has the form $y(x)=c(x)E_{\alpha}(\beta x)$, and hence we have $c'(x)E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+c(x)\beta E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x)=c(\alpha x)\beta E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x)+q(x)$ form which we cannot eliminate two terms $c(x)\beta E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x)$ and $c(\alpha x)\beta E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x)$. Thus, the variation of constant method is invalid for pantograph equation, and then we must try to find other method. In this section, we try to use power series to solve the first order linear non-homogenous pantograph equation with analytic non-homogenous term. The power series method is simple but so powerful that we use it to find out luckily the structure of the solutions for some important linear pantograph equations. Theorem 4.1. Consider the following pantograph equation $$y'(x)=\beta y(\alpha x)+q(x), y(0)=a_0,$$ where $\beta$ is a constant, and $q(x)$ is a analytic function with expansion $$q(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}q_nx^n.$$ Then its solution is given by $$y(x)=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{k! \beta^{n-k-1}}{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}q_k\}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n,$$ or another form, if the double summations in (44) can exchange each other, $$y(x)=\{a_0+\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\}E_{\alpha}(\beta x)- \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\sum_{n=0}^{k}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!} \beta^nx^n.$$ Proof. Assuming that the power series expansion of $y(x)$ is $$y(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}a_nx^n,$$ and substituting it into the above equation and setting all coefficients of each term $x^n$ to be zeros, we obtain the formulas of $a_n$ as follows $$a_{n+1}=\frac{\beta\alpha^n}{n+1}a_n+\frac{q_n}{n+1}.$$ Furthermore, we have (for $n\geq 1$) $$a_{n}=\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}\{a_0\beta^{n}+\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{k! \beta^{n-k-1}}{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}q_k\}.$$ So the solution can be represented by $$y(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}a_0\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}\beta^{n}x^n+\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{k! \beta^{n-k-1}}{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}q_k\}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n$$ $$=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{k! \beta^{n-k-1}}{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}q_k\}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n,$$ or by exchanging the summations order $$y(x)=\{a_0+\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\}E_{\alpha}(\beta x)- \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\sum_{n=0}^{k}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!} \beta^nx^n.$$ The proof is completed. Corollary 4.1. If $q(x)$ is a polynomial of $n$ degree, the last summation will include only finite terms, that is, $$y(x)=\{a_0+\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\}E_{\alpha}(\beta x)- \sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{k!q_k} {\beta^{k+1}\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}\sum_{n=0}^{k}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!} \beta^nx^n.$$ Theorem 4.2. If $q(x)=q E_{\alpha}(\beta\alpha x)$, the solution of Eq.(43) is given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\beta x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x),$$ where $c=a_0$. Proof. We can prove the result by using the theorem 4.1. In fact, according to the power series expansion of $E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x)$, for $q(x)=q E_{\alpha}(\beta\alpha x)$, we have $$q(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}q_kx^k=q\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}{k!} \beta^kx^k$$ which gives $$q_k=q\frac{\alpha^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}}{k!}\beta^k.$$ Substituting it into the solution (44) yields $$y(x)=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+q\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\beta^{n-1}\}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n,$$ $$=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+q\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\beta^{n-1}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{(n-1)!}x^n,$$ $$=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+qx\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\beta^{n}\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n,$$ $$=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+qx\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\beta^{n}\alpha^n\frac{\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}}{n!}x^n,$$ $$=a_0E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x).$$ The proof is completed. Remark 4.1. Here we can give another derivation by undetermined coefficients method. Assume the solution has the form $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\gamma_1x)+BxE_{\alpha}(\gamma_2 x),$$ where $c, B, \gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are unknown parameters. Substituting it into equation and setting the coefficients of $E_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma_1x)$ and $E_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma_2x)$ to be zeros yields that $c$ is an arbitrary constant and $\gamma_1=\beta, \gamma_2=\alpha\beta$, and then $B=q$. Theorem 4.3. If $q(x)=qx^k E_{\alpha}(\beta\alpha^{k+1} x)$ where $k\neq -1$, then the solution of Eq.(43) is given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\beta x)+\frac{q}{k+1}x^{k+1}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^{k+1}\beta x),$$ where $c=a_0$. Proof. Assume that a special solution of the Eq.(43) is $$y^{}(x)=Ax^hE_{\alpha}(\gamma x).$$ Then, we have $$\frac{d}{dx}y^{}(x)=Ahx^{h-1}E_{\alpha}(\gamma x)+Ax^h\gamma E_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma x),$$ and $$y^{}(\alpha x)=A\alpha^hx^hE_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma x).$$ Therefore, we get $$Ahx^{h-1}E_{\alpha}(\gamma x)+Ax^h\gamma E_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma x) =\beta A\alpha^hx^hE_{\alpha}(\alpha\gamma x)+qx^k E_{\alpha}(\beta\alpha^{k+1} x),$$ and hence we have $$\gamma=\beta \alpha^h, qx^k=hAx^{h-1}, \gamma=\beta\alpha^{k+1},$$ from which it follows that $$h=k+1, \gamma=\beta \alpha^{k+1}, A=\frac{q}{k+1}.$$ Therefore, the special solution is $$y^{}(x)=\frac{q}{k+1}x^{k+1}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^{k+1}\beta x),$$ from which we get the conclusion. The proof is completed. Remark 4.2. In some special cases, for the first order variable coefficient equations, the exact solutions can be obtained. For example, assuming that the solution of equation $y'(x)=p(x)y(\alpha x)$ is $y(x)=E_{\beta}(\phi(x))$, then we have $$y'(x)=p(x)E_{\beta}(\phi(\alpha x))=\phi'(x)E_{\beta}(\beta\phi(x)),$$ which gives $$\beta=\alpha^{\gamma}, \phi(x)=Ax^{\gamma}, p(x)=\gamma Ax^{\gamma-1},$$ that is, $y(x)=y(0)E_{\alpha^{\gamma}}(Ax^{\gamma})$ is the solution of equation $y'(x)=\gamma Ax^{\gamma-1}y(\alpha x)$. The initial value problem of the second order linear pantograph equation ======================================================================== For the second order linear pantograph equation without the first order term $$y''(x)= A y(\gamma x),$$ $$y(0)=c_1, y'(0)=c_2,$$ where $0<\gamma<1$, we can solve it by the special function $E_{\alpha}(x)$. In fact, taking $y(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta x)$ and using $$y''(x)= \alpha\beta^2 y(\alpha^2 x),$$ gives $$\alpha\beta^2=A,$$ $$\alpha^2=\gamma.$$ Solving them yields $\alpha=\sqrt{\gamma}$ and $\beta=\pm\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{\gamma}}}$. Therefore, we obtain two basic solutions $$y_1(x)=E_{\sqrt{\gamma}}(\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{\gamma}}} x),$$ $$y_2(x)=E_{\sqrt{\gamma}}(-\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{\gamma}}} x),$$ and hence the general solution can be represented by $$y(x)=a_1E_{\sqrt{\gamma}}(\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{\gamma}}} x)+a_2E_{\sqrt{\gamma}}(-\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{\gamma}}} x),$$ where $a_1=\frac{1}{2}(c_1+c_2\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt\gamma}{A}})$ and $a_2=\frac{1}{2}(c_1-c_2\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt\gamma}{A}})$. We now consider the general case and give the following results. Theorem 5.1. For the second order linear pantograph equation with the first order term, $$y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+ qy(\alpha^2 x)=0,$$ $$y(0)=c_1, y'(0)=c_2,$$ where $y'(\alpha x)=y'(t)\|_{t=\alpha x}$. There are the following two cases: (i). If $\vartriangle=p^2-4\alpha q\neq0$, the solution is given by $$y(x)=a_1E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 x)+a_2E_{\alpha}(\beta_2 x),$$ where $\beta_{1,2}=\frac{-p\pm\sqrt{\vartriangle}}{2\alpha}, a_1=\frac{c_1\beta_2-c_2}{\beta_2-\beta_1}$ and $a_2=\frac{c_1\beta_1-c_2}{\beta_1-\beta_2}$. (ii). If $\vartriangle=p^2-4\alpha q=0$, the solution is given by $$y(x)=a_1E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+a_2xE_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x),$$ where $\beta=-\frac{p}{2\alpha}, a_1=c_1$ and $a_2=c_2-c_1\beta$. Proof. Taking $y(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta x)$ and substituting it into the above equation and eliminating $E_{\alpha}(\beta\alpha^2 x)$ gives the characteristic equation $$\alpha\beta^2+p\beta+q=0.$$ Solving it yields $$\beta_{1,2}=\frac{-p\pm\sqrt{\vartriangle}}{2\alpha},$$ where $\vartriangle=p^2-4\alpha q$. Therefore, if $\vartriangle\neq 0$, we obtain two basic solutions $$y_1(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 x),$$ $$y_2(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta_2 x),$$ and then the general solution can be represented by $$y(x)=a_1E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 x)+a_2E_{\alpha}(\beta_2 x),$$ where the coefficients $a_1$ and $a_2$ can be determined by initial conditions. If $\vartriangle=0$, we can give a basic solution, that is, $$y_1(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta x).$$ In order to obtain another basic solution, since the usual method of variation of constant is not suitable, we must find other method. In section 7, we will use a kind of operator technics to deal with this problem and give the details of the corresponding theory. Here, we only verify that another basic solution is $$y_2(x)=xE_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x).$$ In fact, by inserting it into equation, it is easy to see that it is just a solution. Therefore, in this case, the general solution (54) is given. The proof is completed. Next we consider the second order linear pantograph equations with some non-homogenous terms and give the following result. Theorem 5.2. For the non-homogenous equation $$y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+ qy(\alpha^2 x)=\sum_{k=1}^mA_kE_{\alpha}(r_kx),$$ where $A_k$ and $r_k$ are known constants, a special solution is given by $$y^{}(x)=\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{A_k\alpha^3}{r_k^2+pr_k\alpha+q\alpha^3}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r_k}{\alpha^2}x),$$ where we require $r_k^2+pr_k\alpha+q\alpha^3\neq0$. Further, the general solution is the summation of the general solution of the homogenous equation and the special solution. Proof. Assuming that $y_k^{}(x)=B_kE_{\alpha}(s_kx)$ is the special solutions of the equation $y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+ qy(\alpha^2 x)=A_kE_{\alpha}(r_kx)$ and substituting it into the equation yields $$s_k=\frac{r_k}{\alpha^2}, B_k=\frac{A_k\alpha^3}{r_k^2+pr_k\alpha+q\alpha^3}.$$ Therefore, from the theorem 2.4, we get the special solution (56). The proof is completed. It is well-known that there is a simple conservation law for the usual vibration equation ($\alpha=1$)namely energy conservation law according to the invariance of time translation. But we do not know whether there exists a similar simple conservation law for the case of $0<\alpha<1$. A complicated conservation law can be given by using the addition formulas of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$. Theorem 5.3. For the second order pantograph equation $$q''(t)= -\alpha q(\alpha^2 t),$$ $$q(0)=q_0, q'(0)=v_0,$$ if denote $p(t)=q'(\frac{t}{\alpha})$, then there is a conservation law as follows $$I(t)=\frac{1}{q^2_0+v^2_0}\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^nt^{n}}{n!}(q_0 q^{(n)}(t)+v_0p^{(n)}(t))=1.$$ Proof. In the addition formula $$C_{\alpha}(x+y)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n-1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n}}{(2n)!}C_{\alpha} (\alpha^{2n}y)-\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha^{n(2n+1)}\frac{(-1)^nx^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y),$$ we take $y=-x=t$, and notice that $C^{(2n)}_{\alpha}(y)=(-1)^n\alpha^{n(2n-1)}C_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n}y)$ and $C^{(2n+1)}_{\alpha}(y)=(-1)^{n+1}\alpha^{n(2n+1)}S_{\alpha}(\alpha^{2n+1}y)$, then we have $$1=C_{\alpha}(t-t)= \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^nt^{n}}{n!}C^{(n)}_{\alpha}(t).$$ Since the solution of the initial value problem is $$q(t)=q_0C_{\alpha}(t)+v_0S_{\alpha}(t),$$ we have $$C_{\alpha}(t)=\frac{q_0 q(t)+v_0q'(\frac{t}{\alpha})}{q^2_0+v^2_0}=\frac{q_0 q(t)+v_0p'(t)}{q^2_0+v^2_0}.$$ Then by substituting it into Eq.(60) gives the result. The proof is completed. Remark 5.1. For the general second order equation $y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+qy(\beta x)=0$ with $\beta\neq \alpha^2$, we need introduce new special functions to solve it. Remark 5.2. We almost don’t consider the real solutions when some eigenvalues are perhaps not real numbers. By means of the relations between $E_{\alpha}(x)$ and $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$, we can easily obtain the corresponding results. In the paper, we omit them for simplicity. Open problem 5.1. Give a variational principle for the second order vibration equation $y''(x)=-k y(\alpha x)$. The system of the linear pantograph equations ============================================= Theorem 6.1. For the system of linear pantograph equations $$x'_n(t)=\beta x_n(\alpha t)+x_{n+1}(\alpha t), n=1,\cdots,m,$$ where $x_{m+1}(t)=0$, its solutions of initial value problem at the original point $t=0$ are given by $$x_{m-k}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{x_{m-k+j}(0)}{j!}\alpha^{\frac{j(j-1)}{2}}t^jE_{\alpha}(\alpha^j\beta t),$$ where $k=0,1,\cdots,m-1$. Proof. Firstly, we prove the theorem for $k=0$. The corresponding equations become $$x_m'(t)=\beta x_m(\alpha t),$$ whose solution is given by $$x_m(t)= x_m(0)E_{\alpha}(\beta t).$$ Further, we consider $$x_{m-1}'(t)=\beta x_{m-1}(\alpha t)+x_m(\alpha t),$$ that is $$x_{m-1}'(t)=\beta x_{m-1}(\alpha t)+x_m(0)E_{\alpha}(\beta t).$$ By the theorem 4.2, we have $$x_{m-1}(t)= x_{m-1}(0)E_{\alpha}(\beta t)+x_m(0)tE_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta t).$$ In general, we assume that the formula (62) holds for $k$, then we prove it holds for $k+1$. In fact, we have $$x_{m-k-1}'(t)=\beta x_{m-k-1}(\alpha t)+x_{m-k}(\alpha t),$$ that is, $$x_{m-k-1}'(t)=\beta x_{m-k-1}(\alpha t)+\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{x_{m-k+j}(0)}{j!}\alpha^{\frac{j(j+1)}{2}}t^jE_{\alpha}(\alpha^{j+1}\beta t).$$ From the theorems 2.4 and 4.3, we have $$x_{m-k-1}(t)=x_{m-k-1}(0)E_{\alpha}(\beta t)+\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{x_{m-k+j}(0)}{j!}\alpha^{\frac{j(j+1)}{2}}\frac{1}{j+1}t^{j+1}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^{j+1}\beta t)$$ $$=x_{m-k-1}(0)E_{\alpha}(\beta t)+\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{x_{m-k+j}(0)}{(j+1)!}\alpha^{\frac{j(j+1)}{2}}t^{j+1}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^{j+1}\beta t)$$ $$=\sum_{j=0}^{k+1}\frac{x_{m-k+j-1}(0)}{j!}\alpha^{\frac{j(j-1)}{2}}t^jE_{\alpha}(\alpha^j\beta t).$$ By the mathematical induction method, the proof is completed. According to the theorem 6.1, we have the following theorem. Theorem 6.2. Consider the system of linear pantograph equations $$\frac{\mathrm{d}Y(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=AY(\alpha t),$$ with initial condition $$Y(0)=Y_0,$$ where $y(t)=(y_1(t),\cdots,y_n(t))^T$ is a vector function and $A=(a_{ij})_{n\times n}$ is a constant matrix. Case (i). If $A$ has $n$ distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_n$, then there is an invertible matrix $P$ such that $P^{-1}AP$ is diagonal, i.e., $$P^{-1}AP=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \lambda_1 &\cdots &0 \\ \vdots &\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&\cdots & \lambda_n\\ \end{array} \right).$$ and hence the equations become $$x_j'(t)=\lambda_jx_j(\alpha t), j=1,\cdots,n,$$ whose solutions are given by $$x_j(t)=x_j(0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda_j t), j=1,\cdots,n.$$ Respectively, we have the solutions $Y(t)=PX(t)$, and the general solution of the homogenous equation is the linear combination of these solutions. Case (ii). If $A$ has $m$ distinct eigenvalues are $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_r$ with multiplies $n_1,\cdots,n_r$, and corresponding elementary factors are $(\lambda-\lambda_1)^{k_{11}}, \cdots, (\lambda-\lambda_1)^{k_{1m_1}},\cdots,(\lambda-\lambda_r)^{k_{r1}}, \cdots, (\lambda-\lambda_r)^{k_{rm_r}}$ where $k_{j1}+...+k_{jm_j}=n_j$ for $j=1,\cdots,r$, then there is an invertible matrix $P$ such that $P^{-1}AP$ is a Jordan form matrix, that is, $$P^{-1}AP=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} J_1 &\cdots &0 \\ \vdots &\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&\cdots & J_{m_1+\cdots+m_r}\\ \end{array} \right).$$ where $J_k's$ are the corresponding Jordan blocks. For every Jordan block, the solutions $X$ can be given by formula (62). Then we have solutions $Y=PX$, and the general solution of the homogenous equation is the linear combination of these solutions. Operator method =============== We use an operator method to deal with linear pantograph equations. Two basic operators are derivative operator $D$ and the scale operator $ T_{\alpha}$ defined by $$Dy(x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}x},$$ $$T_{\alpha}y(x)=y(\alpha x).$$ Two basic properties of these two operators are $$DT_{\alpha}=\alpha T_{\alpha} D,$$ $$T_{\alpha_1}T_{\alpha_2}=T_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}.$$ Theorem 7.1. For a special first order equation $$Dy(x)=pT_{\alpha}y(x)+qE_{\alpha}(\gamma x),$$ the general solution is given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(px)+\frac{q\alpha}{\gamma-p\alpha}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}x),$$ where $\gamma\neq p\alpha$ and $c$ is an arbitrary constant which can be determined by $y(0)$. Proof. Formally, we have $$y(x)=q(D-pT_{\alpha})^{-1}E_{\alpha}(\gamma x).$$ To compute the right side of the above equation, we use the following formula $$(D-pT_{\alpha})E_{\alpha}(\beta x)=(\beta-p)E_{\alpha}(\alpha\beta x).$$ So, taking $\beta=\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}$ gives $$(D-pT_{\alpha})^{-1}E_{\alpha}(\gamma x)=\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}-p}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}x).$$ Therefore, a special solution is given by $$y^(x)=\frac{q\alpha}{\gamma-p\alpha}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}x),$$ and the general solution is $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(px)+\frac{q\alpha}{\gamma-p\alpha}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}x),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. The proof is completed. Remark 7.1. For $\gamma= p\alpha$, by theorem 4.2, the solution is given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(px)+qxE_{\alpha}(p\alpha x).$$ Now we consider the general second order linear homogenous pantograph equation $$y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+ qy(\alpha^2 x)=0,$$ whose operator form is $$(D^2+pT_{\alpha}D+qT^2_{\alpha})y(x)=0.$$ In general, we have the operator decomposition $$D^2+pT_{\alpha}D+qT^2_{\alpha}=(D-\lambda_1T_{\alpha})(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha}),$$ where the parameters $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_1$ satisfy $$\lambda_1+\lambda_2\alpha=-p, \lambda_1\lambda_2=q.$$ Remark 7.2. If we take $\lambda_1=\alpha\beta_1$ and $\lambda_2=\beta_2$, then we will give the same results with theorem 5.1. The key of solving this equation is the following lemma which can be easily proven. Lemma 7.1. If $y(x)$ is the solution of equation $(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y(x)=0$, it is also the solution of the equation $(D-\lambda_1T_{\alpha})(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y(x)=0$. If $z(x)$ is the solution of equation $(D-\lambda_1T_{\alpha})z(x)=0$, and $y(x)$ is the solution of equation $(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y(x)=z(x)$, then $y(x)$ is also the solution of the equation $(D-\lambda_1T_{\alpha})(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y(x)=0$. By the lemma 7.1, we have the following theorem. Theorem 7.2. For the initial value problem at the original point $x=0$ of equation (68), there are the following two cases. Case (i). If $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2\alpha$, the solution is give by $$y(x)=\frac{c_1}{\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}-\lambda_2}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}x)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be determined by initial conditions. Case (ii). If $\lambda_1=\lambda_2\alpha$, the solution is give by $$y(x)=c_1 E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 x)+c_2xE_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be determined by initial conditions. Proof. In fact, by lemma 7.1, the first basic solution $y_1(x)$ satisfies $$(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y_1(x)=0,$$ and then $$y_1(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2x).$$ Therefore, the second basic solution satisfies $$(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})y(x)=c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1x),$$ whose special solution is given by $$y^(x)=c_2(D-\lambda_2T_{\alpha})^{-1}E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1x).$$ From formula (67), if $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2\alpha$, we know $$y^(x)=\frac{c_2}{\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}-\lambda_2}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}x).$$ Hence, in this case, the general solution is given by $$y(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2x)+\frac{c_2}{\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}-\lambda_2}E_{\alpha}(\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha}x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two arbitrary constants which can be determined by $y(0)$ and $y'(0)$. If $\lambda_1=\lambda_2\alpha$, from formula (67), $y(x)$ is meaningless, so this method is invalid. In this case, we need to solve $$(D-\lambda_1T_{\alpha})y(x)=E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1\alpha x).$$ By the power series method in section 4, we can assume that the solution has the following form $$y(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(s_1x)+c_2xE_{\alpha}(s_2x),$$ and insert it into the above equation to obtain $$s_1=\lambda_2, s_2=\alpha\lambda_2=\lambda_1.$$ So we have $$y(x)=c_1 E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 x)+c_2xE_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be determined by $y(0)$ and $y'(0)$. The proof is completed. In general, for the $n$-th order linear pantograph equation $$y^{(n)}(t)+p_{n-1}y^{(n-1)}(\alpha t)+p_{n-2}y^{(n-2)}(\alpha^2 t)+\cdots+p_1y'(\alpha^{n-1} t)+p_0y(\alpha^n t)=0,$$ we can write it as follows $$D^ny(x)+p_{n-1}T_\alpha D^{n-1}y(x)+p_{n-2}T^2_\alpha D^{n-2}y(x)\cdots+p_1T_{\alpha}^{n-1}Dy(x)+p_0T^n_\alpha y(x)=0,$$ where $p_i's$ are constants for $i=0,\cdots, n-1$, and $T^k_{\alpha}=T_{\alpha}\cdots T_{\alpha}=T_{\alpha^k}$. Furthermore, we have the following two ways to deal with it. The first way is to solve it directly. By taking $y(x)=E_{\alpha}(\beta t)$ and substituting it into the above equation and eliminating $E_{\alpha}(\beta \alpha^n t)$, we get the characteristic equation $$\alpha^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}\beta^n+p_{n-1}\alpha^{\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}}\beta^{n-1}+\cdots+p_1\beta +p_0=0.$$ If this equation has no multiple roots, that is, it has $n$ distinct roots $\beta_j$ for $j=1,\cdots,n$, we can give the general solution by $$y(t)=a_1E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 t)+\cdots+a_nE_{\alpha}(\beta_n t),$$ where $a_1,\cdots,a_n$ can be uniquely determined by the initial conditions at the original point. If there are some multiple roots, we will use the corresponding operator method to deal with it. By the similar method, we can prove the following general theorem. Theorem 7.3. If $\beta_1,\cdots,\beta_m$ are the distinct roots of the characteristic equation with multiplicities respectively $n_1,\cdots,n_m$ satisfying $n_1+\cdots+n_m=n$. Then the following $n$ functions make up the basic solutions system of the initial value problem at original point of the equation (70), $$y_1(t)=E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 t), y_2(t)=t E_{\alpha}(\beta_1\alpha t),\cdots, y_{n_1}(t)=t^{n_1-1}E_{\alpha}(\beta_1 \alpha^{n_1-1} t),$$ $$y_{n_1+1}(t)=E_{\alpha}(\beta_2 t), \cdots, y_{n_1+n_2}(t)=t^{n_2-1}E_{\alpha}(\beta_2 \alpha^{n_2-1} t),$$ $$\cdots$$ $$y_{n-n_m+1}(t)=E_{\alpha}(\beta_m t),\cdots, y_{n}(t)=t^{n_m-1}E_{\alpha}(\beta_m \alpha^{n_m-1} t).$$ In other words, the solution of the initial value problem at original point of the equation (70) is the linear combination of these basic solutions with coefficients which can be determined by initial conditions. Proof. We only take $n=3$ and suppose that $\lambda_0$ is a characteristic root with multiplicity three to prove the result. The general case can be proved by the similar method. Denote $Q_3(D, T_{\alpha})$ and $Q_3(\lambda)$ respectively as $$Q_3(D, T_{\alpha})=D^3+p_2T_{\alpha}D^2+p_1T_{\alpha^2}D+p_0T_{\alpha^3},$$ $$Q_3(\lambda)=\alpha^3\lambda^3+p_2\alpha\lambda^2+p_1\lambda+p_0.$$ By direct computation, we have $$Q_3(D, T_{\alpha})(x^2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^2 x))=Q_3(\lambda_0)\alpha^6x^2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^5 x)$$ $$+Q'_3(\lambda_0)2\alpha xE_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^4 x)+Q''_3(\lambda_0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^3 x).$$ Furthermore, since $\lambda_0$ is a characteristic root with multiplicity three, we have $$Q_3(\lambda_0)=Q'_3(\lambda_0)=Q''_3(\lambda_0)=0,$$ and hence, it follows that $$Q_3(D, T_{\alpha})(x^2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^2 x))=0.$$ This means that $x^2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^2 x)$ is a basic solution. By the same reason, $xE_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha x)$ and $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0 x)$ are other two basic solutions. Therefore, the general solution can be given by $$y(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0 x)+c_2xE_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha x)+c_3x^2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_0\alpha^2 x),$$ where $c_1,c_2$ and $c_3$ can be determined by the initial conditions. The proof is completed. The second way is to transform Eq.(70) into the system of linear pantograph equations. In fact, letting $x_1(t)=y(t), x_2(t)=x'_1(\frac{t}{\alpha}),\cdots, x_n(t)=x'_{n-1}(\frac{t}{\alpha})$, then the equation (70) is transformed into the following system of the first order linear equations $$x'_1(t)=x_2(\alpha t),$$ $$x'_2(t)=x_3(\alpha t),$$ $$\cdots$$ $$x'_n(t)=-\frac{p_{0}}{\alpha^{n-1}}x_{1}(\alpha t)-\frac{p_{1}}{\alpha^{n-1}}x_{2}(\alpha t) -\cdots-\frac{p_{n-1}}{\alpha^{n-1}}x_{n}(\alpha t).$$ For example, the second order pantograph equation $$q''(t)=-kq(\alpha^2 t),$$ can be transformed to the Hamiltonian-like form $$q'(t)=p(\alpha t),$$ $$p'(t)=-\frac{k}{\alpha}q(\alpha t).$$ This means that for the initial value problem at original point $t=0$, the theory of the high order linear pantograph equations is equivalent to the theory of the system of the first order linear pantograph equations. Therefore, we can give the solutions of the high order pantograph equation by the solution of the system of the first order pantograph equations. For simplicity, we denote $$P(D,T_\alpha)=D^n+p_{n-1}T_\alpha D^{n-1}+p_{n-2}T^2_\alpha D^{n-2}\cdots+p_1T_{\alpha}^{n-1}D+p_0T^n_\alpha.$$ We have the following result on the non-homogenous equation. Theorem 7.4. For non-homogenous equation $$P(D,T_\alpha)y(x)=\sum_{k=1}^mA_kE_{\alpha}(r_kx),$$ where $A_k$ and $r_k$ are known constants, a special solution is given by $$y^{}(x)=\sum_{k=1}^mB_kE_{\alpha}(\frac{r_k}{\alpha^n}x),$$ where $$B_k=\frac{A_k}{\sum_{j=0}^np_{j}r^{j}_k\alpha^{-\frac{j(2n-j+1)}{2}}},$$ where $p_n=1$ and we require $$\sum_{j=0}^np_{j}r^{j}_k\alpha^{-\frac{j(2n-j+1)}{2}}\neq 0.$$ Further, the general solution is given by the summation of the general solution of the homogenous equation and the special solution. Proof. Assume that the special solution of the equation $P(D,T_\alpha)y(x)=A_kE_{\alpha}(r_kx)$ is $y_k(x)=B_kE_{\alpha}(s_kx)$. Then, we have $$y_k^{(j)}(x)=B_ks_k^l\alpha^{\frac{j(j-1)}{2}}E_{\alpha}(\alpha^js_kx),$$ and substitute it into the equation to get $s_k=\frac{r_k}{\alpha^n}$ and the values of $B_k$. The proof is completed. When we take $n=2$, we get the theorem 5.2. Definition 7.1. If $r_k$ satisfies the equation (79), it is called the resonance frequency, correspondingly, $A_kE_{\alpha}(r_kx)$ is called the resonance term. Now we consider the non-homogenous linear pantograph equations with resonance terms. We only give the result on the second order equation. Other high order equation can be dealt with by the same method. Theorem 7.5. Denote $Q(r)=r^2+pr\alpha+q\alpha^3$. For the non-homogenous pantograph equation $$y''(x)+py'(\alpha x)+qy(\alpha^2x)=AE_{\alpha}(rx),$$ where $Q(r)\neq0$ which means that $AE_{\alpha}(rx)$ is a resonance term. There are the following two cases: Case (i). $Q(r)=0$ and $Q'(r)=2r+p\alpha\neq0$. Then a special solution is given by $$y(x)=\frac{A\alpha}{2r+p\alpha}xE_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha}x).$$ Case (ii). $Q(r)=0$ and $Q'(r)=2r+p\alpha=0$. Then a special solution is given by $$y(x)=\frac{A}{2}x^2E_{\alpha}(rx).$$ Proof. Firstly, we prove the result in case (i). Assume that the special solution has the form $$y(x)=BxE_{\alpha}(sx).$$ Then we have $$y'(x)=BE_{\alpha}(sx)+BsxE_{\alpha}(s\alpha x),$$ $$y''(x)=2BsE_{\alpha}(s\alpha x)+Bs^2\alpha xE_{\alpha}(s\alpha^2 x).$$ Substituting these terms into the equation give $Q(r)=0$ and $$s=\frac{r}{\alpha}, B=\frac{A\alpha}{2r+p\alpha}.$$ Next we prove the case (ii). Assume that the special solution has the form $$y(x)=Bx^2E_{\alpha}(sx).$$ Then we have $$y'(x)=2BxE_{\alpha}(sx)+Bsx^2E_{\alpha}(s\alpha x),$$ $$y''(x)=2BE_{\alpha}(sx)+4BsxE_{\alpha}(s\alpha x)+Bs^2\alpha x^2E_{\alpha}(s\alpha^2 x).$$ Substituting these terms into the equation give $Q(r)=0$ and $Q'(r)=0$ and $$s=r, B=\frac{A}{2}.$$ The proof is completed. Remark 7.1. The theorems 7.4 and 7.5 only mean that if the solution exists, it will be given by the summation of the special solution and the general solution of the homogenous equation, but it doesn’t mean that the solution of the non-homogenous equation (76) must exist. The existence, uniqueness and non-uniqueness of the non-homogenous pantograph equations will be discussed in section 8. Existence, uniqueness, non-uniqueness and representation of solutions at a general initial point ================================================================================================ In previous sections, all results are obtained under the initial conditions at the original point. If the initial condition is taken at a general point which is not the original point, whether do the existence and uniqueness of solution hold? How to represent these solutions if they exist? How many solutions will exist if uniqueness does not hold? These problems are not trivial. In the section, we will give the results about these problems. For the purpose, we need an important theorem about the zeroes of $E_{\alpha}(x)$ which is perhaps considered as the most important property of the function which is equivalent to the theorem 6 in \[8\]. Morris-Feldstein-Bowen-Hahn Theorem: first form\[8\]. Every nontrivial solution of the equation $y'(x)=-y(\alpha x)$ has an infinity of positive zeroes. Equivalently, in other words, we write it as the following form by using the special function $E_{\alpha}(x)$. Morris-Feldstein-Bowen-Hahn Theorem: second form.(MFBH theorem for simplicity). $E_{\alpha}(x)$ has an infinity of negative zeros. Remark 8.1. The above theorem is obtained and proven in \[8\] by Morris-Feldstein-Bowen, and an elementary proof is given by Hahn \[8\]. By the MFBH theorem, we can get the following theorem. Theorem 8.1. For the initial value problem of linear equation $$y'(x)=ky(\alpha x), y(x_0)=y_0,$$ where $x_0\neq 0$, we have the following results. (i). If $x_0$ is not the zero of $E_{\alpha}(kx)$, that is, $E_{\alpha}(kx_0)\neq 0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y(x)=\frac{y_0E_{\alpha}(kx)}{E_{\alpha}(kx_0)}.$$ (ii). If $y_0=0$ and $x_0$ is the zero of $E_{\alpha}(kx)$, that is, $E_{\alpha}(kx_0)=0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be represented by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(kx),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $y_0\neq 0$ and $E_{\alpha}(kx_0)=0$, then there does not exist solution. Proof. For case (i), it is easy to see that $y(x)=\frac{y_0E_{\alpha}(kx)}{E_{\alpha}(kx_0)}$ is a solution for the initial value problem. Then we only need to prove that it is the unique solution. Assume that $y_1$ and $y_2$ are two solutions satisfying $y_1(x_0)=y_2(x_0)=y_0$. Letting $z(x)=y_1(x)-y_2(x)$, then we have $$z'(x)=kz(\alpha x), z(x_0)=0.$$ If we can prove $z(0)=0$, then we can get $z(x)\equiv 0$ by the unique theorem 2.1 at the origin point. In fact, if $z(0)=z_0\neq 0$, by the unique theorem 2.1 and proposition 3.1, we must get $$z(x)=z_0E_{\alpha}(kx),$$ and hence $$z(x_0)=z_0E_{\alpha}(kx_0)\neq 0,$$ which is contradictory to $z(x_0)=0$. For the case (ii), the existence of the solution is obvious. Let $y(x) $ be any solution with $y(x_0)=0$, then $y(x)$ has a value $y(0)$ at $x=0$, and hence we have a solution $y(x)=y(0)E_{\alpha}(kx)$. By taking $y(0)=c$, we get the conclusion. The case (iii) is obvious. The proof is completed. Theorem 8.2. For existence and uniqueness of the solution to the initial value problem of non-homogenous equation $$y'(x)=\lambda y(\alpha x)+qE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x),y(x_0)=y_0,$$ there are the following three cases: (i). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)\neq 0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y(x)=\frac{y_0-qx_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x).$$ (ii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)=0$ and $y_0=qx_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)=0$ and $y_0\neq qx_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)$, then there does not exist solution. Proof. (i). We only need to prove the uniqueness. Assuming that $z(x)$ is another solution with $z(0)=c$, by theorem 4.2, we have $$z(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x).$$ Since we also require $z(x_0)=y_0$, so we get $c=\frac{y_0-qx_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)}$, and then $y(x)=z(x)$. (ii). Firstly, we can verify that (87) is just solution and satisfies these two conditions. Hence we only need to prove that any solution satisfying these conditions has the form of (87). Assume that $y(x)$ is the solution satisfying these two conditions. Then, according to the value $y(0)$ of $y(x)$ at $x=0$, we can use the theorem 4.2 to give the solution $$y(x)=y(0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+qxE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x).$$ Letting $y(0)=c$ gives conclusion. (iii). It is obvious. The proof is completed. Theorem 8.3. For the linear equations system $$y'_1(x)=\lambda y_1(\alpha x)+y_{2}(\alpha x),$$ $$y'_2(x)=\lambda y_2(\alpha x),$$ with initial values $y_1(x_0)$ and $y_2(x_0)$, there are the following five cases about its solution. (i). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)\neq 0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y_1(x)=\frac{y_1(x_0)-\frac{y_2(x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)}x_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda x) +\frac{y_2(x_0)xE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)},$$ $$y_2(x)=\frac{y_2(x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda x).$$ (ii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)=0$, $y_2(x_0)=0$ and $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)\neq 0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y_1(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+\frac{y_1(x_0)xE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x)}{x_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)},$$ $$y_2(x)=\frac{y_1(x_0)}{x_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda x),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)=0$, $y_2(x_0)=0$ and $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)=0$ and $y_1(x_0)=0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y_1(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda x)+c_2xE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x),$$ $$y_2(x)=c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda x),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two arbitrary constants. (iv). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)=0$, $y_2(x_0)=0$ and $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha x_0)=0$ and $y_1(x_0)\neq0$, then there does not exist solution. (v). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda x_0)= 0$ and $y_2(x_0)\neq0$, then there does not exist solutions. Proof. By theorem 8.1 and theorem 8.2, we can easily prove it. The proof is completed. Now we consider the second order pantograph equation $$y''(t)+py'(\alpha t)+qy(\alpha^2t)=0,$$ with initial conditions $$y(t_0)=A, y'(\frac{t_0}{\alpha})=B,$$ where $t_0$ is a general point. Letting $x_1(t)=y(t)$ and $x_2(t)=y'(\frac{t}{\alpha})$, we transform the second order equation into the system of the first order equations as follows $$x_1'(t)=x_2(\alpha t),$$ $$x_2'(t)=-\frac{q}{\alpha}x_1(\alpha t)-\frac{p}{\alpha}x_2(\alpha t),$$ with initial conditions $$x_1(t_0)=A, x_2(t_0)=B.$$ For the coefficients matrix $$K=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 \\ -\frac{q}{\alpha} & -\frac{p}{\alpha}\\ \end{array} \right),$$ when $p^2\neq 4q\alpha$, there exist two distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2$, then there is an invertible matrix $P$ such that $$P^{-1}KP=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \lambda_1 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_2\\ \end{array} \right).$$ When $p^2= 4q\alpha$, we have $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda=-\frac{p}{2\alpha}$, and the corresponding elementary factor is $(\lambda+\frac{p}{2\alpha})^2$, and hence there is an invertible matrix $P$ such that $$P^{-1}KP=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \lambda & 1 \\ 0 & \lambda\\ \end{array} \right).$$ Denote $$P=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} p_{11} & p_{12}\\ p_{21} &p_{22}\\ \end{array} \right),$$ $$P^{-1}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} q_{11} & q_{12}\\ q_{21} &q_{22}\\ \end{array} \right),$$ and $$x_1(t)=p_{11}z_1(t)+p_{12}z_2(t),$$ $$x_2(t)=p_{21}z_1(t)+p_{22}z_2(t).$$ According to the theorems 8.1-8.3, we can prove the following result. Theorem 8.4. For the system of equations (98) and (99) with condition (100), there are the following two cases to be discussed: *Case 1. When $p^2\neq 4q\alpha$, then the matrix $K$ has two distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, and hence we have $$z'_1(t)=\lambda_1z_1(\alpha t),$$ $$z'_2(t)=\lambda_2z_2(\alpha t),$$ with initial conditions $$z_1(t_0)=q_{11}x_1(t_0)+q_{12}x_2(t_0)=q_{11}A+q_{12}B,$$ $$z_2(t_0)=q_{21}x_1(t_0)+q_{22}x_2(t_0)=q_{21}A+q_{22}B.$$ Then there are the following six cases: (i). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)\neq 0$ and $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)\neq 0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y(t)=\frac{p_{11}(q_{11}A+q_{12}B)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t) +\frac{p_{12}(q_{21}A+q_{22}B)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ or equivalently $$y(t)=\frac{A\lambda_2-B}{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}\frac{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)} +\frac{A\lambda_1-B}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2}\frac{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)}.$$ (ii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)\neq 0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)= 0$ and $z_2(t_0)=0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=p_{11}\frac{q_{11}A+q_{12}B}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t) +p_{12}cE_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ or equivalently $$y(t)=\frac{AE_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)} +cE_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)\neq 0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)= 0$ and $z_1(t_0)=0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=p_{12}\frac{q_{21}A+q_{22}B}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t) +p_{11}cE_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t),$$ or equivalently $$y(t)=\frac{AE_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)} +cE_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iv). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)= 0$ and $z_1(t_0)=0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)= 0$ and $z_2(t_0)=0$, then $A=B=0$, and there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two arbitrary constants. (v). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)= 0$ and $z_1(t_0)\neq 0$, then there does not exist solution. (vi). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)= 0$ and $z_2(t_0)\neq0$, then there does not exist solution. Case 2. When $p^2=4q\alpha$, we have $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda=-\frac{p}{2\alpha}$, then there are the following five cases: (i). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)\neq 0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y(t)=p_{11}\{\frac{z_1(t_0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)-z_2(t_0)t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)}{E^2_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda t) +\frac{z_2(t_0)tE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)}\}+p_{12}\frac{z_2(t_0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda t)}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)},$$ or equivalently, $$y(t)=\frac{AE_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)-(B-A\lambda)t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)}{E^2_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)}E_{\alpha}(\lambda t) +\frac{B-A\lambda}{E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)}tE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t).$$ (ii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)=0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)\neq 0$ and $z_2(t_0)=0$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=p_{11}\{cE_{\alpha}(\lambda t)+\frac{z_1(t_0)tE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t)}{t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)}\}+ p_{12}\frac{z_1(t_0)E_{\alpha}(\lambda t)}{t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)},$$ or equivalently, $$y(t)=cE_{\alpha}(\lambda t) +\frac{A}{t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)}tE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)= 0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)= 0$ and $z_1(t_0)=z_2(t_0)=0$, then $A=B=0$, and there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda t) +c_2tE_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two arbitrary constants. (iv). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)= 0$, $E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)= 0$ and $z_2(t_0)=0$ and $z_1(t_0)\neq0$, then there does not exist solutions. (v). If $E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)= 0$ and $z_2(x_0)\neq0$, then there does not exist solutions. . Proof. We only consider (ii) in the case 1 and give a detailed proof of the equivalence of (110) and (111). Other cases can be proved similarly. Then, we only need to prove $p_{11}(q_{11}A+q_{12}B)=A$. In fact, since $\lambda_1$ is the first eigenvalue of the matrix $K$, we have $p_{21}=\lambda_1p_{11}$. Further, by $P^{-1}P=E$, it follows that $p_{11}q_{12}+p_{12}q_{22}=0$ and $ p_{11}q_{11}+p_{21}q_{12}=1$. Therefore, from $z_2(t_0)=0$, that is, $q_{21}A+q_{22}B=0$. we get $$\frac{B}{A}=-\frac{q_{21}}{q_{22}}=\frac{p_{21}}{p_{11}}=\lambda_1.$$ And hence, we have $$p_{11}(q_{11}A+q_{12}B)=A(p_{11}q_{11}+\lambda_1p_{11}q_{12})=A(p_{11}q_{11}+p_{21}q_{12})=A.$$ The proof is completed. These above theorems are the basic results for the existence and uniqueness of the kind of pantograph equations. It is easy to generalize the theorems 8.3 and 8.4 to $n$ dimensional case, but the result is complicated, so we do not write it. By combining these results with the theorem 6.2 and theorem 7.3, we can easily give the corresponding existence and uniqueness results for the initial value problems at a general point of linear pantograph equations system and high order linear pantograph equations. For simplicity, we also do not write them. However, we must point out that at a general initial point, the solutions of the initial value problem are complicated, and includes no solution, unique solution and an infinity of solutions. All of these are rooted in the MFBH theorem. These results show the essential differences between the pantograph equation and usual ordinary differential equations. Remark 8.2. We must have noticed that for the system of the second order linear pantograph equations (98)and (99), its initial conditions are very special, that is, conditions (100) of $y$ and $y'$ are taken respectively at two points $t_0$ and $\frac{t_0}{\alpha}$ but not the only one point $t_0$. This is because we can use the equivalent linear pantograph equations system to deal with it. If the initial point is taken at only point $t_0$, we can use another method to give the following result. Theorem 8.5. Consider the second order linear pantograph equation $$y''(t)+py'(\alpha t)+qy(\alpha^2t)=0,$$ with initial conditions $$y(t_0)=A, y'(t_0)=B,$$ where $t_0$ is a general point. Let $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be two roots of its characteristic equation $$\alpha\lambda^2+p\lambda+q=0.$$ Then we have the following two cases: Case 1. $p^2\neq4\alpha q$, that is $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2$. There are three cases for the solutions. (i). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)& E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0) \\ \lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0) & \lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0) \end{array} \right\|\neq0$, then there is the unique solution $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be determined by the following equations system $$c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)=A,$$ $$c_1\lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0)+c_2\lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0)=B.$$ (ii). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)& E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0) \\ \lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0) & \lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0) \end{array} \right\|=0$, and the rank of the matrix $\left( \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)& E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)& A \\ \lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0) & \lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0)& B \end{array} \right)$ is 1, then there is an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ satisfy (126) and (127) which has an infinity of solutions. (iii). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)& E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0) \\ \lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0) & \lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0) \end{array} \right\|=0$, and the rank of the matrix $\left( \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)& E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0)& A \\ \lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_1 t_0) & \lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda_2 t_0)& B \end{array} \right)$ is 2, then there does not exist solution. Case 2. $p^2=4\alpha q$, that is $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda$. There are three cases for the solutions. (i). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)& t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0) \\ \lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0) & E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0) \end{array} \right\|\neq0$, then there is the unique solution $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda t)+c_2tE_{\alpha}(\lambda \alpha t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be determined by the following equations system $$c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)+c_2t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)=A,$$ $$c_1\lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+c_2(E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0 E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0))=B.$$ (ii). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)& t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0) \\ \lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0) & E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0) \end{array} \right\|=0$, and the rank of the matrix $\left( \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)& t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)& A \\ \lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0) & E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0)& B \end{array} \right)$ is 1, then there is an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t),$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ satisfy (130) and (131) which has an infinity of solutions. (iii). If $\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)& t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0) \\ \lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0) & E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0) \end{array} \right\|=0$, and the rank of the matrix $\left( \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\lambda t_0)& t_0E_{\alpha}(\lambda\alpha t_0)& A \\ \lambda E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0) & E_{\alpha}(\alpha\lambda t_0)+\lambda\alpha t_0E_{\alpha}(\alpha^2\lambda t_0)& B \end{array} \right)$ is 2, then there does not exist solution. Proof. We only prove the case 1, the case 2 can be proven similarly. In fact, since the solution and its derivative can take values at the point $t=0$, we can get the general solution as $$y(t)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t).$$ Therefore, we have $$A=y(t_0)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1 t_0)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2 t_0),$$ $$B=y'(t_0)=c_1\lambda_1E_{\alpha}(\lambda_1\alpha t_0)+c_2\lambda_2E_{\alpha}(\lambda_2\alpha t_0).$$ According to the theory of linear algebraic equations system, we get the corresponding conclusions (i-iii) of case 1. The proof is completed. Remark 8.3. We have seen that for general linear homogenous pantograph equations, we can write their general solutions. When we consider the initial value problem at a general point, we will need to determine these constants in general solutions. However, since exponent-like function $E_{\alpha}(x)$ has an infinity of real zeroes, we can’t find these coefficients or can find an infinite number of solutions in some cases. If we further consider the existence, uniqueness and non-uniqueness of the solution of the initial value problem at a general point for the non-homogenous linear pantograph equations, we also obtain the similar results by the similar consideration. In the theorem 8.2. we have considered the first order non-homogenous linear pantograph equation with the resonance term. Next, we give the result in the non-resonance case. Other cases such as the second order linear non-homogenous pantograph equation can be dealt with by the similar method, and the results can be derived from the corresponding results on the homogenous equations such as the theorems 8.5 and 7.5. Theorem 8.6. For the non-homogenous pantograph equation $$y'(x)+\beta y(\alpha x)=AE_{\alpha}(rx),y(x_0)=y_0,$$ where $x_0\neq0$ and $r\neq\alpha\beta$. There are the following three cases: (i). If $E_{\alpha}(\beta x_0)\neq0$, then there exists the unique solution $$y(x)=\frac{y_0-\frac{A\alpha}{r-\alpha\beta}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha} x_0)}{E_{\alpha}(\beta x_0)}E_{\alpha}(\beta x)+\frac{A\alpha}{r-\alpha\beta}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha} x).$$ (ii). If $E_{\alpha}(\beta x_0)=0$ and $y_0=\frac{A\alpha}{r-\alpha\beta}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha} x_0)$, then there exist an infinity of solutions all of which can be given by $$y(x)=cE_{\alpha}(\beta x)+\frac{A\alpha}{r-\alpha\beta}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha} x),$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. (iii). If $E_{\alpha}(\beta x_0)=0$ and $y_0\neq\frac{A\alpha}{r-\alpha\beta}E_{\alpha}(\frac{r}{\alpha} x_0)$, then there does not exist the solution. Proof. According to the general solution (67), we can easily prove it. The proof is completed. Finally, we give a generalization of the MFBH theorem to the first order linear pantograph equation with variable coefficient. By the similar method of proving MFBH theorem by Hahn\[8\], we give the proofs of the following two results. Theorem 8.7. For the equation (here $0<\alpha<1$) $$y'(t)=-k(t)y(\alpha t), y(0)\neq0,$$ if $k'(t)\leq0$ and $k(t)>k_0$ where $k_0>0$ is a constant, then the solution has an infinity of positive zeros. Proof. We will prove that it is impossible that $y(t)>0$ for all $t>0$. Suppose that $y(t)>0$ for all $t>0$, then $y(t)>0$ for $t>\alpha^2t_0$ where $t_0>0$ is an arbitrary constant. Therefore, for $t>t_0$, we have $$y(t)>0, y'(t)<0,$$ $$y''(t)=-k'(t)y(\alpha t)+\alpha k(t)k(\alpha t)y(\alpha^2 t)>0.$$ Take a sequence of points $t_n=\frac{t_0}{\alpha^n}$ for $n=0,1,\cdots.$ On the interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$, the graph of the function $y(t)$ is convex and decreasing, so the arc $A_nA_{n+1}$ lies above the tangent line $L$ at point $A_{n+1}=(t_{n+1},y(t_{n+1}))$ and below the line through the point $A_n=(t_n,y(t_n))$ parallel to $L$. And then, we have $$y(t_{n+1})<y(t_n)(1-k(t_n)(t_{n+1}-t_n))=y(t_n)(1-\frac{k(t_n)}{\alpha^n}(t_{1}-t_0)).$$ Since $k(t)>k_0>0$ and $0<\alpha<1$, we have $\frac{k(t_n)}{\alpha^n}\rightarrow+\infty$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$, and hence $1-\frac{k(t_n)}{\alpha^n}(t_{1}-t_0)$ will become negative for sufficiently large $n$. This is a contradiction with the assumption. By the similar reason, $y(t)$ can not be negative for sufficiently large $t>0$. The proof is completed. Similarly, we have the following result. Theorem 8.8. For the equation (here $0<\alpha<1$) $$y'(t)=k(t)y(\alpha t), y(0)\neq0,$$ if $k'(t)\geq0$ and $k(t)>k_0$ where $k_0>0$ is a constant, then every solution has an infinity of negative zeros. Boundary value problem of the second order linear pantograph equation and its applications ========================================================================================== Boundary value problem of the second order linear pantograph equation --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the boundary value problem $$y''(x)=\lambda y(\alpha^2 x), (0<\alpha<1),$$ with boundary condition $$y(0)=y(1)=0.$$ If $\alpha=1$, then we have $\lambda<0$ for nontrivial solution. However, if $0<\alpha<1$, we need some efforts to proof this result. Lemma 9.1. The function $h(x)=E_{\alpha}(x)-E_{\alpha}(-x)$ has the unique real zero $x=0$. Proof. We can give a direct proof by the Taylor expansion of $E_{\alpha}(x)$. Here we give another proof. First, since $h(-x)=E_{\alpha}(-x)-E_{\alpha}(x)=-h(x)$, we know that if $h(x_0)=0$, then $h(-x_0)=0$. This means that if there is a positive zero, then there is a corresponding negative zero. Therefore, we only need to prove that $h(x)$ has no positive zero. In fact, $h(x)$ satisfies the following equation $$h''(x)=\alpha h(\alpha^2 x),$$ with initial conditions $h(0)=0$ and $h'(0)=2$. By the theorem 2.1, there exists the unique analytic solution. Thus, we can assume that the expansion of $h(x)$ is $$h(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}b_nx^n,$$ where $b_n's$ are the undetermined coefficients. Substituting it into equation gives $$b_{n+2}=\frac{b_n\alpha^{2n+1}}{(n+2)(n+1)}, n=0,1,2,\cdots.$$ Since $b_0=0$ and $b_1=2$, so $b_{2n}=0$ and $b_{2n-1}>0$ for $n>0$, and then $h(x)$ has no positive zero. The proof is completed. Similarly, we have the following lemma. Lemma 9.2. The function $h(x)=E_{\alpha}(x)+E_{\alpha}(-x)$ has no any real zero. By the above lemma 9.1, we have the following theorem. Theorem 9.1. For the boundary value problem (137) and (138), if there is nontrivial solution, we must have $\lambda<0$. Proof. Assume that $\lambda>0$. Then the general solution of equation (137) is give by $$y(x)=c_1E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} x)+c_2E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} x).$$ From the boundary conditions (141), we have $$c_1+c_2=0,$$ $$c_1E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}})+c_2E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}})=0.$$ By the lemma 9.1, the coefficients determinant is not zero, that is, $$\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 \\ E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}) & E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}) \end{array} \right\|\neq0,$$ so $c_1=c_2=0$, and then the solution $y(x)\equiv 0$ is trivial. The proof is completed. Theorem 9.2. For the boundary value problem (137) and (138), there exist an infinity of negative eigenvalues $\lambda_n (n=1,2,\cdots)$ which satisfy $$\lambda_n=-\alpha\rho_n^2,$$ and every corresponding eigenfunction is given by $$y_n(x)=S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x),$$ where $\rho_n$ is the $n$-th positive zero of $S_{\alpha}(x)$. Proof. By theorem 9.1, we must have $\lambda<0$, then the general solution of the second order pantograph equation (137) is given by $$y(x)=c_1C_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} x)+c_2S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} x).$$ From $y(0)=y(1)=0$, we have $c_1=0$ and $$c_2S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}})=0.$$ Since $c_2\neq 0$, $\lambda$ must satisfies $$S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}})=0.$$ Denote all zeroes of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ as $\rho_0=0, \pm\rho_1,\pm\rho_2,\cdots,$. So we have an infinity of $\lambda's$ as follows, $$\lambda_n=-\alpha\rho^2_n, n=1,2,\cdots.$$ Therefore, for each eigenvalue $\lambda_n$, an eigenfunction is given by $$y_n(x)=S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x).$$ The proof is completed. Theorem 9.3. For the symmetric boundary condition $$y(-l)=y(l)=0,$$ the eigenvalues of equation (137) must be negative and are given by $$\lambda_{2n}=-\alpha\frac{\rho^2_n}{l^2}, \lambda_{2n-1}=-\alpha\frac{\eta^2_n}{l^2}, n=1,2,\cdots,$$ and corresponding basic eigenfunctions are $$y_{2n}(x)=S_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_n}{l}x),$$ $$y_{2n+1}(x)=C_{\alpha}(\frac{\eta_n}{l}x),$$ where $\rho_n$ and $\eta_n$ are respectively the $n$-th zeros of $S_{\alpha}(x)$ and $C_{\alpha}(x)$. Proof. By lemmas 9.1 and 9.2, if there exists nontrivial solution, we must have $\lambda<0$. In fact, if we suppose $\lambda>0$, from the boundary conditions (152) and the general solution (142), we have $$c_1E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l)+c_2E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l)=0$$ $$c_1E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l)+c_2E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l)=0.$$ The coefficients determinant is $$\left\| \begin{array}{ccc} E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l) & E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l) \\ E_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l) & E_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l) \end{array} \right\|=E^2_{\alpha}(\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l)-E^2_{\alpha}(-\sqrt {\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}}l).$$ By the lemmas 9.1 and 9.2, the determinant is not equal to zero, so $c_1=c_2=0$, and hence the solution $y(x)\equiv 0$ is trivial. Therefore, we must have $\lambda<0$, and the general solution is (148). By boundary conditions (152), we have $$c_1C_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)+c_2S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)=0$$ $$c_1C_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)-c_2S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)=0.$$ Since $c_1$ and $c_2$ can not be all zero, it follows that the determinant of the coefficients is zero, that is, $$C_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)S_{\alpha}(\sqrt {-\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}} l)=0,$$ whose solutions are $$\lambda_{2n}=-\alpha\frac{\rho^2_n}{l^2}, \lambda_{2n-1}=-\alpha\frac{\eta^2_n}{l^2}, n=1,2,\cdots.$$ The corresponding eigenfunctions can be taken as $$y_{2n}(x)=S_{\alpha}(\frac{\rho_n}{l}x),$$ $$y_{2n-1}(x)=C_{\alpha}(\frac{\eta_n}{l}x),$$ for $n=1,2,\cdots$. The proof is completed. Remark 9.1. We must notice that these eigenfunctions are not orthogonal each other. Formal solutions of heat-like pantograph equation and wave-like equation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, we give an application of the results in section 9.1. These are only formal derivations. Consider the following heat-like pantograph equation $$u_t(\alpha^2 x,t)=u_{xx}(x,\beta t),$$ $$u(0,t)=u(1,t)=0,$$ $$u(x,0)=\phi(x).$$ If $\alpha=\beta=1$, it will reduce to the usual heat equation. We use the method of variables separation to solve the heat-like pantograph equation. Letting $u(x,t)=X(x)T(t)$ and substituting it into the equation (162) yields two equations $$T'(t)=\lambda T(\beta t),$$ and $$X''(x)=\lambda X(\alpha^2 x),$$ with boundary condition $$X(0)=X(1)=0.$$ By the theorems 9.1 and 9.2, we have $\lambda_n=-\alpha\rho^2_n$ for $n=1,2,\cdots$ and $$X_n(x)=S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x),$$ and correspondingly $$T_n(t)=E_{\beta}(-\alpha\rho^2_n t).$$ Thus, formally, we have $$u(x,t)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}A_nE_{\beta}(-\alpha\rho^2_n t)S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x),$$ which satisfies the heat-like pantograph equation and the boundary condition. We now use the initial condition to solve the coefficients $A_n$. In fact, taking $t=0$ in the above formula gives $$\phi(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}A_nS_{\alpha}(\rho_n x),$$ that is, $\phi(x)$ can be expanded as a Fourier’s series based on sine-like functions. Unfortunately, $\{S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x)\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is not a system of orthogonal bases, and hence we can not direct compute the value of $A_n$. However, we can use the Gram-Schimdt’s process to compute these coefficients. Denote $f_n=S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x)$ for $n=1,2,\cdots$ and $\{e_n\}_{n=1}^{+\infty}$ the corresponding orthogonal bases given by Gram-Schimdt’s process. Then, for $n=2,3,\cdots$, we have $$e_1=f_1,$$ $$e_n=f_n-\frac{<f_n,e_1>}{<e_1,e_1>}e_1-\cdots-\frac{<f_n,e_{n-1}>}{<e_{n-1},e_{n-1}>}e_{n-1},$$ where inner product $<f,g>=\int_0^1f(x)g(x)\mathrm{d}x$. Then $e_n$ is the linear combination of $f_1, \cdots, f_n$, that is, $$e_n=\sum_{m=1}^{n}H_{nm}f_m,$$ where $H_{nm}$ can be explicitly represented in terms of $\frac{<f_i,e_{j}>}{<e_{j},e_{j}>}$ for $i,j=1,\cdots,n.$ Therefore, we get $$\phi(x)=\sum_{m=1}^{+\infty}A_mf_m=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}B_ne_n=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}B_n\sum_{m=1}^{n}H_{nm}f_m =\sum_{m=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{n=m}^{+\infty}B_nH_{nm}f_m.$$ It follows that $$A_m=\sum_{n=m}^{+\infty}B_nH_{nm},$$ and $$B_n=\frac{<\phi(x),e_n>}{<e_n,e_n>}=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{n}<\phi,f_k>}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}H^2_{nk}<f_k,f_k>},$$ and hence, we have $$A_m=\sum_{n=m}^{+\infty}\frac{H_{nm}\sum_{k=1}^{n}<\phi,f_k>}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}H^2_{nk}<f_k,f_k>}.$$ Therefore, we give the formal solution of the heat-like pantograph equation $$u(x,t)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{m=n}^{+\infty}\frac{H_{mn}\sum_{k=1}^{m}<\phi,f_k>} {\sum_{k=1}^{m}H^2_{jk}<f_k,f_k>} E_{\beta}(-\alpha\rho^2_n t)S_{\alpha}(\rho_n x).$$ Similarly, we consider the following wave-like pantograph equation $$u_{tt}(\alpha^2 x,t)=u_{xx}(x,\beta^2 t),$$ $$u(0,t)=u(1,t)=0,$$ $$u(x,0)=\phi(x),$$ $$u_t(x,0)=\varphi(x),$$ and give its formal solution $$u(x,t)=\sum_{m=1}^{+\infty}\{\sum_{n=m}^{+\infty}\frac{H_{nm}\sum_{k=1}^{n}<\phi,f_k>}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}H^2_{nk}<f_k,f_k>} C_{\beta}(-\rho_m t)$$ $$-\frac{1}{\rho_m^2}\sum_{n=m}^{+\infty}\frac{H_{nm}\sum_{k=1}^{n}<\varphi,f_k>}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}H^2_{nk}<f_k,f_k>} S_{\beta}(-\rho_m t)\}S_{\alpha}(\rho_m x).$$ If we consider the wave-like pantograph equation on the infinite interval $(-\infty, +\infty)$, $$u_{tt}(\alpha^2 x,t)=u_{xx}(x,\beta^2 t),$$ $$u(-\infty,t)=u(+\infty,t)=0,$$ $$u(x,0)=\phi(x),$$ $$u_t(x,0)=\varphi(x),$$ we will give the formal solution $$u(x,t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}S_{\beta}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\beta}t) \{A_1(y)S_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)+B_1(y)C_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)\}\mathrm{d}y$$ $$+\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}C_{\beta}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\beta}t) \{A_2(y)S_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)+B_2(y)C_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)\}\mathrm{d}y,$$ where $A_k(y)$ and $B_k(y)$ ($k=1,2$) satisfy $$\phi(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\{A_1(y)S_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)+B_1(y)C_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)\}\mathrm{d}y,$$ and $$\varphi(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{y}{\sqrt\beta}\{A_2(y)S_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)+B_2(y)C_{\alpha}(\frac{y}{\sqrt\alpha}x)\}\mathrm{d}y.$$ Remark 9.2.* We can formally introduce the Fourier-like transformation $$f(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}F(y)E_{\alpha}(iyx)\mathrm{d}y,$$ and the Laplace-like transformation $$L(f)(p)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}E_{\alpha}(-px)f(x)\mathrm{d}x,$$ but the inverse transformations are unknown. Acknowledgments: Thanks to Mr. Ballstadt for his pointing out the papers\[5,6\]. I am also grateful to Prof. Iserles for his kindly answers to my questions. Finally, thanks to Yue Kai for his helpful discussions. [2]{} J K Hale. Functional differential equations. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1971. K Mahler. On a special functional equation. J. london Math. Soc. 1940,1(2):115-123. L Fox, D F Mayers, J R Ockendon and A B Tayler. On a functional differantical equation. IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics, 1971, 8(3): 271-307. J R Ockendon and A B Tayler. The dynamics of a current collection system for an electric locomotive. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. The Royal Society, 1971, 322(1551): 447-468. T Kato and J B McLeod. The functional-differential equation $y'(x)=ay(\lambda x)+by(x)$. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 1971, 77:891-937. J Carr and J Dyson. The functional differential equation $y'(x)=ay(\lambda x)+by(x)$. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A. 1974-75, 74: 165-174 J Carr and J Dyson. The matrix functional differential Equation $y'(x)=Ay(\lambda x)+By(x)$. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A.1975-76, 75: 5-22. G R Morris, A Feldstein, and E W Bowen, The Phragmen¡ä ¡§Lindelof principle and a class of functional differential equations. ¡®¡®Ordinary Differential Equations,¡¯¡¯ pp. 513-540, Academic Press, New York, 1972. A Iserles. On the generalized pantograph functional-differential equation. European J. Appl. Math. 1992, 4(01): 1-38. R Nussbaum. Existence and uniqueness theorems for some functional differential equations of neutral type. Journal of Differential Equations. 1972,11(3):607-623. A Iserles. On nonlinear delay differential equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1994, 344(1): 441-477. G Derfel, A Iserles. The pantograph equation in the complex plane. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 1997, 213(1): 117-132. Yunkang Liu. Regular solutions of the Shabat equation. Journal of Differential Equations, 1999, 154(1): 1-41. Yunkang Liu. Asymptotic behaviour of functional-differential equations with proportional time delays. European J. Appl. Math. 1996, 7(01):11-30. J Cermak, P Kundrat, M Urbanek. Delay equations on time scales: Essentials and asymptotics of the solutions. Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, 2008, 14(6): 567-580. Yang Kuang, A Feldstein. Monotonic and oscillatory solution of a linear neutral delay equation with infinite lag. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 1990, 21(6): 1633-1641. Yunkang Liu. Stability analysis of theta-methods for neutral functional-differential equations. Numerische Mathematik, 1995, 70(4): 473-485. A Iserles, Yunkang Liu. On pantograph integro-differential equations. University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 1993. J Mallet-Paret, R D Nussbaum. Analyticity and nonanalyticity of solutions of delay-differential equations. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 2014, 46(4): 2468-2500. Yunkang Liu. On Some Conjectures by Morriset al. about Zeros of an Entire Function. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 1998, 226(1): 1-5. B Van Brunt, G C Wake. A Mellin transform solution to a second-order pantograph equation with linear dispersion arising in a cell growth model. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2011, 22(02): 151-168. A Iserles, Yunkang Liu. Integro-differential equations and generalized hypergeometric functions. Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, 1995. A Feldstein, A Iserles, D Levin. Embedding of delay equations into an infinite-dimensional ODE system. Journal of Differential Equations, 1995, 117(1): 127-150. M Atiyah, G W Moore. A shifted view of fundamental physics. Surveys in Differential Geometry, 2010, 15. arXiv:1009.3176v1. D X Kong, C Zhang. A new kind of functional differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3084, 2014. V Spiridonov. Universal superpositions of coherent states and self-similar potentials. Physical Review A, 1995, 52(3): 1909. S Skorik, V Spiridonov. Self-similar potentials and the q-oscillator algebra at roots of unity. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 1993, 28(1): 59-74. L V Bogachev, G Derfel and S A Molchanov. On bounded continuous solutions of the archetypal equation with rescaling. Proc. R. Soc. A. The Royal Society, 2015, 471(2180): 20150351. Hill R. Mathematical theory of plasticity. Claredon Press. 1950. V V Golubev. Lectures on the analytic theory of differential equations. Gostekhizdat, Moscow, 1950. E C Titchmarsh. The theory of functions. London: Oxford University Press, 1952. G Pólya, J Schur. Über zwei Arten von Faktorenfolgen in der Theorie der algebraischen Gleichungen. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik. 1914, 144: 89-113. E Hille. Analytic function theory, Volume II. The second Edition. Providence Rhode Island: American Mathematical Soc., 2005. Cheng-shi Liu. The asymptotic formulas of zeros of solutions for $y''(x)=-\alpha y(\alpha^2 x).$ In prepearation.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Matthieu B[é]{}thermin' - Emanuele Daddi - Georgios Magdis - Claudia Lagos - Mark Sargent - Marcus Albrecht - Hervé Aussel - Frank Bertoldi - Véronique Buat - Maud Galametz - Sébastien Heinis - Olivier Ilbert - Alexander Karim - Anton Koekemoer - Cedric Lacey - 'Emeric Le Floc’h' - Felipe Navarrete - Maurilio Pannella - Corentin Schreiber - Vernesa Smolčić Myrto Symeonidis - Marco Viero bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' date: 'Received 19 September 2014 / Accepted 11 November 2014' title: Evolution of the dust emission of massive galaxies up to z=4 and constraints on their dominant mode of star formation --- Introduction ============ Galaxy properties evolve rapidly across cosmic time. In particular, various studies have shown that the mean star formation rate (SFR) at fixed stellar mass increases by a factor of about 20 between z=0 and z=2 [e.g., @Noeske2007; @Elbaz2007; @Daddi2007; @Pannella2009; @Magdis2010; @Karim2011; @Elbaz2011; @Rodighiero2011; @Whitaker2012; @Heinis2014; @Pannella2014]. This very high SFR can be explained by either larger reservoirs of molecular gas or a higher star formation efficiency (SFE). Large gas reservoirs have been found in massive galaxies at high redshift [e.g., @Daddi2008; @Tacconi2010; @Daddi2010a; @Tacconi2013; @Aravena2013], which could imply high SFRs with SFE similar to that of normal star-forming galaxies in the local Universe. On the other hand, follow-up of bright submillimeter galaxies (SMGs) revealed that their very intense SFR ($\sim$1000M$_\odot$/yr) is also driven by a SFE boosted by a factor of 10 with respect to normal star-forming galaxies in the local Universe [e.g., @Greve2005; @Frayer2008; @Daddi2009a; @Daddi2009b], likely induced by a major merger. This difference can be understood if we consider that galaxies are driven by two types of star formation activity: smooth processes fed by large reservoirs of gas in normal star-forming galaxies and boosted star-formation in gas rich mergers [@Daddi2010b; @Genzel2010].\ Using models based on the existence of this main-sequence of star-forming galaxies, i.e., a tight correlation between SFR and stellar mass, and outliers of this sequence with boosted sSFRs (SFR/M$_\star$) called starbursts hereafter, @Sargent2012 showed that the galaxies with the highest SFR mainly correspond to starbursts, while the bulk of the star formation budget ($\sim$85%) is hosted in normal star-forming galaxies. This approach allows us to better understand the heterogeneous characteristic of distant objects concerning their gas fraction and their SFE [@Sargent2014]. The quick rise of the sSFR would thus be explained by larger gas reservoirs in main-sequence galaxies. However, the most extreme SFRs observed in high-redshift starbursts would be caused by a SFE boosted induced by major mergers.\ At high redshift, the gas mass is difficult to estimate. Two main methods are used. The first is based on the measurement of the intensity of rotational transitions (generally with J$_{\rm upper}<3$) of $^{12}$CO and an assumed CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor [@Daddi2008; @Tacconi2010; @Saintonge2013; @Tacconi2013]. The main limitation of this method is the uncertainty on this conversion factor, which is expected to be different from the local calibrations in high-redshift galaxies with strongly sub-solar metallicities [@Bothwell2010; @Engel2010; @Genzel2012; @Tan2013; @Genzel2014]. The second method is based on the estimate of the dust mass, which is then converted into gas mass using the locally-calibrated relation between the gas-to-dust ratio and the gas metallicity [e.g., @Munoz-Mateos2009; @Leroy2011; @Remy2014]. The main weakness of this method is the need of an accurate estimate of the gas metallicity and the possible evolution in normalization and scatter of the relation between gas-to-dust ratio and gas metallicity. This method was applied on individual galaxies at high redshift by @Magdis2011 [@Magdis2012b] and @Scoville2014, but also on mean spectral energy distributions (SEDs) measured through a stacking analysis [@Magdis2012b; @Santini2014]. This method has not been applied at redshifts higher than $\sim$2. The aim of this paper is to extend the studies of dust emission and gas fractions derived from dust masses to z$\sim$4 and analyze possible differences in trends as redshift increases.\ In this paper, we combine the information provided by the Herschel data and a mass-selected sample of galaxies built from the UltraVISTA data [@Ilbert2013] in COSMOS to study the mean dust emission of galaxies up to z=4 (Sect.\[data\]). We measure the mean SED of galaxies on the main sequence and strong starbursts using a stacking analysis. We then deduce the mean intensity of the radiation field and the mean dust mass in these objects using the @Draine2007 model (Sect.\[stackfit\]). We discuss the observed evolution of these quantities in Sect.\[results\] and the consequences on the nature of star formation processes at high redshift in Sect.\[discussion\]. Throughout this paper, we adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, $H_0 = 70$km/s/Mpc and a @Chabrier2003 initial mass function (IMF).\ Data ==== Stellar mass and photometric redshift catalog using UltraVISTA data {#masscat} ------------------------------------------------------------------- Deep Y, J, H, and K$_{\rm s}$ data (m$_{\rm AB, 5\sigma} \sim$ 25 for the Y band and 24 for the others) were produced by the UltraVISTA survey [@McCracken2012]. The photometric redshift and the stellar mass of the detected galaxies were estimated using Le PHARE [@Arnouts1999; @Ilbert2006] as described in @Ilbert2013. The precision of the photometric redshifts at 1.5$<$z$<$4 is $\sigma_{\rm \Delta z / (1+z)}$ = 0.03. According to @Ilbert2013, this catalog is complete down to $10^{10.26}$M$_\odot$ at z$<$4. X-ray detected active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are also removed from our sample of star-forming galaxies, since the mid-infrared emission of these objects could be strongly affected the AGN. Luminous X-ray obscured AGNs might still be present in the sample. However, their possible presence appear to have limited impact on our work as no mid-infrared excess is observed in the average SEDs measured by stacking (see Fig.\[fig:sedms\] and \[fig:sedsb\] and Sect.\[results\]).\ As this paper studies star-forming galaxies, we focused only on star-forming galaxies selected following the method of @Ilbert2010 based on the rest-frame $\rm NUV-r^{+}$ versus $\rm r^{+}-J$ and similar to the UVJ criterion of [@Williams2009]. The flux densities in each rest-frame band are extrapolated from the closest observer-frame band to minimize potential biases induced by the choice of template library. At z$>$1.5, 40-60% of the objects classified as passive by this color criterion have a sSFR$>10^{-11}$yr$^{-1}$ according to the SED fitting of the optical/near-IR data [@Ilbert2013 their Fig.3]. However, the sSFRs obtained by SED fitting are highly uncertain, because of the degeneracies with the dust attenuation. These peculiar objects are at least 10 times less numerous than the color-selected star-forming sample in all redshift bins. Including them or not in the sample has a negligible impact ($\sim0.25$$\sigma$) on the mean SEDs measured by stacking (see Sect.\[stackfit\]). We thus based our study only on the color-selected population for simplicity.\ Spitzer/MIPS data ------------------- The COSMOS field (2 deg$^2$) was observed by Spitzer at 24$\mu$m with the multiband imaging photometer (MIPS). A map and a catalog combined with the optical and near-IR data was produced from these observations [@Le_Floch2009]. The 1$\sigma$ point source sensitivity is $\sim$15$\mu$Jy and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the point spread function (PSF) is $\sim$6".\ Herschel/PACS data -------------------- The PACS (photodetecting array camera and spectrometer, @Poglitsch2010) evolutionary probe survey (PEP, @Lutz2011) mapped the COSMOS field with the Herschel[^1] space observatory [@Pilbratt2010] at 100 and 160$\mu$m with a point-source sensitivity of 1.5 mJy and 3.3 mJy and a PSF FWHM of 7.7“ and 12”, respectively. Sources and fluxes of the PEP catalog were extracted using the position of 24$\mu$m sources as a prior. This catalog is used only to select strong starbursts up to z$\sim$3. The 24$\mu$m prior should not induce any incompleteness of the strong-starburst sample, since their minimum expected 24$\mu$m flux is at least 2 times larger than the detection limit at this wavelength [^2].\ Herschel/SPIRE data --------------------- We also used Herschel data at 250$\mu$m, 350$\mu$m, and 500$\mu$m taken by the spectral and photometric imaging receiver (SPIRE, @Griffin2010) as part of the Herschel multitiered extragalactic survey (HerMES, @Oliver2012). The FWHM of the PSF is 18.2“, 24.9”, and 36.3", the 1$\sigma$ instrumental noise is 1.6, 1.3, and 1.9mJy/beam, and the 1$\sigma$ confusion noise is 5.8, 6.3, and 6.8mJy/beam [@Nguyen2010] at 250$\mu$m, 350$\mu$m, and 500$\mu$m, respectively. In this paper, we used the sources catalog extracted using as a prior the positions, the fluxes, the redshifts, and mean colors measured by stacking of 24$\mu$m sources, as described in @Bethermin2012b.\ LABOCA data ----------- The COSMOS field was mapped at 870$\mu$m by the large APEX bolometer Camera (LABOCA) mounted on the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX) telescope[^3] (PI: Frank Bertoldi, Navarrete et al. in prep.). We retrieved the raw data from the ESO Science Archive facility and reduced them with the publicly available CRUSH (version 2.12–2) pipeline [@Kovacs2006; @Kovacs2008]. We used the algorithm settings optimized for deep field observations[^4]. The output of CRUSH includes an intensity map and a noise map. The mapped area extends over approximately 1.4 square degrees with a non-uniform noise that increases toward the edges of the field. In this work we use the inner $\sim$0.7deg$^2$ of the map where a fairly uniform sensitivity of $\sim$4.3 mJy/beam is reached (Pannella et al. in prep.) with a smoothed beam size of $\sim$27.6". Contrary to SPIRE data, which are confusion limited, LABOCA data are noise limited and the maps are thus beam-smoothed to minimize their RMS. AzTEC data ---------- An area of 0.72deg$^2$ was scanned by the AzTEC bolometer camera mounted on the Atacama submillimeter telescope experiment (ASTE). The sensitivity in the center of the field is 1.23mJy RMS and the PSF FWHM after beam-smoothing is 34" [@Aretxaga2011].\ Methods {#stackfit} ======= Sample selection ---------------- ![\[fig:massdistr\] Stellar mass distribution of our samples of star-forming galaxies in the various redshift bins we used. Only galaxies more massive than our cut of $3\times 10^{10}\,\rm M_\odot$ are represented. The first bin contain fewer objects than the second one because our cut fall at the middle of the first one. The arrows indicate the mean stellar mass in each redshift bin.](Mass_distrib.eps) In this paper, we base our analysis on mass-selected samples of star-forming galaxies (see Sect.\[masscat\]). We chose the same stellar mass cut of $3 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$ at all redshifts to be complete up to z$\sim$4. We could have used a lower mass cut at lower redshifts, but we chose this single cut for all redshifts to be able to interpret the observed evolution of the various physical parameters of the galaxies in our sample in an easier way. This cut is slightly higher than the 90% completeness limit at z$\sim$4 cited in @Ilbert2013 [1.8$\times$10$^{10}$M$_\odot$] and implies an high completeness of our sample, which limits potential biases induced by the input catalog on the results of our stacking analysis [e.g., @Heinis2013]. The exact choice of our stellar mass cut has negligible impact on the mean SEDs measured by stacking: we tested a mass cut of $2 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$ and $5 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$ and found that, after renormalization at the same L$_{\rm IR}$, the SEDs are similar ($\chi_{\rm red}^2$ = 0.57 and 0.79, respectively). These results agree with @Magdis2012b, who did not find any evidence of a dependence of the main-sequence SED on stellar mass at fixed redshift. The mass distribution of star-forming galaxies does not vary significantly with redshift, except in normalization (@Ilbert2013 and Fig.\[fig:massdistr\]). The average stellar mass at all redshifts is between $10^{10.75}$M$_\odot$ and $10^{10.80}$M$_\odot$ (Fig.\[fig:massdistr\] and Table\[tab:physpar\]).\ Star-forming galaxies whose stellar mass is larger than our cut do not correspond to the same populations at z=4 and z=0. The massive objects at z=4 are formed in dense environments, corresponding to the progenitors of today’s clusters and massive groups [e.g., @Conroy2009; @Moster2010; @Behroozi2012a; @Bethermin2013; @Bethermin2014]. Most of these objects are in general quenched between z=4 and z=0 [e.g., @Peng2010]. In contrast, our mass cut at z=0 corresponds to Milky-Way-like galaxies. At all redshift, this cut is just below the mass corresponding to the maximal efficiency of star formation inside halos (defined here as the ratio between stellar mass and halo mass, @Moster2010 [@Behroozi2010; @Bethermin2012b; @Wang2013; @Moster2013]).\ Our stellar mass cut is slightly below the knee of the mass function of star-forming galaxies [@Ilbert2013]. The population we selected thus hosts the majority ($>$50%) of the stellar mass in star-forming galaxies. Since there is a correlation between stellar mass and SFR, we are thus probing the population responsible for a large fraction the star formation (40-65% depending on the redshift according to the @Bethermin2012b model, see also @Karim2011). Our approach is thus different from @Santini2014 who explore in detail how the SEDs evolve at z$<$2.5 in the SFR-M$_\star$ plane using a combination of UV-derived and 24$\mu$m-derived SFRs. We aim to push our analysis to higher redshifts and we thus use this more simple and redshift-invariant selection to allow an easier interpretation and to limit potential selection biases. In addition to this mass selection, we divide our sample by intervals of redshift. The choice of their size is a compromise between large intervals to have a good signal-to-noise ratio at each wavelength and small intervals to limit the broadening of the SEDs because of redshift evolution within the broad redshift bin.\ We also removed strong starbursts from our sample (sSFR$>$10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$) and studied them separately. These objects are selected using the photometric catalogs described in Sect.\[data\]. For the sources which are detected at 5$\sigma$ at least in two Herschel bands, we fitted the SEDs with the template library of @Magdis2012b allowing the mean intensity of the radiation field $\langle U \rangle$ to vary by $\pm$0.6dex (3$\sigma$ of the scatter used in the @Bethermin2012c model). These criteria of two detections at different wavelengths and the high reliability of the detections prevent biasing of the starbursts towards positive fluctuations of the noise in the maps and limit the flux boosting effect. We then estimated the SFR from the infrared luminosity, L$_{\rm IR}$, using the @Kennicutt1998 relation. We performed a first analysis using the same evolution of the main-sequence (sSFR$_{\rm MS}$ versus z) as in @Bethermin2012c to select sSFR$>$10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$ objects. We then fit the measured evolution of the main-sequence found by a first stacking analysis (see Sect.\[sect:stacking\] and Sect.\[sect:sedfit\]) to prepare the final sample for our analysis. We could have chosen a lower sSFR cut corresponding to 4 times the value at the center of the main-sequence as in @Rodighiero2011, but the sample would be incomplete at z$>$1 because of the flux limit of the infrared catalogs.\ ![\[SBcomp\] The thick red solid line represents the luminosity limit corresponding to a criterion of a 5$\sigma$ detection in at least two Herschel bands. The other solid lines are the limits for a detection at only one given wavelength (purple for 100$\mu$m, blue for 160$\mu$m, turquoise for 250$\mu$m, green for 350$\mu$m, orange for 500$\mu$m). The dashed, dot-dash, and three-dot-dash lines indicate the infrared luminosity of a galaxie of $3 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$ (our mass cut) at the center of the main sequence, a factor of 4 above it, and a factor of 10 above it, respectively.](LIRlim.eps) Fig.\[SBcomp\] shows the luminosity limit corresponding to a detection at 5$\sigma$ at two wavelengths or more. This was computed using both the starburst and the main-sequence templates of the @Magdis2012b SED library. This library contains different templates for main-sequence and starburst galaxies. The main-sequence template evolves with redshift, but not the starburst one. The lines correspond to the highest luminosity limit found using these two templates for each wavelength, which is the most pessimistic case. We also computed the infrared luminosity associated with a galaxy of $3\times 10^{10}\,\rm M_\odot$, i.e., our mass limit, on the main sequence (dashed line), a factor of 4 above it (dot-dash line), and a factor of 10 above it (three-dot-dash line). All the M$_\star > 3\times 10^{10}\,\rm M_\odot$ strong starbursts (sSFR$>$10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$) should thus be detected in two or more Herschel bands below z=4. There is only one starburst detected in the 3$<$z$<$4 bin. We thus do not analyze this bin, because of its lack of statistical significance. The other bins contain 3, 6, 6, and 8 strong starbursts, respectively, by increasing redshift.\ The sample of main-sequence galaxies is contaminated by the starbursts which have sSFR$<$10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$ . We expect that this contamination is negligible, since the contribution of all starbursts to the infrared luminosity density is lower than 15% [@Rodighiero2011; @Sargent2012]. To check this hypothesis, we statistically corrected for the contribution of the remaining starbursts with sSFR$<$10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$ based on the @Bethermin2012b counts model. We assumed both the SED library used for the model and the average SED of strong starbursts found in this study. We found that this statistical subtraction only affected our measurements at most at the 0.2$\sigma$ level. Consequently, we have neglected this contamination in the rest of our study.\ [ccccccccc]{} Redshift & S$_{24}$ & S$_{100}$ & S$_{160}$ & S$_{250}$ & S$_{350}$ & S$_{500}$ & S$_{850}$ & S$_{1100}$\ & $\mu$Jy & mJy& mJy& mJy& mJy& mJy& mJy & mJy\ \ 0.25$<$z$<$0.50 & 410$\pm$23 & 11.87$\pm$0.76 & 23.30$\pm$1.49 & 12.54$\pm$0.97 & 6.43$\pm$0.53 & 2.64$\pm$0.32 & -0.18$\pm$0.23 & 0.21$\pm$0.08\ 0.50$<$z$<$0.75 & 247$\pm$13 & 6.37$\pm$0.43 & 13.82$\pm$0.86 & 9.45$\pm$0.72 & 5.88$\pm$0.46 & 2.57$\pm$0.25 & 0.54$\pm$0.15 & 0.18$\pm$0.06\ 0.75$<$z$<$1.00 & 221$\pm$10 & 4.19$\pm$0.26 & 9.79$\pm$0.60 & 7.75$\pm$0.59 & 5.92$\pm$0.45 & 3.06$\pm$0.25 & 0.53$\pm$0.19 & 0.30$\pm$0.06\ 1.00$<$z$<$1.25 & 144$\pm$7 & 3.31$\pm$0.23 & 8.22$\pm$0.50 & 6.93$\pm$0.53 & 5.78$\pm$0.46 & 3.00$\pm$0.25 & 0.21$\pm$0.15 & 0.30$\pm$0.05\ 1.25$<$z$<$1.50 & 96$\pm$5 & 2.36$\pm$0.14 & 6.70$\pm$0.42 & 5.99$\pm$0.45 & 5.46$\pm$0.41 & 3.17$\pm$0.25 & 0.44$\pm$0.13 & 0.32$\pm$0.04\ 1.50$<$z$<$1.75 & 110$\pm$6 & 1.80$\pm$0.12 & 4.81$\pm$0.33 & 4.79$\pm$0.38 & 4.64$\pm$0.36 & 3.00$\pm$0.25 & 0.54$\pm$0.11 & 0.34$\pm$0.04\ 1.75$<$z$<$2.00 & 113$\pm$5 & 1.31$\pm$0.10 & 3.51$\pm$0.25 & 4.10$\pm$0.32 & 4.11$\pm$0.33 & 2.94$\pm$0.24 & 0.72$\pm$0.12 & 0.32$\pm$0.04\ 2.00$<$z$<$2.50 & 101$\pm$5 & 1.16$\pm$0.08 & 3.28$\pm$0.22 & 4.17$\pm$0.32 & 4.38$\pm$0.34 & 3.25$\pm$0.25 & 0.73$\pm$0.12 & 0.48$\pm$0.04\ 2.50$<$z$<$3.00 & 59$\pm$3 & 0.79$\pm$0.07 & 2.59$\pm$0.22 & 3.41$\pm$0.29 & 3.85$\pm$0.31 & 3.03$\pm$0.26 & 0.87$\pm$0.17 & 0.55$\pm$0.05\ 3.00$<$z$<$3.50 & 47$\pm$5 & 0.61$\pm$0.10 & 2.28$\pm$0.33 & 2.90$\pm$0.30 & 3.65$\pm$0.35 & 2.95$\pm$0.31 & 0.56$\pm$0.18 & 0.44$\pm$0.07\ 3.50$<$z$<$4.00 & 29$\pm$7 & 0.22$\pm$0.20 & 1.68$\pm$0.55 & 2.60$\pm$0.45 & 3.01$\pm$0.51 & 2.52$\pm$0.50 & 0.24$\pm$0.33 & 0.30$\pm$0.14\ \ 0.50$<$z$<$1.00 & 1241$\pm$329 & 57.48$\pm$15.98 & 86.33$\pm$18.31 & 41.57$\pm$7.83 & 16.52$\pm$3.53 & 9.64$\pm$4.73 & 6.91$\pm$5.92 & 2.40$\pm$1.57\ 1.00$<$z$<$1.50 & 264$\pm$77 & 30.59$\pm$3.26 & 64.44$\pm$6.97 & 38.44$\pm$4.92 & 24.79$\pm$3.98 & 13.90$\pm$4.97 & 0.12$\pm$2.62 & 1.36$\pm$0.78\ 1.50$<$z$<$2.00 & 912$\pm$179 & 23.51$\pm$5.04 & 62.46$\pm$13.80 & 42.47$\pm$8.02 & 30.99$\pm$9.27 & 21.46$\pm$7.09 & 2.10$\pm$3.37 & 3.90$\pm$1.16\ 2.00$<$z$<$3.00 & 629$\pm$193 & 13.15$\pm$4.91 & 39.56$\pm$7.77 & 32.25$\pm$4.37 & 35.72$\pm$5.40 & 28.52$\pm$5.20 & 7.98$\pm$2.97 & 5.08$\pm$1.02\ [cccccccc]{} Redshift & log(M$_\star$) & log(L$_{\rm IR}$) & SFR & log(M$_{\rm dust}$) & $\langle U \rangle$ & log(M$_{\rm mol}$) & f$_{\rm mol}$\ & log(M$_\odot$) & log(L$_\odot$) & M$_\odot$/yr & log(M$_\odot$) & & log(M$_\odot$) &\ \ 0.25$<$z$<$0.50 & 10.77 & 10.92$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ & 8.3$_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ & 8.09$_{-0.16}^{+0.12}$ & 5.50$_{-1.50}^{+3.10}$ & 10.04$_{-0.22}^{+0.19}$ & 0.16$_{-0.06}^{+0.07}$\ 0.50$<$z$<$0.75 & 10.76 & 11.19$_{-0.04}^{+0.08}$ & 15.6$_{-1.5}^{+3.3}$ & 8.24$_{-0.15}^{+0.19}$ & 7.23$_{-2.47}^{+3.82}$ & 10.23$_{-0.21}^{+0.24}$ & 0.23$_{-0.07}^{+0.11}$\ 0.75$<$z$<$1.00 & 10.75 & 11.45$_{-0.09}^{+0.07}$ & 27.9$_{-5.4}^{+4.7}$ & 8.44$_{-0.24}^{+0.16}$ & 7.80$_{-2.69}^{+5.44}$ & 10.48$_{-0.28}^{+0.22}$ & 0.35$_{-0.13}^{+0.12}$\ 1.00$<$z$<$1.25 & 10.77 & 11.56$_{-0.04}^{+0.10}$ & 36.4$_{-3.3}^{+9.7}$ & 8.29$_{-0.11}^{+0.28}$ & 15.05$_{-6.68}^{+5.74}$ & 10.34$_{-0.18}^{+0.32}$ & 0.27$_{-0.07}^{+0.16}$\ 1.25$<$z$<$1.50 & 10.76 & 11.69$_{-0.04}^{+0.07}$ & 48.6$_{-4.2}^{+8.9}$ & 8.37$_{-0.10}^{+0.22}$ & 16.52$_{-6.47}^{+5.45}$ & 10.46$_{-0.18}^{+0.26}$ & 0.33$_{-0.08}^{+0.15}$\ 1.50$<$z$<$1.75 & 10.77 & 11.77$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ & 58.9$_{-5.9}^{+7.5}$ & 8.45$_{-0.21}^{+0.18}$ & 16.96$_{-6.15}^{+10.90}$ & 10.55$_{-0.26}^{+0.23}$ & 0.37$_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$\ 1.75$<$z$<$2.00 & 10.79 & 11.81$_{-0.03}^{+0.05}$ & 64.4$_{-4.3}^{+8.2}$ & 8.49$_{-0.25}^{+0.18}$ & 16.96$_{-6.15}^{+15.24}$ & 10.63$_{-0.29}^{+0.23}$ & 0.41$_{-0.15}^{+0.13}$\ 2.00$<$z$<$2.50 & 10.79 & 11.99$_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ & 97.4$_{-5.3}^{+7.7}$ & 8.53$_{-0.19}^{+0.13}$ & 22.58$_{-6.27}^{+14.42}$ & 10.81$_{-0.24}^{+0.20}$ & 0.51$_{-0.13}^{+0.11}$\ 2.50$<$z$<$3.00 & 10.80 & 12.11$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ & 130.0$_{-12.6}^{+10.7}$ & 8.48$_{-0.11}^{+0.23}$ & 33.75$_{-14.29}^{+12.85}$ & 10.88$_{-0.18}^{+0.27}$ & 0.55$_{-0.10}^{+0.15}$\ 3.00$<$z$<$3.50 & 10.77 & 12.25$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ & 178.5$_{-18.4}^{+22.4}$ & 8.48$_{-0.12}^{+0.10}$ & 48.99$_{-11.32}^{+23.99}$ & 10.99$_{-0.19}^{+0.18}$ & 0.62$_{-0.11}^{+0.09}$\ 3.50$<$z$<$4.00 & 10.80 & 12.34$_{-0.12}^{+0.07}$ & 219.0$_{-54.4}^{+40.2}$ & 8.39$_{-0.50}^{+0.33}$ & 72.98$_{-36.98}^{+167.95}$ & 11.06$_{-0.52}^{+0.36}$ & 0.65$_{-0.29}^{+0.16}$\ \ 0.50$<$z$<$1.00 & 10.57 & 12.25$_{-0.08}^{+0.08}$ & 179.1$_{-150.5}^{+215.0}$ & 8.65$_{-0.04}^{+0.19}$ & 29.80$_{-11.77}^{+9.60}$ & 10.04$_{-0.24}^{+0.30}$ & 0.29$_{-0.10}^{+0.16}$\ 1.00$<$z$<$1.50 & 10.60 & 12.55$_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ & 350.8$_{-314.5}^{+376.4}$ & 8.99$_{-0.01}^{+0.09}$ & 26.92$_{-6.92}^{+2.88}$ & 10.23$_{-0.23}^{+0.25}$ & 0.45$_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$\ 1.50$<$z$<$2.00 & 10.64 & 12.93$_{-0.18}^{+0.07}$ & 860.1$_{-567.4}^{+1006.8}$ & 9.24$_{-0.09}^{+0.62}$ & 37.68$_{-28.40}^{+11.32}$ & 10.48$_{-0.25}^{+0.66}$ & 0.58$_{-0.14}^{+0.28}$\ 2.00$<$z$<$3.00 & 10.69 & 13.10$_{-0.24}^{+0.07}$ & 1260.0$_{-728.1}^{+1487.1}$ & 9.64$_{-0.47}^{+0.37}$ & 22.22$_{-12.94}^{+50.77}$ & 10.34$_{-0.52}^{+0.44}$ & 0.75$_{-0.28}^{+0.14}$\ ![image](SED_obs.eps) ![image](SED_zslice_fit_SBcomp.eps) ![image](SED_zslice_fit_SB10.eps) Stacking analysis {#sect:stacking} ----------------- We use a similar stacking approach as in @Magdis2012b to measure the mean SEDs of our sub-samples of star-forming galaxies from the mid-infrared to the millimeter domain. Different methods are used at the various wavelength to optimally extract the information depending if the data are confusion or noise limited. At 24$\mu$m, 100$\mu$m, and 160$\mu$m, we produced stacked images using the IAS stacking library [@Bavouzet2008; @Bethermin2010a]. The flux is then measured using aperture photometry with the same parameters and aperture corrections as @Bethermin2010a at 24$\mu$m. At 100$\mu$m and 160$\mu$m, we used a PSF fitting technique. A correction of 10% is applied to take into account the effect of the filtering of the data on the photometric measurements of faint, non-masked sources [@Popesso2012]. At 250$\mu$m, 350$\mu$m, and 500$\mu$m, the photometric uncertainties are not dominated by instrumental noise but by the confusion noise caused by neighboring sources [@Dole2003; @Nguyen2010]. We thus measured the mean flux of the sources computing the mean flux in the pixels centered on a stacked source following @Bethermin2012b. This method minimizes the uncertainties and a potential contamination caused by the clustering of galaxies [@Bethermin2010b]. Finally, we used the same method, but on the beam-convolved map, for LABOCA and AzTEC data as they are noise limited and lower uncertainties are obtained after this beam smoothing. LABOCA and AzTEC maps do not cover the whole area. We thus only stack sources in the covered region to compute the mean flux densities of our various sub-samples. The source selection criteria being exactly the same inside and outside the covered area, this should not introduce any bias.\ These stacking methods can be biased if the stacked sources are strongly clustered or very faint. This bias is caused by the greater probability of finding a source close to another one in the stacked sample compared to a random position. This effect has been discussed in detail by several authors [e.g., @Bavouzet2008; @Bethermin2010b; @Kurczynski2010; @Bethermin2012b; @Bourne2012; @Viero2013b]. In @Magdis2012b, the authors estimated that this bias is lower than the 1$\sigma$ statistical uncertainties and was not corrected. The number of sources to stack in COSMOS compared to the GOODS fields used by @Magdis2012b is much larger and hence the signal-to-noise ratio is much better. The bias caused by clustering is thus non-negligible in COSMOS. Because of the complex edge effects caused by the absence of data around bright stars, the methods using the position of the sources to deblend the contamination caused by the clustering cannot be applied [@Kurczynski2010; @Viero2013b]. Consequently, we developed a method based on realistic simulations of the Spitzer, Herschel, LABOCA, and AzTEC maps to correct this effect, which induces biases up to 50% at 500$\mu$m around z$\sim$2. The technical details and discussion of these corrections are presented in Appendix\[Annexestacking\].\ The uncertainties on the fluxes are measured using a bootstrap technique [@Jauzac2011]. This method takes into account both the errors coming from the instrumental noise, the confusion, and the sample variance of the galaxy population [@Bethermin2012b]. These uncertainties are combined quadratically with those associated with the calibration and the clustering correction.\ Mean physical properties from SED fitting {#sect:sedfit} ----------------------------------------- We interpreted our measurements of the mean SEDs using the @Draine2007 model as in @Magdis2012b. This model, developed initially to study the interstellar medium in the Milky Way and in nearby galaxies, takes into account the heterogeneity of the intensity of the radiation field. The redshift slices we used have a non-negligible width. To account for this, we convolve the model by the redshift distribution of the galaxies before fitting the data. The majority of the redshifts in our sample are photometric. We thus sum the probability distribution function (PDF) of the redshifts of all the sources in a sub-sample to estimate its intrinsic redshift distribution. The uncertainties on the physical parameters are estimated using the same Monte Carlo method as in @Magdis2012b. The uncertainties on each parameter takes into account the potential degeneracies with the others, i.e., they are the marginalized uncertainties on each individual parameters. Our good sampling of the dust SEDs (8 photometric points between 24$\mu$m and 1.1mm including at least six detections) allows us to break the degeneracy between the dust temperature and the dust mass which is found if only (sub-)mm datapoints are used.\ Instead of using the three parameters describing the distribution of the intensity of the radiation field U of the @Draine2007 model (the minimal radiation field $\rm U_{min}$, the maximal one $\rm U_{max}$, and the slope of the assumed power-law distribution between these two values $\alpha$), we considered only the mean intensity of the radiation field $\langle U \rangle$ for simplicity. The other parameters derived from the fit and used in this paper are the bolometric infrared luminosity integrated between 8 and 1000$\mu$m (L$_{\rm IR}$) and the dust mass (M$_d$). The SFR is derived from L$_{\rm IR}$ using the @Kennicutt1998 conversion factor ($1 \times 10^{-10}$$\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1} \, L_\odot^{-1}$ after conversion from Salpeter to Chabrier IMF), since the dust-obscured star formation vastly dominates the unobscured component at z$<$4 given the mass-scale considered [@Heinis2013; @Heinis2014; @Pannella2014]. The sSFR is computed using the later SFR and the mean stellar mass extracted from the @Ilbert2013 catalog. The uncertainties on the derived physical parameters presented in the various figures and tables of this paper are the uncertainties on the average values. The dispersion of physical properties inside a population is difficult to measure by stacking and we did not try to compute it in this paper (see Sect.\[discussion\]).\ The residuals of these fits are presented in Appendix\[sect:residuals\]. Tables\[tab:fluxes\] and \[tab:physpar\] summarize the average photometric measurements and the recovered physical parameters, respectively.\ Results ======= Evolution of the mean SED of star-forming galaxies -------------------------------------------------- Figure\[fig:sedobs\] summarizes the results of our stacking analysis. For the main-sequence sample, the flux density varies rapidly with redshift in the PACS 100$\mu$m band, while it is almost constant in the SPIRE 500$\mu$m band. The peak of the flux density distribution in the rest frame moves from $\sim$120$\mu$m to 70$\mu$m between z=0 and z=4. This shift with redshift was already observed at z$\lesssim$2 for mass-selected stacked samples [@Magdis2012b] or a Herschel-detected sample [@Lee2013; @Symeonidis2013]. We found no evidence of an evolution of the position of this peak ($\sim$70$\mu$m) for the sample of strong starbursts.\ Figure\[fig:sedms\] and \[fig:sedsb\] show the mean intrinsic luminosity (in $\nu$L$_\nu$ units, the peak of the SEDs is thus shifted toward shorter wavelengths compared with L$_\nu$ units) of our samples of massive star-forming galaxies (since this sample is dominated by main-sequence galaxies, hereafter we call it main-sequence sample) and the fit by the @Draine2007 model. We also observe a strong evolution of the position of the peak of the thermal emission of dust in main-sequence galaxies from $\sim$80$\mu$m at z$\sim$0.4 to $\sim$30$\mu$m at z$\sim$3.75 in $\nu$L$_\nu$ units. The SEDs of strong starbursts have a much more modest evolution (from 50$\mu$m at to 30$\mu$m). The mean luminosity of the galaxies also increases very rapidly with redshift for both main-sequence and strong starburst galaxies.\ At z$>$2, we find that the peak of the dust emission tends to be broader than at lower redshift. The broadening of the mean SEDs induced by the size of the redshift bins has a major impact only on the mid-infrared, where the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) features are washed out (see black and blue lines in Fig.\[fig:sedms\] and \[fig:sedsb\]), and cannot fully explain why the far-IR peak is broader at higher redshifts. The @Draine2007 model reproduces this broadening by means of a higher $\gamma$ coefficient, i.e., a stronger contribution of regions with a strong heating of the dust. This is consistent with the presence of giant star-forming clumps in high-redshift galaxies [e.g., @Bournaud2007; @Genzel2006]. The best-fit models at high z presents two breaks around 30$\mu$m and 150$\mu$m, which could be artefacts caused by the sharp cuts of the U distribution at its extremal values in the @Draine2007 model.\ Evolution of the specific star formation rate --------------------------------------------- From the fit of the SEDs, we can easily derive the evolution of the mean specific star formation rate of our mass-selected sample with redshift. The results are presented in Fig.\[fig:ssfr\]. The strong starbursts lie about a factor of 10 above the main-sequence, demonstrating that this population is dominated by objects just above our cut of 10 sSFR$_{\rm MS}$. Our results can be fitted by an evolution in redshift as (0.061$\pm$0.006Gyr$^{-1}$)$\times$(1+z)$^{2.82\pm0.12}$ at z$<$2 and as (1+z)$^{2.2\pm0.3}$ at z$>$2. We compared our results with the compilation of measurements of @Sargent2014 at M$_\star = 5 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$. At z$<$1.5, our results agree well with the previous measurements. Between z=1.5 and z=3.5, our new measurements follow the lower envelop of the previous measurements. This mild disagreement could have several causes.\ First of all, the clustering effect was not taken into account by the previous analyses based on stacking. This effect is stronger at high redshift, because the bias[^5] of both infrared and mass-selected galaxies increases with redshift [e.g., @Bethermin2013]. In addition, the SEDs peak at a longer wavelength, where the bias is stronger owing to beam size (see Sect.\[sect:simu\]). The tension with the results based on UV-detected galaxies could be explained by a slight incompleteness of the UV-detected samples at low sSFR or a small overestimate of the dust corrections. There could also be effects caused by the different techniques and assumptions used to determine the stellar masses in the various fields (star formation histories, PSF-homogenized photometry or not, presence of nebular emission in the highest redshift bins, template libraries, etc.). Finally, this difference could also be an effect of the variance. These discrepancies on the estimates of sSFRs will be discussed in detail in @Schreiber2014.\ \[fig:sSFR\] ![\[fig:ssfr\] Evolution of the mean sSFR in main-sequence galaxies (blue triangles) and strong starbursts (red squares). The gray diamonds are a compilation of measurements at the same mass performed by @Sargent2014. The blue line is the best fit to our data.](sSFR_z.eps) Evolution of the mean intensity of the radiation field {#sect:U} ------------------------------------------------------ ![\[fig:U\] Evolution of the mean intensity of the radiation field $\langle U \rangle$ in main-sequence galaxies (blue triangles) and strong starbursts (red squares). The black diamonds are the measurements presented in @Magdis2012b based on a similar analysis but in the GOODS fields. The orange asterisk is the mean value found for the local ULIRG sample of @Da_Cunha2008b (see also @Magdis2012b). The black circle is the average value in HRS galaxies [@Ciesla2014]. The solid and dashed lines represent the evolutionary trends expected for a broken and universal FMR, respectively (see Sect.\[sect:U\]). The blue dotted line is the best fit of the evolution of the main-sequence galaxies ($(3.0\pm1.1) \times (1+z)^{1.8 \pm 0.4}$) and the red dotter line the best fit of the strong starburst data by a constant ($31\pm3$).](U_z.eps) The evolution of the mean intensity of the radiation field has different trends in main-sequence galaxies than in strong starbursts (see Fig.\[fig:U\]). This quantity is strongly correlated to the temperature of the dust. We found a rising $\langle U \rangle$ with increasing redshift in main-sequence galaxies up to z=4 ($(3.0\pm1.1) \times (1+z)^{1.8\pm0.4}$), confirming and extending the finding of @Magdis2012b at higher redshift. Other studies [e.g., @Magnelli2013; @Genzel2014] found an increase of the dust temperature with redshift in mass-selected samples.\ The evolution of $\langle U \rangle$ we found can be understood from a few simple assumptions on the evolution of the gas metallicity and the star-formation efficiency (SFE) of galaxies. As shown by @Magdis2012b, $\langle U \rangle$ is proportional to L$_{\rm IR}$/M$_{\rm dust}$. We can also assume that $$L_{\rm IR} \propto \textrm{SFR} \propto M_{\rm mol}^{1/s},$$ where the left-side of the proportionality is the well-established @Kennicutt1998 relation. The right-side of the proportionality is the integrated version of the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation which links the SFR to the mass of molecular gas in a galaxy (M$_{\rm mol}$). @Sargent2014 found a best-fit value for $s$ of 0.83 compiling a large set of public data about low- and high-redshift main-sequence galaxies. The molecular gas mass can also be connected to the gas metallicity Z and the dust mass [e.g., @Leroy2011; @Magdis2012b], $$M_{\rm dust} \propto Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR}) \times M_{\rm mol},$$ where $Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR})$ is the gas metallicity which can be connected to M$_\star$ and SFR through the fundamental metallicity relation (FMR, @Mannucci2010). There is recent evidence showing that this relation breaks down at high redshifts. For instance, @Troncoso2014 measured a $\sim$0.5dex lower normalization at z$\sim$3.4 compared to the functional form of the FMR at low redshift. @Amorin2014 found the same offset in a lensed galaxy at z = 3.417. At z$\sim$2.3, @Steidel2014 [see also @Cullen2014] found an offset of 0.34–0.38dex in the mass-metallicity relation and only half of this difference can be explained by the increase of SFR at fixed stellar mass using the FMR. Finally, a break in the metallicity relation is also observed in low mass (log(M$_\star$/M$_\odot$)$\sim$8.5) damped Lyman $\alpha$ absorbers around z=2.6 [@Moller2013]. In our computations, we consider two different relations: a universal FMR where metallicity depends only on M$_\star$ and SFR, and a FMR relation with a correction of $0.30 \times (1.7-z)$dex at z$>$1.7 (hereafter broken FMR), which agrees with the measurements cited previously. Combining these expressions, we can obtain the following evolution: $$\langle U \rangle \propto \frac{L_{\rm IR}}{M_{\rm dust}} \propto \frac{M_{\rm mol}^{\frac{1}{s}-1}}{Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR})} \propto \frac{\textrm{SFR}^{1-s}}{Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR})}.\\$$ We computed the expected evolution of $\langle U \rangle$ using the fit to the evolution of sSFR presented in Sect.\[fig:sSFR\] and assuming the mean stellar mass of our sample is $6\times10^{10}$M$_\odot$, the average mass of the main-sequence sample[^6]. We used the value of @Magdis2012b at z=0 to normalize our model. The results are presented in Fig.\[fig:U\] for a universal and a broken FMR. The broken FMR is compatible with all of our data points at 1$\sigma$. The universal FMR implies a significant underestimation of $\langle U \rangle$ at high redshifts (3 and 2$\sigma$ in the two highest redshift bins).\ We checked that the dust heating by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not responsible for the quick rise the quick rise in main-sequence galaxies. The CMB temperature at z=4 is 13.5K. The dust temperature that our high-redshift galaxies would have for a virtually z=0 CMB temperature, $T_{\rm dust}^{z=0}$, is estimated following @Da_Cunha2013 $$T_{\rm dust}^{z=0} = \left ( (T_{\rm dust}^{\rm meas})^{4+\beta} - (T_{\rm CMB}^{z=0})^{4+\beta} \left [ (1+z)^{4+\beta} -1 \right ] \right )^{\frac{1}{4+\beta}},$$ where $T_{\rm CMB}^{z=0}$ is the temperature of the CMB at z=0 and $T_{\rm dust}^{\rm meas}$ is the measured dust temperature at high redshift. This temperature is estimated fitting a gray body with an emissivity of $\beta$=1.8 to our photometric measurements at $\lambda_{\rm rest}>$50$\mu$m. The CMB has a relative impact which is lower than 2$\times 10^{-4}$ at all redshifts and thus this effect is negligible. These values are small compared to @Da_Cunha2013, who assumed a dust temperature of 18K. The warmer dust temperatures we measured suggests that the CMB should be less problematic than anticipated.\ Concerning the evolution of $\langle U \rangle$ in strong starbursts, we found no evidence of evolution ($\propto (1+z)^{-0.1\pm1.0}$) and our results can be fitted by a constant $\langle U \rangle$ of 31$\pm$3. Our value of $\langle U \rangle$ at 0.5$<$z$<$3 is similar to the measurements on a sample of local ULIRGs [@Da_Cunha2008b]. This suggests that high-redshift strong starbursts are a more extended version of the nuclei of local ULIRGs, as also suggested by the semi-analytical model of @Lagos2012. At z$\sim$2.5, the main-sequence galaxies and the strong starbursts have similar $\langle U \rangle$ values. However, we do not interpret the origins of these high values of $\langle U \rangle$ in the same way (see Sect.\[sect:mdms\], \[sect:fgas\], and \[discussion\]). At z$>2.5$, we cannot constrain with our analysis if $\langle U \rangle$ in strong starbursts rises as in main-sequence galaxies or stays constant.\ Evolution of the ratio between dust and stellar mass {#sect:mdms} ---------------------------------------------------- We also studied the evolution of the mean ratio between the dust and the stellar mass in the main-sequence galaxies and the strong starbursts. The results are presented Fig.\[fig:MdMs\]. In main-sequence galaxies, this dust-to-stellar-mass ratio rises up to z$\sim$1 and flattens above this redshift. Strong starbursts typically have 5 times higher ratio. Our measurements are compatible within 2$\sigma$ with the slowly rising trend of $(1+z)^{0.05}$ found by @Tan2014 for a compilation of individual starbursts. However, our data favors a steeper slope.\ ![\[fig:MdMs\] Mean ratio between dust and stellar mass as a function of redshift in main-sequence galaxies (blue triangles) and strong starbursts (red squares). The orange asterisk is the mean value found for the local ULIRG sample of @Da_Cunha2008b (see @Magdis2012b). The black circle is the average value in HRS galaxies [@Ciesla2014]. The solid and dashed lines represent the evolutionary trends expected for a broken and universal FMR, respectively (see Sect.\[sect:U\]). The red dot-dashed line is the best-fit of the evolution found for a sample of individually-detected starbursts of @Tan2014. The predictions of the models of @Lagos2012 and @Lacey2014 after applying the same mass cut and sSFR selection are overplotted with a three-dot-dash line and a long-dash line, respectively, with the same color code as the symbols.](Md_Mstar_z.eps) We modeled the evolution of this ratio in main-sequence galaxies using the same simple considerations as in Sect.\[sect:U\]. The evolution of the mean dust-to-stellar-mass ratio can be written as $$\frac{M_{\rm dust}}{M_\star} \propto \frac{Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR}) \times M_{\rm mol}}{M_\star} \propto \frac{Z(M_\star, \textrm{SFR}) \times \textrm{SFR}^\beta}{M_\star}.$$ One can see that $M_{\rm dust}/M_\star$ is the result of a competition between the rising SFR with increasing redshift and the decreasing gas metallicity. The results are compatible with the broken FMR at 1$\sigma$. The relation obtained with the universal FMR rises too rapidly at high redshift.\ We also compared our results with predictions of two semi-analytical models. The @Lagos2012 and @Lacey2014 models are based on GALFORM. The main difference between these two models is that [@Lagos2012] adopt a universal IMF (a Galactic-like IMF; @Kennicutt1983), while @Lacey2014 adopt a non-universal IMF. In the latter star formation taking place in galaxy disks has a Galactic-like IMF, while starbursts have a more top-heavy IMF. This is done to reproduce the number counts of submillimeter galaxies found by surveys.\ We select galaxies in the models in the same way we do in the observations based on their stellar mass and distance from the main sequence. An important consideration is that to derive stellar masses in the observations we fix the IMF to a Chabrier IMF, which is different to the IMFs adopted in both models. In order to correct for this we multiply stellar masses in the @Lagos2012 model by 1.1 to go from a Kennicutt IMF to a Chabrier IMF. However, this is non-trivial for the @Lacey2014 model, since it adopts two different IMFs. In order to account for this we correct the fraction of the stellar mass that was formed in the disk by the same factor of 1.1, and divide the fraction of stellar mass that was formed during starbursts by 2. The latter factor is taken as an approximation to go from their adopted top-heavy IMF to a Chabrier IMF, but this conversion is not necessarily unique, and it depends on the dust extinction and stellar age (see @Mitchell2013 for details). In this paper we make a unique correction, but warn the reader that a more accurate approach would be to perform SED fitting to the predicted SEDs of galaxies and calculating the stellar mass in the same way we would do for observations.\ Compared to the observations of main-sequence galaxies, the @Lagos2012 model reproduces observations well in the redshift range 1$<$z$<$3, while at $z<1$ and $z>3$ it overpredicts the dust-to-stellar mass ratio. There are different ways to explain the high dust-to-stellar mass ratios: high gas metallicities, high gas masses or stellar masses being too low for the dust masses. In the case of the @Lagos2012 model the high dust-to-stellar mass ratios are most likely coming from massive galaxies being too gas rich since their metallicities are close to solar, which is what we observe in local galaxies of the same stellar mass range. The @Lacey2014 model predicts dust-to-stellar mass ratios that are twice too high compared to the observations in the whole redshift range. In this case this is because the gas metallicities of MS galaxies in the Lacey model are predicted to be supersolar on average (close to twice the solar metallicity, 12+log(O/H)$\sim$9.0), resulting in dust masses that are higher than observed.\ In the case of starbursts, the high values inferred for the dust-to-stellar mass ratio in the observations are difficult to interpret. The @Lagos2012 model underpredicts this quantity by a factor of $\sim$5 and the @Lacey2014 model by a factor of $\sim$2. At first the ratio of 1.5-2% inferred in the observations seems unphysical. However, since the gas fraction (defined here as $\rm M_{\rm mol}/(M_{\rm mol}+M_\star)$) in these high-redshift starbursts is around 50% (see Sect.\[sect:fgas\], but also, e.g., @Riechers2013 and @Fu2013), the high values observed for the dust-to-stellar mass ratio can be reached if the gas-to-dust ratio is 50-67. Values similar to the latter are observed in metal-rich galaxies (12+log(O/H)$\sim$9, e.g., @Remy2014). This high metal enrichment in strong starbursts compared to main-sequence galaxies could be explained by several mechanisms: - the transformation of gas into stars is quicker and the metals are not diluted by the accretion of pristine gas; - a fraction of the external layers of low-metallicity gas far from the regions of star formation could be ejected by the strong outflows caused by these extreme starbursts; - a top-heavy IMF could produce quickly lots of metals through massive stars without increasing too rapidly the total stellar mass because of mass losses. This high ratio in strong starbursts is discussed in details in @Tan2014.\ When it comes to the comparison with the models, one can understand the lower dust-to-stellar mass ratios predicted by the model as resulting from the predicted gas metallicities. @Lagos2012 predict that the average gas metallicity in strong starbursts is close to 0.4 solar metallicities (12+log(O/H)$\sim$8.3), which is about 4 times lower than we can infer from a gas-to-dust mass ratio of $\approx 50$ (see previous paragraph). While the @Lacey2014 model predicts gas metallicities for starbursts that are on average close to solar metallicity (12+log(O/H)$\sim$8.7), 2 times too low for the inferred metallicity of the strong starbursts we observe. We note that both models predict main sequence galaxies having higher metallicities than bright starbursts of the same stellar masses. This seems to contradict the observations and may be at the heart of why the models struggle to get the dust-to-stellar mass ratios of both the main sequence and starburst populations at the same time. ![\[fig:gasfrac\] Evolution of the mean molecular gas fraction in massive galaxies ($>3\times10^{10}$M$_\odot$). The starbursts are represented by red squares and the main-sequence galaxies by blue triangles or light blue diamonds depending on wether the gas fraction is estimated using a broken or an universal FMR, respectively. These results are compared with previous estimate using dust masses of @Magdis2012b [black plus] and @Santini2014 [gray area], using CO for two z$>$3 galaxies [@Magdis2012a black crosses], and the compilation of CO measurements of @Saintonge2013 [black asterisks]. The predictions of the models of @Lagos2012 and @Lacey2014 for the same mass cut are overplotted with a three-dot-dash line and a long-dash line, respectively.](fgas_z.eps) Evolution of the fraction of molecular gas {#sect:fgas} ------------------------------------------ Finally, we deduced the mean mass of molecular gas from the dust mass using the same method following @Magdis2011 and @Magdis2012b. They assumed that the gas-to-dust ratio depends only on gas metallicity and used the local relation of @Leroy2011[^7]: $$\textrm{log} \left ( \frac{M_{\rm dust}}{M_{\rm mol}} \right ) = (10.54 \pm 1.0) - (0.99\pm0.12) \times {12 + \textrm{log(O/H)}}. \label{eq:gdr}$$ Given the relatively high stellar mass of our samples, and the rising gas masses and ISM pressures to high redshifts [@Obreschkow2009], we expect the contribution of atomic hydrogen to the total gas mass to be negligible and we neglect it in the rest of the paper, considering total gas mass or molecular gas mass to be equivalent. For main-sequence galaxies, the gas metallicity is estimated using the FMR as explained in Sect.\[sect:U\]. We converted the values provided by the FMR from the KD02 to the PP04 metallicity scale using the prescriptions of @Kewley2008 before using it in Eq.\[eq:gdr\].\ The gas metallicity in strong starbursts cannot be estimated using the FMR. Indeed, this relation predicts that, at fixed stellar mass, objects forming more stars are less metallic. This effect is expected in gas regulated systems, because a higher accretion of pristine gas involves a stronger SFR, but also a dilution of metals [e.g., @Lilly2013]. This phenomenon is not expected to happen in starbursts, since their high SFRs are not caused by an excess of accretion, but more likely by a major merger. These high-redshift starbursts are probably progenitors of current, massive, elliptical galaxies [e.g., @Toft2014]. We thus assumed that their gas metallicity is similar and used a value of 12+log(O/H) = 9.1$\pm$0.2 (see a detailed discussion in @Magdis2011 and @Magdis2012b).\ We then derived the molecular gas fraction in main-sequence galaxies, defined in this paper as $\rm M_{mol} / (M_\star + M_{mol})$. The results are presented in Fig.\[fig:gasfrac\]. We found a quick rise up to z$\sim$2. At higher redshifts, the recovered trend depends on the assumptions on the gas metallicity. The rise of the gas fraction in main-sequence galaxies continues at higher redshift if we assume the broken FMR favored by the recent studies, but flattens with a universal FMR. If the broken FMR scenario is confirmed, there could thus be no flattening or reversal of the molecular gas fraction at z$>$2 contrary to what is claimed in @Magdis2012a, @Saintonge2013, and @Tan2013. Our estimations agree with the previous estimates of @Magdis2012b at z=1, but are 1$\sigma$ lower at z=2, because the bias introduced by clustering was corrected in our study. Our results also agree at 1$\sigma$ with the analysis of @Santini2014 at the same stellar mass up to z=2.5 after converting the stellar mass from a Salpeter to a Chabrier IMF convention. However, our estimates are systematically higher than theirs and agree better with the CO data. Our measurements also agree with the compilation of CO measurements of @Saintonge2013 and the two galaxies studied at z$\sim$3 by @Magdis2012a. These measurements are dependent on the assumed $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ conversion factor, and on the completeness corrections. The good agreement with this independent method is thus an interesting clue to the reliability of these two techniques.\ Strong starbursts have molecular gas fractions 1$\sigma$ higher than main-sequence galaxies, but follows the same trend. @Sargent2014 predicted that starbursts on average should have a deficit of gas compared to the main sequence (but that gas fraction are expected to rise continuously as the sSFR-excess with respect to the MS increases). Here we selected only the most extreme starbursts with an excess of sSFR of a factor of 10 instead of the average value of $\sim$4. These extreme starbursts may only be possible by the mergers of two gas-rich galaxies galaxies already above the main-sequence before the merger. This could explain this small positive offset compared to the main-sequence sample.\ We also compared our results with the models of @Lagos2012 and @Lacey2014 presented in Sect.\[sect:mdms\]. Both models agree well with our measurements of the gas fraction for starburst galaxies at all redshifts and main-sequence galaxies at 1.5$<$z$<$3. Both the @Lagos2012 and @Lacey2014 models overpredict the molecular gas fraction at z$<$0.5 at a 1-2$\sigma$ level. At reshifts $z>3$, the @Lacey2014 model agrees better with the universal FMR scenario at z$>$3, while the @Lagos2012 model is more compatible with the broken FMR. The fact that both models predict molecular gas fractions that in overall agree with the observations supports our interpretation in Sect. \[sect:mdms\], which points to the model of metal enrichment as the source of discrepancy in the dust-to-stellar mass ratios.\ Evolution of the depletion time ------------------------------- We estimated the mean depletion time of the molecular gas, defined in our analysis as the ratio between the mass of molecular gas and the SFR. Figure\[fig:tdep\] shows our results. The depletion time in strong starbursts does not evolve with redshift and is compatible with 100Myr, the typical timescale of the strong boost of star formation induced by major mergers [e.g., @Di_Matteo2008]. This timescale is longer in main-sequence galaxies and slightly (1$\sigma$) evolves with redshift at z$<$1. It decreases from 1.3$_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$Gyr at z$\sim$0.375 to $\sim$500Myr around z$\sim$1.5 and is stable at higher redshift in the case of a broken FMR (but continues to decrease with redshift for a universal FMR). This timescale is similar to the maximum duration high-redshift massive galaxies can stay on the main-sequence before reaching the quenching mass around 10$^{11}$M$_\odot$ [@Heinis2014]. The mass of molecular gas and stars contained in these high-redshift objects is already sufficient to reach this quenching mass without any additional accretion of gas.\ ![\[fig:tdep\] Evolution of the mean molecular gas depletion time. The symbols are the same as in Fig.\[fig:gasfrac\].](tdep_z.eps) Discussion ========== What is the main driver of the strong evolution of the specific star formation rate? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![\[fig:iKS\] Relation between the mean SFR rate and the mean molecular gas mass in our galaxy samples, i.e., integrated Kennicutt-Schmidt law. The solid line and the dashed line are the center of the relation fitted by @Sargent2014 on a compilation of data for main-sequence galaxies and starbursts, respectively. The dotted lines represent the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties on these relations.](iKS.eps) The triangles and diamonds represent the average position of massive, main-sequence galaxies in this diagram assuming a broken FMR and an universal FMR, respectively. The squares indicates the average position of strong starbursts. We checked the average position of our selection of massive galaxies in the integrated Kennicutt-Schmidt diagram (SFR versus mass of molecular gas) to gain insight on their mode of star formation. In this diagram, normal star-forming galaxies and starbursts follow two distinct sequences. For comparison, we used the fit of a recent data compilation performed by @Sargent2014. The results are presented in Fig.\[fig:iKS\].\ The average position of our sample of strong starbursts is in the 1$\sigma$ confidence region of @Sargent2014 for starbursts. They are systematically below the central relation, but the uncertainty is dominated by the systematic uncertainties on their gas metallicity. In addition, @Sargent2014 suggested that the SFEs of starbursts follow a continuum of values depending on their boost of sSFR. Our objects are thus not expected to be exactly on the central relation. The interpretation of the results for main-sequence galaxies is dependent on the hypothesis on the gas metallicity. In the scenario of a broken FMR favored by recent observations, the average position of main-sequence galaxies at all redshifts falls on the relation of normal star-forming galaxies. This suggests that the star formation is dominated by galaxies forming their stars through a normal mode at all redshifts below z=4. In the case of a non-evolving FMR, the massive high-redshift galaxies do not stay on the normal star-forming sequence and have higher SFEs.\ If the scenario of a broken FMR favored by the most recent observations is consolidated, the strong star-formation observed in massive high-redshift galaxies would thus be caused by huge gas reservoirs probably fed by an intense cosmological accretion. This strong accretion of primordial gas dilute the metals produced by the massive stars [e.g., @Bouche2010; @Lilly2013]. Consequently, the gas-to-dust ratio is much lower at high redshift than at low redshift. Since the star-formation efficiency is only slowly evolving (SFR$\propto$M$_{\rm mol}^{1.2}$), the number of UV photons absorbed per mass of dust is thus higher and the dust temperature is warmer as observed in our analysis (see Sect.\[sect:U\]). This scenario provides thus a consistent interpretation of evolution of both the sSFR and the dust temperature of massive galaxies with redshift.\ Limitations of our approach --------------------------- Our analysis provided suggestive results. However, it relies on several hypotheses, which cannot be extensively tested yet. In this section, we discuss the potential limitation of our analysis.\ The evolution of the metallicity relations at z$>$2.5 was measured only by a few pioneering works, which found that the normalization of the FMR evolves at z$>$2.5. We used a simple renormalization depending on redshift to take this evolution into account. The redshift sampling of these studies is relatively coarse and we used a simple linear evolution with redshift. Future studies based on larger samples will allow a finer sampling of the evolution of the gas metallicity in massive galaxies at high redshift. However, the current results are very encouraging. The current assumption of a broken FMR allows us to recover naturally both the evolution of the $\langle U \rangle$ parameter and the integrated Schmidt-Kennicutt relation at high redshift.\ The gas metallicity of strong starbursts was more problematic to set. We can reasonably guess it assuming they are progenitors of the most massive galaxies. However, direct measurements of their gas metallicity are difficult to perform using optical/near-IR spectroscopy because of their strong dust attenuation. The millimeter spectroscopy of fine-structure lines with ALMA will be certainly an interesting way to determine the distribution of gas metallicity of strong starbursts in the future [e.g., @Nagao2011].\ The validity of the calibration of the gas-to-dust ratio versus gas metallicity relation in most extreme environment is also uncertain and difficult to test with the current data sets. @Saintonge2013 found an offset of a factor 1.7 for a population of lensed galaxies and discussed the possible origins of the tension between the gas content estimated from CO and from dust. However, we found no offset with the integrated Kennicutt-Schmidt relation in our analysis and a good agreement with the compilation of CO measurements of gas fractions. The lensed galaxies of @Saintonge2013 could be a peculiar population because they are UV-selected and then biased toward dust-poor systems. They could also be affected differential magnification effects or Herschel-selection biases. The hypotheses performed to estimate the gas metallicity are also different between their and our analysis (standard mass-metallicity relation versus broken FMR).\ Finally, the stacking analysis only provides an average measurement of a full population. Thus it is difficult to estimate the heterogeneity of the stacked populations. Bootstrap techniques can be applied to estimate the scatter on the flux density at a given wavelength [@Bethermin2012b]. However, because of the correlation between $\langle U \rangle$ and M$_d$, this technique cannot be applied to measure the scatter on each of these parameters.\ Conclusion ========== We used a stacking analysis to measure the evolution of the average mid-infrared to millimeter emission of massive star-forming galaxies up to z=4. We then derived the evolution of the mean physical parameters of these objects. Our main findings are the following. - The mean intensity of the radiation field $\langle U \rangle$ in main-sequence galaxies, which is strongly correlated with their dust temperature, rises rapidly with redshift: $\langle U \rangle = (3.0\pm1.1) \times (1+z)^{1.8 \pm 0.4}$. This evolution can be interpreted considering the decrease in the gas metallicity of galaxies at constant stellar mass with increasing redshift. We found no evidence for an evolution of $\langle U \rangle$ in strong starbursts up to z=3.\ - The mean ratio between the dust mass and the stellar mass in main-sequence galaxies rises between z=0 and z=1 and exhibit a plateau at higher redshift. The strong starbursts have a higher ratio by a factor of 5.\ - The average fraction of molecular gas ($\rm M_{mol} / (M_\star + M_{mol})$) rises rapidly with redshift and reaches $\sim$60% at z=4. A similar evolution is found in strong starbursts, but with slightly higher values. These results agree with the pilot CO surveys performed at high redshift.\ - We compare with two state-of-the-art semi-analytic models that adopt either a universal IMF or a top-heavy IMF in starbursts and find that the models predict molecular gas fractions that agree well with the observations but the predicted dust-to-stellar mass ratios are either too high or too low. We interpret this as being due to the way metal enrichment is dealt with in the simulations. We suggest different mechanisms that can help overcome this issue. For instance, outflows affecting more metal depleted gas that is in the outer parts of galaxies.\ - The average position of the massive main-sequence galaxies in the integrated Kennicutt-Schmidt diagram corresponds to the sequence of normal star-forming galaxies. This suggests that the bulk of the star-formation up to z$\sim$4 is dominated by the normal mode of star-formation and that the extreme SFR observed are caused by huge gas reservoirs probably induced by the very intense cosmological accretion. The strong starbursts follow another sequence with a 5–10 times higher star-formation efficiency.\ We thank the anonymous referee for providing constructive comments. We acknowledge Morgane Cousin, Nick Lee, Nick Scoville, and Christian Maier for their interesting discussions/suggestions, Laure Ciesla for providing an electronic table of the physical properties of the HRS sample, and Amélie Saintonge for providing her compilation of data. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the entire COSMOS collaboration consisting of more than 100 scientists. The HST COSMOS program was supported through NASA grant HST-GO-09822. More information on the COSMOS survey is available at <http://www.astro.caltech.edu/cosmos>. ased on data obtained from the ESO Science Archive Facility. Based on data products from observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under ESO programme ID 179.A-2005 and on data products produced by TERAPIX and the Cambridge Astronomy Survey Unit on behalf of the UltraVISTA consortium. MB, ED, and MS acknowledge the support of the ERC-StG UPGAL 240039 and ANR-08-JCJC-0008 grants. AK acknowledges support by the Collaborative Research Council 956, sub-project A1, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Estimation and correction on the bias caused by the galaxy clustering on the stacking results {#Annexestacking} ============================================================================================= As explained in Sect.\[sect:stacking\], the standard stacking technique can be strongly affected by the bias caused by the clustering of the galaxies. We use two independent methods to estimate and correct it. Estimation of the bias using a simulation based on the real catalog {#sect:simu} ------------------------------------------------------------------- We performed an estimate of the bias induced by the clustering using a realistic simulation of the COSMOS field based on the positions and stellar masses of the real sources. The flux of each source in this simulation is estimated using the ratio between the mean far-IR/(sub-)mm fluxes and the stellar mass found by a first stacking analysis. The galaxies classified as passive are not taken into account in this simulation. This technique assumes implicitly a flat sSFR-M$_\star$ relation, since we use a constant SFR/M$_\star$ ratio versus stellar mass at fixed redshift. However, we checked that using a more standard sSFR$\propto$M$_\star^{-0.2}$ relation [e.g., @Rodighiero2011] has a negligible impact on the results. We applied no scatter around this relation in our simulation for simplicity. As mean stacking is a linear operation, the presence or not of a scatter has no impact on the results [@Bethermin2012b].\ A simulated map is thus produced using all the star-forming galaxies of the @Ilbert2013 catalog. In order to avoid edge effects (absence of sources and thus a lower background caused by the faint unresolved sources in the region covered by the optical/near-IR data), we fill the uncovered regions drawing with replacement sources from the UltraVISTA field and putting them at a random position. The number of drawn sources is chosen to have exactly the same number density inside and outside the UltraVISTA field.\ Finally, we measured the mean fluxes of the M$_\star>$3$\times$10$^{10}$M$_\odot$ sources by stacking in the simulated maps, using exactly the same photometric method as for the real data. We finally computed the relative bias between the recovered flux and the input flux ($S_{\rm out}/S_{\rm in}-1$). The results are shown Fig.\[fig:clusbias\] (blue triangles). The uncertainties are computed a bootstrap method. As expected, the bias increases with the size of the beam. We can see a rise of the bias with redshift up to z$\sim$2. This trend can be understood considering the rise of the clustering of the galaxy responsible for the cosmic infrared background [@Planck_CIB_2013] and a rather stable number density of emitters especially below z=1 [@Bethermin2011; @Magnelli2013; @Gruppioni2013]. At higher redshift, we found a slow decrease. This trend is probably driven by the decrease in the infrared luminosity density at high redshift [@Planck_CIB_2013; @Burgarella2013] combined with the decrease in the number density of infrared emitters [@Gruppioni2013].\ ![\[fig:clusbias\] Relative bias induced by the clustering as a function of redshift at the various wavelengths we used in our analysis. The FWHM of the beam is provided in brackets. The blue triangles are the estimations from the simulation (Sect.\[sect:simu\]) and the red diamonds are provided by the fit of the clustering component in map space (Sect.\[sect:fitclus\]). These numbers are only valid for a complete sample of M$_\star > 3 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$ galaxies.](Stacking_bias_Mcut310.eps) Estimation of the bias fitting the clustering contribution in the stacked images {#sect:fitclus} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The method presented in the previous section only takes into account the contamination of the stacks by known sources. However, faint galaxy populations could have a non negligible contribution, despite their total contribution to the infrared luminosity and their clustering are expected to be small. We thus used a second method to estimate the bias caused by the clustering which takes into account a potential contamination by these low-mass galaxies. This method is based on a simultaneous fit in the stacked images of three components: a point source at the center of the image, a clustering contamination, and a background. This technique was already successfully used by several previous works based on Herschel and Planck data [@Bethermin2012b; @Heinis2013; @Heinis2014; @Welikala2014].\ In presence of clustering, the outcome of a stacking is not only a PSF with the mean flux of the population and a constant background (corresponding to the surface brightness of all galaxy populations i.e., the cosmic infrared background). There is in addition a signal coming from the greater probability of finding another neighboring infrared galaxy compared to the field because of galaxy clustering. The signal in the stacked image can thus be modeled by [@Bavouzet2008; @Bethermin2010b] $$m(x,y) = \alpha \times \textrm{PSF}(x,y) + \beta \times (\textrm{PSF} \ast w)(x,y) +\gamma,$$ where $m$ is the stacked image, PSF the point spread function, and $w$ the auto-correlation function. The symbol $\ast$ represents the convolution. $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are free parameters corresponding to the intensity of the mean flux of the population, the clustering signal, and the background, respectively. This method works only if the PSF is well-known, the extension of the sources is negligible compared to the PSF, and the effects of the filtering are small at the scale of the stacked image. Consequently, we applied this method only to the SPIRE data for which these hypotheses are the most solid. The uncertainties on the clustering bias ($\beta / \alpha$ for the photometry we chose to use for SPIRE data) are estimated fitting the model described previously on a set of stacked images produced from 1000 bootstrap samples. The results are shown in Fig.\[fig:clusbias\] (red diamonds).\ Corrections of the measurements ------------------------------- In Fig.\[fig:clusbias\], we can see that the two methods provide globally consistent estimates. This confirms that the low-mass galaxies not included in the UltraVISTA catalog have a minor impact. We found few outliers for which the two methods disagree. In particular, in the 1.5$<$z$<$1.75 bin, the estimation from the simulation is higher than the trend of the redshift evolution at all wavelengths, and the results from the profile fitting are lower. This could be caused, as instance, by a structures in the field or a systematic effect in the photometric redshift. Because of these few catastrophic outliers, we chose to use a correction computed from a fit of the redshift evolution of the bias instead of an individual estimate in each redshift slice.\ The evolution of the bias with redshift is fitted independently at each wavelength. We chose to use a simple, second-order, polynomial model ($a z^2 + bz + c$). We used only the results from the simulation to have a consistent treatment of the various wavelengths. The scatter of the residuals is larger than the residuals, probably because bootstrap does not take into account the variance coming from the large-scale structures. We thus used the scatter of the residuals to obtain a conservative estimate of the uncertainties on the bias. In Fig.\[fig:clusbias\], the best fit is represented by a solid line and the 1$\sigma$ confidence region by a dashed line.\ In a few case, the bias at z$>$3 can converge to unphysical negative values. We then apply no corrections, but combine the typical uncertainty on the bias to the error bars. A special treatment is also applied to the samples of strong starbursts. Their flux is typically 10 times brighter in infrared by construction (their sSFR is 10 times larger than the main sequence). In contrast, the clustering signal is not expected to be significantly stronger, because the clustering of massive starbursts and main-sequence galaxies is relatively similar [@Bethermin2014]. We thus divide the bias found for the full population of galaxy by a factor of 10 to estimate the one of the starbursts for simplicity.\ Testing another method ---------------------- We also tried to apply the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">simstack</span> algorithm [@Viero2013b] to our data. This algorithm is adapted from @Kurczynski2010 and uses the position of the known sources to deblend their contamination. Contrary to @Kurczynski2010, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">simstack</span> can consider a large set of distinct galaxy populations. The mean flux of the each population is used to estimate how sources contaminate their neighbors. All populations are treated simultaneously. This is the equivalent of PSF-fitting codes but applied to a full population instead of each source individually. Unfortunately, this method is not totally unbiased in our case. We found biases up to 15% running <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">simstack</span> on the simulation presented in Sect.\[sect:simu\], probably because the catalog of mass-selected sources is not available around bright sources. At the edge of the optical/near-IR-covered region, the flux coming from the sources outside the covered area is not corrected, when the flux from all neighbors is taken into account at the middle of zone where the mass catalog is extracted. Indeed, the algorithm works correctly if we put on the simulation only sources present in the input catalog.\ Fit residuals {#sect:residuals} ============= Figures\[fig:res\] and \[fig:res\_sb10\] shows the residuals of the fits of our mean SEDs derived by stacking. We did not find any systematic trend, except a 2$\sigma$ underestimation of the millimeter data in main-sequence galaxies at z$>$3.\ ![image](SED_res.eps) ![image](SED_SB10_res.eps) [^1]: [Herschel]{} is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA. [^2]: The minimum expected flux for our mass-selected sample of strong starbursts is computed using the three-dot-dash curve in Fig.\[SBcomp\] and the @Magdis2012b starburst template. [^3]: APEX project IDs: 080.A–3056(A), 082.A–0815(A) and 086.A–0749(A). [^4]: More details on the CRUSH settings can be found at: [http://www.submm.caltech.edu/\$\\sim\$sharc/crush/v2/README](http://www.submm.caltech.edu/$\sim$sharc/crush/v2/README) [^5]: The bias $b$ is defined by $w_{\rm gal} = b^2 w_{\rm DM}$, where $w_{\rm gal}$ and $w_{\rm DM}$ are the projected two-point correlation function of galaxies and dark matter, respectively. The higher the bias is, the stronger is the clustering density of galaxies compared to dark matter. [^6]: We could have used the mean stellar masses in each redshift bin provided in Table\[tab:physpar\]. However, assuming a single value of the stellar mass at all redshift has a negligible impact on the results and the tracks are smoother. [^7]: converted to PP04 convention	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'T. Kiran and M. Ponmurugan' title: The invariant based investigation of Shortcut to Adiabaticity for Quantum Harmonic Oscillators under time varying frictional force --- Abstract: {#abstract .unnumbered} --------- We investigate the Shortcuts To Adiabaticity (STA) of a quantum harmonic oscillator under time-dependent frictional force, using invariant based inverse engineering method with a class of invariants characterized by a time-dependent frictional coefficient. We discuss the implementation of shortcut protocol in a generalized framework and study the STA for the harmonic oscillator with time varying mass as a special case. For an illustration, we consider the coupled photonic lattice as a harmonic oscillator with time-varying mass and frequency and discuss the implementation of the above protocol. [Introduction]{} Shortcuts To Adiabaticity (STA) protocols are nonadiabatic processes that reproduce in finite time the same initial and final states as that of an infinitely slow adiabatic process [@Torrontegui; @del2019]. These protocols can be used as an alternate driving of the system to implement the adiabatic process. The path of the transition will be different and decided by the various factors involved in the specified technique of STA. The interesting factor is that there is no need for the complete suppression of the unwanted transition throughout the path. But the initial and final states of the overall process need to be adiabatic in all sense. In other words, the STA process will mimic the dynamics of very slow adiabatic process within a finite time by allowing transitions at intermediate times [@Boshier2012; @Ibez2012prl; @Mathieu; @Deffner2014prx]. Experiments confirmed the feasibility of such process on various grounds, noticeably for the frictionless transport of trapped ions [@Bowler; @Walther2012; @Shuoming], cold atoms [@Shujin; @Yan], fast equilibration of a Brownian particle [@Ignacio2016] and high-fidelity driving of a Bose-Einstein condensate [@Mark2012]. Different kinds of methods are developed so far to establish the adiabaticity through non-adiabatic transitions. Some of them are Counterdiabatic Driving process by incorporating a global Hamiltonian to surpass the non-adiabatic transitions [@Mustafa2003; @Mustafa2005; @Berry2009; @Adolfo2012], Local-Counterdiabatic Driving, where the local potential take charge of counterdiabatic contribution [@Ibez2012prl], Fast-forward approach [@Shumpei2008; @Shumpei2010], and Invariant based Inverse Engineering (IE) method by using the Lewis-Reisenfield (LR) Invariants to connect the initial and final states through a non-adiabatic path [@Lewis1969; @Chen2010; @Torrontegui2011; @Chen2011pra; @Chen2011; @Torrontegui2012]. IE method is found useful in many applications and recently considered it in the context of cost of the shortcut process [@Obinna2018; @Obinna2019; @baris2019]. Invariant method is employed extensively to find solution for a given system under frictional contact [@Khandekar1979]. Time-dependancy of the frictional force is also considered, which brings the concept of parametric variation of frictional force or equivalent change in the mass of the system. The mass varying Quantum Harmonic Oscillator (QHO) is considered in the context of STA using IE method and connected it with the construction of photonic lattice [@Stefanatos2014]. The mass varying QHO Hamiltonian is mathematically equivalent to the QHO experiencing frictional force, which is a relevent topic since the works of Caldirola [@Caldirola1941] and Kanai [@Kanai1948], discussing the idea of quantization of the systems experiencing certain types of non-consevative forces. Physical description of such systems were debated for years and still these two interpretations are valid, one with dissipating energy and another with exponentially varying mass [@Caldirola1941; @Kanai1948; @Baskoutas1993; @Jeong2013]. We can generate a class of invariants by following the similar methods in ref. [@Lewis1969] for the Hamiltonian of a QHO experiencing time dependent frictional force in both the aspects [@Pedrosa1987; @Pedrosa1997]. The class of invariants for the above system are characterised by the different solutions of Ermokov equation [@John1981]. Among these invariants, a particular choice of invariant can be used to implement STA for QHO by using the time-dependent control of frictional force, which is not explored in the context of STA. As the invariant method found to be the most efficient way to implement shortcut process for investigating the thermodynamic engines [@Obinna2018], studying oscillator under frictional force using invariant will be useful in quantum thermal engine studies. Also the arbitrary time dependancy of the frictional force can be used to improve the protocols to drive adiabatic strokes of quantum thermal engines. In this paper, we investigate a class of Invariants for the Hamiltonian for a QHO under time-dependent frictional force in a generalized framework. In section two, we discuss such a class of invariants and corresponding Ermokov equation. We also discuss the necessary boundary conditions to establish the generalized framework of STA in the third section. Following the general formalism, in section four, an STA protocol is illustrated by choosing an appropriate solution for Ermokov equation called scalling factor and designed the time dependent frictional force to drive the system to achieve STA for QHO. We analyze the characteristics of such an STA protocol including cost of implementation. In section five, we consider a QHO with time dependent mass as an illustration to prove that the STA protocol developed for QHO under time dependent frictional force can be applied for QHO with time dependent mass. We use the same shortcut protocol to get desired output in a photonic lattice described by the defferential set similar to the time dependent Schrodinger equation with mass varying QHO Hamiltonian. STA is achieved by arbitrarily controlling its lattice parameters as a function of propagation distance. Finally we summarize our results in conclusion section. [Quantum harmonic oscillator with time varying friction]{} We start with an harmonic oscillator experiencing a frictional force ($\gamma \dot{x}$) and a time dependent perturbative force ($F(t)$). The force equation corresponding to such an oscillator of unit mass is [@Khandekar1979] $$\ddot{x}+\gamma\dot{x}+\omega^{2}(t)x=F(t),$$ where $\gamma$ is the constant damping coefficient, $\omega(t)$ is the time dependent frequency of the oscillator, $x$, $\dot{x}$ and $\ddot{x}$ are the position, velocity and accelaration of the oscillator respectively. From the above equation, it is evident that the motion of the oscillator continuously decreased at a constant rate $\gamma$ and the time dependent force can drive the system in any arbitrary rate. Assuming the damping coefficient as a function of time $\gamma(t)$ instead of a constant and in an unperturbed environment ($F(t)=0$), the force equation will be modified as [@Pedrosa1987] $$\ddot{x}+\gamma(t)\dot{x}+\omega^{2}(t)x=0. \label{forceEq}$$ The rate of variation of motion of the above oscillator is also determined by the time varying function $\gamma(t)$ and it is termed as Time Dependent Coefficient of Friction (TDCF). The Lagrangian corresponding to the above system is given as [@Leach1977] $$\mathcal{L}=e^{\Gamma(t) }\left(\frac{\dot{x}^{2}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\omega^{2}(t)x^{2}\right), \label{Lagrangian}$$ where the force equation (\[forceEq\]) is obtained from the Lagrangian equation of motion $\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{x}}\right)-\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x}=0$ and the exponential term contains the time dependent function $\Gamma(t)$ related to TDCF as $\gamma(t)=\dot{\Gamma}(t)$. Varying the TDCF of the Oscillator with respect to time will alter both the potential and kinetic energy of the system. This will allow us to control the oscillator by varying the TDCF in a pre-determined fashion. In other words, the system is now parameterized with $\dot{\Gamma}(t)$ and we have the authority to vary its motion as a function of time. In this context, TDCF is the only physically relevant quantity related to a time-varying frictional force in terms of the dimensionless quantity $\Gamma(t)$ (time varying number), which helps to analyze the system dynamics. The variation of total energy with this type of parameterization can be understood by obtaining the Hamiltonian as an operator of the total energy content of the system using the equation (\[Lagrangian\]) and by replacing the momentum and position variables with the corresponding operators $\hat{p}=-i\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ and $\hat{x}$ respectively with $\hbar=1$, which is given as [@Khandekar1979]. $$\mathcal{\hat{H}}=e^{-\Gamma(t)}\frac{\hat{p}^{2}}{2}+e^{\Gamma(t)}\frac{\omega^{2}(t)\hat{x}^{2}}{2}. \label{ParaHamil}$$ We can observe that the Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian can be sorted out from the above equation for a constant TDCF [@Caldirola1941; @Kanai1948]. Also, it is evident that, at any point in the oscillator path, both the kinetic and potential energy varies respectively with the negative and positive exponential factors of the order of $\Gamma(t)$, which is entirely a matter of specific functions of TDCF which alter the total energy of the oscillator. The implementation of STA differs from other STA methods as we use a frictional control in addition to frequency control. The Lewis-Reisenfield method of invariants allows to cook up the invariant $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ for any arbitrary Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$, by imposing the condition of invariance using the formula [@Lewis1969] $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{\hat{I}}}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{i}\left[\mathcal{\hat{I}},\mathcal{\hat{H}}\right]=0. \label{invarianceeq}$$ Applying this to the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ in equation (\[ParaHamil\]), we obtain the corresponding Invariant $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ of the form. $$\mathcal{\hat{I}}=a(t)\hat{x}^{2}+b(t)\left[\hat{x},\hat{p}\right]_{+}+c(t)\hat{p}^{2}$$ where, a,b and c are functions of time and $\left[\hat{x},\hat{p}\right]_{+}$ is the anticommutator of position and momentum operators. Solving for the time-dependent coefficients by using equation (\[invarianceeq\]) we will be able to deduce the invariant explicitly as, (here after we represent $\Gamma(t)$ simply as $\Gamma$) $$\mathcal{\hat{I}}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left(\frac{x}{\rho}e^{\frac{\Gamma }{2}}\right)^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}+\left(\rho p e^{\frac{-\Gamma }{2}}-\left\{\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right\}e^{\frac{\Gamma}{2}}x\right)^{2}\right\} \label{invariant}$$ with time-dependent functions, $$a(t)= 2\left\{\left(\ddot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right)^{2}+\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}\right\}e^{\Gamma}$$ $$b(t)=-2\left\{\rho\dot{\rho}-\frac{\rho^{2}\dot{\Gamma}}{2}\right\}$$ $$c(t)=2\rho^{2}e^{-\Gamma}.$$ It can be observed that the formulated $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ is in the same form as in the ref [@Khandekar1979], but in the absence of time-dependent perturbative force. The variable $\rho$ is a function of time is generally called as scaling factor, first introduced by Lewis and Reisenfield to scale the invariant equation and later used to control STA using inverse engineering approach. The necessary condition to be satisfied by the $\rho$ is [@Lewis1969] $$\ddot{\rho}+\Omega^{2}\rho=\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{3}}, \label{ermokov}$$ such that the $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ will obey equation (\[invarianceeq\]) with $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$. The above equation is in the form of Ermokov equations [@John1981]. The so called shifted frequency $\Omega=\sqrt{\omega^{2}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}^{2}}{4}-\frac{\ddot{\Gamma}}{2}}$ is influenced by both the TDCF of the oscillation and it’s first derivative. The same shift in the frequency is obtained in ref [@Pedrosa1987] using canonical transformation. In following sections, we will utilize $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ to implement STA protocols. [STA Protocol]{} Shortcut protocols corresponding to the Hamiltonian of equation (\[ParaHamil\]) for some frequency modulation obeying equation (\[ermokov\]) can be obtained by using appropriate boundary conditions, which generate exact initial and final states of equilibrium adiabatic process. The boundary conditions are very important in STA and it decides the form of the scaling factor could be considered for inverse engineering. In our system, apart from the scaling factor $\rho(t)$, the mathematical structure of $\Gamma(t)$ is also important, which provides the behavioral change of controlled frictional force ($\dot{\Gamma}\dot{x}$) to assure STA. The initial and final state of the system under observation is specified through boundary condition and it will construct the initial and final structure of invariant. As we have two time-dependent functions to drive the system in the required fast path, the boundary condition is expected to fix both the functions at the starting and ending of the process. Among these two functions, $\Gamma$ will be used to design the interaction of the system with controlled frictional force and $\rho$ will be used to inverse engineer the Hamiltonian to establish the STA. This inverse engineering is done by finding the expression for frequency $\omega(t)$ from the Ermokov equation using $\rho(t)$ and $\Gamma(t)$ for the necessary boundary conditions. We rewrite the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ (Eq. \[ParaHamil\]) with the corresponding expression of $\omega(t)$ obtained from Ermokov equation and represent it as $\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}$ where $\mathcal{IE}$ represents ’Inverse Engineered’. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ and the Invariant $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ are related to each other with a time-dependent factor $e^{\alpha t}$, where $\alpha$ is the phase factor [@Lohe2009]. But there could be some eigenstates shared by both $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ and $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ and these eigenstates can be obtained using the commutation relation [@Sakurai1995] $$\left[\mathcal{\hat{H}},\mathcal{\hat{I}}\right]=0. \label{commBC}$$ The system should be in the corresponding eigenstate of $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$, before and after the Inverse engineered process if it satisfies the equation (\[commBC\]) and make sure that the adiabatic transition should be within the time scale of invariant dynamics. Using the expressions for $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ and $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ (Eq. \[ParaHamil\] $\&$ \[invariant\]) we can solve for the commutation relation in equation (\[commBC\]) resulting, $$\left(\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right)^{2}+\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{2}}-\omega^{2}\rho^{2}=0$$ $$\rho\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho^{2}}{2}=0.$$ Solution for the above equations for the initial and final instants of time can be found as $$\rho\left(0\right)=1 \label{inbound}$$ $$\rho\left(\tau\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{0}}{\omega_{\tau}}} \label{finalbound}$$ at time $0$ (initial) and $\tau$ (final) respectively. By fixing the initial and final values of the frequency $\omega_{0}$ and $\omega_{\tau}$ respectively, the boundary conditions for the $\Gamma(t)$ can be obtained from Ermokov equation (\[ermokov\]) for the specific form of the scaling factor. In an adiabatic process, the system is isolated and any change in the energy levels of the system is considered as work done by or on the system. We can consider the Harmonic oscillator under time-dependent frictional force as an isolated entity during the adiabatic process and the STA process is achieved by the evolution of such an isolated entity under the inverse engineered Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}$ with modified frequency as resulting from equation (\[ermokov\]). The expectation value $\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}\rangle$ in the STA path is obtained by operating the instantaneous eigenstates of $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$ with $\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}$. We can simplify the above mathematical process by rewriting $\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}$ in terms of $$\hat{X}=\frac{\sqrt{\omega_{0}}e^{\frac{\Gamma}{2}}}{\rho}\hat{x}$$ and $$\hat{P}=\frac{\rho e^{\frac{-\Gamma}{2}}}{\sqrt{\omega_{0}}}\hat{p}+\frac{\left(\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right) e^{\frac{\Gamma}{2}}}{\sqrt{\omega_{0}}}\hat{x},$$ where $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}$ are the position and momentum operators of the invariant $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$. By using the creation and annihilation operators $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{a}$ defined as $$\hat{a}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\hat{X}-i\hat{P}\right)$$ $$\hat{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\hat{X}+i\hat{P}\right),$$ with properties $$\hat{a}^{\dagger}\vert n\rangle=\sqrt{n+1}\vert n+1\rangle$$ $$\hat{a}\vert n\rangle=\sqrt{n}\vert n-1\rangle$$ on the instantaneous eigenstates $\vert n\rangle$ of invariant $\mathcal{\hat{I}}$, the expectation value $\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}\rangle$ is obtained as $$\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}\rangle=\frac{\left(2n+1\right)}{4\omega_{0}}\left(\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{2}}+\left[\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right]^{2}+\omega^{2}\rho^{2}\right). \label{InvEngExpecnVal}$$ [STA for Harmonic Oscillator]{} The invariant constructed for the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ with controlled frictional force can be used to control the STA dynamics of an QHO potential with Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{ho}=\frac{\hat{p}^{2}}{2}+\frac{\omega^{2}(t)\hat{x}^{2}}{2}$$ and it’s expectation value at any instant of time [@Chen2010] $$\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{ho}\rangle=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\omega(t). \label{ExpHarOsc}$$ Such a control is possible by Identifying that the QHO Hamiltonian can be deduced from the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ given in equation (\[ParaHamil\]) at the initial and final times by assigning the value of $\Gamma(t)$ as zero at $t=0$ and $t=\tau$. We can obtain a logical criteria by applying equations (\[inbound\]) and (\[finalbound\]) to the expression $\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}^{IE}\rangle$ that, $\dot{\rho}(t)=\dot{\Gamma}(t)=0$ at $t=0$ and $t=\tau$ to converge the expectation value to that of QHO. Thus the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ with TDCF can be used to implement STA, physically depending on the specific form of the TDCF and the Scaling factor. STA of QHO can be implemented using the well known scaling factor [@Chen2010] $$\rho(t)=6 \left( \sqrt{\frac{\omega_{0}}{\omega_{\tau}}}-1\right) s^{5}-15\left(\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{0}}{\omega_{\tau}}}-1\right) s^{4}+10\left(\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{0}}{\omega_{\tau}}}-1\right) s^{3}+1. \label{scalefac}$$ This specific function is used in most of the applications ( Quantum Otto engines, Atomic transport etc,.) of STA protocols to drive the QHO using invariant method. We use $\rho(t)$ to design a specific function for $\Gamma(t)$ to achieve STA for QHO under time dependent frictional force in the intermediate times. In the above equation, $s=\frac{t}{\tau}$ and $\omega_{0}$ and $\omega_{\tau}$ are the initial ($t=0$) and final ($t=\tau$) frequencies of the oscillator respectively. This specific choice of scaling factor satisfies the boundary conditions found so far, $$\rho(0)=1, \dot{\rho}(0)=0$$ $$\rho(\tau)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{0}}{\omega_{\tau}}}, \dot{\rho}(\tau)=0.$$ In addition to that, it also satisfies, $$\ddot{\rho}(0)=\ddot{\rho}(\tau)=0,$$ applying which to the Ermokov equation (\[ermokov\]) gives the specific boundary conditions for the function $\Gamma(t)$ and its first and second order derivatives, $$\Gamma(0)=\dot{\Gamma}(0)=\ddot{\Gamma}(0)=0$$ $$\Gamma(\tau)=\dot{\Gamma}(\tau)=\ddot{\Gamma}(\tau)=0.$$ One of the easiest solution for $\Gamma(t)$ obeying the above boundary conditions could be $$\Gamma(t)=s^{3}(s-1)^{3}, \label{gammafun}$$ where $s=\frac{t}{\tau}$ makes the function dimensionless. Numerical computation of expectation values of energy for various final times can be done using the above form of $\Gamma(t)$ and equation (\[scalefac\]). Figure \[ExpHIE\] shows the variation of the expectation value of Inverse engineered Hamiltonian in the setting for STA of Harmonic Oscillator. We have plotted the dimensionless ratio of the expectation value of $\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}$ to initial energy of the Harmonic Oscillator against $s=\frac{t}{\tau}$ for various final times $\tau$. It is assumed that the system was thermalized to ground state before the shortcut process, where the system expands within a short time $\tau$. During this expansion process, the frequency of the oscillator will change from a higher value to a lower value. We have selected an experimentally executable frequency change $250\times2\pi$Hz to $2.5\times2\pi$Hz for numerical calculation [@Chen2010]. ![Variation of $\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathcal{IE}}\rangle$ is plotted as a dimension less fraction with initial energy of Harmonic Oscillator $E_{0}$ to $s=\frac{t}{\tau}$ for different values of $\tau$ and $\omega_{0}=250\times2\pi$, $\omega_{\tau}=2.5\times2\pi$, $n=0$.[]{data-label="ExpHIE"}](ExpectHIEnew.jpg){width=".6\linewidth"} [.45]{} ![Variation of adiabatic parameter and cost of implementation](QAvevalue1.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![Variation of adiabatic parameter and cost of implementation](AdiaParnew.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![Variation of adiabatic parameter and cost of implementation](HstaAvevalue1.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![Variation of adiabatic parameter and cost of implementation](Hstavaluenew.jpg "fig:") Adiabaticity parameter $Q^{}$ is a measure of adiabaticity of the shortcut process and defined as the ratio of average energy of the shortcut process $\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathcal{IE}}\rangle_{ave}$ to the average adiabatic energy $\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{ho}\rangle_{ave}$ [@Deffner2010; @Kdi1953] $$Q^{}=\frac{\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathcal{IE}}\rangle_{ave}}{\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{ho}\rangle_{ave}}=\frac{\int_{0}^{\tau}\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathcal{IE}}(t^{\prime})\rangle d t^{\prime}}{\int_{0}^{\tau}\langle\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{ho}(t^{\prime})\rangle d t^{\prime}}, \label{qfac}$$ where $\langle~~\rangle_{ave}$ represents the time average of expectation values of corresponding Hamiltonians given in equation (\[InvEngExpecnVal\]) and (\[ExpHarOsc\]). Instantaneous behaviour of Adiabaticity parameter can be analysed numerically using $$Q^{}(t)=\frac{\langle\hat{H}^{IE}\rangle}{\langle\hat{H}_{ho}\rangle}$$ $$=\frac{1}{2\omega_{0}\omega}\left(\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{2}}+\left(\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right)^{2}+\omega^{2}\rho^{2}\right).$$ Adiabaticity parameter is plotted in Figure \[QAvevalue\] and its instantaneous behavior is plotted in Figure \[AdiaPar\] for all the other variables specified in Figure \[ExpHIE\]. It is evident from the plot \[QAvevalue\] that the adiabaticity parameter tends to 1 for large times scales, thus the process tends to be completely adiabatic as $\tau$ increases. Instantaneous behaviour of Adiabaticity parameter varies from the initial value 1 to the final value 1 to make sure the adiabatic final states and the value deviates from the adiabatic trajectory at intermediate times. This deviation can be made negligible by appropriate control of the dynamics with proper designing of TDCF. The whole process of shortcut is done by modifying the Hamiltonian thus it is able to bring back the adiabatic final states within a short duration of time. There must be a cost for such deviation in the dynamics of the process from the actual adiabatic dynamics and this cost can be measured as the difference between the expectation value of energy for inverse engineered Hamiltonian and that of harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian at any instant of time and it is given by the formula [@Obinna2018], $$\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}^{STA}\rangle=\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}^{IE}}\rangle-\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{ho}\rangle=\frac{\left(2n+1\right)}{4\omega_{0}}\left(\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{2}}+\left(\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{\Gamma}\rho}{2}\right)^{2}+\omega^{2}\rho^{2}-2\omega_{0}\omega\right),$$ which is plotted in Figure \[Hstavalue\]. This implementation cost is very high for small time scales of the shortcut, which makes difficult to achieve very short processes. As the initial and final energy of the shortcut process coincides with that of the actual adiabatic process, the cost value is zero for both the endpoints of the process. The average value of implementation cost can be found for any final time $\tau$ by time averaging the expectation value as $$\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}^{STA}\rangle_{ave}=\left(\frac{1}{\tau}\right)\int_{0}^{\tau}\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}}^{STA}\rangle dt \label{HSTAAVEE}$$ and it is plotted in Figure \[HstaAvevalue\], which shows a gradual decrease in implementation cost and it tends to zero for long time scales implying that the process is equivalent to the equilibrium adiabatic process without any control over the system for large $\tau$. [General Approach to Mass Variation]{} The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ (Eq. \[ParaHamil\]) considered so far is worth studying as it stands for yet another physically relevant and distinct situation, where the mass of the observed system varies with time. Controlling the dynamics of any system by arbitrarily varying its mass is found to be unrealistic but controlling the system with inherent mass variation is a realistic problem. The interpretation of mass variation in harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is also found useful to model the optical lattices, identifying the mass as a function of propagation distance [@Rodr2014; @Oztas2016]. Shortcut mechanism for such model is proposed by using invariants for Hamiltonian of forced oscillators with varying mass and frequency [@Stefanatos2014]. Below, we will disscuss the usefulness of our general approach in the particular case of harmonic oscillator with mass $M(\xi)$ and frequency $\omega(\xi)$ for some parameter $\xi$ as, $$\mathcal{\hat{H}}^{\prime}=\frac{\hat{p}^{2}}{2 M(\xi)}+\frac{M(\xi) \omega^{2}(\xi)\hat{x}^{2}}{2}. \label{masshamil}$$ Comparing Equation (\[masshamil\]) with (\[ParaHamil\]) gives [@Pedrosa1997], $$\dot{\Gamma}(\xi)=\frac{d}{d\xi}\left[\ln M(\xi)\right]. \label{gammaMass}$$ From equation (\[invariant\]), the invariant in terms of $M(\xi)$ is $$\mathcal{\hat{I}}^{\prime}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(\frac{x}{\rho^{\prime}}\right)^{2}M(\xi)\omega_{0}^{2}+\frac{1}{M(\xi)}\left(\rho^{\prime} p -\left(M(\xi)\dot{\rho^{\prime}}-\frac{\dot{M}(\xi)\rho^{\prime}}{2}\right)x\right)^{2}\right). \label{invariantM}$$ This invariant is the exact invariant for $\mathcal{H}^{\prime}$, which is different from the one considered in ref [@Pedrosa1997] and the existance of this invariant depends on the Ermokov equation $$\ddot{\rho^{\prime}}+\Omega^{\prime 2}\rho^{\prime}=\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{\prime 3}}, \label{ermokovM}$$ where the new shift in the frequency is $\Omega^{\prime}=\sqrt{\omega\left(\xi\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{\dot{M}(\xi)}{2M(\xi)}\right)^{2}-\frac{\ddot{M}(\xi)}{2M(\xi)}}$ and a general STA protocol can be formulated as discussed in section 3. Implementation of the protocol requires the knowledge of variation of mass with respect to corresponding parameter (time, length, etc,.), which decides the particular form of scaling factor $\rho^{\prime}$ for appropriate STA boundary conditions. We used the Ermokov equation (\[ermokovM\]) to inverse engineer the frequency to drive the system in a shortcut path. The mass variation directly influence the frequency of the oscillator, which will be evident on inversion of the Ermokov equation to construct frequency variation $\omega(\xi)$, which is in good agreement with some of existing intrepretations of shortcuts [@Shumpei2008]. On comparison with equation (\[InvEngExpecnVal\]), the expectation value of energy on the inverse engineered shortcut path is, $$\langle\mathcal{\hat{H}^{\prime}_{ IE}}\rangle=\frac{\left(2n+1\right)}{4\omega_{0}}\left(\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\rho^{2}}+\left(\dot{\rho}-\frac{\dot{M}(\xi)\rho}{2M(\xi)}\right)^{2}+\omega^{2}\rho^{2}\right). \label{InvEngExpecnValM}$$ Photonic Lattice as Mass Varying Hamiltonian -------------------------------------------- The photonic lattice model proposed in ref [@Rodr2014] is semi-infinite and composed of individual waveguides, whose index of refraction vary linearly. It can be modelled as a harmonic oscillator with mass $M(z)$ and frequency $\Omega(z)$, where z is the propagation distance [@Rodr2014; @Stefanatos2014]. Considering the field amplitude at n$^{th}$ waveguide as $C_{n}(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$ to modulate linear variation of the refractive index and $a_{1}(z)$,$a_{2}(z)$ as first and second coupling functions. The lattice is described by the differential set, $$i\frac{\partial C_{n}(z)}{\partial z}+a_{0}(z)nC_{n}(z)+a_{1}(z)\left[f_{n+1}C_{n+1}(z)+f_{n}C_{n-1}(z)\right]+a_{2}(z)\left[g_{n+2}C_{n+2}(z)+g_{n}C_{n-2}(z)\right]=0, \label{latticeEq}$$ ![Variation of the parameters $\Omega(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$, $a_{1}(z)$ and $a_{2}(z)$ against the propagation distance $z$ in arbitrary units is similar to one given in ref [@Rodr2014]. $\epsilon=0.5$ and $z_{s}=5$[]{data-label="varparaZ"}](varparanew.jpg){width=".6\linewidth"} [.45]{} ![a-c; Variation of parameters $\Omega(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$, $a_{1}(z)$, $a_{2}(z)$ using STA for various final propagation distances plotted against $s=\frac{z}{z_{\tau}}$. d; Mass variation in STA process given by equation (\[MEq\]). Initial and final parameters are $\Omega(0)=M(0)=1$, $\Omega(z_{\tau})=2$ and $M(z_{\tau})=1$.](varparasta1new.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![a-c; Variation of parameters $\Omega(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$, $a_{1}(z)$, $a_{2}(z)$ using STA for various final propagation distances plotted against $s=\frac{z}{z_{\tau}}$. d; Mass variation in STA process given by equation (\[MEq\]). Initial and final parameters are $\Omega(0)=M(0)=1$, $\Omega(z_{\tau})=2$ and $M(z_{\tau})=1$.](varparasta2new.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![a-c; Variation of parameters $\Omega(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$, $a_{1}(z)$, $a_{2}(z)$ using STA for various final propagation distances plotted against $s=\frac{z}{z_{\tau}}$. d; Mass variation in STA process given by equation (\[MEq\]). Initial and final parameters are $\Omega(0)=M(0)=1$, $\Omega(z_{\tau})=2$ and $M(z_{\tau})=1$.](varparasta10new.jpg "fig:") [.45]{} ![a-c; Variation of parameters $\Omega(z)$, $a_{0}(z)$, $a_{1}(z)$, $a_{2}(z)$ using STA for various final propagation distances plotted against $s=\frac{z}{z_{\tau}}$. d; Mass variation in STA process given by equation (\[MEq\]). Initial and final parameters are $\Omega(0)=M(0)=1$, $\Omega(z_{\tau})=2$ and $M(z_{\tau})=1$.](Massvar.jpg "fig:") where $f_{n}=\sqrt{n}$ and $g_{n}=\sqrt{n(n-1)}$ are the functions of the positions $n=0,1,2...$ of the waveguides in the array and $C_{n}(z)=0$ for $n<0$. If we define a wavefunction $\vert\Psi(z)\rangle=\sum_{j=0}^{n}C_{j}(z)\vert j\rangle$ using the field amplitude $C_{j}$ at j$^{th}$ waveguide, we can rewrite the equation (\[latticeEq\]) as Schrodinger-like equation [@Rodr2014], $$\mathcal{H}^{\prime}\vert\Psi(z)\rangle=i\frac{\partial \vert\Psi(z)\rangle}{\partial z} \label{ShcrLikeEq}$$ and the corresponding Hamiltonian in terms of annihilation $(\hat{a}\vert n\rangle=\sqrt{n}\vert n-1\rangle)$ and creation $(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\vert n\rangle=\sqrt{n+1}\vert n+1\rangle)$ operators is $$\mathcal{H}^{\prime}=-\left[a_{0}(z)\hat{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger}+a_{1}(z)(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dagger})+a_{2}(z)(\hat{a}^{2}+\hat{a}^{\dagger 2})\right].$$ Using the form of $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ in terms of normalized position and mometum operators $$\hat{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\hat{X}+i\hat{P}\right)$$ $$\hat{a}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\hat{X}-i\hat{P}\right),$$ the Hamiltonian becomes, $$\mathcal{H}^{\prime}=-\left[\frac{\hat{P}^{2}}{2 M(z)}+\frac{M(z)\Omega^{2}(z)\hat{X}^{2}}{2}+\sqrt{2}a_{1}(z) \hat{X}-\frac{a_{0}(z)}{2}\right],$$ where $$M(z)=\frac{1}{a_{0}(z)-2a_{2}(z)}$$ $$\Omega^{2}(z)=a_{0}^{2}(z)-4a_{2}^{2}(z).$$ We can simplify the problem by considering the solution with a displacement and an overall phase factor as $$\vert\Psi(z)\rangle=e^{-i\int \varPhi(z)dz}e^{-i\left[u(z)\hat{P}+M(z)\dot{u}(z)\hat{X}\right]}\vert\psi(z)\rangle,$$ where the role of first coupling function $a_{1}(z)$ is only by defining the auxillary function $u(z)$ (see ref [@Rodr2014] for complete expressions of $\varPhi(z)$ and $u(z)$). Thus the differential equation (\[ShcrLikeEq\]) will be modified as, $$\left[\frac{\hat{P}^{2}}{2 m(t)}+\frac{m(t)\omega^{2}(t)\hat{X}^{2}}{2}\right]\vert\psi(z)\rangle=i\frac{\partial \vert\psi(z)\rangle}{\partial z},$$ where $m(t)=M(-z)$ and $\omega(t)=\Omega(-z)$. The above equation expresses the differential equation for a photonic lattice as a mass varying harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian. This is a right point to consider the usage of STA for this Hamiltonian as we developed in section 4. Unlike the work done by Dionisis Stefanatos [@Stefanatos2014], we fixed the lattice parameters for a disired output and try to produce the same output for various propagation distances using the class of invariants given in equation (\[invariantM\]). To illustrate the control on propagation distance to get a desired output, we can take the example given in ref [@Rodr2014] with parameters, $$\Omega(z)=\frac{\left[3+\epsilon\tanh(z-z_{s})\right]}{2},~ a_{0}(z)=\frac{\left[M^{2}(z)\Omega^{2}(z)+1\right]}{2M(z)},~ a_{1}(z)=1,~ a_{2}(z)=\frac{\left[M^{2}(z)\Omega^{2}(z)-1\right]}{4M(z)}. \label{setParaM}$$ All the above parameters are plotted in figure (\[varparaZ\]) for $M(z)=1$, where the frequency is a smooth step function and the steepness of the curve is decided by the constant $\epsilon$. We have considered the frequency function for $\epsilon=0.5$, where the initial and final required frequecy is tending close to 1 and 2 respectively. This is equivalent to a Glauber-Fock oscillator lattice that make transitions smoothly from just first-neighbor couplings to first- and second-neighbor couplings [@Rodr2014; @Robert2012]. We consider the desired output as the one corresponding to $a_{0}(z_{\tau})=\frac{5}{2}$, $a_{1}(z_{\tau})=1$ and $a_{2}(z_{\tau})=\frac{3}{4}$ while the initial parameters fixed as $a_{0}(0)=a_{1}(0)=1$ and $a_{2}(0)=0$. Here we have the freedom to decide the arbitrary selection of the mass function, during the shortcut process, assigning initial and final values as 1. Considering the equation (\[gammaMass\]) connecting mass variation and $\Gamma$, the above boundary conditions for mass variations will be in good agreement with the boundary conditions for the specific form of $\Gamma$ of the shortcut process for the harmonic oscillator in section 4. Changing the variables of the both the equations (\[gammafun\]) and (\[gammaMass\]) in terms of propagation distance, we will obtain similar functions as $$\Gamma(z)=s^{3}(s-1)^{3}, \label{gammafun1}$$ and $$\Gamma(z)=\ln M(z), \label{gammaMass1}$$ where $s=\frac{z}{z_{\tau}}$ and $z_{\tau}$ is the location where we need to get the final values of parameters. From the above equations, we get $$M(z)=e^{s^{3}(s-1)^{3}}. \label{MEq}$$ A protocol similar to the shortcut protocol in section 4 will redefine the lattice parameters (index of refraction, first- and second-couplings parameters) through the new propagation distance dependent functions $\Omega(z)$ and $M(z)$ to control the location of output in tha array of the waveguides. A propagation distance dependent scaling factor similar to the one in equation (\[scalefac\]), $$\rho(z)=6 \left( \sqrt{\frac{\Omega(0)}{\Omega(z_{\tau})}}-1\right) s^{5}-15\left(\sqrt{\frac{\Omega(0)}{\Omega(z_{\tau})}}-1\right) s^{4}+10\left(\sqrt{\frac{\Omega(0)}{\Omega(z_{\tau})}}-1\right) s^{3}+1, \label{scalefac1}$$ can be used to construct such protocol. In the above equation $\Omega(0)$ and $\Omega(z_{\tau})$ are the boundary values of frequency $\Omega(z)$. Variation of parameters (index of refraction and coupling parameters) resulting from the set of equations (\[setParaM\]) is plotted in figure (\[varparasta1\]-\[varparasta10\]), and the variation in mass $M(z)$ is plotted in figure (\[Massvar\]) with initial parameters $\Omega(0)=M(0)=1$ and final parameters $\Omega(z_{\tau})=2, M(z_{\tau})=1$. Irrespective of the manner in which the parameters vary over the propagation distance, we could drive it from the desired initial to the final values. This mechanism can be used to construct output at necessary locations by arbitrarily controlling the lattice parameters. However, the cost for implementation of the protocol is not measurable with the methods explained in section 4 since the working of photonic lattice is different from that of a single harmonic oscillator. [Conclusion]{} We have successfully derived a class of invariants for the harmonic oscillator under time-dependent frictional force. In the Ermokov equation, the frequency is shifted by the terms with TDCF and its first derivative. The scope of a general approach to STA using the invariant with TDCF is studied and found it is feasible but the specific form of the scaling factor at the boundaries decides the boundary conditions for time-dependent frictional force. An interesting case of STA protocol for the quantum harmonic oscillator is framed by allowing the frictional control only at the intermediate times, such that the TDCF should be zero at both the ends of the shortcut process. We have analyzed the variation of adiabaticity parameter $Q^{}$, the expectation value of energy $\langle\hat{H}^{IE}\rangle$ and the cost of the shortcut process $\langle\hat{H}^{STA}\rangle$ for various time scales. Interpreting the harmonic oscillator system under time-dependent frictional force as a harmonic oscillator with time varying mass, which make use of the same shortcut protocol to control the dynamics of the harmonic oscillator with inbuilt variation in mass (without taking control over the mass). We have illustrated the case of coupled photonic lattice by identifying the propagation of light through the array of waveguides as the evolution of harmonic oscillator wavefunction. The protocol can be improved by formulating some other intelligent TDCF obeying the corresponding boundary conditions. We have left space for such works with different TDCF for improved characteristics of shortcut protocol. Also, it is possible to incorporate such improved shortcut protocols to Quantum thermal machines for enhanced performance. Further, our study might be useful for the applications analogus to the case of photonic lattice which can be studied using harmonic oscillator hamiltonian with variation in mass. Erik Torrontegui, Sara Ibáñez, Sofia Martínez-Garaot, Michele Modugno, Adolfo del Campo, David Guéry-Odelin, Andreas Ruschhaupt, Xi Chen, J. G. Muga “Shortcuts to adiabaticity," Advances in atomic, molecular, and optical physics 62, 117169 (2013) Adolfo del Campo and Kihwan Kim “Focus on Shortcuts to Adiabaticity," New J. Phys. 21 050201 (2019) A. del Campo and M. G. Boshier “Shortcuts to adiabaticity in a time-dependent box," Scientific Reports 2, 648 (2012) S. Ibáñez, Xi Chen, E. Torrontegui, J. G. Muga, and A. Ruschhaupt “Multiple Schrödinger Pictures and Dynamics in Shortcuts to Adiabaticity," Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100403 (2012) Mathieu Beau, Juan Jaramillo and Adolfo Del Campo “Scaling-Up Quantum Heat Engines Efficiently via Shortcuts to Adiabaticity," Entropy 18 (5), 168 (2016) Sebastian Deffner, Christopher Jarzynski, and Adolfo del Campo “Classical and Quantum Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for Scale-Invariant Driving," Phys. Rev. X 4, 021013 (2014) R. Bowler, J. Gaebler, Y. Lin, T. R. Tan, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland “Coherent Diabatic Ion Transport and Separation in a Multizone Trap Array," Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080502 (2012) A. Walther, F. Ziesel, T. Ruster, S. T. Dawkins, K. Ott, M. Hettrich, K. Singer, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. Poschinger “Controlling Fast Transport of Cold Trapped Ions," Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080501 (2012) Shuoming An, Dingshun Lv, Adolfo del Campo and Kihwan Kim “Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving for trapped-ion displacement in phase space," Nature Communications 7, 12999 (2016) Shujin Deng, Aurélia Chenu, Pengpeng Diao, Fang Li, Shi Yu, Ivan Coulamy, Adolfo del Campo and Haibin Wu1 “Superadiabatic quantum friction suppression in finite-time thermodynamics," Nature Communications 7, 12479 (2016) Yan-Xiong Du, Zhen-Tao Liang, Yi-Chao Li, Xian-Xian Yue, Qing-Xian Lv, Wei Huang, Xi Chen, Hui Yan and Shi-Liang Zhu “Experimental realization of stimulated Raman shortcut-to-adiabatic passage with cold atoms," Nature Communications 7, 12479 (2016) Ignacio A. Martínez, Artyom Petrosyan, David Guéry-Odelin, Emmanuel Trizac and Sergio Ciliberto “Engineered swift equilibration of a Brownian particle," Nature Physics 12, 843–846 (2016) Mark G. Bason, Matthieu Viteau, Nicola Malossi, Paul Huillery, Ennio Arimondo, Donatella Ciampini, Rosario Fazio, Vittorio Giovannetti, Riccardo Mannella and Oliver Morsch “High-fidelity quantum driving," Nature Physics 8, 147–152 (2012) Mustafa Demirplak, and Stuart A. Rice “Adiabatic Population Transfer with Control Fields," J. Phys. Chem. A 107 (46), 9937–9945 (2003) Mustafa Demirplak, and Stuart A. Rice\* “Assisted Adiabatic Passage Revisited," J. Phys. Chem. B 109 (14), 6838–6844 (2005) M V Berry “Transitionless quantum driving," Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 36 (2009) Adolfo del Campo “Shortcuts to Adiabaticity by Counterdiabatic Driving," Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013) Shumpei Masuda and Katsuhiro Nakamura “Fast-forward problem in quantum mechanics," Phys. Rev. A 78, 062108 (2008) Shumpei Masuda and Katsuhiro Nakamura “Fast-forward of adiabatic dynamics in quantum mechanics," Proc. R. Soc. A 466, 1135–1154 (2010) H. R. Lewis and W. B. Riesenfeld “An exact quantum theory of the time dependent harmonic oscillator and of a charged particle in a time dependent electromagnetic field," J. Math. Phys. 10, 1458 (1969) Xi Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga “Fast Optimal Frictionless Atom Cooling in Harmonic Traps: Shortcut to Adiabaticity," Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063002 (2010) E. Torrontegui, S. Ibáñez, Xi Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga “Fast atomic transport without vibrational heating," Phys. Rev. A 83, 013415 (2011) Xi Chen, E. Torrontegui, and J. G. Muga “Lewis-Riesenfeld invariants and transitionless quantum driving," Phys. Rev. A 83, 062116 (2011) Xi Chen, E. Torrontegui, Dionisis Stefanatos, Jr-Shin Li, and J. G. Muga “Optimal trajectories for efficient atomic transport without final excitation," Phys. Rev. A 84, 043415 (2011) E. Torrontegui, Xi Chen, M. Modugno, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga “Fast transitionless expansion of cold atoms in optical Gaussian-beam traps," Phys. Rev. A 85, 033605 (2012) Obinna Abah and Eric Lutz “Performance of shortcut-to-adiabaticity quantum engines," Phys. Rev. E 98, 032121 (2018) Obinna Abah and Mauro Paternostro “Shortcut-to-adiabaticity Otto engine: A twist to finite-time thermodynamics," Phys. Rev. E 99, 022110 (2019) Barış Çakmak and Özgür E. Müstecaplıoğlu “Spin quantum heat engines with shortcuts to adiabaticity," Phys. Rev. E 99, 032108 (2019) Dionisis Stefanatos “Design of a photonic lattice using shortcuts to adiabaticity," Phys. Rev. A 90, 023811 (2014) P. Caldirola “Forze non conservative nella meccanica quantistica," Il Nuovo Cimento 18, 9, 393-400 (1941) E. Kanai “On the Quantization of the Dissipative Systems," Progress of Theoretical Physics 3 (4), 440-442 (1948) S. Baskoutas, A. Jannussis and R. Mignani “Time evolution of Caldirola-Kanai oscillators," Nuov Cim B 108 (9) 953-956 (1993) Jeong Ryeol Choi “Analysis of quantum energy for Caldirola–Kanai Hamiltonian systems in coherent states," Results in Physics 3, 115–121 (2013) D. C. Khandekar and S. V. Lawande “Exact solution of a timedependent quantal harmonic oscillator with damping and a perturbative force," Journal of Mathematical Physics 20, 1870 (1979) I. A. Pedrosa “Canonical transformations and exact invariants for dissipative systems," Journal of Mathematical Physics 28, 2662 (1987) I. A. Pedrosa, G. P. Serra, and I. Guedes “Wave functions of a time-dependent harmonic oscillator with and without a singular perturbation," Phys. Rev. A 56, 4300 (1997) John G. Hartley and John R. Ray “Ermakov systems and quantum-mechanical superposition laws," Phys. Rev. A 24, 2873 (1981) P.G.L. Leach “On a direct method for the determination of an exact invariant for the time-dependent harmonic oscillator," J. Austral. Math. Soc. 209, 97 (1977) M A Lohe “Exact time dependence of solutions to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation," J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 035307 (2009) J J Sakurai “Modern quantum mechanics," revised edition, Addison Wesley Pub. Co. (1994) Sebastian Deffner, Obinna Abah and Eric Lutz “Quantum work statistics of linear and nonlinear parametric oscillators," Chem. Phys, 375 200-208 (2010) Kôdi Husimi “Miscellanea in Elementary Quantum Mechanics II," Progress of Theoretical Physics 9, 4 381–402 (1953) B. M. Rodríguez-Lara, P. Aleahmad, H. M. Moya-Cessa and D. N. Christodoulides “Ermakov–Lewis symmetry in photonic lattices,"Optics Letters 39, 7, 0146-9592 (2014) Z. Oztas and C. Yuce “Discrete parametric oscillation and non-diffracting beams in a Glauber–Fock oscillator," Phys. Lett. A 380, 3307-3311 (2016) Robert Keil, Armando Perez-Leija, Parinaz Aleahmad, Hector Moya-Cessa, Stefan Nolte, Demetrios N. Christodoulides and Alexander Szameit “Observation of Bloch-like revivals in semi-infinite Glauber–Fock photonic lattices," Opt. Lett. 37, 3801 (2012)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Earlier we reported theoretical studies on the probable production of astatine radionuclides from $^{6,7}$Li and $^{9}$Be-induced reactions on natural lead and thalliun targets, respectively. For the first time, in this report, production of astatine radionuclides has been investigated experimentally with two heavy ion induced reactions: $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl and $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb. Formation cross sections of the evaporation residues, $^{207,208,209,210}$At, produced in (HI, xn) channel, have been measured by the stacked-foil technique followed by the off-line $\gamma$-spectrometry at the low incident energies ($<$50 MeV). Measured excitation functions have been explained in terms of compound nuclear reaction mechanism using Weisskopf-Ewing and Hauser-Feshbach model. Absolute cross section values are lower than the respective theoretical predictions.' author: - 'Moumita Maiti[^1]' - 'Susanta Lahiri[^2]' title: 'Production cross section of At radionuclides from $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb and $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reactions' --- Introduction ============ Astatine has now been more familier due to the potential application of $^{211}$At in targeted therapy. Owing to suitable nuclear propeties, $^{211}$At is promising in treating small tumor. Astatine radionuclides are produced artificially in the accelerator as the element has no naturally abundant isotope. Choice of suitable target-projectile combination and the knowledge of nuclear reaction data is therefore important in producing the radionuclide of choice. However, experimental cross section data is till date scare. Ususlly, astatine radionuclides, $^{207-211}$At, are produced by bombarding $\alpha$-particle on natural bismuth target [@Hermanne; @Henriksen; @Schultz; @Groppi]. Other production methods comprise $^{3}$He induced reaction on bismuth target [@Szucs; @Vysotsky; @Nagame] and high energy proton induced spallation reactions on heavy targets such as $^{238}$U, $^{232}$Th, etc. Sufficient amount of $^{207-211}$At radionuclides can also be produced by light heavy ion induced reactions, which are not well studied. A few reports dealt with the heavy ion induced production of astatine. Experimental measurement of formation cross sections of $^{208-211}$At produced through $^{7}$Li and $^{6}$Li induced reactions on enriched $^{208}$Pb target was reported in [@Wu; @Hassan]. Production of $^{209,210}$At was reported in [@krsl; @sl] where $^{7}$Li was bombarded on natural lead target aiming to study the chemical separation procedures of astatine from bulk lead. The present authors also used $^{9}$Be-beam first time to produce $^{208-210}$At from $^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl target and developed appropriate chemical separation method for production of t-radionuclides [@mmjrnc]. The encouraging yields of At-radionuclides in heavy ion activation prompted us to make theoretical investigation on the production possibility of astatine radionuclides through $^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb($^{7}$Li, xn), $^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb($^{6}$Li, xn), $^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl($^{9}$Be, xn) reactions [@mmslPRC]. The present report aims to measure the excitation functions of $^{207-210}$At produced in $^{7}$Li- and $^{9}$Be-induced reactions on natural lead and thallium targets, respectively and to validate our theoretical study [@mmslPRC]. Measured cross section data have been explained in terms of nuclear reaction mechanism comparating with two well established nuclear reaction model codes ALICE91 [@alice1; @alice2] and PACE4 [@pace4]. Due to the limitation available accelerator facility, the report covers a small incident energy range. Section II describes the experimental procedure. Section III and IV deal with the data analysis and results of the present report. Experimental procedure ====================== Natural non-hygroscopic thallium carbonate, Tl$_{2}$CO$_{3}$ and lead nitrate, Pb(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}$, were used as target material. The targets of uniform thickness, 1.8$\pm$0.1 mg/cm$^{2}$ Tl$_{2}$CO$_{3}$ and 3.0$\pm$0.3 mg/cm$^{2}$ Pb(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}$, were prepared by centrifugation technique on aluminium foil backing of thickness 1.5 mg/cm$^{2}$. Three such targets were mounted each time to prepare a target assembly, which was then bombarded by the suitable projectile (e.g.$^{7}$Li or $^{9}$Be) at the BARC-TIFR Pelletron Accelerator facility, Mumbai, India. The Tl$_{2}$CO$_{3}$ target stack was irradiated with a 47.6 MeV $^{9}$Be beam for 4.75 h up to a total charge of 388 $\mu$C and Pb(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}$ target stack was irradiated with 46 MeV $^{7}$Li peojectile for 2.82 h up to a total charge of 1336 $\mu$C. The residual products, if any, recoiled in the beam direction, were stopped in the aluminum backing. Large area of the catcher foils ensures the complete collection of recoiled evaporation residues. The beam intensity was measured in each experiment from the total charge collected in a electron suppressed Faraday cup stationed at the rear of the target assembly. Irradiated foils were counted at the end of bombardment (EOB), to measure the $\gamma$-ray activity of the evaporation residues produced in the respective target matrix using an HPGe detector of 2.13 keV resolution at 1332 keV coupled with a PC based MCA. Each foil was counted in a regular time interval untill the complete decay of the residues. Use of centrifuged targets on aluminum backing restricted to measure separately the recoiled activity induced in the aluminum foils. However, in the present case, recoiled activity in the backing, if any, is expected to be negligible as it deals with low projectile energy. Beam energy degradation in the target and the catcher foils was calculated using the Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter (SRIM) [@srim]. Projectile energy at the target is the average of incident and outgoing beam energy. Energy loss is about 2% in the thallium carbonate and lead nitrate targets. Product yields of the evaporation residues in each foil were calculated from the background subtracted peak area count correspond to a particular $\gamma$-ray energy. The nuclear spectroscopic data of the radionuclides studied in this article is enlisted in the Table \[mmt1\] [@nudat2]. The cross sections of the evaporation residues produced at various incident energies were calculated from the standard activation equation. The total associated error related to the cross section measurement was determined considering all the probable uncertainties and the data presented up to 95% confidence level. A detail description of the calculation is available elsewhere [@mmTc]. Analysis of cross section ========================= In order to compare the measured cross sections, theoretical cross sections of $^{207-210}$At were calculated from $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb and $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reactions using the nuclear reaction model codes PACE4 [@pace4] and ALICE91 [@alice1; @alice2]. The code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PACE4</span> [@pace4] is the modified version of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PACE</span> (Projection Angular momentum Coupled Evaporation) [@pace] working in the framework of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LISE</span>++ [@nscl] with several new features. It uses Hauser-Feshbach model to follow the deexcitation of the excited nuclei. The transmission coefficients for light particle emission have been determined from the optical model potential with default optical model parameters. The code internally decides level densities and masses it needs during deexcitation. The Gilbert-Cameron level density prescription is used in the present work with $\textit{a}$, level density parameter, equals to A/9 MeV$^{-1}$. The ratio of $a_{f}$/$a_{n}$ is chosen as unity. Fission is considered as a decay mode where finite range fission barrier of Sierk has been used. The compound nuclear fusion cross section is determined by using the Bass method. The yrast parameter is taken as unity. The excitation functions of $^{207-210}$At, have been calculated using the code ALICE91 [@alice1; @alice2] with geometry dependent hybrid model [@alice2] for preequilibrium emissions and Weisskopf-Ewing formalism for equilibrium emissions. A separate calculation has also been done using ALICE91 only with Weisskopf-Ewing model option for the excitation functions of $^{208-211}$At. The details of hybrid model is available in our previous papers [@mmslPRC; @mmprc]. The emission of light particles, $n$, $p$, $d$ and $\alpha$, are considered from the residual nuclides of 12 mass unit wide and 10 charge unit deep including the composite nucleus. Fermi gas level density has been used for the calculation of reaction cross sections. Reverse channel reaction cross sections have been calculated using the optical model. The level density parameter, $a$ is taken as A/9, the default value for the code. Rotating finite range fission barriers of Sierk has been chosen. Total number of nucleons in the projectile has been chosen as the initial exciton number for the preequilibrium emission calculation. Formation cross sections of the residues were calculated separately from $^{7}$Li- and $^{9}$Be-induced reactions on each naturally occurring isotope of Pb and Tl, respectively, and the total formation cross section was calculated taking the weighted average of all the naturally occurring isotopes. Results and discussion ====================== Analysis of $\gamma$-spectra collected at different time intervals after EOB assured the production of various proton rich astatine radionuclides, $^{207, 208, 209, 210}$At, in the target matrix due to the bombardment of $^{7}$Li- and $^{9}$Be-projectiles on $^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb and $^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl targets, respectively, at low incident energies ($<$50 MeV). Figure \[F1\] and \[F2\] represent $\gamma$-spectrum of the $^{7}$Li- and $^{9}$Be-irradiated $^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb and $^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl targets at the highest incident energies, 46 MeV and 47.6 MeV, respectively. The astatine radionuclides produced in the particular target-projectile combination is tabulated in Table \[mmt1\] along with the reaction threshold values. Theoretical investigation [@mmslPRC] shows considerable possibility of producing $^{211}$At ($\approx$ 400 mb) in $^{7}$Li induced reaction on $^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb. However, it was not possible to identify $^{211}$At by $\gamma$-ray spectrometry in the present experimentdue due to its low intensity $\gamma$-ray emissions. Cross sections measured for $^{207-210}$At from $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb vreaction in 46-38 MeV projectile energy and $^{208-210}$At from $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reaction in 47.2-42 MeV have been compared with theoretical predictions of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PACE4</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ALICE91</span> as shown in Figs. \[fig1\]-\[fig2\]. Though ALICE91 takes care of the preequilibrium emissions, it has been observed in general that preequilibrium reaction has no contribution, even in the highest projectile energy in both the cases. As a result, the comparison is practically between the two compound nuclear reaction models Weisskopf-Ewing and Hauser-Feshbach. It is observed from Fig. \[fig1\] that experimental excitations of $^{210}$At $^{209}$At are well evaluated by PACE4 whereas ALICE91 overpredicts the data $\approx$ 40%. Both the theoretical predictions agree with the measured cross sections for $^{207}$At, but they neither reproduce measured cross section nor the trend for $^{208}$At (Fig. \[fig2\]). Similar phenomenon was observed in case of $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reaction (Figs. \[fig3\] - \[fig4\]). PACE4 calculation underpredicts the measured data at the lowest incident energy while it overpredicts the measured data at higher energies for $^{210}$At and $^{208}$At. ALICE91 also overpredicts the measured data at higher energies but agrees well with the cross section values at 42.3 MeV for $^{210}$At and $^{208}$At, respectively. However, no agreement was found between theory and experiment for $^{209}$At and the measured cross sections $^{209}$At are almost constant in 42-47.5 MeV projectile energy range. It was critical to make any definite comment on the cross section data as a small incident energy range of the expected excitation functions shown in [@mmslPRC] was covered in the present report. However, analysis of the measured data reveals the signature of compound nuclear reaction in producing $^{207-210}$At in the reported incident energy region. It has been experienced experimentally that production of $^{208}$At is higher than that of $^{209}$At in this energy range. The fact is in well agreement with theoretical evaluation. It is known that Weisskopf-Ewing model gives higher cross section values than the Hauser-Feshbach model as it sacrifices rigor of physics. This fact is also reflected in the comparison shown in the figures. Conclusion ========== This work reports first time the measured production cross sections of $^{207,208,209,210}$At from two separate heavy ion induced reactions, $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb and $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl, respectively. Production cross sections of the astatine radionuclides, which are expected to be evaporation residues, have been compared with two established evaporation models: Weisskopf-Ewing and Hauser-Feshbach model. Measured cross sections are in general lower than the theoretical expectations. The present work is limited due to the available projectile energy and reports only a small part of the total excitation functions of the evaporation residues. However, the measured cross section data are important to validate the theoretical predictions reported in [@mmslPRC] and to enrich the nuclear reaction data bank towards the production of various proton rich astatine radionuclides. Authors are thankful to target laboratory VECC, Kolkata, for preparing targets. Thanks to pelletron staff of BARC-TIFR pelletron facility, Mumbai, for their cooperation and help during experiment. M. Maiti expresses sincere thanks to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for providing necessary grants. This work has been carried out as part of the SINP-DAE, XI five year plan project “Trace Analysis: Detection, Dynamics and Speciation (TADDS)”. [99]{} A. Hermanne, F. Trknyi, S. Takcs, Z. Sz¨ucs, Yu. N. Shubin, and A. I. Dityuk, Appl. Radiat. Isot. [63]{}, 1 (2005). G. Henriksen, S. Messelt, E. Olsen, and R. H. Larsen, Appl. Radiat. Isot. [54]{}, 839 (2001). M. K. Schultz, M. Hammond, J. T. Cessna, P. Plascjak, B. Norman, L. Szajek, K. Garmestani, B. E. Zimmerman, and M. Unterweger, Appl. Radiat. Isot. [64]{}, 1365 (2006). F. Groppi, M. L. Bonardi, C. Birattari, E. Menapace, K. Abbas, U. Holzwarth, A. Alfarano, S. Morzenti, C. Zona, and Z. B. Alfassi, Appl. Radiat. Isot. [63]{}, 621 (2005). Z. Szucs, F. Szelecsenyi, J. Bergmann, S. J. Heselius, and O. Solin, Radiochim. Acta [65]{}, 87 (1994). O. N. Vysotsky, A. V. Gonchar, G. N. Kozeratskaya, S. N. Kondratiev, V. D. Sklyarenko, and V. V. Tokarevsky, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Fiz. [56]{}, 102 (1992). Y. Nagame, Y. Nakamura, M. Takahashi, K. Sueki, and H. Nakahara, Nucl. Phys. A[486]{}, 77 (1988). Y.W.Wu, Z. H. Liu, C. J. Lin, H. Q. Zhang,M. Ruan, F. Yang, Z. C. Li, M. Trotta, and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C [68]{}, 044605 (2003). A. A. Hassan, S. M. Luk’yanov, R. Kalpakchieva, Yu. E. Penionzhkevich, R. A. Astabatyan, I. Vintsour, Z. Dlougy, A. A. Kul’ko, Ya. Mrazek, S. P. Lobastov, E. R. Markaryan, V. A. Maslov, N. K. Ckobelev, and Yu. G. Sobolev, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Fiz. [70]{}, 1558 (2006). K. Roy and S. Lahiri, Appl. Radiat. Isotopes [66]{}, 571 (2008). S. Lahiri, K. Roy, and S. Sen, Appl. Radiat. Isotopes [66]{}, 1901 (2008). M. Maiti and S. Lahiri, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. [281]{}, 501 (2009). M. Maiti and S. Lahiri, Phys Rev. C [79]{}, 024611 (2009). M. Blann, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report No. UCID 19614 (1982); M. Blann, International Centre for Theoretical Physics Workshop on Applied Nuclear Theory and Nuclear Model Calculations for Nuclear Technology Applications, Trieste, Italy, SMR/284-1, 1988. M. Blann and H. K. Vonach, Phys. Rev. C [28]{}, 1475 (1983). O.B. Tarasov, and D. Bazin Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B [204]{} 174 (2003). J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, and U. Littmark, The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids. (NY: Pergamon Press) (1985). http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/ M. Maiti, and S. Lahiri, Phys Rev. C [81]{}, 024603 (2010). A. Gavron, Phys. Rev. C [21]{}, 230 (1980). http://groups.nscl.msu.edu/lise/5$\_$13/lise$\_$5$\_$13.html M. Maiti, S. N. Roy, M. Nandy, and P. K. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. C [71]{}, 034601 (2005). Isotope T$_{1/2}$ Decay mode(%) E$_{\gamma}$keV(I$_{\gamma}$%) $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb E$_{th}$(MeV) $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl E$_{th}$(MeV) ------------ ----------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------ --------------- $^{210}$At 8.1 h $\epsilon$(99.82)$\alpha$(0.18) 1181.43(99) $^{208}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$5n$) 36.41 $^{203}$Tl($^{9}$Be, $2n$) 19.41 $^{207}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$4n$) 28.80 $^{205}$Tl($^{9}$Be, $4n$) 34.23 $^{206}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$3n$) 21.84 $^{209}$At 5.41 h $\epsilon$(95.9)$\alpha$(4.1) 545.03(91) $^{207}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$5n$) 36.21 $^{203}$Tl($^{9}$Be, $3n$) 26.89 $^{206}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$4n$) 29.25 $^{205}$Tl($^{9}$Be, $5n$) 41.71 $^{204}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$3n$) 13.93 $^{208}$At 1.63 h $\epsilon$(99.45)$\alpha$(0.55) 686.527(97.6) $^{206}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$5n$) 37.99 $^{203}$Tl($^{9}$Be, $4n$) 35.73 $^{204}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$3n$) 22.68 $^{207}$At 1.8 h $\epsilon$(91.4)$\alpha$(8.6) 814.41(45) $^{204}$Pb($^{7}$Li,$3n$) 30.25 : Nuclear spectrometric data [@nudat2] of the radionuclides produced through different nuclear reactions.[]{data-label="mmt1"} ![$\gamma$-ray spectrum of the radionuclides produced in $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb reaction at 46 MeV incident energy after 1.5 h of EOB.[]{data-label="F1"}](Maiti-Fig-1.eps){height="8.0cm"} ![$\gamma$-ray spectrum of the radionuclides produced in $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reaction at 47.6 MeV incident energy after 2 h of EOB.[]{data-label="F2"}](Maiti-Fig-2.eps){height="8.0cm"} ![Comparison between measured cross sections of $^{210}$At and $^{209}$At from $^{7}$Li+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Pb reactions and that theoretically predicted from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PACE4</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ALICE91</span>. -P stands for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PACE4</span> and -A stands for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ALICE91</span>.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Maiti-Fig-R1.eps){height="8.0cm"} ![Same as Fig. \[fig1\] for $^{208}$At and $^{207}$At[]{data-label="fig2"}](Maiti-Fig-R2.eps){height="8.0cm"} ![Same as Fig. \[fig1\] for $^{210}$At and $^{209}$At from $^{9}$Be+$^{\textrm{nat}}$Tl reaction[]{data-label="fig3"}](Maiti-Fig-R3.eps){height="8.0cm"} ![Same as Fig. \[fig3\] for $^{208}$At []{data-label="fig4"}](Maiti-Fig-R4.eps){height="8.0cm"} [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] (Reprint author), Fax: +91-33-2337-4637	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We show how an ensemble of $Q^$-functions can be leveraged for more effective exploration in deep reinforcement learning. We build on well established algorithms from the bandit setting, and adapt them to the $Q$-learning setting. We propose an exploration strategy based on upper-confidence bounds (UCB). Our experiments show significant gains on the Atari benchmark.' author: - \| Richard Y. Chen\ OpenAI\ `[email protected]`\ Szymon Sidor\ OpenAI\ `[email protected]`\ Pieter Abbeel\ OpenAI\ University of California, Berkeley\ `[email protected]`\ John Schulman\ OpenAI\ `[email protected]`\ bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'UCB Exploration via $\boldsymbol{Q}$-Ensembles' --- Introduction ============ Deep reinforcement learning seeks to learn mappings from high-dimensional observations to actions. Deep $Q$-learning (@mnih2015human) is a leading technique that has been used successfully, especially for video game benchmarks. However, fundamental challenges remain, for example, improving sample efficiency and ensuring convergence to high quality solutions. Provably optimal solutions exist in the bandit setting and for small MDPs, and at the core of these solutions are exploration schemes. However these provably optimal exploration techniques do not extend to deep RL in a straightforward way. Bootstrapped DQN (@osband2016deep) is a previous attempt at adapting a theoretically verified approach to deep RL. In particular, it draws inspiration from posterior sampling for reinforcement learning* (PSRL, @osband2013more [@osband2016posterior]), which has near-optimal regret bounds. PSRL samples an MDP from its posterior each episode and exactly solves $Q^$, its optimal $Q$-function. However, in high-dimensional settings, both approximating the posterior over MDPs and solving the sampled MDP are intractable. Bootstrapped DQN avoids having to establish and sample from the posterior over MDPs by instead approximating the posterior over $Q^$. In addition, bootstrapped DQN uses a multi-headed neural network to represent the $Q$-ensemble. While the authors proposed bootstrapping to estimate the posterior distribution, their empirical findings show best performance is attained by simply relying on different initializations for the different heads, not requiring the sampling-with-replacement process that is prescribed by bootstrapping. In this paper, we design new algorithms that build on the $Q$-ensemble approach from @osband2016deep. However, instead of using posterior sampling for exploration, we use the uncertainty estimates from the $Q$-ensemble. Specifically, we propose the UCB exploration strategy. This strategy is inspired by established UCB algorithms in the bandit setting and constructs uncertainty estimates of the $Q$-values. In this strategy, agents are optimistic and take actions with the highest UCB. We demonstrate that our algorithms significantly improve performance on the Atari benchmark. Background ========== Notation {#section:notate} -------- We model reinforcement learning as a Markov decision process (MDP). We define an MDP as $(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A}, T, R, p_0, \gamma)$, in which both the state space $\mathcal{S}$ and action space $\mathcal{A}$ are discrete, $T: \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A} \times \mathcal{S} \mapsto \mathbb{R}_+$ is the transition distribution, $R: \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is the reward function, and $\gamma \in (0, 1]$ is a discount factor, and $p_0$ is the initial state distribution. We denote a transition experience as $\tau=(s, a, r, s')$ where $s' \sim T(s'\|s, a)$ and $r = R(s, a)$. A policy $\pi: \mathcal{S} \mapsto \mathcal{A}$ specifies the action taken after observing a state. We denote the $Q$-function for policy $\pi$ as $Q^{\pi}(s, a):= {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{\pi}\big[\sum\nolimits_{t=0}^{\infty} \gamma^t r_t \| s_0=s, a_0=a \big]$. The optimal $Q^$-function corresponds to taking the optimal policy $$Q^(s, a) := \sup_{\pi} Q^{\pi}(s, a)$$ and satisfies the Bellman equation $$Q^(s, a) = \mathbb{E}_{s'\sim T(\cdot\|s, a)}\big[ r + \gamma \cdot \max_{a'}Q^(s', a')\big].$$ Exploration in reinforcement learning {#section:exploration} ------------------------------------- A notable early optimality result in reinforcement learning was the proof by Watkins and Dayan [@watkins1989learning; @watkins1992q] that an online $Q$-learning algorithm is guaranteed to converge to the optimal policy, provided that every state is visited an infinite number of times. However, the convergence of Watkins’ Q-learning can be prohibitively slow in MDPs where $\epsilon$-greedy action selection explores state space randomly. Later work developed reinforcement learning algorithms with provably fast (polynomial-time) convergence (@kearns2002near [@brafman2002r; @strehl2006pac]). At the core of these provably-optimal learning methods is some exploration strategy, which actively encourages the agent to visit novel state-action pairs. For example, R-MAX optimistically assumes that infrequently-visited states provide maximal reward, and delayed $Q$-learning initializes the $Q$-function with high values to ensure that each state-action is chosen enough times to drive the value down. Since the theoretically sound RL algorithms are not computationally practical in the deep RL setting, deep RL implementations often use simple exploration methods such as $\epsilon$-greedy and Boltzmann exploration, which are often sample-inefficient and fail to find good policies. One common approach of exploration in deep RL is to construct an exploration bonus, which adds a reward for visiting state-action pairs that are deemed to be novel or informative. In particular, several prior methods define an exploration bonus based on a density model or dynamics model. Examples include VIME by @houthooft2016vime, which uses variational inference on the forward-dynamics model, and @tang2016exploration, @bellemare2016unifying, @ostrovski2017count, @fu2017ex2. While these methods yield successful exploration in some problems, a major drawback is that this exploration bonus does not depend on the rewards, so the exploration may focus on irrelevant aspects of the environment, which are unrelated to reward. Bayesian reinforcement learning {#section:bayesian} ------------------------------- Earlier works on Bayesian reinforcement learning include @dearden1998bayesian [@dearden1999model]. @dearden1998bayesian studied Bayesian $Q$-learning in the model-free setting and learned the distribution of $Q^$-values through Bayesian updates. The prior and posterior specification relied on several simplifying assumptions, some of which are not compatible with the MDP setting. @dearden1999model took a model-based approach that updates the posterior distribution of the MDP. The algorithm samples from the MDP posterior multiple times and solving the $Q^$ values at every step. This approach is only feasible for RL problems with very small state space and action space. @strens2000bayesian proposed posterior sampling for reinforcement learning (PSRL). PSRL instead takes a single sample of the MDP from the posterior in each episode and solves the $Q^$ values. Recent works including @osband2013more and @osband2016posterior established near-optimal Bayesian regret bounds for episodic RL. @sorg2012variance models the environment and constructs exploration bonus from variance of model parameters. These methods are experimented on low dimensional problems only, because the computational cost of these methods is intractable for high dimensional RL. Bootstrapped DQN {#section:bootstrap} ---------------- Inspired by PSRL, but wanting to reduce computational cost, prior work developed approximate methods. @osband2014generalization proposed randomized least-square value iteration for linearly-parameterized value functions. Bootstrapped DQN @osband2016deep applies to $Q$-functions parameterized by deep neural networks. Bootstrapped DQN (@osband2016deep) maintains a $Q$-ensemble, represented by a multi-head neural net structure to parameterize $K \in \mathbb{N}_+$ $Q$-functions. This multi-head structure shares the convolution layers but includes multiple “heads”, each of which defines a $Q$-function $Q_k$. Bootstrapped DQN diversifies the $Q$-ensemble through two mechanisms. The first mechanism is independent initialization. The second mechanism applies different samples to train each $Q$-function. These $Q$-functions can be trained simultaneously by combining their loss functions with the help of a random mask $m_{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}_+^K$ $$L = \sum\nolimits_{\tau \in B_{\mathrm{mini}} }\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^K m_{\tau}^k \cdot ( Q^k(s, a; \theta) - y_{\tau}^{Q_k})^2,$$ where $y_{\tau}^{Q_k}$ is the target of the $k$th $Q$-function. Thus, the transition $\tau$ updates $Q_k$ only if $m_{\tau}^k$ is nonzero. To avoid the overestimation issue in DQN, bootstrapped DQN calculates the target value $y_{\tau}^{Q_k}$ using the approach of Double DQN (@van2016deep), such that the current $Q_k(\cdot; \theta_t)$ network determines the optimal action and the target network $Q_k(\cdot; \theta^-)$ estimates the value $$y_{\tau}^{Q_k} = r + \gamma \max_a Q^k(s', \operatorname{argmax}_a Q_k(s', a; \theta_t); \theta^-).$$ In their experiments on Atari games, @osband2016deep set the mask $m_{\tau}=(1, \dots, 1)$ such that all $\{Q_k\}$ are trained with the same samples and their only difference is initialization. Bootstrapped DQN picks one $Q_k$ uniformly at random at the start of an episode and follows the greedy action $a_t = \operatorname{argmax}_a Q_k(s_t, a)$ for the whole episode. Approximating Bayesian $\boldsymbol{Q}$-learning with $\boldsymbol{Q}$-Ensembles ================================================================================ Ignoring computational costs, the ideal Bayesian approach to reinforcement learning is to maintain a posterior over the MDP. However, with limited computation and model capacity, it is more tractable to maintain a posterior of the $Q^$-function. In this section, we first derive a posterior update formula for the $Q^$-function under full exploration assumption and this formula turns out to depend on the transition Markov chain (). The Bellman equation emerges as an approximation of the log-likelihood. This motivates using a $Q$-ensemble as a particle-based approach to approximate the posterior over $Q^$-function and an Ensemble Voting algorithm (). Bayesian update for $\boldsymbol{Q}^$ {#section:bayes-Q} -------------------------------------- An MDP is specified by the transition probability $T$ and the reward function $R$. Unlike prior works outlined in Section \[section:bayesian\] which learned the posterior of the MDP, we will consider the joint distribution over $(Q^, T)$. Note that $R$ can be recovered from $Q^$ given $T$. So $(Q^, T)$ determines a unique MDP. In this section, we assume that the agent samples $(s, a)$ according to a fixed distribution. The corresponding reward $r$ and next state $s'$ given by the MDP append to $(s, a)$ to form a transition $\tau = (s, a, r, s’)$, for updating the posterior of $(Q^, T)$. Recall that the $Q^$-function satisfies the Bellman equation $$Q(s, a) = r + \mathbb{E}_{s' \sim T(\cdot \|s, a)} \left[ \gamma \max_{a'}Q(s', a') \right].$$ Denote the joint prior distribution as $p(Q^, T)$ and the posterior as $\tilde{p}$. We apply Bayes’ formula to expand the posterior: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{p}(Q^, T \| \tau ) & = \frac{ p(\tau \| Q^, T) \cdot p(Q^, T) }{Z(\tau)} \nonumber \\ & = \frac{p(Q^, T) \cdot p(s' \| Q^, T, (s, a)) \cdot p(r \| Q^, T, (s, a, s')) \cdot p(s,a) }{Z(\tau)} \label{eqn:bayes},\end{aligned}$$ where $Z(\tau)$ is a normalizing constant and the second equality is because $s$ and $a$ are sampled randomly from $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{A}$. Next, we calculate the two conditional probabilities in . First, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:cond-1} p( s'\|Q^, T, (s, a)) = p(s'\| T, (s, a)) = T(s'\|s, a),\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality is because given $T$, $Q^$ does not influence the transition. Second, $$\begin{aligned} p(r \|Q^, T, (s, a, s')) & = p(r \| Q^, T, (s, a)) \nonumber\\ & = \mathbbm{1}_{\{ Q^(s, a) = r + \gamma \cdot \mathbb{E}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'} Q^(s'', a') \}} \nonumber\\ &:= \mathbbm{1}(Q^, T), \label{eqn:cond-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbbm{1}_{\{\cdot\}}$ is the indicator function and in the last equation we abbreviate it as $\mathbbm{1}(Q^, T)$. Substituting and into , we obtain the joint posterior of $Q^$ and $T$ after observing an additional randomly sampled transition $\tau$ $$\label{eqn:bayes-update} \tilde{p}(Q^, T \| \tau ) = \frac{p(Q^, T) \cdot T(s'\|s, a) \cdot p(s,a)}{Z(\tau)} \cdot \mathbbm{1}(Q^, T).$$ We point out that the exact $Q^$-posterior update is intractable in high-dimensional RL due to the large space of $(Q^, T)$. $\boldsymbol{Q}$-learning with $\boldsymbol{Q}$-ensembles {#section:approximation} --------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we make several approximations to the $Q^$-posterior update and derive a tractable algorithm. First, we approximate the prior of $Q^$ by sampling $K \in \mathbb{N}_+$ independently initialized $Q^$-functions $\{Q_k\}_{k=1}^K$. Next, we update them as more transitions are sampled. The resulting $\{Q_k\}$ approximate samples drawn from the posterior. The agent chooses the action by taking a majority vote from the actions determined by each $Q_k$. We display our method, Ensemble Voting, in Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\]. We derive the update rule for $\{Q_k\}$ after observing a new transition $\tau=(s, a, r, s')$. At iteration $i$, given $Q^=Q_{k, i}$ the joint probability of $(Q^, T)$ factors into $$\label{eqn:prior-factor} p(Q_{k,i}, T) = p(Q^, T\| Q^=Q_{k,i} ) = p(T\| Q_{k, i}).$$ Substitute into and we obtain the corresponding posterior for each $Q_{k, i+1}$ at iteration $i+1$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:new-posterior} \tilde{p}(Q_{k, i+1}, T\|\tau) &= \frac{p(T\|Q_{k, i}) \cdot T(s'\|s, a) \cdot p(s, a) }{Z(\tau)} \cdot \mathbbm{1}(Q_{k, i+1}, T).\\ \tilde{p}(Q_{k, i+1} \| \tau) &= \int_{T} \tilde{p}(Q_{k, i+1}, T\|\tau) \mathrm{d} T = p(s, a) \cdot \int_{T} \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau) \cdot \mathbbm{1}(Q_{k, i+1}, T) \mathrm{d} T.\end{aligned}$$ We update $Q_{k, i}$ to $Q_{k, i+1}$ according to $$\label{eqn:update-Q-k} Q_{k, i+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{argmax}_{Q_{k, i+1}} \tilde{p}(Q_{k, i+1}\|\tau).$$ We first derive a lower bound of the the posterior $\tilde{p}(Q_{k,i+1}\|\tau)$: $$\begin{aligned} & \tilde{p}(Q_{k, i+1}\|\tau) = p(s, a)\cdot {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)} \mathbbm{1}(Q_{k, i+1}, T) \nonumber \\ & = p(s, a) \cdot {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)} \lim_{c\rightarrow + \infty} \exp\big(-c [Q_{k, i+1}(s,a) - r - \gamma {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'}Q_{k,i+1}(s'', a')]^2\big) \nonumber \\ & = p(s, a) \cdot \lim_{c\rightarrow + \infty} {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)} \exp\big(-c [Q_{k, i+1}(s,a) - r - \gamma {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'}Q_{k,i+1}(s'', a')]^2\big) \nonumber \\ & \geq p(s, a) \cdot \lim_{c\rightarrow + \infty} \exp\big(- c {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)}[Q_{k, i+1}(s,a) - r - \gamma {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'}Q_{k,i+1}(s'', a')]^2 \big) \nonumber \\ & = p(s, a) \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)}[Q_{k, i+1}(s,a) - r - \gamma {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'}Q_{k,i+1}(s'', a')]^2=0}. \label{eqn:ind-hold}\end{aligned}$$ where we apply a limit representation of the indicator function in the third equation. The fourth equation is due to the bounded convergence theorem. The inequality is Jensen’s inequality. The last equation replaces the limit with an indicator function. A sufficient condition for is to maximize the lower-bound of the posterior distribution in by ensuring the indicator function in to hold. We can replace with the following update $$\label{eqn:Q-k} Q_{k, i+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{argmin}_{Q_{k, i+1}} {\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{T \sim \tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k,i}, \tau)} \big[ Q_{k, i+1}(s, a) -\big( r + \gamma \cdot \mathbb{E}_{s'' \sim T(\cdot\|s, a)} \max_{a'} Q_{k, i+1}(s'', a') \big) \big]^2.$$ However, is not tractable because the expectation in is taken with respect to the posterior $\tilde{p}(T\|Q_{k, i}, \tau)$ of the transition $T$. To overcome this challenge, we approximate the posterior update by reusing the one-sample next state $s'$ from $\tau$ such that $$Q_{k, i+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{argmin}_{Q_{k, i+1}} \big[ Q_{k, i+1}(s, a) -\big( r + \gamma \cdot \max_{a'} Q_{k, i+1}(s', a') \big) \big]^2.$$ Instead of updating the posterior after each transition, we use an experience replay buffer $B$ to store observed transitions and sample a minibatch $B_{\mathrm{mini}}$ of transitions $(s, a, r, s')$ for each update. In this case, the batched update of each $Q_{k, i}$ to $Q_{k, i+1}$ becomes a standard Bellman update $$\label{eqn:approx-Q-k-update} Q_{k, i+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{argmin}_{Q_{k, i+1}} \mathbb{E}_{(s, a, r, s') \in B_{\mathrm{mini}}} \big[ Q_{k, i+1}(s, a) -\big( r + \gamma \cdot \max_{a'} Q_{k, i+1}(s', a') \big) \big]^2.$$ For stability, Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\] also uses a target network for each $Q_{k}$ as in Double DQN in the batched update. We point out that the action choice of Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\] is exploitation only. In the next section, we propose two exploration strategies. : $K \in \mathbb{N}_+$ copies of independently initialized $Q^$-functions $\{Q_k\}_{k=1}^K$. Let $B$ be a replay buffer storing transitions for training do Obtain initial state from environment $s_0$ Pick an action according to $a_t = \mathrm{Majority Vote}(\{\operatorname{argmax}_a Q_k(s_t, a)\}_{k=1}^K)$ Execute $a_t$. Receive state $s_{t+1}$ and reward $r_t$ from the environment Add $(s_t, a_t, r_t, s_{t+1})$ to replay buffer $B$ At learning interval, sample random minibatch and update $\{Q_k\}$ UCB Exploration Strategy Using $\boldsymbol{Q}$-Ensembles ========================================================= In this section, we propose optimism-based exploration by adapting the UCB algorithms (@auer2002finite [@audibert2009exploration]) from the bandit setting. The UCB algorithms maintain an upper-confidence bound for each arm, such that the expected reward from pulling each arm is smaller than this bound with high probability. At every time step, the agent optimistically chooses the arm with the highest UCB. @auer2002finite constructed the UCB based on empirical reward and the number of times each arm is chosen. @audibert2009exploration incorporated the empirical variance of each arm’s reward into the UCB, such that at time step $t$, an arm $A_t$ is pulled according to $$A_t = \operatorname{argmax}_{i}\Big\{ \hat{r}_{i, t} + c_1 \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\hat{V}_{i,t} \log(t) }{n_{i,t}}} + c_2 \cdot \frac{\log(t)}{n_{i, t}} \Big\}$$ where $\hat{r}_{i, t}$ and $\hat{V}_{i,t}$ are the empirical reward and variance of arm $i$ at time $t$, $n_{i, t}$ is the number of times arm $i$ has been pulled up to time $t$, and $c_1, c_2$ are positive constants. We extend the intuition of UCB algorithms to the RL setting. Using the outputs of the $\{Q_k\}$ functions, we construct a UCB by adding the empirical standard deviation $\tilde{\sigma}(s_t, a)$ of $\{Q_k(s_t, a)\}_{k=1}^K$ to the empirical mean $\tilde{\mu}(s_t, a)$ of $\{Q_k(s_t, a)\}_{k=1}^K$. The agent chooses the action that maximizes this UCB $$\label{eqn:ucb-action} a_t \in \operatorname{argmax}_a \big\{ \tilde{\mu}(s_t, a)+ \lambda \cdot \tilde{\sigma}(s_t, a)\big\},$$ where $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}_+$ is a hyperparameter. We present Algorithm \[algo:second-improv\], which incorporates the UCB exploration. The hyperparemeter $\lambda$ controls the degrees of exploration. In Section \[section:exp\], we compare the performance of our algorithms on Atari games using a consistent set of parameters. Value function networks $Q$ with $K$ outputs $\{Q_k\}_{k=1}^K$. Hyperparameter $\lambda$. Let $B$ be a replay buffer storing experience for training. Obtain initial state from environment $s_0$ Pick an action according to $a_t \in \operatorname{argmax}_a \big\{ \tilde{\mu}(s_t, a)+ \lambda \cdot \tilde{\sigma}(s_t, a)\big\}$ Receive state $s_{t+1}$ and reward $r_t$ from environment, having taken action $a_t$ Add $(s_t, a_t, r_t, s_{t+1})$ to replay buffer $B$ At learning interval, sample random minibatch and update $\{Q_k\}$ according to Experiment {#section:exp} ========== In this section, we conduct experiments to answer the following questions: 1. does Ensemble Voting, Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\], improve upon existing algorithms including Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN? 2. is the proposed UCB exploration strategy of Algorithm \[algo:second-improv\] effective in improving learning compared to Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\]? 3. how does UCB exploration compare with prior exploration methods such as the count-based exploration method of @bellemare2016unifying? We evaluate the algorithms on each Atari game of the Arcade Learning Environment (@bellemare2013arcade). We use the multi-head neural net architecture of @osband2016deep. We fix the common hyperparameters of all algorithms based on a well-tuned double DQN implementation, which uses the Adam optimizer (@kingma2014adam), different learning rate and exploration schedules compared to @mnih2015human. Appendix \[app:param\] tabulates the hyperparameters. The number of $\{Q_k\}$ functions is $K=10$. Experiments are conducted on the OpenAI Gym platform (@brockman2016openai) and trained with $40$ million frames and $2$ trials on each game. We take the following directions to evaluate the performance of our algorithms: 1. we compare Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\] against Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN, 2. we isolate the impact of UCB exploration by comparing Algorithm \[algo:second-improv\] with $\lambda=0.1$, denoted as $\texttt{ucb exploration}$, against Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\]. 3. we compare Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\] and Algorithm \[algo:second-improv\] with the count-based exploration method of @bellemare2016unifying. 4. we aggregate the comparison according to different categories of games, to understand when our methods are suprior. Figure \[fig:normalized\] compares the normalized learning curves of all algorithms across Atari games. Overall, Ensemble Voting, Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\], outperforms both Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN. With exploration, $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ improves further by outperforming Ensemble Voting. In Appendix \[app:table\], we tabulate detailed results that compare our algorithms, Ensemble Voting and $\texttt{ucb exploration}$, against prior methods. In Table \[tab:my\_label\], we tabulate the maximal mean reward in $100$ consecutive episodes for Ensemble Voting, $\texttt{ucb exploration}$, bootstrapped DQN and Double DQN. Without exploration, Ensemble Voting already achieves higher maximal mean reward than both Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN in a majority of Atari games. $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ achieves the highest maximal mean reward among these four algorithms in 30 games out of the total 49 games evaluated. Figure \[fig:all\] displays the learning curves of these five algorithms on a set of six Atari games. Ensemble Voting outperforms Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN. $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ outperforms Ensemble Voting. In Table \[tab:compare\_with\_bellemare\], we compare our proposed methods with the count-based exploration method A3C+ of @bellemare2016unifying based on their published results of A3C+ trained with 200 million frames. We point out that even though our methods were trained with only 40 million frames, much less than A3C+’s 200 million frames, UCB exploration achieves the highest average reward in 28 games, Ensemble Voting in 10 games, and A3C+ in 10 games. Our approach outperforms A3C+. Finally to understand why and when the proposed methods are superior, we aggregate the comparison results according to four categories: Human Optimal, Score Explicit, Dense Reward, and Sparse Reward. These categories follow the taxonomy in Table 1 of @ostrovski2017count. Out of all games evaluated, 23 games are Human Optimal, 8 are Score Explicit, 8 are Dense Reward, and 5 are Sparse Reward. The comparison results are tabulated in Table \[tab:compare\_each\_category\], where we see $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ achieves top performance in more games than Ensemble Voting, Double DQN, and Bootstrapped DQN in the categories of Human Optimal, Score Explicit, and Dense Reward. In Sparse Reward, both $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ and Ensemble Voting achieve best performance in 2 games out of total of 5. Thus, we conclude that $\texttt{ucb exploration}$ improves prior methods consistently across different game categories within the Arcade Learning Environment. Conclusion ========== We proposed a $Q$-ensemble approach to deep $Q$-learning, a computationally practical algorithm inspired by Bayesian reinforcement learning that outperforms Double DQN and bootstrapped DQN, as evaluated on Atari. The key ingredient is the UCB exploration strategy, inspired by bandit algorithms. Our experiments show that the exploration strategy achieves improved learning performance on the majority of Atari games. Hyperparameters {#app:param} =============== We tabulate the hyperparameters in our well-tuned implementation of double DQN in Table \[table:param\]: [p[3cm]{}lp[4.8cm]{}]{} hyperparameter & value & descriptions\ total training frames & $40$ million& Length of training for each game.\ \ minibatch size & 32 & Size of minibatch samples for each parameter update.\ \ replay buffer size & 1000000 & The number of most recent frames stored in replay buffer.\ \ agent history length & 4 & The number of most recent frames concatenated as input to the Q network. Total number of iterations = total training frames / agent history length.\ \ target network update frequency & 10000 & The frequency of updating target network, in the number of parameter updates.\ \ discount factor & 0.99 & Discount factor for Q value.\ \ action repeat & 4 & Repeat each action selected by the agent this many times. A value of 4 means the agent sees every 4th frame.\ \ update frequency & 4 & The number of actions between successive parameter updates.\ \ optimizer & Adam & Optimizer for parameter updates.\ \ $\beta_1$ & 0.9 & Adam optimizer parameter.\ \ $\beta_2$ & 0.99 & Adam optimizer parameter.\ \ $\epsilon$ & $10^{-4}$ & Adam optimizer parameter.\ \ learning rate schedule & $\left\{\begin{matrix} 10^{-4} & t \leq 10^6\\ Interp(10^{-4}, 510^{-5}) & \text{otherwise}\\ 5 * 10^{-5} & t > 510^6 \end{matrix}\right.$ & Learning rate for Adam optimizer, as a function of iteration $t$.\ \ exploration schedule & $\left\{\begin{matrix} Interp(1, 0.1) & t <10^6\\ Interp(0.1, 0.01) & \text{otherwise} \\ 0.01 & t > 510^6 \end{matrix}\right.$& Probability of random action in $\epsilon$-greedy exploration, as a function of the iteration $t$ .\ \ replay start size & 50000 & Number of uniform random actions taken before learning starts.\ Results tables {#app:table} ============== Bootstrapped DQN Double DQN Ensemble Voting UCB-Exploration ------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------------- ------------------- Alien 1445.1 2059.7 2282.8 [2817.6]{} Amidar 430.58 667.5 [683.72]{} 663.8 Assault 2519.06 2820.61 3213.58 [3702.76]{} Asterix 3829.0 7639.5 [8740.0 ]{} 8732.0 Asteroids 1009.5 1002.3 [1149.3 ]{} 1007.8 Atlantis 1314058.0 1982677.0 1786305.0 [2016145.0]{} Bank Heist 795.1 789.9 869.4 [906.9]{} Battle Zone 26230.0 24880.0 [27430.0]{} 26770.0 Beam Rider 8006.58 7743.74 7991.9 [9188.26]{} Bowling 28.62 30.92 32.92 [38.06]{} Boxing 85.91 94.07 94.47 [98.08]{} Breakout 400.22 [467.45]{} 426.78 411.31 Centipede 5328.77 5177.51 6153.28 [6237.18]{} Chopper Command 2153.0 3260.0 3544.0 [3677.0]{} Crazy Climber 110926.0 124456.0 126677.0 [127754.0]{} Demon Attack 9811.45 23562.55 30004.4 [59861.9]{} Double Dunk -10.82 -14.58 -11.94 [-4.08]{} Enduro 1314.31 1439.59 1999.88 [2752.55]{} Fishing Derby 21.89 23.69 [30.02]{} 29.71 Freeway 33.57 32.93 33.92 [33.96]{} Frostbite 1284.8 529.2 1196.0 [1903.0]{} Gopher 7652.2 12030.0 10993.2 [12910.8]{} Gravitar 227.5 279.5 [371.5]{} 318.0 Ice Hockey -4.62 -4.63 [-1.73]{} -4.71 Jamesbond 594.5 594.0 602.0 [710.0]{} Kangaroo 8186.0 7787.0 8174.0 [14196.0]{} Krull 8537.52 8517.91 8669.17 [9171.61]{} Kung Fu Master 24153.0 [32896.0]{} 30988.0 31291.0 Montezuma Revenge 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 Ms Pacman 2508.7 2498.1 3039.7 [3425.4]{} Name This Game 8212.4 [9806.9]{} 9255.1 9570.5 Pitfall -5.99 -7.57 -3.37 [-1.47]{} Pong 21.0 20.67 21.0 20.95 Private Eye 1815.19 788.63 [1845.28]{} 1252.01 Qbert 10557.25 6529.5 12036.5 [14198.25]{} Riverraid 11528.0 11834.7 12785.8 [15622.2]{} Road Runner 52489.0 49039.0 [54768.0]{} 53596.0 Robotank 21.03 29.8 31.83 [41.04]{} Seaquest 9320.7 18056.4 20458.6 [24001.6]{} Space Invaders 1549.9 1917.5 1890.8 [2626.55]{} Star Gunner 20115.0 [52283.0]{} 41684.0 47367.0 Tennis -15.11 -14.04 -11.63 [-7.8]{} Time Pilot 5088.0 5548.0 6153.0 [6490.0]{} Tutankham 167.47 [223.43]{} 208.61 200.76 Up N Down 9049.1 11815.3 19528.3 [19827.3]{} Venture [115.0]{} 96.0 78.0 67.0 Video Pinball 364600.85 [374686.89]{} 343380.29 372564.11 Wizard Of Wor 2860.0 3877.0 5451.0 [5873.0]{} Zaxxon 592.0 [8903.0]{} 3901.0 3695.0 Times best 1 7 9 30 : Comparison of maximal mean rewards achieved by agents. Maximal mean reward is calculated in a window of $100$ consecutive episodes. Bold denotes the highest value in each row.[]{data-label="tab:my_label"} Ensemble Voting UCB-Exploration A3C+ ------------------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------ Alien 2282.8 [2817.6]{} 1848.33 Amidar 683.72 663.8 [964.77]{} Assault 3213.58 [3702.76]{} 2607.28 Asterix [8740.0 ]{} 8732.0 7262.77 Asteroids 1149.3 1007.8 [2257.92]{} Atlantis 1786305.0 [2016145.0]{} 1733528.71 Bank Heist 869.4 906.9 [991.96]{} Battle Zone [27430.0]{} 26770.0 7428.99 Beam Rider 7991.9 [9188.26]{} 5992.08 Bowling 32.92 38.06 [68.72]{} Boxing 94.47 [98.08]{} 13.82 Breakout [426.78]{} 411.31 323.21 Centipede 6153.28 [6237.18]{} 5338.24 Chopper Command 3544.0 3677.0 [5388.22]{} Crazy Climber 126677.0 [127754.0]{} 104083.51 Demon Attack 30004.4 [59861.9]{} 19589.95 Double Dunk -11.94 [-4.08]{} -8.88 Enduro 1999.88 [2752.55]{} 749.11 Fishing Derby [30.02]{} 29.71 29.46 Freeway 33.92 [33.96]{} 27.33 Frostbite 1196.0 [1903.0]{} 506.61 Gopher 10993.2 [12910.8]{} 5948.40 Gravitar [371.5]{} 318.0 246.02 Ice Hockey [-1.73]{} -4.71 -7.05 Jamesbond 602.0 710.0 [1024.16]{} Kangaroo 8174.0 [14196.0]{} 5475.73 Krull 8669.17 [9171.61]{} 7587.58 Kung Fu Master 30988.0 [31291.0 ]{} 26593.67 Montezuma Revenge 1.0 4.0 [142.50]{} Ms Pacman 3039.7 [3425.4]{} 2380.58 Name This Game 9255.1 [9570.5]{} 6427.51 Pitfall -3.37 [-1.47]{} -155.97 Pong [21.0]{} 20.95 17.33 Private Eye [1845.28]{} 1252.01 100.0 Qbert 12036.5 14198.25 [15804.72]{} Riverraid 12785.8 [15622.2]{} 10331.56 Road Runner [54768.0]{} 53596.0 49029.74 Robotank 31.83 [41.04]{} 6.68 Seaquest 20458.6 [24001.6]{} 2274.06 Space Invaders 1890.8 [2626.55]{} 1466.01 Star Gunner 41684.0 47367.0 [52466.84]{} Tennis -11.63 [-7.8]{} -20.49 Time Pilot 6153.0 [6490.0]{} 3816.38 Tutankham [208.61]{} 200.76 132.67 Up N Down 19528.3 [19827.3]{} 8705.64 Venture [78.0]{} 67.0 0.00 Video Pinball 343380.29 [372564.11]{} 35515.92 Wizard Of Wor 5451.0 [5873.0]{} 3657.65 Zaxxon 3901.0 3695.0 [7956.05]{} Times Best 10 28 10 : Comparison of Ensemble Voting, UCB Exploration, both trained with 40 million frames and A3C+ of [@bellemare2016unifying], trained with 200 million frames[]{data-label="tab:compare_with_bellemare"} Category Total Bootstrapped DQN Double DQN Ensemble Voting UCB-Exploration ---------------- ------- ------------------ ------------ ----------------- ----------------- Human Optimal 23 0 3 5 15 Score Explicit 8 0 2 1 5 Dense Reward 8 0 1 1 6 Sparse Reward 5 1 0 2 2 : Comparison of each method across different game categories. The Atari games are separated into four categories: human optimal, score explicit, dense reward, and sparse reward. In each row, we present the number of games in this category, the total number of games where each algorithm achieves the optimal performance according to Table \[tab:my\_label\]. The game categories follow the taxonomy in Table 1 of [@ostrovski2017count][]{data-label="tab:compare_each_category"} InfoGain exploration ==================== In this section, we also studied an “InfoGain” exploration bonus, which encourages agents to gain information about the $Q^$-function and examine its effectiveness. We found it had some benefits on top of Ensemble Voting, but no uniform additional benefits once already using Q-ensembles on top of Double DQN. We describe the approach and our experimental findings here. Similar to @sun2011planning, we define the information gain from observing an additional transition $\tau_n$ as $$H_{\tau_t\| \tau_1, \dots, \tau_{n-1}} = D_{KL}(\tilde{p}(Q^\|\tau_1, \dots, \tau_n) \|\| \tilde{p}(Q^\|\tau_1, \dots, \tau_{n-1}))$$ where $\tilde{p}(Q^ \|\tau_1, \dots, \tau_n)$ is the posterior distribution of $Q^$ after observing a sequence of transitions $(\tau_1, \dots, \tau_n)$. The total information gain is $$\label{eqn:info-gain} H_{\tau_1, \dots, \tau_N} = \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^N H_{\tau_n\| \tau_1, \dots, \tau_{n-1}}.$$ Our Ensemble Voting, Algorithm \[algo:approx-bayes-q\], does not maintain the posterior $\tilde{p}$, thus we cannot calculate explicitly. Instead, inspired by @lakshminarayanan2016simple, we define an InfoGain exploration bonus that measures the disagreement among $\{Q_k\}$. Note that $$H_{\tau_1, \dots, \tau_N} + \mathsf{H}(\tilde{p}(Q^\|\tau_1, \dots, \tau_N)) = \mathsf{H}(p(Q^)),$$ where $\mathsf{H}(\cdot)$ is the entropy. If $H_{\tau_1, \dots, \tau_N}$ is small, then the posterior distribution has high entropy and high residual information. Since $\{Q_k\}$ are approximate samples from the posterior, high entropy of the posterior leads to large discrepancy among $\{Q_k\}$. Thus, the exploration bonus is monotonous with respect to the residual information in the posterior $\mathsf{H}(\tilde{p}(Q^\|\tau_1, \dots, \tau_N))$. We first compute the Boltzmann distribution for each $Q_k$ $$P_{\mathsf{T}, k} (a\|s) = \frac{\exp\big(Q_k(s, a)/\mathsf{T}\big)}{\sum\nolimits_{a'} \exp\big(Q_k(s, a')/\mathsf{T}\big)},$$ where $\mathsf{T} > 0$ is a temperature parameter. Next, calculate the average Boltzmann distribution $$P_{\mathsf{T}, \mathrm{avg}} = \frac{1}{K} \cdot \sum\nolimits_{k=1}^K P_{\mathsf{T}, k} (a\|s).$$ The InfoGain exploration bonus is the average KL-divergence from $\{P_{\mathsf{T}, k}\}_{k=1}^K$ to $P_{\mathsf{T}, \mathrm{avg}}$ $$\label{eqn:bonus} b_{\mathsf{T}}(s) = \frac{1}{K} \cdot \sum\nolimits_{k=1}^K \mathrm{D}_{KL}[ P_{\mathsf{T}, k} \|\| P_{\mathsf{T}, \mathrm{avg}}].$$ The modified reward is $$\label{eqn:modified-reward} \hat{r}(s, a, s') = r(s, a) + \rho \cdot b_{\mathsf{T}}(s),$$ where $\rho \in \mathbb{R}_+$ is a hyperparameter that controls the degree of exploration. The exploration bonus $b_{\mathsf{T}}(s_t)$ encourages the agent to explore where $\{Q_k\}$ disagree. The temperature parameter $\mathsf{T}$ controls the sensitivity to discrepancies among $\{Q_k\}$. When $\mathsf{T} \rightarrow +\infty$, $\{P_{\mathsf{T}, k}\}$ converge to the uniform distribution on the action space and $b_{\mathsf{T}}(s) \rightarrow 0$. When $\mathsf{T}$ is small, the differences among $\{Q_k\}$ are magnified and $b_{\mathsf{T}}(s)$ is large. We display Algorithrim \[algo:infogain\], which incorporates our InfoGain exploration bonus into Algorithm \[algo:second-improv\]. The hyperparameters $\lambda$, $\mathsf{T}$ and $\rho$ vary for each game. Value function networks $Q$ with $K$ outputs $\{Q_k\}_{k=1}^K$. Hyperparameters $\mathsf{T}, \lambda$, and $\rho$. Let $B$ be a replay buffer storing experience for training. Obtain initial state from environment $s_0$ Pick an action according to $a_t \in \operatorname*{argmax}_a \big\{ \tilde{\mu}(s_t, a)+ \lambda \cdot \tilde{\sigma}(s_t, a)\big\}$ Receive state $s_{t+1}$ and reward $r_t$ from environment, having taken action $a_t$ Calculate exploration bonus $b_{\mathsf{T}}(s_t)$ according to Add $(s_t, a_t, r_t + \rho \cdot b_{\mathsf{T}}(s_t), s_{t+1})$ to replay buffer $B$ At learning interval, sample random minibatch and update $\{Q_k\}$ Performance of UCB+InfoGain exploration --------------------------------------- We demonstrate the performance of the combined UCB+InfoGain exploration in Figure \[fig:normalized\_with\_infogain\] and Figure \[fig:normalized\_with\_infogain\]. We augment the previous figures in Section \[section:exp\] with the performance of $\texttt{ucb+infogain exploration}$, where we set $\lambda=0.1, \rho=1$, and $\mathsf{T}=1$ in Algorithm \[algo:infogain\]. Figure \[fig:normalized\_with\_infogain\] shows that combining UCB and InfoGain exploration does not lead to uniform improvement in the normalized learning curve. At the individual game level, Figure \[fig:normalized\_with\_infogain\] shows that the impact of InfoGain exploration varies. UCB exploration achieves sufficient exploration in games including Demon Attack and Kangaroo and Riverraid, while InfoGain exploration further improves learning on Enduro, Seaquest, and Up N Down. The effect of InfoGain exploration depends on the choice of the temperature $\mathsf{T}$. The optimal temperature parameter varies across games. In Figure \[fig:temperature\], we display the behavior of $\texttt{ucb+infogain exploration}$ with different temperature values. Thus, we see the InfoGain exploration bonus, tuned with the appropriate temperature parameter, can lead to improved learning for games that require extra exploration, such as ChopperCommand, KungFuMaster, Seaquest, UpNDown. UCB+InfoGain exploration with different temperatures {#app:temp} ----------------------------------------------------	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the statistics $\mathsf{area}$, $\mathsf{bounce}$ and $\mathsf{dinv}$ on the set of parallelogram polyominoes having a rectangular $m$ times $n$ bounding box. We show that the bi-statistics $(\mathsf{area},\mathsf{bounce})$ and $(\mathsf{area},\mathsf{dinv})$ give rise to the same $q,t$-analogue of Narayana numbers which was introduced by two of the authors in [@dukesleborgne]. We prove the main conjectures of that paper: the $q,t$-Narayana polynomials are symmetric in both $q$ and $t$, and $m$ and $n$. This is accomplished by providing a symmetric functions interpretation of the $q,t$-Narayana polynomials which relates them to the famous diagonal harmonics.' address: - 'LaBRI, Université de Bordeaux, CNRS, 351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence, France' - \| Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)\ Département de Mathématique\ Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles\ Belgium - \| University of Strathclyde\ Department of Computer and Information Sciences\ 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ\ Scotland, United Kingdom - \| UCSD\ Department of Mathematics\ 9500 Gilman Drive\ 92093-0112 La Jolla, USA author: - 'Jean-Christophe Aval$^{}$' - 'Michele D’Adderio' - \| \ Mark Dukes - 'Angela Hicks$^{\dag}$' - Yvan Le Borgne title: 'Statistics on parallelogram polyominoes and a $q,t$-analogue of the Narayana numbers' --- [^1] [^2] Introduction {#sec:one} ============ A [[parallelogram polyomino]{}]{} having an $m\times n$ [[bounding box]{}]{} is a polyomino in a rectangle consisting of $m\times n$ cells that is formed by cutting out two (possibly empty) non-touching standard Young tableaux which have corners at $(0,n)$ and $(m,0)$. An example of a parallelogram polyomino having a $12\times 7$ bounding box is illustrated in Figure \[fig1\]. Let $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ be the set of all [parallelogram polyominoes]{} having a rectangular $m\times n$ bounding box. The cardinality of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ is known to be $N(m+n-1,m)$ where for positive integers $a$ and $b$, $$N(a,b):=\frac{1}{a}{a \choose b} {a \choose b-1}$$ are the famous Narayana numbers. Two authors of this work introduced [@dukesleborgne] two statistics on these combinatorial objects, $\mathsf{area}$ and $\mathsf{bounce}$, which led to a $q,t$-analogue of the Narayana numbers $N(m+n-1,m)$, namely $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t):=\sum_{P \in \mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n} }q^{\mathsf{area}(P)}t^{\mathsf{bounce}(P)},$$ that they called the $q,t$-Narayana polynomial. In that same work it was conjectured that the $q,t$-Narayana polynomials are symmetric in $q$ and $t$, and as expressions were also symmetric in $m$ and $n$. We introduce a new statistic $\mathsf{dinv}$ which gives a new $q,t$-analogue of the same numbers $$\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t):=\sum_{P }q^{\mathsf{dinv}(P)}t^{\mathsf{area}(P)}.$$ The following theorem establishes a relation between these two polynomials. For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t).$$ We give two proofs of this result, one using an explicit bijection, and another one using a recursion. The main result of this paper is the proof of the symmetries conjectured in [@dukesleborgne]. For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(t,q)$$ and $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}(q,t).$$ In particular $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t).$$ In order to prove this result, we will give a symmetric functions interpretation of our $q,t$-Narayana numbers: For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$ we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=(qt)^{m+n-1}\cdot \langle \nabla e_{m+n-2},h_{m-1} h_{n-1} \rangle ,$$ where $e_k$ and $h_k$ are the elementary and the homogeneous symmetric functions of degree $k$ respectively, $\nabla$ is the well known nabla operator introduced by Bergeron and Garsia (see [@bergeron Section 9.6]), and the scalar product is the usual Hall inner product on symmetric functions. This result establishes a remarkable link between the $q,t$-Narayana polynomials and the well-known diagonal harmonics* $DH_n$, since $\nabla e_n$ is the Frobenius characteristic of this important module of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$, as shown by Haiman in [@haiman]. Haglund [@haglund] gave a combinatorial interpretation of the polynomial $\langle \nabla e_{m+n-2},h_{m-1} h_{n-1} \rangle$ in terms of parking functions. In fact Haglund’s result would be an easy consequence of the famous shuffle conjecture, which predicts a combinatorial interpretation of $\nabla e_n$ in terms of parking functions (see [@haglundbook Chapter 6]), if a proof of it could be found. In order to prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we use the results of Section \[sec:five\], proving that the combinatorial polynomials in Haglund’s result and our $q,t$-Narayana polynomials both satisfy the same recursion. This paper is organized in the following way: - In Section \[sec:two\] we define three statistics on parallelogram polyominoes and two $q,t$-analogues of Narayana numbers. - In Section \[sec:three\] we establish a bijection between our parallelogram polyominoes and a set of Dyck paths. We classify those words that are area words of members of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$. Area words are important in the definition of several statistics mentioned in Section \[sec:two\]. - In Section \[sec:four\] we present a bijection from $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ to $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n,m}$ which sends the bi-statistic $(\mathsf{area},\mathsf{bounce})$ to the bi-statistic $(\mathsf{dinv},\mathsf{area})$, thereby establishing Theorem \[thm:ADinBA\]. - In Section \[sec:five\] we prove a recursion satisfied by both of our $q,t$-Narayana polynomials, which gives another proof of Theorem \[thm:ADinBA\]. - In Section \[sec:six\] we provide the necessary background to state Theorem \[thm:main\], and we show how Theorem \[thm:symmetries\] follows from it. Theorem \[thm:main\] is then proven. Three statistics on parallelogram polyominoes {#sec:two} ============================================= We may give an alternative characterisation of parallelogram polyominoes in terms of non-intersecting paths in the plane. This alternative charaterisation will prove useful in defining the statistics and mappings used in the paper. Consider a rectangular grid in $\mathbb{Z}^2$ of width $m$ and height $n$. On this grid consider two paths, both starting from the Southwest corner and arriving at the Northeast corner, travelling on the grid, performing only North or East steps, with the further restriction that they touch each other only at the starting point and at the ending point. Such a pair of paths uniquely defines a parallelogram polyomino. The region between the two paths is called the interior of the (parallelogram) polyomino. The two paths defining the parallelogram polyomino of Figure \[fig1\] are coloured in red and green, and the interior has been shadowed. ![\[fig1\] A parallelogram polyomino having a $12$ times $7$ bounding box.](Figure1.pdf) In what follows we will encode a parallelogram polyomino as an area word consisting of natural numbers (unbarred numbers) and natural numbers with a bar on top (barred numbers), in the following way. We will label every North step of the upper (red) path with a barred number, and every East step of the lower (green) path with an unbarred number. This is done in two stages. First, for each East step of the lower path we draw a line starting with the East endpoint and going Northwest until reaching the upper path: we label this step with the number of squares crossed by this line. Second, we label each North step of the upper path with the number of squares in the interior of the polyomino to the East of it which were not crossed by any of the lines that we drew during the previous stage. An example of this labelling is shown in Figure \[fig2\], where we put a black dot in the non-crossed squares. ![\[fig2\] The parallelogram polyomino of Figure \[fig1\] with its perimeter labelled.](Figure2.pdf) Once we have done this labelling, we read the labels in the following order: starting from Southwest and going to Northeast imagine moving a straight line of slope $-1$ over the polyomino. When we encounter vertical steps of the upper path or horizontal steps of the lower path we write the corresponding labels. If we encounter both types of steps at the same time then we write the label of the upper path first. The area word of the example in Figure \[fig2\] is $\overline{0}1\overline{1}2\overline{2}322\overline{2}1\overline{1}211\overline{1}2\overline{2}22$. Notice that the sum of these numbers (disregarding the bars) gives the $\mathsf{area}$ of the polyomino, which is the number of squares between the two paths. This is the first of the statistics that are relevant to us. In the example the $\mathsf{area}$ is 30. Next we will define the $\mathsf{dinv}$ statistic. Consider the total order on the labels $$\overline{0}<1<\overline{1}<2<\overline{2}<3<\overline{3}<4<\overline{4}<\cdots.$$ Given a polyomino with area word $a_1a_2\dots a_k$, we define its $\mathsf{dinv}$ as the number of pairs $a_i,a_j$ with $i<j$ and $a_j$ is the immediate successor of $a_i$ in the fixed order. In the example of Figure \[fig2\], the number of such pairs containing $\overline{0}$ is $4$ and the $\mathsf{dinv}$ of the polyomino is 35. The last statistic that we introduce is the $\mathsf{bounce}$. Consider the following path in a given polyomino: begin with a single East step from the Southwest corner, and then move North until reaching the East endpoint of a horizontal step of the upper path; at this point we “bounce”, i.e. we start moving East, until we reach the North endpoint of a vertical step of the lower path; at this point we “bounce” again, start moving North, and we repeat this procedure until we reach the Northeast corner. This path is called the [[bounce path]{}]{}. Once we have the bounce path, starting from Southwest corner, we label each step of the first sequence of vertical steps with $1$, then each step of the second of such sequences with $2$, and so on; we label each step of the first sequence of horizontal steps with $\overline{0}$, then each step of the second of such sequences with $\overline{1}$, and so on. See Figure \[fig3\] for an example of this labelling. ![\[fig3\] The labelled bounce path.](Figure3.pdf) The $\mathsf{bounce}$ of a polyomino is the sum of the labels of its bounce path, disregarding the bars. The $\mathsf{bounce}$ of the parallelogram polyomino in Figure \[fig3\] is 41. These three statistics give rise to a pair of bi-statistics on $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ whose generating functions $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t):=\sum_{P\in \mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}}t^{\mathsf{area}(P)}q^{\mathsf{dinv}(P)}$$ and $$\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t):=\sum_{P\in \mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}}t^{\mathsf{bounce}(P)}q^{\mathsf{area}(P)}.$$ are studied in this paper. The polynomials $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)$ where first introduced in [@dukesleborgne] by two of the authors of the present work. In the same paper, it was conjectured that these were polynomials symmetric in $q$ and $t$, and as expressions symmetric in $m$ and $n$. A bijection with Dyck paths {#sec:three} =========================== In this section we present a bijection ${\mathsf{ptd}}$ between the set $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ and a set of Dyck paths having length $2(m+n)$. We then prove a result which shows how to read the area word of a parallelogram polyomino from its corresponding Dyck path under ${\mathsf{ptd}}$. From this we will get a characterization of the area words of polyominoes from $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ which will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:ADinBA\]. We finally observe that this description provides a way to computationally work with the set of area words of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ by working with the easier to construct set of Dyck paths. Recall that a Dyck path can be thought of as a path consisting of Northeast or Southeast steps lying between parallel horizontal lines, such that the path starts with a Northeast step, it never crosses the starting horizontal line, and returns to it at the end. Its length is simply the number of its steps it contains. Figure \[fig4\] shows an example of a Dyck path having length 38. Notice that a Dyck path is uniquely determined by the sequence of rises and falls we encounter as we move along the path from left to right. We will next describe a bijection between the polyominos in $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ and the set of Dyck path of length $2(m+n)$ with $m$ rises in even positions and $n$ rises in odd positions, which do not return to the starting horizontal line until the end. This bijection appears in [@delestviennot] in a somewhat different language. The idea is to read the steps of the upper and lower paths of a parallogram polyomino $P$ alternatingly and form the Dyck path $D={\mathsf{ptd}}(P)$ by using two rules. We perform a rise of the Dyck path for either a North step of the upper path or an East step of the lower path, and perform a descent of the Dyck path for either an East step of the upper path or a North step of the lower path. Using this construction, the polyomino in Figure \[fig1\] is sent to the Dyck path shown in Figure \[fig4\]. ![\[fig4\] The Dyck path corresponding to the polyomino of Figure \[fig1\].](Figure4.pdf) It should be clear that this mapping sends the parallelogram polyomines to the stated subset of Dyck paths. The fact that the Dyck path does not return to the starting horizontal line before the end corresponds to the fact that the upper and the lower paths do not intersect each other between the starting and ending points. The inverse operation is straightforward to describe and verify. We can easily read the area word of a parallelogram polyomino $P$ from the corresponding Dyck path ${\mathsf{ptd}}(P)$ as we will now describe. Consider the Dyck path in Figure \[fig4\] when reading the next proposition. It consists of Northeast and Southeast steps lying between parallel lines which determine certain rows. Let $P \in \mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ with $D={\mathsf{ptd}}(P)$. If we label the rows of $D$ with $\overline{0},1,\overline{1},2,\overline{2},3,\overline{3},\cdots$ from bottom to top, then reading the labels of the rows of the rises from left to right we get the area word of the polyomino $P$. To prove this proposition, we will use induction on the number of pairs of steps of the upper and lower paths starting form the Southwest corner. At each step of this induction we will consider the partial box that includes the partial paths, i.e. the smallest rectangle that includes them (see Figure \[fig4\_1\]). Then we imagine to complete the paths inside the partial box by moving along the edges to reach the Northeast corner, and we read the labels of the resulting polyomino on the partial paths. ![\[fig4\_1\] The highlighted area is the partial box after the first $6$ steps of both the green path and the red path.](Figure4_1.pdf) We claim that this gives exactly the corresponding part of the area word of the original polyomino. The key observation is the following claim. In the last pair of steps, the label of a North step of the upper path is always the distance from the right edge of the previous partial box, with a bar on top; while the label of a East step of the lower path is always the distance from the upper edge of the partial box. After proving this claim, it remains only to observe that the distance from the right edge of the previous partial box of the North steps of the upper path corresponds to the number of odd rows from the bottom line in the corresponding Dyck path; while the distance from the upper edge of the partial box of the East steps of the lower path corresponds to the number of even rows from the bottom line. This completes the proof of the proposition. At the beginning the upper path is forced to go North and the lower path is forced to go East. The partial box at this point consists of a single square, and we clearly have the partial area word $\overline{0}1$: this is always the beginning of an area word for a polyonimo, and it corresponds to the first two rises in the corresponding Dyck path, as it should be. Now suppose that everything works up to a certain pair of steps, and let us make the next pair of steps. We have four cases (see Figure \[fig5\]): ![\[fig5\] The four cases. The previous partial box is violet, while the new one is black.](Figure5.pdf) : The upper path moves East, and the lower path moves North. Then there are no labels to add, and the previous labels remain unchanged, since the partial box remains unchanged. : Both the upper and the lower paths move North. Then the label of the North step of the upper path is clearly the distance from the right edge of the partial box, which is the same distance from the one of the previous partial box. The previous labels clearly remain unchanged. : Both the upper and the lower paths move East. Then the label of the East step of the lower path is the distance to the upper edge of the partial box. The previous labels of the upper path remain unchanged, since in each row we added just a box crossed by the diagonal corresponding to the new East step of the lower path. The previous labels of the lower path also remain unchanged, since we did not move the upper edge of the partial box. : The upper path moves North, and the lower path moves East. Then the label of the North step of the upper path is the distance from the right edge of the partial box minus 1, since the first box becomes crossed by the diagonal of the East step of the lower path. But this is equal to the distance from the right edge of the previous partial box. The label of the East step of the lower path is clearly the distance from it to the upper edge of the partial box. The previous labels of the upper path remain unchanged, since in each row we added just a box crossed by the diagonal corresponding to the new East step of the lower path. The previous labels of the lower path also remain unchanged, since the diagonals of the previous horizontal steps all hit the upper path in the same spots as before. As an immediate consequence, we get a characterization of the words in the ordered alphabet $\overline{0}<1<\overline{1}<2<\overline{2}<3<\overline{3}<\cdots$ which are area words of elements of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$. We state this characterization here as a corollary. \[cor:charactareawords\] Consider the alphabet $\overline{0}<1<\overline{1}<2<\overline{2}<3<\overline{3}<\cdots$, with the letters in the given order. A word $a_1a_2\cdots a_r$ in this alphabet is the area word of an element of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ if and only if the following conditions hold: 1. $a_1=\overline{0}$, and this is the only $\overline{0}$ that appears in the word; 2. there are exactly $m$ of the $a_i$’s which are from the set of numbers without a bar $\{1,2,3,\dots\}$, and exactly $n$ of the $a_i$’s which are from the set of numbers with a bar $\{\overline{0},\overline{1},\overline{2},\dots\}$ (in particular $r=m+n$); 3. for all $i=1,2,\dots,m+n-1$, the letter $a_{i+1}$ is less than or equal to the immediate successor of the letter $a_i$, in the given order on the alphabet. We mention here that this bijection also gives an easy way to construct the polyomino from its area word: draw the corresponding Dyck path (this is immediate), and then look at the odd and even steps to construct the polyomino. The bi-statistics $(\mathsf{area},\mathsf{bounce})$ and $(\mathsf{dinv},\mathsf{area})$ {#sec:four} ======================================================================================= This section is dedicated to proving the following theorem. \[thm:ADinBA\] For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t).$$ In order to prove this theorem it suffices to give a bijection from $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ to $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n,m}$ which sends the bi-statistic $(\mathsf{area},\mathsf{bounce})$ to the bi-statistic $(\mathsf{dinv},\mathsf{area})$. The bijection that we will now describe is similar in spirit to the one used in the proof of the analogous [@haglundbook Theorem 3.15]. Let $P \in \mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$. Starting from $P$, we read the labels of its bounce path, getting a word consisting of barred and unbarred numbers. Then, starting from the bottom-left corner, for each turn of the bounce path, we look at the part of the path (upper or lower) that includes it. For example in the polyomino of Figure \[fig3\], the first turn of the bounce path is between $\overline{0}$ and the next $1$ in the labelling of the bounce path. The containing path consists of the first 4 steps (counted from the Southwest corner) of the upper path. We label the vertical steps of the containing path with the labels used for the vertical steps in that part of the bounce path, and the horizontal steps of the containing path with the labels used for the horizontal steps in that part of the bounce path. See Figure \[fig6\] for an example. ![\[fig6\] The containing path and the new labels are blue.](Figure6.pdf) We then read the new labels by following the containing path from Northeast down to Southwest. In the example we read $\textcolor{blue}{\overline{0}111}$. During the remainder of the construction we will preserve the relative positions of these labels. We then repeat the algorithm with the second turn of the bounce path of $P$. In the example this occurs between the last $1$ and the first $\overline{1}$ in the bounce path. This time the containing path consists of the steps of the lower path between the second and the eighth. We repeat the procedure that we used before, and the word that we get reading the new labels will prescribe the relative positions of the $1$’s and the $\overline{1}$’s. In the example (see Figure \[fig7\]) we get the prescriptions $\textcolor{violet}{11\overline{1}\overline{1}1\overline{1}\overline{1}}$. This together with the other prescription gives a partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}1\overline{1}\overline{1}$. In general we will construct this partial word in a way that it can be the word of a parallelogram polyomino while respecting all the prescriptions. This will always be possible since the first step of the containing path that we read will always be labelled by the smallest of the two types of labels that we are considering: this is due to the definition of the bounce path. ![\[fig7\] The containing path and the new labels are violet.](Figure7.pdf) We keep doing this until all the labels of the bounce path of $P$ have been included. At the end we will get a word of another parallelogram polyomino. In the example, at the next step we get the prescriptions $\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{1}\overline{1}$, which gives the partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}21\overline{1}\overline{1}$; then we get the prescriptions $2\overline{2}\overline{2}$, which gives the partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{2}\overline{2}1\overline{1}\overline{1}$; then we get the prescriptions $\overline{2}\overline{2}3$, which gives the partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{2}\overline{2}31\overline{1}\overline{1}$; then we get the prescriptions $3\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}$, which gives the partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{2}\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{1}\overline{1}$; then we get the prescriptions $\overline{3}\overline{3}44\overline{3}$, which gives the partial word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{2}\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{3}44\overline{3}1\overline{1}\overline{1}$; and finally we get the prescriptions $44\overline{4}\overline{4}$, which gives the final word $\overline{0}11\overline{1}\overline{1}2\overline{2}\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{3}44\overline{4}\overline{4}\overline{3}1\overline{1}\overline{1}$. It is clear from the construction and the characterization of Corollary \[cor:charactareawords\], that in this way we get the area word of a polyomino ${\digamma}(P)$ in $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n,m}$. Moreover ${\digamma}(P)$ clearly has $\mathsf{area}$ equal to the $\mathsf{bounce}$ of the original polyomino $P$, again by construction. Figure \[fig8\] illustrates ${\digamma}(P)$ for when $P$ is the polyomino of Figure \[fig1\]. ![\[fig8\] The outcome of applying ${\digamma}$ to the polyomino of Figure \[fig1\].](Figure8.pdf) We need to show that the $\mathsf{dinv}$ of ${\digamma}(P)$ is equal to the $\mathsf{area}$ of $P$. To see this, recall how we constructed the word of the new polyomino: for consecutive types of labels, we prescribed the relative positions by reading the corresponding containing path. But in the containing path, those pairs of vertical and horizontal steps which contribute to the $\mathsf{dinv}$ of the polyomino correspond each to a square in its area. It remains to show that ${\digamma}$ is a bijection. To see this, we can consider the inverse function: given a parallelogram polyomino, write in weakly increasing order its area word, and draw it as a bounce path with labels. Then reading the relative positions of consecutive types of labels you can reconstruct piecewise both the upper and lower paths. This completes the proof. Let us observe some remarkable consequences of this result. First of all, notice that iterating this bijection a second time, we get a bijection ${\digamma}\circ {\digamma}$ from $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ to itself which sends $\mathsf{bounce}$ to $\mathsf{dinv}$. Moreover, applying the inverse and composing it with the flip along the Southwest to Northeast line that pass through the Southwest corner (which obviously preserves the $\mathsf{area}$) we get a bijection from $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ to itself which sends $\mathsf{dinv}$ to $\mathsf{area}$. In conclusion, we see that all our three statistics are equidistributed both inside the same $m$ times $n$ rectangle and with the polyominoes in the flipped $n$ times $m$ rectangle. Recursions for $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)$ and $\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t)$ {#sec:five} ==================================================================================== In this section we prove that both $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)$ and $\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t)$ satisfy a certain recursion. As an immediate byproduct we get another proof of the identity $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t)$ stated in Theorem \[thm:ADinBA\]. Let $\widetilde{\mathrm{Polyo}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}$ be the set of polyominoes in $\mathrm{Polyo}_{m,n}$ whose labelled bounce path has $r$ many $1$’s and $s$ many $\overline{1}$’s. In other words, $r$ is the number of steps between the first and the second bounce of the bounce path, while $s$ is the number of steps between the second and the third bounce. Define $$\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}(q,t):=\sum_{P\in \widetilde{\mathrm{Polyo}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}}t^{\mathsf{bounce}(P)}q^{\mathsf{area}(P)},$$ so that $\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t)$ is the sum over all $r$ and $s$ of $\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}(q,t)$. Also, we define the $q$-analogue of the non-negative integers by setting $[0]_q:=1,$ and for all positive integers $n$, $$[n]_q:=\frac{1-q^n}{1-q}=1+q+q^2+\cdots+q^{n-1}.$$ We define the $q$-analogue of the factorial of a non-negative integer by setting $ [0]_q!:=1, $ and for all positive integers $n$, $$[n]_q!:=\prod_{i=1}^{n}[i]_q.$$ Finally, for $0 \leq k \leq n$, $${n \brack k}_q :=\frac{[n]_q!}{[n-k]_q! [k]_q!}$$ denotes the $q$-analogue of the binomial ${n \choose k}$. For all $m,n,r$ and $s$ such that $1\leq r\leq n$ and $0\leq s\leq m-1$, we have the recursion $$\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}(q,t)=t^{m+n-1}q^{r+s}\sum_{h=1}^{n-r}\sum_{k=0}^{m-s-1} {s+r-1 \brack s}_q {s+h-1 \brack h}_q \widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m-s,n-r}^{(h,k)}(q,t),$$ with initial conditions $$\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(n,s)}(q,t)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} (qt)^{m+n-1} {m+n-2 \brack m-1}_q & \text{if $s=m-1$} \\ 0 & \text{if $s<m-1$}, \\ \end{array}\right.$$ and $\,\,\, \widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{1,n}^{(r,0)}(q,t)=0\,\,\,$ for $\,\,\, r<n$. The argument in this proof is best understood by referring to Figure \[fig9\]. ![\[fig9\] The black path is the bounce path.](Figure9.pdf) The figure shows a typical element of $\widetilde{\mathrm{Polyo}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}$. The orange grid cuts out an element of $\widetilde{\mathrm{Polyo}}_{m-s,n-r}^{(h,k)}$: its lower-left corner is placed at the beginning of the rightmost step of the bounce path labelled by $\overline{1}$. Observe that the labels of the bounce path in the orange grid are the same as the labels of the corresponding small path all increased by $1$. Hence, together with the $1$’s and the $\overline{1}$’s of the bounce path outside of the orange grid, we see that the bounce of the larger polyomino is $m+n-1$ more than the bounce of the small polyomino in the orange grid. This shift is taken care of by the factor $t^{m+n-1}$. The area of the larger polyomino is equal to the area of the small polyomino in the orange grid plus the yellow area, which is taken care of by the factor $q^{r+s}$, the light blue area, which is counted by the factor ${s+r-1\brack s}_q$, and the pink area, which is counted by the factor ${s+h-1 \brack h}_q$. This explains the recursion formula. Let us denote by $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}$ the set of parallelogram polyominoes in an $n\times m$ rectangle whose area word has $r$ many $1$’s and $s$ many $\overline{1}$’s. Define $$\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}(q,t):=\sum_{P\in {\mathrm{Polyo}}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}}t^{\mathsf{area}(P)}q^{\mathsf{dinv}(P)},$$ so that ${\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t)$ is the sum over all $r$ and $s$ of ${\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}(q,t)$. These polynomials satisfy the same recursion satisfied by the $\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}(q,t)$’s: \[thm:recursion\] For all $m,n,r$ and $s$ with $1\leq r\leq n$ and $0\leq s\leq m-1$, we have the recursion $$\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}(q,t)=t^{m+n-1}q^{r}\sum_{h=1}^{n-r}\sum_{k=0}^{m-s-1} q^s {s+r-1 \brack s}_q {s+h-1 \brack h}_q \mathsf{Nara}_{n-r,m-s}^{(h,k)}(q,t),$$ with initial conditions $$\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}^{(n,s)}(q,t)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} (qt)^{m+n-1} {m+n-2 \brack m-1}_q & \text{if $s=m-1$} \\ 0 & \text{if $s<m-1$}, \\ \end{array}\right.$$ and $\,\,\, \mathsf{Nara}_{n,1}^{(r,0)}(q,t)=0\,\,\, $ for $\,\,\, r<n$. Given an element of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}$ with $h$ many $2$’s and $k$ many $\overline{2}$’s, we construct an element of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{n-r,m-s}^{(h,k)}$ by subtracting $1$ from all the letters in the area word, then removing all the resulting $0$’s and $\overline{0}$’s and replacing the only $\overline{-1}$ (which comes from the only $\overline{0}$) by $\overline{0}$. For example, if we start with the word $\textcolor{blue}{\overline{0}}\textcolor{green}{11}\textcolor{red}{\overline{1}} 22\textcolor{red}{\overline{1}}2\overline{2}\overline{2}\textcolor{green}{1}\textcolor{red}{\overline{1}\overline{1}}$, which is an element of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{6,7}^{(3,4)}$ with $3$ many $2$’s and $2$ many $\overline{2}$’s, then we first get $\textcolor{blue}{\overline{-1}}\textcolor{green}{00}\textcolor{red}{\overline{0}}11\textcolor{red}{\overline{0}} 1\overline{1}\overline{1}\textcolor{green}{0}\textcolor{red}{\overline{0}\overline{0}}$, and hence we finally get $\textcolor{blue}{\overline{0}}111\overline{1}\overline{1}$, which is an element of $\mathrm{Polyo}_{6-3,7-4}^{(3,2)}=\mathrm{Polyo}_{3,3}^{(3,2)}$. Now the area of this new element is clearly $m+n-1$ less than the area of the original polyomino, since we subtracted $1$ from all the letters of the area word different from $\overline{0}$. This is taken care of by the factor $t^{m+n-1}$. The dinv of the original polyomino is equal to the dinv of this smaller polyomino, plus the dinv coming from the original $\overline{0}$ and the $1$’s, which is taken care of by the factor $q^r$, the dinv coming from the $1$’s and the $\overline{1}$’s, which is counted by the factor $q^s {s+r-1 \brack s}_q$ (the $1$’s and the $\overline{1}$’s form a word which always starts with $1$), and the dinv coming from the $\overline{1}$’s and the $2$’s, which is counted by the factor ${s+h-1 \brack h}_q$ (as before, the $\overline{1}$’s and the $2$’s form a word which always starts with $\overline{1}$, but the dinv coming from this first letter is already counted by the $\overline{0}$ that we insert in the new area word!). This explains the recursion. As already mentioned, these recursions give immediately $\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}^{(r,s)}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}^{(r,s)}(q,t)$, and hence another proof of the identity $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{n,m}(q,t)$. Symmetric functions interpretation {#sec:six} ================================== In this section we will use some tools from the theory of Macdonald polynomials. For a quick survey of what we need (and more), we refer to the book [@bergeron], in particular Chapters 3 and 9. In what follows we will recall only some basic facts, mostly to fix the notation. Let $\Lambda=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0}\Lambda^n$ be the space of symmetric functions with coefficients in $\mathbb{C}(q,t)$, where $q$ and $t$ are variables, with its natural decomposition in components of homogeneous degree. Recall the fundamental bases of symmetric functions: elementary $\{e_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$, homogeneous $\{h_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$, power $\{p_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$, monomial $\{m_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$ and Schur $\{s_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$, where the indices $\mu$ are partitions. A scalar product is defined on $\Lambda$ by declaring the Schur basis to be orthonormal: $$\langle s_{\lambda},s_{\mu} \rangle=\chi(\lambda=\mu),$$ where $\chi$ is the indicator function, which is $1$ when its argument is true, and $0$ otherwise. Another fundamental basis of $\Lambda$ is $\{\widetilde{H}_{\mu}\}_{\mu}$, the modified Macdonald polynomial basis. The fundamental ingredient of the theory is the nabla operator $\nabla$ acting on $\Lambda$. This is an homogeneous invertible operator introduced by Bergeron and Garsia in the study of the diagonal harmonics $DH_n$ of $\mathfrak{S}_n$. In fact, it turns out that $\nabla e_n$ gives precisely the bigraded Frobenius characteristic of $DH_n$. The so-called shuffle conjecture predicts a combinatorial interpretation of $\nabla e_n$ in terms of parking functions. Special cases of this conjecture have been proven by several authors. In particular, Haglund [@haglund] proved the combinatorial interpretation of $\langle \nabla e_n,h_j h_{n-j} \rangle$ for $1\leq j\leq n$ predicted by the shuffle conjecture. Surprisingly, this same polynomial provides the symmetric functions interpretation of our $q,t$-Narayana numbers. More precisely, we have the following theorem, which is the main result of this paper. \[thm:main\] For $m,n\geq 1$ we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=(qt)^{m+n-1}\cdot \langle \nabla e_{m+n-2},h_{m-1} h_{n-1} \rangle.$$ Before proving this theorem, we give here an immediate corollary. \[thm:symmetries\] For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(t,q)$$ and $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\mathsf{Nara}_{n,m}(q,t).$$ Moreover, we have $$\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=\widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t).$$ The symmetry in $q$ and $t$ comes from a general property of the nabla operator, which is an immediate consequence of the well-known identity [@bergeron Equation (9.8)]: nabla applied to any Schur function is symmetric in $q$ and $t$. The second equation, symmetry in $m$ and $n$, is obvious from the formula in Theorem \[thm:main\]. Finally, the fact that $\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)= \widetilde{\mathsf{Nara}}_{m,n}(q,t)$ is a direct consequence of the symmetries and of Theorem \[thm:ADinBA\]. Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] {#sec:seven} ----------------------------- In order to prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we need to make use of Haglund’s combinatorial interpretation of $\langle \nabla e_{m+n-2},h_{m-1} h_{n-1} \rangle$. To do this we first require some definitions. For us a Dyck path of order $k$ will be given by an area word which is a sequence of non-negative integers $b_1b_2\cdots b_k$ such that $b_1=0$, and $b_{i+1}\leq b_i+1$ for all $1\leq i <k$. A [[domino]{}]{} is a pair of values $(a,b)$ written as the first above the second ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline a \\ b\\ \hline \end{array} } }$. A parking function $PF$ of size $k$ is a sequence of $k$ dominoes ${ {\small{ \begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline a_1 & a_2 & \cdots & a_k \\ b_1 & b_2 & \cdots & b_k \\ \hline \end{array} }} }$ such that $b_1b_2\cdots b_k$ is the area word of a Dyck path of order $k$, and the $a_i$’s are a permutation of the integers $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with the property $a_i<a_{i+1}$ if $b_i<b_{i+1}$ (and hence $b_i=b_{i+1}-1$). $PF= {\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 5 & 11 & 1 & 9 & 6 & 8 & 3 & 4 & 7 & 10 & 2\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3\\ \hline \end{array}}}$ is a parking function of size $11$. Parking functions are often represented by a diagram like the one in Figure \[fig10\]. In this diagram the red path represents the underlying Dyck path, where the number of the squares between the vertical steps of the Dyck path and the (green) diagonal are given by the lower numbers in the dominoes. The numbers that label the vertical steps of the Dyck path in the diagram are simply the upper numbers in the dominoes. ![\[fig10\] The parking function $PF= {\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 5 & 11 & 1 & 9 & 6 & 8 & 3 & 4 & 7 & 10 & 2\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3\\ \hline \end{array}}}$.](Figure10.pdf) Given a parking function, we can reorder its dominoes by comparing first the bottom numbers, from the biggest to the smallest, and then, we place the dominoes with the same bottom number in order as we read them from right to left in the parking function. The reading word $\sigma (PF)$ associated to a parking function $PF$ is the permutation that we obtain by reading the upper entries of this reordered sequence of dominoes. \[hobo\] If $PF= {\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 5 & 11 & 1 & 9 & 6 & 8 & 3 & 4 & 7 & 10 & 2\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3\\ \hline \end{array}}}$ then we reorder the dominoes as $${\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 2 & 10 & 7 & 9 & 4 & 8 & 1 & 11 & 3 & 6 & 5\\ 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \hline \end{array}}},$$ and the corresponding reading word is $\sigma(PF)=2\,\, 10\,\, 7\,\, 9\,\, 4\,\, 8\,\, 1\,\, 11\,\, 3\,\, 6\,\, 5.$ Given a parking function $PF={ {\small{ \begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline a_1 & a_2 & \cdots & a_k \\ b_1 & b_2 & \cdots & b_k \\ \hline \end{array} }} }$, we define its area to be $\mathsf{area}(PF) =b_1+\ldots+b_k$, and its dinv $\mathsf{dinv}(PF)$ as the number of pairs $(i,j)$ with $1\leq i<j\leq k $ such that either $b_i=b_j$ and $a_i<a_j$, or $b_i=b_j+1$ and $a_i>a_j$. For example the area of the parking function of Example \[hobo\] is $14$, while its dinv is $8$. Given two disjoint sequences of numbers $A$ and $B$, we denote by $A \shuffle B$ the set of shuffles of $A$ and $B$, i.e. the sequences consisting of the numbers from $A\cup B$ in which all the elements of $A$ and $B$ appear in their original order, so that $\|A \shuffle B\|= {\|A\|+\|B\| \choose \|A\|}$. For any $a$ and $b$ in $\mathbb{N}$, we call $\mathrm{Park}_{a,b}$ the set of parking functions $PF$ of size $a+b$ such that $\sigma(PF)\in (1,2,\dots,a)\shuffle (a+1,a+2,\dots,a+b)$. Finally, we set $$\mathsf{Para}_{a,b}(q,t):=\sum_{PF\in \mathrm{Park}_{a,b}}t^{\mathsf{area}(PF)}q^{\mathsf{dinv}(PF)}.$$ We may state now the result of Haglund (see [@haglund] for a proof, and [@haglundbook] for the necessary background). \[Hthm\] For all $m\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, we have $$\langle \nabla e_{m+n-2},h_{m-1} h_{n-1} \rangle=\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}(q,t).$$ This theorem reduces the problem of proving Theorem \[thm:main\] to proving the following: $$\label{newequiv} \mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}(q,t)=(qt)^{m+n-1} \mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}(q,t).$$ In order to show the validity of this equation we do as follows. For $0\leq r<n$, $0\leq s<m$ with $r+s\geq 1$, let $\mathrm{Park}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}$ be the set of parking functions $PF$ of size $m+n-2$ such that $$\sigma(PF)\in A\shuffle B, \quad \|D_0(PF)\cap A\|=r,\quad \text{and}\,\, \|D_0(PF)\cap B\|=s,$$ where $A=(1,2,\dots,n-1)$, $B=(n,n+1,\dots,m+n-2)$, and $D_0(PF)$ is the set of upper numbers of dominoes of $PF$ whose bottom numbers equal $0$. Define the polynomial $$\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t):= \sum_{PF\in \mathrm{Park}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}}t^{\mathsf{area}(PF)}q^{\mathsf{dinv}(PF)},$$ and set $\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(0,0)}(q,t)=0$. Clearly the sum of all these polynomials as $r$ and $s$ range over their possible values is equal to $\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}(q,t)$. With this new generalization in mind, it is clear that equation \[newequiv\] holds true if $$(qt)^{m+n-1}\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t)=\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}^{(s+1,r)}(q,t).$$ Our proof of this identity is similar to what Haglund did in [@haglund]. We will show that $(qt)^{m+n-1}\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t)$ also satisfies the recursion in Theorem \[thm:recursion\], with the 4-tuple $(m,n,r,s)$ replaced with $(n,m,s+1,r)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(qt)^{m+n-1}\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t)}\\[1em] &= t^{n+m-1}q^{s+1}\sum_{k=1}^{m-s-1}\sum_{h=0}^{n-r-1} q^r {r+s \brack r}_q {r+k-1 \brack k}_q (qt)^{m+n-r-s-2}\mathsf{Para}_{n-r-1,m-s-2}^{(h,k-1)}(q,t),\end{aligned}$$ which simplifies to $$\label{eq:PFrecursion} \mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t) = t^{m+n-r-s-2}\sum_{h=0}^{n-r-1}\sum_{k=1}^{m-s-1} {r+s \brack r}_q {r+k-1 \brack k}_q \mathsf{Para}_{n-r-1,m-s-2}^{(h,k-1)}(q,t).$$ The initial conditions are $$\mathsf{Para}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,m-1)}(q,t) =\frac{\mathsf{Nara}_{m,n}^{(m,r)}(q,t)}{(qt)^{m+n-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} {m+n-2 \brack n-1}_q & \text{if $r=n-1$,} \\ 0 & \text{if $r<n-1$,} \\ \end{array}\right.$$ and $$\mathsf{Para}_{0,m-1}^{(r,s)}(q,t)=\frac{\mathsf{Nara}_{m,1}^{(s+1,0)}(q,t)}{(qt)^m}=0 \text{ for }s<m-1.$$ In order to see how the recursion \[eq:PFrecursion\] works for parking functions, we first make a simplification. It follows immediately from the definitions that, since the reading word of the parking functions we are interested in is a shuffle of the sequences $A=(1,2,\dots,n-1)$ and $B=(n,n+1,\dots,n+m-2)$, the pairs of dominoes with both upper numbers in $A$ or both in $B$ do not contribute to the dinv. The only pairs that contribute are the ones where one of the upper numbers is in $A$ and the other is in $B$. Since all the elements of $A$ are smaller than all the elements of $B$, we can simply consider dominoes in which the upper number is $1$ (if the corresponding element was in $A$) or $2$ (if the corresponding element was in $B$), with the dinv defined in the same way. For example the parking function $PF\in \mathrm{Park}_{9,9}^{(3,1)}$ $${\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 3 & 13 & 6 & 15 & 8 & 7 & 16 & 12 & 5 & 14 & 9 & 2 & 11 & 1 & 10 & 4 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \end{array}}},$$ whose reading word is $$\sigma(PF)=16\,\, 14\,\, 7\,\, 8\,\, 15\,\, 4\,\, 10\,\, 11\,\, 5\,\, 12\,\, 6\,\, 13\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 9\,\, 3,$$ would correspond to $${\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|}\hline 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\ \hline \end{array}}},$$ whose reading word is $$\sigma(PF)=2\,\, 2\,\, 1\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 2\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 1\,\, 1\,\, 2\,\, 1.$$ In both cases the dinv is $32$, and the area is $18$. *Using this identification, what we do is the following: given an element $PF$ of $\mathrm{Park}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}$, we remove the dominoes whose lower number is $0$, and we decrease the lower number of the remaining dominoes by $1$, keeping them in the given order. In our example, applying this procedure to $PF$ we get $${\small{\begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \hline \end{array}}}.$$ In doing this, observe that we will always get a parking function which starts with a domino ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$, which is always followed by a domino with lower entry $0$, since $PF$ cannot contain a sequence of three consecutive dominoes with strictly increasing lower numbers. This first domino contributes $0$ to both area and dinv and we can therefore remove it. In doing this we get an element of $\mathrm{Park}_{n-r-1,m-s-2}^{(h,k-1)}$, where $h$ is the number of ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ dominoes in $PF$, and $k$ is the number of ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ dominoes in $PF$. Conversely, given an element of $\mathrm{Park}_{n-r-1,m-s-2}^{(h,k-1)}$, we can prepend it with a ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ domino, increase all the lower numbers by 1, and then insert $r$ ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ dominoes and $s$ ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ dominoes. This gives us an element of $\mathrm{Park}_{n-1,m-1}^{(r,s)}$. In doing so, we are forced to put a ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ in front of the first ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ which we just prepended. Other inserted dominoes must satisfy the following constraints: a ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ domino is followed by a domino in $\left\{{ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } },{ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } },{ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }\right\}$, if any, and a ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ domino is followed by a domino in $\left\{{ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } },{ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }\right\}$, if any. Let us now look at how the area and the dinv change with respect to the operation that we have just described. The area of the new parking function is equal to the area of $PF$ minus $(n-1-r)+(m-1-s)$, which is taken care of by the factor $t^{n-r+m-s-2}$ on the right hand side of . The dinv is going to be the dinv of $PF$ minus the dinv created by the dominoes that we have removed. First of all, there are the pairs of dominoes ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ and ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ in $PF$, whose relative position creates dinv: this dinv is taken care of by the factor ${r+s \brack r}_q$ on the right hand side of . Then there is the dinv created by the dominoes ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ in $PF$ with the dominoes ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ in $PF$: this is taken care by the factor ${r+k-1 \brack k}_q$, since the first domino ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 2 \\ 1\\ \hline \end{array} } }$ is necessarily preceded by a ${ \scriptsize{ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{\|c\|} \hline 1 \\ 0\\ \hline \end{array} } }$. The initial conditions are obvious. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. [99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bergeron, F.</span>, Algebraic Combinatorics and Coinvariant Spaces, CMS Treatise in Mathematics, CMS and A.K. Peters, (2009). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Delest, M.-P., Viennot, G.</span>, Algebraic languages and polyominoes enumeration, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 34* (1984), 169–206. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dukes, M., Le Borgne, Y.</span>, Parallelogram polyominoes, the sandpile model on a complete bipartite graph, and a $q,t$-Narayana polynomial, to appear in J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, arXiv:1208.0024, (2012). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Haglund, J.</span>, A proof of the $q, t$-Schröder conjecture, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 11 (2004), 525–560. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Haglund, J.</span>, The $q,t$-Catalan numbers and the space of Diagonal Harmonics, AMS University Lecture Series, (2008). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Haiman, M.</span>, Vanishing theorems and character formulas for the Hilbert scheme of points in the plane, Invent. Math. 149 (2002), no. 2, 371–407. [^1]: $^{*}$ Supported by ANR – PSYCO project (ANR-11-JS02-001). [^2]: $^{\dag}$ Supported by NSF grant DMS=0800273.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We introduce a general construction that takes as input a so-called stiff PRO and that outputs a Hopf algebra. Stiff PROs are particular PROs that can be described by generators and relations with precise conditions. Our construction generalizes the classical construction from operads to Hopf algebras of van der Laan. We study some of its properties and review some examples of application. We get in particular Hopf algebras on heaps of pieces and retrieve some deformed versions of the noncommutative Faà di Bruno algebra introduced by Foissy.' address: - 'Laboratoire d’Informatique, du Traitement de l’Information et des Systèmes, Université de Rouen, Avenue de l’Université, 76801 Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray cedex, France.' - 'Laboratoire d’Informatique Gaspard-Monge, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, 5 boulevard Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, 77454 Marne-la-Vallée cedex 2, France.' author: - 'Jean-Paul Bultel' - Samuele Giraudo bibliography: - 'Bibliographie.bib' title: Combinatorial Hopf algebras from PROs --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Operads are algebraic structures introduced in the 70s by Boardman and Vogt [@BV73] and by May [@May72] in the context of algebraic topology to offer a formalization of the notion of operators and their composition (see [@Mar08] and [@LV12] for a very complete presentation of the theory of operads). Operads provide therefore a unified framework to study some sorts of [a priori]{} very different algebras, such as associative algebras, Lie algebras, and commutative algebras. Besides, the theory of operads is also beneficial in combinatorics [@Cha08] since it provides some ways to decompose combinatorial objects into elementary pieces. On the other hand, the theory of Hopf algebras holds a special place in algebraic combinatorics [@JR79]. In recent years, many Hopf algebras were defined and studied, and most of these involve very famous combinatorial objects such as permutations [@MR95; @DHT02], standard Young tableaux [@PR95; @DHT02], or binary trees [@LR98; @HNT05]. These two theories —operads and Hopf algebras— have several interactions. One of these is a construction [@Vdl04] taking an operad ${\mathcal{O}}$ as input and producing a bialgebra ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ as output, which is called the [natural bialgebra]{} of ${\mathcal{O}}$. This construction has been studied in some recent works: in [@CL07], it is shown that ${\mathit{H}}$ can be rephrased in terms of an incidence Hopf algebra of a certain family of posets, and in [@ML13], a general formula for its antipode is established. Let us also cite [@Fra08] in which this construction is considered to study series of trees. The initial motivation of our work was to generalize this ${\mathit{H}}$ construction with the aim of constructing some new and interesting Hopf algebras. The direction we have chosen is to start with [PROs]{}, algebraic structures which generalize operads in the sense that PROs deal with operators with possibly several outputs. Surprisingly, these structures appeared earlier than operads in the work of Mac Lane [@McL65]. Intuitively, a PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a set of operators together with two operations: an horizontal composition and a vertical composition. The first operation takes two operators $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and builds a new one whose inputs (resp. outputs) are, from left to right, those of $x$ and then those of $y$. The second operation takes two operators $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and produces a new one obtained by plugging the outputs of $y$ onto the inputs of $x$. Basic and modern references about PROs are [@Lei04] and [@Mar08]. Our main contribution consists in the definition of a new construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ from PROs to bialgebras. Roughly speaking, the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ can be described as follows. Given a PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$ satisfying some mild properties, the bialgebra ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ has bases indexed by a particular subset of elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The product of ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ is the horizontal composition of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ is defined from the vertical composition of ${\mathcal{P}}$, enabling to separate a basis element into two smaller parts. The properties satisfied by ${\mathcal{P}}$ imply, in a nontrivial way, that the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ satisfy the required axioms to be a bialgebra. This construction generalizes ${\mathit{H}}$ and establishes a new connection between the theory of PROs and the theory of Hopf algebras. Our results are organized as follows. In Section \[sec:background\], we recall some general background about Hopf algebras, operads, and PROs. In particular, we give a description of free PROs in terms of [prographs]{}, similar to the one of Lafont [@Laf11]. We also recall the natural bialgebra construction of an operad. We provide in Section \[sec:construction\_H\] the description of our new construction ${\mathsf{H}}$. A first version of this construction is presented, associating a bialgebra ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ with a free PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$. We then present an extended version of the construction, taking as input non-necessarily free PROs satisfying some properties, called [stiff PROs]{}. Next, we consider two well-known constructions of PROs [@Mar08], one, ${\mathsf{R}}$, taking as input operads and the other, ${\mathsf{B}}$, taking as input monoids. We prove that under some mild conditions, these constructions produce stiff PROs. We establish that the natural bialgebra of an operad can be reformulated as a particular case of our construction ${\mathsf{H}}$. We conclude by giving some examples of application of ${\mathsf{H}}$ in Section \[sec:exemples\]. The Hopf algebras that we obtain are very similar to the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra [@CK98] in the sense that their coproduct can be computed by means of admissible cuts in various combinatorial objects. From very simple stiff PROs, we reconstruct the Hopf algebra of noncommutative symmetric functions ${\mathbf{Sym}}$ [@GKLLRT95; @KLT97] and the noncommutative Fàa di Bruno algebra ${\mathbf{FdB}}_1$ [@BFK06]. Besides, we present a way of using ${\mathsf{H}}$ to reconstruct some of the Hopf algebras ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$, a $\gamma$-deformation of ${\mathbf{FdB}}_1$ introduced by Foissy [@Foi08]. We also obtain several other Hopf algebras, which, respectively, involve forests of planar rooted trees, some kind of graphs consisting of nodes with one parent and several children or several parents and one child that we call [forests of bitrees]{}, heaps of pieces (see [@Vie86] for a general presentation of these combinatorial objects), and a particular class of heaps of pieces that we call [heaps of friable pieces]{}. All these Hopf algebras depend on a nonnegative integer as parameter. [Acknowledgments.]{} The authors would like to thank Jean-Christophe Novelli for his suggestions during the preparation of this paper. Moreover, the authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for its useful suggestions, improving the paper. The computations of this work have been done with the open-source mathematical software Sage [@Sage] and one of its extensions, Sage-Combinat [@SageC]. [Notations.]{} For any integer $n {\geqslant}0$, $[n]$ denotes the set $\{1, \dots, n\}$. If $u$ is a word and $i$ is a positive integer no greater than the length of $u$, $u_i$ denotes the $i$-th letter of $u$. The empty word is denoted by $\epsilon$. Algebraic structures and background {#sec:background} =================================== We recall in this preliminary section some basics about the algebraic structures in play in all this work, [i.e.]{}, Hopf algebras, operads, and PROs. We also present some well-known Hopf algebras and recall the construction associating a combinatorial Hopf algebra with an operad. Combinatorial Hopf algebras --------------------------- In the sequel, all vector spaces have ${\mathbb{C}}$ as ground field. By [algebra]{} we mean a unitary associative algebra and by [coalgebra]{} a counitary coassociative coalgebra. We call [combinatorial Hopf algebra]{} any graded bialgebra ${\mathcal{H}}= \bigoplus_{n {\geqslant}0} {\mathcal{H}}_n$ such that for any $n {\geqslant}1$, the $n$-th homogeneous component ${\mathcal{H}}_n$ of ${\mathcal{H}}$ has finite dimension and the dimension of ${\mathcal{H}}_0$ is $1$. The [degree]{} of any element $x \in {\mathcal{H}}_n$ is $n$ and is denoted by $\deg(x)$. Combinatorial Hopf algebras are Hopf algebras because the antipode can be defined recursively degree by degree. Let us now review some classical combinatorial Hopf algebras which play an important role in this work. ### Faà di Bruno algebra and its deformations Let ${\mathit{FdB}}$ be the free commutative algebra generated by elements $h_n$, $n {\geqslant}1$ with $\deg(h_n) = n$. The bases of ${\mathit{FdB}}$ are thus indexed by integer partitions, and the unit is denoted by $h_0$. This is the [algebra of symmetric functions]{} [@Mcd95]. There are several ways to endow ${\mathit{FdB}}$ with a coproduct to turn it into a Hopf algebra. In [@Foi08], Foissy obtains, as a byproduct of his investigation of combinatorial Dyson-Schwinger equations in the Connes-Kreimer algebra, a one-parameter family $\Delta_\gamma$, $\gamma \in {\mathbb{R}}$, of coproducts on ${\mathit{FdB}}$, defined by using alphabet transformations (see [@Mcd95]), by $$\label{equ:coproduit_delta_gamma} \Delta_\gamma(h_n) := \sum_{k=0}^n h_k \otimes h_{n-k}((k\gamma +1)X),$$ where, for any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $h_n(\alpha X)$ is the coefficient of $t^n$ in $\left(\sum_{k{\geqslant}0} h_kt^k\right)^\alpha$. In particular, $$\Delta_0(h_n) = \sum_{k=0}^n h_k \otimes h_{n-k}.$$ The algebra ${\mathit{FdB}}$ with the coproduct $\Delta_0$ is the classical [Hopf algebra of symmetric functions]{} ${\mathit{Sym}}$ [@Mcd95]. Moreover, for all $\gamma \neq 0$, all ${\mathit{FdB}}_\gamma$ are isomorphic to ${\mathit{FdB}}_1$, which is known as the [Faà di Bruno algebra]{} [@JR79]. The coproduct $\Delta_0$ comes from the interpretation of ${\mathit{FdB}}$ as the algebra of polynomial functions on the multiplicative group $(G(t) := \{1+\sum_{k {\geqslant}1}a_k t^k\},\cdot)$ of formal power series of constant term $1$, and $\Delta_1$ comes from its interpretation as the algebra of polynomial functions on the group $(tG(t),\circ)$ of formal diffeomorphisms of the real line. ### Noncommutative analogs Formal power series in one variable with coefficients in a noncommutative algebra can be composed (by substitution of the variable). This operation is not associative, so that they do not form a group. For example, when $a$ and $b$ belong to a noncommutative algebra, one has $$(t^2\circ at)\circ bt = a^2t^2 \circ bt = a^2b^2t^2$$ but $$t^2\circ (at\circ bt) = t^2\circ abt = ababt^2.$$ However, the analogue of the Faà di Bruno algebra still exists in this context and is known as the noncommutative Faà di Bruno algebra. It is investigated in [@BFK06] in view of applications in quantum field theory. In [@Foi08], Foissy also obtains an analogue of the family ${\mathit{FdB}}_\gamma$ in this context. Indeed, considering noncommutative generators ${\mathbf{S}}_n$ (with $\deg({\mathbf{S}}_n) = n$) instead of the $h_n$, for all $n {\geqslant}1$, leads to a free noncommutative algebra ${\mathbf{FdB}}$ whose bases are indexed by integer compositions. This is the algebra of noncommutative symmetric functions [@GKLLRT95]. The addition of the coproduct $\Delta_\gamma$ defined by $$\label{equ:coproduit_delta_gamma_non_commutatif} \Delta_\gamma({\mathbf{S}}_n) := \sum_{k=0}^n {\mathbf{S}}_k \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{n-k}((k\gamma +1)A),$$ where, for any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, ${\mathbf{S}}_n(\alpha A)$ is the coefficient of $t^n$ in $\left(\sum_{k{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{S}}_kt^k\right)^\alpha$, forms a noncommutative Hopf algebra ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$. In particular, $$\Delta_0({\mathbf{S}}_n)=\sum_{k=0}^n {\mathbf{S}}_k\otimes{\mathbf{S}}_{n-k},$$ where ${\mathbf{S}}_0$ is the unit. In this way, ${\mathbf{FdB}}$ with the coproduct $\Delta_0$ is the [Hopf algebra of noncommutative symmetric functions]{} ${\mathbf{Sym}}$ [@GKLLRT95; @KLT97], and for all $\gamma \neq 0$, all the ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$ are isomorphic to ${\mathbf{FdB}}_1$, which is the [noncommutative Faà di Bruno algebra]{}. The natural Hopf algebra of an operad ------------------------------------- We shall consider in this work only nonsymmetric operads in the category of sets. For this reason, we shall call these simply [operads]{}. ### Operads In our context, an operad is a triple $({\mathcal{O}}, \circ_i, {\mathds{1}})$ where $${\mathcal{O}}:= \bigsqcup_{n {\geqslant}1} {\mathcal{O}}(n)$$ is a graded set, $$\circ_i : {\mathcal{O}}(n) \times {\mathcal{O}}(m) \to {\mathcal{O}}(n + m - 1), \qquad n, m {\geqslant}1, i \in [n],$$ is a composition map, called [partial composition]{}, and ${\mathds{1}}\in {\mathcal{O}}(1)$ is a unit. These data have to satisfy the relations $$\label{eq:AssocSerie} (x \circ_i y) \circ_{i + j - 1} z = x \circ_i (y \circ_j z), \qquad x \in {\mathcal{O}}(n), y \in {\mathcal{O}}(m), z \in {\mathcal{O}}(k), i \in [n], j \in [m],$$ $$\label{eq:AssocParallele} (x \circ_i y) \circ_{j + m - 1} z = (x \circ_j z) \circ_i y, \qquad x \in {\mathcal{O}}(n), y \in {\mathcal{O}}(m), z \in {\mathcal{O}}(k), 1 {\leqslant}i < j {\leqslant}n,$$ $$\label{eq:Unite} {\mathds{1}}\circ_1 x = x = x \circ_i {\mathds{1}}, \qquad x \in {\mathcal{O}}(n), i \in [n].$$ Besides, we shall denote by $$\circ : {\mathcal{O}}(n) \times {\mathcal{O}}(m_1) \times \dots \times {\mathcal{O}}(m_n) \to {\mathcal{O}}(m_1 + \dots + m_n), \qquad n, m_1, \dots, m_n {\geqslant}1,$$ the [total composition map]{} of ${\mathcal{O}}$. It is defined for any $x \in {\mathcal{O}}(n)$ and $y_1, \dots, y_n \in {\mathcal{O}}$ by $$x \circ [y_1, \dots, y_n] := (\dots ((x \circ_n y_n) \circ_{n - 1} y_{n - 1}) \dots) \circ_1 y_1.$$ If $x$ is an element of ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$, we say that the [arity]{} $\|x\|$ of $x$ is $n$. An [operad morphism]{} is a map $\phi : {\mathcal{O}}_1 \to {\mathcal{O}}_2$ between two operads ${\mathcal{O}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_2$ such that $\phi$ commutes with the partial composition maps and preserves the arities. A subset $S$ of an operad ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a [suboperad]{} of ${\mathcal{O}}$ if ${\mathds{1}}\in S$ and the composition of ${\mathcal{O}}$ is stable in $S$. The [suboperad of ${\mathcal{O}}$ generated by]{} a subset $G$ of ${\mathcal{O}}$ is the smallest suboperad of ${\mathcal{O}}$ containing $G$. ### The natural bialgebra of an operad Let us recall a very simple construction associating a Hopf algebra with an operad. A slightly different version of this construction is considered in [@Vdl04; @CL07; @ML13]. Let ${\mathcal{O}}$ be an operad and denote by ${\mathcal{O}}^+$ the set ${\mathcal{O}}\setminus \{{\mathds{1}}\}$. The [natural bialgebra]{} of ${\mathcal{O}}$ is the free commutative algebra ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ spanned by the ${\mathit{T}}_x$, where the $x$ are elements of ${\mathcal{O}}^+$. The bases of ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ are thus indexed by finite multisets of elements of ${\mathcal{O}}^+$. The unit of ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is denoted by ${\mathit{T}}_{{\mathds{1}}}$ and the coproduct of ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is the unique algebra morphism satisfying, for any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{O}}^+$, $$\Delta({\mathit{T}}_x) = \sum_{\substack{y, z_1, \dots, z_\ell \in {\mathcal{O}}\\ y \circ [z_1, \dots, z_\ell] = x}} {\mathit{T}}_y \otimes {\mathit{T}}_{z_1} \dots {\mathit{T}}_{z_\ell}.$$ The bialgebra ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ can be graded by $\deg({\mathit{T}}_x) := \|x\| - 1$. Note that with this grading, when ${\mathcal{O}}(1) = \{{\mathds{1}}\}$ and the ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ are finite for all $n {\geqslant}1$, ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ becomes a combinatorial Hopf algebra. PROs and free PROs ------------------ We recall here the definitions of PROs and free PROs in terms of prographs and introduce the notions of reduced and indecomposable elements, which will be used in the following sections. ### PROs A [PRO]{} is a quadruple $({\mathcal{P}}, , \circ, {\mathds{1}}_p)$ where ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a bigraded set of the form $${\mathcal{P}}:= \bigsqcup_{p {\geqslant}0} \bigsqcup_{q {\geqslant}0} {\mathcal{P}}(p, q),$$ such that for any $p, q {\geqslant}0$, ${\mathcal{P}}(p, q)$ contains elements $x$ with ${\operatorname{i}}(x) := p$ as [input arity]{} and ${\operatorname{o}}(x) := q$ as [output arity]{}, $$ is a map of the form $$* : {\mathcal{P}}(p, q) \times {\mathcal{P}}(p', q') \to {\mathcal{P}}(p + p', q + q'), \qquad p, p', q, q' {\geqslant}0,$$ called [horizontal composition]{}, $\circ$ is a map of the form $$\circ : {\mathcal{P}}(q, r) \times {\mathcal{P}}(p, q) \to {\mathcal{P}}(p, r), \qquad p, q, r {\geqslant}0,$$ called [vertical composition]{}, and for any $p {\geqslant}0$, ${\mathds{1}}_p$ is an element of ${\mathcal{P}}(p, p)$ called [unit of arity $p$]{}. These data have to satisfy for all $x, y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}$ the six relations $$\label{equ:assoc_compo_h} (x * y) * z = x * (y * z), \qquad x, y, z \in {\mathcal{P}},$$ $$\label{equ:assoc_compo_v} (x \circ y) \circ z = x \circ (y \circ z), \qquad x, y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}, {\operatorname{i}}(x) = {\operatorname{o}}(y), {\operatorname{i}}(y) = {\operatorname{o}}(z),$$ $$\label{equ:compo_h_v} (x \circ y) * (x' \circ y') = (x * x') \circ (y * y'), \qquad x, x', y, y' \in {\mathcal{P}}, {\operatorname{i}}(x) = {\operatorname{o}}(y), {\operatorname{i}}(x') = {\operatorname{o}}(y'),$$ $$\label{equ:relation_unite_h} {\mathds{1}}_p * {\mathds{1}}_q = {\mathds{1}}_{p + q}, \qquad p, q {\geqslant}0,$$ $$\label{equ:relation_unite_zero} x * {\mathds{1}}_0 = x = {\mathds{1}}_0 * x, \qquad x \in {\mathcal{P}},$$ $$\label{equ:relation_unite_v} x \circ {\mathds{1}}_p = x = {\mathds{1}}_q \circ x, \qquad x \in {\mathcal{P}}, p, q {\geqslant}0, {\operatorname{i}}(x) = p, {\operatorname{o}}(x) = q.$$ A [PRO morphism]{} is a map $\phi : {\mathcal{P}}_1 \to {\mathcal{P}}_2$ between two PROs ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ such that $\phi$ commutes with the horizontal and vertical compositions and preserves the input and output arities. A subset $S$ of a PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a [sub-PRO]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ if ${\mathds{1}}_p \in S$ for any $p {\geqslant}0$ and the horizontal and vertical compositions of ${\mathcal{P}}$ are stable in $S$. The [sub-PRO of ${\mathcal{P}}$ generated by]{} a subset $G$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the smallest sub-PRO of ${\mathcal{P}}$ containing $G$. An equivalence relation $\equiv$ on ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a [congruence of PROs]{} if all the elements of a same $\equiv$-equivalence class have the same input arity and the same output arity, and $\equiv$ is compatible with the horizontal and the vertical composition. Any congruence $\equiv$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ gives rise to a [PRO quotient]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ denoted by ${\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv$ and defined in the expected way. ### Free PROs Let us now set our terminology about free PROs and its elements in terms of [prographs]{}. From now, $$\label{equ:ensemble_bigradue} G := \bigsqcup_{p {\geqslant}1} \bigsqcup_{q {\geqslant}1} G(p, q)$$ is a bigraded set. An [elementary prograph]{} $e$ over $G$ is a formal operator labeled by an element ${\mathtt{a}}$ of $G(p, q)$. The [input]{} (resp. [output]{}) [arity]{} of $e$ is $p$ (resp. $q$). We represent $e$ as a rectangle labeled by $g$ with $p$ incoming edges (below the rectangle) and $q$ outgoing edges (above the rectangle). For instance, if ${\mathtt{a}}\in G(2, 3)$, the elementary prograph labeled by ${\mathtt{a}}$ is depicted by $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Operateur](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](33)at(0,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(33); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}2\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=33,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}2\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}3\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}\,.$$ A [prograph]{} over $G$ is a formal operator defined recursively as follows. A prograph over $G$ can be either an elementary prograph over $G$, or a special element, the [wire]{} depicted by $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-2){}; \draw[Arete](E1)--(S1); \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}\,,$$ or a combination of two prographs over $G$ through the following two operations. The first one, denoted by $$, consists in placing two prographs side by side. For instance, if $x$ is a prograph with $p$ inputs (resp. $q$ outputs) and $y$ is a prograph with $p'$ inputs (resp. $q'$ outputs), $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Operateur,Marque3](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}x\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q\end{math}}; \node[below of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \quad \quad \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Operateur,Marque4](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}y\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p'\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q'\end{math}}; \node[below of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \quad = \quad \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Operateur,Marque3](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}x\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque4](00)at(1.5,0){\begin{math}y\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(.5,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(.5,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q\end{math}}; \node[below of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](10)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](20)at(2.5,-2){}; \node[Feuille](30)at(1,2){}; \node[Feuille](40)at(2.5,2){}; \draw[Arete](00)--(10); \draw[Arete](00)--(20); \draw[Arete](00)--(30); \draw[Arete](00)--(40); \node[below of=10,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=20,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p'\end{math}}; \node[above of=30,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=40,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q'\end{math}}; \node[below of=00,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=00,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}\,.$$ The second one, denoted by $\circ$, consists in connecting the inputs of a first prograph over the outputs of a second. For instance, if $x$ is a prograph with $p$ inputs (resp. $q$ outputs) and $y$ is a prograph with $r$ inputs (resp. $p$ outputs), $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1] \node[Operateur,Marque3](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q\end{math}}; \node[below of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \quad \circ \quad \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1] \node[Operateur,Marque4](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](1)at(-1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1,-2){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](0)--(2); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=1,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=2,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}r\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}p\end{math}}; \node[below of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \quad = \quad \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Operateur,Marque3](0)at(0,0){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque4](00)at(0,-3){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](10)at(-1,-5){}; \node[Feuille](20)at(1,-5){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(-1,2){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(1,2){}; \draw[Arete](00)--(10); \draw[Arete](00)--(20); \draw[Arete](0)--(3); \draw[Arete](0)--(4); \node[below of=10,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[below of=20,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}r\end{math}}; \node[above of=3,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}1\end{math}}; \node[above of=4,font=\Huge]{\begin{math}q\end{math}}; \node[below of=00,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \node[above of=0,node distance=2cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \draw[Arete](0)edge[bend right] node[]{}(00); \draw[Arete](0)edge[bend left] node[]{}(00); \node[below of=0, node distance=1.5cm,font=\Huge] {\begin{math}\dots\end{math}}; \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}\,.$$ By definition, connecting the input (resp. output) of a wire to the output (resp. input) of a prograph $x$ does not change $x$. The [input]{} (resp. [output]{}) [arity]{} of a prograph $x$ is its number of inputs ${\operatorname{i}}(x)$ (resp. outputs ${\operatorname{o}}(x)$). The inputs (resp. outputs) of a prograph are numbered from left to right from $1$ to ${\operatorname{i}}(x)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{o}}(x)$), possibly implicitly in the drawings. The [degree]{} $\deg(x)$ of a prograph $x$ is the number of elementary prographs required to build it. For instance, $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(10,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](S5)--(E7); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}$$ is a prograph over $G := G(2, 2) \sqcup G(3, 1)$ where $G(2, 2) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$ and $G(3, 1) := \{{\mathtt{b}}\}$. Its input arity is $7$, its output arity is $5$, and its degree is $3$. The [free PRO generated by $G$]{} is the PRO ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ whose elements are all the prographs on $G$, the horizontal composition being the operation $$ on prographs, and the vertical composition being the operation $\circ$. Its unit ${\mathds{1}}_1$ is the wire, and for any $p {\geqslant}0$, ${\mathds{1}}_p$ is the horizontal composition of $p$ occurrences of the wire. Notice that by , there is no elementary prograph in ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ with a null input or output arity. Therefore, ${\mathds{1}}_0$ is the only element of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ with a null input (resp. output) arity. In this work, we consider only free PROs satisfying this property. \[lem:regle\_du\_carre\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $x, y, z, t \in {\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x y = z \circ t$. Then, there exist four unique elements $x_1$, $x_2$, $y_1$, $y_2$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x = x_1 \circ x_2$, $y = y_1 \circ y_2$, $z = x_1 * y_1$, and $t = x_2 * y_2$. Let us prove the uniqueness. Assume that there are $x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2 \in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $x'_1, x'_2, y'_1, y'_2 \in {\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x = x_1 \circ x_2 = x'_1 \circ x'_2$, $y = y_1 \circ y_2 = y'_1 \circ y'_2$, $z = x_1 * y_1 = x'_1 * y'_1$, and $t = x_2 * y_2 = x'_2 * y'_2$. Then, we have in particular ${\operatorname{o}}(x_1) = {\operatorname{o}}(x'_1)$ and ${\operatorname{o}}(y_1) = {\operatorname{o}}(y'_1)$. This, together with the relation $x_1 * y_1 = x'_1 * y'_1$ and the fact that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is free, implies $x_1 = x'_1$ and $y_1 = y'_1$. In the same way, we obtain $x_2 = x'_2$ and $y_2 = y'_2$. Let us now give a geometrical proof for the existence based upon the fact that prographs are planar objects. Since $u := x * y = z \circ t$, $u$ is a prograph obtained by an horizontal composition of two prographs. Then, $u = x * y$ depicted in a plane $\mathfrak{P}$ can be split into two regions $\mathfrak{X}$ and $\mathfrak{Y}$ such that $\mathfrak{X}$ contains the prograph $x$, $\mathfrak{Y}$ contains the prograph $y$, and $y$ is at the right of $x$. On the other hand, $u = z \circ t$ depicted in the same plane $\mathfrak{P}$ can be split into two regions $\mathfrak{Z}$ and $\mathfrak{T}$ such that $\mathfrak{Z}$ contains the prograph $z$, $\mathfrak{T}$ contains the prograph $t$, and $t$ is below $z$, the inputs of $z$ being connected to the outputs of $t$. We then obtain a division of $\mathfrak{P}$ into four regions $\mathfrak{X}\cap \mathfrak{Z}$, $\mathfrak{X}\cap \mathfrak{T}$, $\mathfrak{Y}\cap \mathfrak{Z}$, and $\mathfrak{Y}\cap \mathfrak{T}$, respectively containing prographs $x_1$, $x_2$, $y_1$, and $y_2$, and such that $x_1 * y_1 = z$, $x_2 * y_2 = t$, $x_1 \circ x_2 = x$, and $y_1 \circ y_2 = y$. ### Reduced and indecomposable elements Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO. Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is free, any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ can be uniquely written as $x = x_1 * \dots * x_\ell$ where the $x_i$ are elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$ different from ${\mathds{1}}_0$, and $\ell {\geqslant}0$ is maximal. We call the word ${\operatorname{dec}}(x) := (x_1, \dots, x_\ell)$ the [maximal decomposition]{} of $x$ and the $x_i$ the [factors]{} of $x$. Notice that the maximal decomposition of ${\mathds{1}}_0$ is the empty word. We have, for instance, $$\begin{split} {\operatorname{dec}}\end{split} \left(\; \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(10,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](S5)--(E7); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\;\right) \begin{split} \quad = \quad \end{split} \left(\; \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \begin{split}, \quad \end{split} \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \begin{split}, \quad \end{split} \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(10,-7){}; \draw[Arete](S5)--(E7); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \;\right).$$ An element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is [reduced]{} if all its factors are different from ${\mathds{1}}_1$. For any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, we denote by ${\operatorname{red}}(x)$ the reduced element of ${\mathcal{P}}$ admitting as maximal decomposition the longest subword of ${\operatorname{dec}}(x)$ consisting in factors different from ${\mathds{1}}_1$. We have, for instance, $$\begin{split} {\operatorname{red}}\end{split} \left(\; \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S0)at(-1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S22)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S222)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(6.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(10,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(12,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(6.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(9,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E0)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E22)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E222)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(6.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(12,-7){}; \draw[Arete](S0)--(E0); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](S5)--(E7); \draw[Arete](S22)--(E22); \draw[Arete](S222)--(E222); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\;\right) \begin{split} \quad = \quad \end{split} \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,.$$ By extension, we denote by ${\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})$ the set of the reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Note that ${\mathds{1}}_0$ belongs to ${\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})$. Besides, we say that an element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is [indecomposable]{} if its maximal decomposition consists in exactly one factor. Note that ${\mathds{1}}_0$ is not indecomposable while ${\mathds{1}}_1$ is. \[lem:relation\_element\_et\_son\_reduit\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $x, y \in {\mathcal{P}}$, such that $x = {\operatorname{red}}(y)$. Then, by denoting by $(x_1, \dots, x_\ell)$ the maximal decomposition of $x$, there exists a unique sequence of nonnegative integers $p_1, \dots, p_\ell, p_{\ell + 1}$ such that $$y = {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * x_1 * {\mathds{1}}_{p_2} * x_2 * \dots * x_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{p_{\ell + 1}}.$$ The existence comes from the fact that, since $x = {\operatorname{red}}(y)$, the maximal decomposition of $x$ is obtained from the one of $y$ by suppressing the factors equal to the wire. The uniqueness comes from the fact that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a free monoid for the horizontal composition $$. From PROs to combinatorial Hopf algebras {#sec:construction_H} ======================================== We introduce in this section the main construction of this work and review some of its properties. In all this section, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a free PRO generated by a bigraded set $G$. Starting with ${\mathcal{P}}$, our construction produces a bialgebra ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ whose bases are indexed by the reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. We shall also extend this construction over a class of non necessarily free PROs. The Hopf algebra of a free PRO {#subsec:PRO_libre_vers_AHC} ------------------------------ The bases of the vector space $${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) := {\operatorname{Vect}}({\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}}))$$ are indexed by the reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The elements ${\mathbf{S}}_x$, $x \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})$, form thus a basis of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$, called [fundamental basis]{}. We endow ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ with a product $\cdot : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) \otimes {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) \to {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ linearly defined, for any reduced elements $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, by $${\mathbf{S}}_x \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_y := {\mathbf{S}}_{x y},$$ and with a coproduct $\Delta : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) \to {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) \otimes {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ linearly defined, for any reduced elements $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, by $$\Delta\left({\mathbf{S}}_x\right) := \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y \circ z = x}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)}.$$ Throughout this section, we shall consider some examples involving the free PRO generated by $G := G(2, 2) \sqcup G(3, 1)$ where $G(2, 2) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$ and $G(3, 1) := \{{\mathtt{b}}\}$, denoted by ${\mathsf{AB}}$. For instance, we have in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{AB}})$ $${\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(5,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(7,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(9,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(10,0){}; \node[Feuille](S7)at(12,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N4)at(8,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N5)at(11,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(12,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N5)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N5)--(S7); \draw[Arete](N5)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N5)--(E9); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}$$ and $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(5,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E5); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0}\,.\end{gathered}$$ \[lem:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_coassociativite\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO. Then, the coproduct $\Delta$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is coassociative. The bases of the vector space ${\operatorname{Vect}}({\mathcal{P}})$ are indexed by the (non-necessarily reduced) elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then, the elements ${\mathit{R}}_x$, $x \in {\mathcal{P}}$, form a basis of ${\operatorname{Vect}}({\mathcal{P}})$. Let us consider the coproduct $\Delta'$ defined, for any $x \in {\mathcal{P}}$, by $$\Delta'\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right) := \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y \circ z = x}} {\mathit{R}}_y \otimes {\mathit{R}}_z.$$ The associativity of the vertical composition $\circ$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ (see ) implies that $\Delta'$ is coassociative and hence, that ${\operatorname{Vect}}({\mathcal{P}})$ together with $\Delta'$ form a coalgebra. Consider now the map $\phi : {\operatorname{Vect}}({\mathcal{P}}) \to {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ defined, for any $x \in {\mathcal{P}}$, by $\phi({\mathit{R}}_x) := {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x)}$. Let us show that $\phi$ commutes with the coproducts $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$, that is, $(\phi \otimes \phi) \Delta' = \Delta \phi$. Let $x \in {\mathcal{P}}$. By Lemma \[lem:relation\_element\_et\_son\_reduit\], by denoting by $(x_1, \dots, x_\ell)$ the maximal decomposition of ${\operatorname{red}}(x)$, there is a unique way to write $x$ as $x = {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * x_1 * \dots * x_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1}$ where the $p_i$ are some integers. Then, thanks to the associativity of $$ (see ), by iteratively applying Lemma \[lem:regle\_du\_carre\], we have $$\begin{aligned} (\phi \otimes \phi) \Delta'({\mathit{R}}_x) & = \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y \circ z = x}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{y_1, \dots, y_\ell \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ z_1, \dots, z_\ell \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ ({\mathds{1}}_{p_1} y_1 * \dots * y_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1}) \\ \qquad \circ ({\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * z_1 * \dots * z_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1}) = \\ \qquad {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * x_1 * \dots * x_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1}}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}({\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * y_1 * \dots * y_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1})} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}({\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * z_1 * \dots * z_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{\ell + 1})} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{y_1, \dots, y_\ell \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ z_1, \dots, z_\ell \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ (y_1 * \dots * y_\ell) \circ (z_1 * \dots * z_\ell) = x_1 * \dots * x_\ell}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y_1 * \dots * y_\ell)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z_1 * \dots * z_\ell)} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y \circ z = {\operatorname{red}}(x)}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \\ & = \Delta\left(\phi\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right)\right). \end{aligned}$$ Now, the coassociativity of $\Delta$ comes from the fact that $\phi$ is a surjective map commuting with $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$. In more details, if $x$ is a reduced element of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and $I$ is the identity map on ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$, we have $$\begin{aligned} (\Delta \otimes I) \Delta\left({\mathbf{S}}_x\right) & = (\Delta \otimes I) \Delta(\phi\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right)) \\ & = (\phi \otimes \phi \otimes \phi)(\Delta' \otimes I) \Delta'\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right) \\ & = (\phi \otimes \phi \otimes \phi)(I \otimes \Delta') \Delta'\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right) \\ & = (I \otimes \Delta) \Delta(\phi\left({\mathit{R}}_x\right)) \\ & = (I \otimes \Delta) \Delta\left({\mathbf{S}}_x\right). \end{aligned}$$ \[lem:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_compatibilite\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO. Then, the coproduct $\Delta$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a morphism of algebras. Let $x$ and $y$ be two reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. We have $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_coproduit_morphisme_1} \Delta({\mathbf{S}}_x \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_y) = \sum_{\substack{z, t \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ z \circ t = x * y}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(t)}$$ and $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_coproduit_morphisme_2} \Delta({\mathbf{S}}_x) \Delta({\mathbf{S}}_y) = \sum_{\substack{x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2 \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ x_1 \circ x_2 = x \\ y_1 \circ y_2 = y}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_1) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_1)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_2) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_2)}.$$ The coproduct $\Delta$ is a morphism of algebras if and are equal. Let us show that it is the case. Assume that there are two elements $z$ and $t$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $z \circ t = x * y$. Then, the pair $(z, t)$ contributes to the coefficient of the tensor ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(t)}$ in . Moreover, since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is free, by Lemma \[lem:regle\_du\_carre\], there exist four unique elements $x_1$, $x_2$, $y_1$, and $y_2$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x = x_1 \circ x_2$, $y = y_1 \circ y_2$, $z = x_1 * y_1$, and $t = x_2 * y_2$. Then, since ${\operatorname{red}}(x_1) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_1) = {\operatorname{red}}(x_1 * y_1) = {\operatorname{red}}(z)$ and ${\operatorname{red}}(x_2) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_2) = {\operatorname{red}}(x_2 * y_2) = {\operatorname{red}}(t)$, the quadruple $(x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2)$, wholly and uniquely determined by the pair $(z, t)$, contributes to the coefficient of the tensor ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(t)}$ in . Conversely, assume that there are four elements $x_1$, $x_2$, $y_1$, and $y_2$ in ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x_1 \circ x_2 = x$ and $y_1 \circ y_2 = y$. Then, the quadruple $(x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2)$ contributes to the coefficient of the tensor ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_1) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_1)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_2) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_2)}$ in . Now, by , we have $$x * y = (x_1 \circ x_2) * (y_1 \circ y_2) = (x_1 * y_1) \circ (x_2 * y_2).$$ Then, since ${\operatorname{red}}(x_1) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_1) = {\operatorname{red}}(x_1 * y_1)$ and ${\operatorname{red}}(x_2) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_2) = {\operatorname{red}}(x_2 * y_2)$, the pair $(x_1 * y_1, x_2 * y_2)$, wholly and uniquely determined by the quadruple $(x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2)$, contributes to the coefficient of the tensor ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_1) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_1)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_2) * {\operatorname{red}}(y_2)}$ in . Hence, the coefficient of any tensor is the same in and in . Then, these expressions are equal. \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO. Then, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a bialgebra. The associativity of $\cdot$ comes directly from the associativity of the horizontal composition $$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ (see ). Moreover, by Lemmas \[lem:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_coassociativite\] and \[lem:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_compatibilite\], the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is coassociative and is a morphism of algebras. Thus, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a bialgebra. Properties of the construction ------------------------------ Let us now study the general properties of the bialgebras obtained by the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$. ### Algebraic generators and freeness \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO. Then, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is freely generated as an algebra by the set of all ${\mathbf{S}}_g$, where the $g$ are indecomposable and reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ can be written as $x = x_1 \dots * x_\ell$ where $(x_1, \dots, x_\ell)$ is the maximal decomposition of $x$. This implies that in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$, we have ${\mathbf{S}}_x = {\mathbf{S}}_{x_1} \cdot \, \dots \, \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_{x_\ell}$. Since for all $i \in [\ell]$, the ${\mathbf{S}}_{x_i}$ are indecomposable and reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the set of all ${\mathbf{S}}_g$ generates ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. The uniqueness of the maximal decomposition of $x$ implies that ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is free on the ${\mathbf{S}}_g$. ### Gradings There are several ways to define gradings for ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ to turn it into a combinatorial Hopf algebra. For this purpose, we say that a map $\omega : {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}}) \to {\mathbb{N}}$ is a [grading]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ if it satisfies the following four properties: 1. \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_1\] for any reduced elements $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, $\omega(x * y) = \omega(x) + \omega(y)$; 2. \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_2\] for any reduced elements $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ satisfying $x = y \circ z$ where $y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}$, $\omega(x) = \omega({\operatorname{red}}(y)) + \omega({\operatorname{red}}(z))$; 3. \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_3\] for any $n {\geqslant}0$, the fiber $\omega^{-1}(n)$ is finite; 4. \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_4\] $\omega^{-1}(0) = \{{\mathds{1}}_0\}$. A very generic way to endow ${\mathcal{P}}$ with a grading consists in providing a map $\omega : G \to {\mathbb{N}}\setminus \{0\}$ associating a positive integer with any generator of ${\mathcal{P}}$, namely its [weight]{}; the degree $\omega(x)$ of any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ being the sum of the weights of the occurrences of the generators used to build $x$. For instance, the map $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}) := 3$ and $\omega({\mathtt{b}}) := 2$ is a grading of ${\mathsf{AB}}$ and we have $$\begin{split} \omega \end{split}\left( \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(3,-4){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(6,-3){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-6){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right) \begin{split} = 8\end{split}.$$ \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\omega$ be a grading of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then, with the grading $$\label{equ:graduation} {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) = \bigoplus_{n {\geqslant}0} {\operatorname{Vect}}\left({\mathbf{S}}_x : x \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}}) \mbox{ and } \omega(x) = n \right),$$ ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. Notice first that ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0}$ is the neutral element of the product of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$, and, for any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ of degree different from $0$, the coproduct $\Delta({\mathbf{S}}_x)$ contains the tensors ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_x$ and ${\mathbf{S}}_x \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0}$. Then, together with the fact that by \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_4\], ${\mathbf{S}}_{{\mathds{1}}_0}$ is an element of the homogeneous component of degree $0$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ admits a unit and a counit. Moreover, \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_3\] implies that for all $n {\geqslant}0$, the homogeneous components of degree $n$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ are finite, and \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_4\] implies that ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is connected. Besides, respectively by \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_1\] and by \[item:propriete\_bonne\_graduation\_2\], the grading provided by $\omega$ is compatible with the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. Hence, together with the fact that, by Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a bialgebra, it is also a combinatorial Hopf algebra. ### Antipode Since the antipode of a combinatorial Hopf algebra can be computed by induction on the degree, we obtain an expression for the one of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ when ${\mathcal{P}}$ admits a grading. This expression is an instance of the Takeuchi formula [@Tak71] and is particularly simple since the product of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is multiplicative. \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_antipode\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO admitting a grading. For any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ different from ${\mathds{1}}_0$, the antipode $\nu$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ satisfies $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_antipode} \nu({\mathbf{S}}_x) = \sum_{\substack{x_1, \dots, x_\ell \in {\mathcal{P}}, \ell {\geqslant}1 \\ x_1 \circ \dots \circ x_\ell = x \\ {\operatorname{red}}(x_i) \ne {\mathds{1}}_0, i \in [\ell]}} (-1)^\ell \; {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(x_1 * \dots * x_\ell)}.$$ By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra, and hence, the antipode $\nu$, which is the inverse of the identity morphism for the convolution product, exists and is unique. Then, for any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ different from ${\mathds{1}}_0$, $$\nu({\mathbf{S}}_x) = - {\mathbf{S}}_x - \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\setminus \{x\} \\ y \circ z = x}} \nu\left({\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)}\right) \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)}.$$ Expression for $\nu$ follows now by induction on the degree of $x$ in ${\mathcal{P}}$. We have for instance in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{AB}})$, $$\nu {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-4){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(1,-6){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(6,-8){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace - {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-4){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(1,-6){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-8){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(6,-8){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(6,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-4){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-6) {}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-6){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(3,-4){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(6,-3){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-6){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-6){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace - \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(8,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(6,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(8,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E7); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}\,.$$ ### Duality When ${\mathcal{P}}$ admits a grading, let us denote by ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})^\star$ the graded dual of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. By definition, the adjoint basis of the fundamental basis of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ consists in the elements ${\mathbf{S}}^\star_x$, $x \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})$. \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_dual\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO admitting a grading. Then, for any reduced elements $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})^\star$ satisfy $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_produit_dual} {\mathbf{S}}^\star_x \cdot {\mathbf{S}}^\star_y = \sum_{\substack{x', y' \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ x' \circ y' \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}}) \\ {\operatorname{red}}(x') = x, {\operatorname{red}}(y') = y}} {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{x' \circ y'}$$ and $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_coproduit_dual} \Delta\left({\mathbf{S}}^\star_x\right) = \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y * z = x}} {\mathbf{S}}^\star_y \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_z.$$ Let us denote by $\langle -, -\rangle : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}) \otimes {\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})^\star \to {\mathbb{C}}$ the duality bracket between ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ and its graded dual. By duality, we have $${\mathbf{S}}^\star_x \cdot {\mathbf{S}}^\star_y = \sum_{z \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})} \left\langle \Delta({\mathbf{S}}_z), {\mathbf{S}}^\star_x \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_y \right\rangle \; {\mathbf{S}}^\star_z.$$ Expression follows from the fact that for any reduced element $z$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, ${\mathbf{S}}_x \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_y$ appears in $\Delta({\mathbf{S}}_z)$ if and only if there exist $x', y' \in {\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x' \circ y' = z$, ${\operatorname{red}}(x') = x$ and ${\operatorname{red}}(y') = y$. Besides, again by duality, we have $$\Delta({\mathbf{S}}^\star_x) = \sum_{y, z \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})} \left\langle {\mathbf{S}}_y \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_z, {\mathbf{S}}^\star_x \right\rangle \; {\mathbf{S}}^\star_y \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_z.$$ Expression follows from the fact that for any reduced elements $y$ and $z$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, ${\mathbf{S}}_x$ appears in ${\mathbf{S}}_y \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_z$ if and only if $y * z = x$. For instance, we have in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{AB}})$ $$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \cdot {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E5); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](SS1)at(-3,0){}; \node[Feuille](SS2)at(-1,0){}; \node[Operateur](NN1)at(-2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](EE1)at(-3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](EE2)at(-1,-4){}; \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS2); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE2); \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E5); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(2,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(6,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(-.5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(2.5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3.5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(5.5,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(7,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(6.5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend right] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)edge[bend left] node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(5.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace 2 \, {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](SS1)at(-2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](NN1)at(-2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](EE1)at(-3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](EE2)at(-2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](EE3)at(-1,-4){}; \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE2); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE3); \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \node[Feuille](SSS1)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](SSS2)at(5,0){}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](EEE1)at(3,-4){}; \node[Feuille](EEE2)at(5,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(SSS1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(SSS2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(EEE1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(EEE2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N4)at(10,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(11,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E9); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{{\mathds{1}}_0} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N4)at(10,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(11,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E9); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N4)at(10,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(11,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E9); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(1,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.65] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(8,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(10,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(1,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(4.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(7,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N4)at(10,-3.5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(11,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E9); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}^\star_{{\mathds{1}}_0}.\end{gathered}$$ ### Quotient bialgebras \[prop:sous\_generateurs\_libre\_donne\_quotient\] Let $G$ and $G'$ be two bigraded sets such that $G' \subseteq G$. Then, the map $\phi : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G)) \to {\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G'))$ linearly defined, for any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$, by $$\phi({\mathbf{S}}_x) := \begin{cases} {\mathbf{S}}_x & \mbox{if } x \in {\mathrm{Free}}(G'), \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}, \end{cases}$$ is a surjective bialgebra morphism. Moreover, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G'))$ is a quotient bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G))$. Let $V$ be the linear span of the ${\mathbf{S}}_x$ where the $x$ are reduced elements of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G) \setminus {\mathrm{Free}}(G')$. Immediately from the definitions of the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G))$, we observe that $V$ is a bialgebra ideal of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G))$. The map $\phi$ is the canonical projection from ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G))$ to ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G))/_V \simeq {\mathsf{H}}({\mathrm{Free}}(G'))$, whence the result. The Hopf algebra of a stiff PRO ------------------------------- We now extend the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ to a class a non-necessarily free PROs. Still in this section, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a free PRO. Let $\equiv$ be a congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$. For any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, we denote by $[x]_\equiv$ (or by $[x]$ if the context is clear) the $\equiv$-equivalence class of $x$. We say that $\equiv$ is a [stiff congruence]{} if the following three properties are satisfied: 1. \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_0\] for any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the set $[x]$ is finite; 2. \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] for any reduced element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, $[x]$ contains reduced elements only; 3. \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\] for any two elements $x$ and $x'$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x \equiv x'$, the maximal decompositions of $x$ and $x'$ are, respectively of the form $(x_1, \dots, x_\ell)$ and $(x'_1, \dots, x'_\ell)$ for some $\ell {\geqslant}0$, and for any $i \in [\ell]$, $x_i \equiv x'_i$. We say that a PRO is a [stiff PRO]{} if it is the quotient of a free PRO by a stiff congruence. For any $\equiv$-equivalence class $[x]$ of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, set $$\label{equ:definition_des_T} {\mathbf{T}}_{[x]} := \sum_{x' \in [x]} {\mathbf{S}}_{x'}.$$ Notice that thanks to \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_0\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\], ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$ is a well-defined element of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. For instance, if ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the quotient of the free PRO generated by $G := G(1, 1) \sqcup G(2, 2)$ where $G(1, 1) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$ and $G(2,2) := \{{\mathtt{b}}\}$ by the finest congruence $\equiv$ satisfying $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \quad \equiv \quad \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(1,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete,out=-110,in=110](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}\,,$$ one has $${\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N3)at(1,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N1)edge node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N3)at(1,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N1)edge node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(1,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N3)at(1,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E2); \draw[Arete,out=-110,in=110](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete,out=-110,in=110](N2)edge node[]{}(N3); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N2)edge node[]{}(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(1,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(0,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete,out=-110,in=110](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete,out=-70,in=70](N1)edge node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(0,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}\,.$$ Moreover, we can observe that $\equiv$ is a stiff congruence. If $\equiv$ is a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$, \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\] imply that all the elements of a same $\equiv$-equivalence class $[x]$ have the same number of factors and are all reduced or all nonreduced. Then, by extension, we shall say that a $\equiv$-equivalence class $[x]$ of ${\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv$ is [indecomposable]{} (resp. [reduced]{}) if all its elements are indecomposable (resp. reduced) in ${\mathcal{P}}$. In the same way, the [wire]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv$ is the $\equiv$-equivalence class of the wire of ${\mathcal{P}}$. We shall now study how the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ behave on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$. ### Product Let us show that the linear span of the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$, where the $[x]$ are $\equiv$-equivalence classes of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, forms a subalgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. The product on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$ is multiplicative and admits the following simple description. \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_produit\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\equiv$ be a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then, for any $\equiv$-equivalence classes $[x]$ and $[y]$, $${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]} \cdot {\mathbf{T}}_{[y]} = {\mathbf{T}}_{[x * y]},$$ where $x$ (resp. $y$) is any element of $[x]$ (resp. $[y]$). We have $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_congruence_produit_1} {\mathbf{T}}_{[x]} \cdot {\mathbf{T}}_{[y]} = \sum_{\substack{x' \in [x] \\ y' \in [y]}} {\mathbf{S}}_{x' * y'}$$ and $$\label{equ:PRO_vers_AHC_congruence_produit_2} {\mathbf{T}}_{[x * y]} = \sum_{z \in [x * y]} {\mathbf{S}}_z.$$ Let us show that and are equal. It is enough to check that these sums have the same support. Indeed, is by definition multiplicity free and is multiplicity free because ${\mathcal{P}}$ is free, and all elements of a $\equiv$-equivalence class have the same input arity and the same output arity. Assume that there is a reduced element $t$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that ${\mathbf{S}}_t$ appears in . Then, one has $t = x' * y'$ for two reduced elements $x'$ and $y'$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x' \in [x]$ and $y' \in [y]$. Since $\equiv$ is a congruence of PROs, we have $[x' * y'] = [x * y]$ and thus, $t \in [x * y]$. This shows that ${\mathbf{S}}_t$ also appears in . Conversely, assume that there is a reduced element $z$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that ${\mathbf{S}}_z$ appears in . Then, one has $z \in [x * y]$. Since $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\], the maximal decomposition of $z$ satisfies ${\operatorname{dec}}(z) = (x'_1, \dots, x'_k, y'_1, \dots, y'_\ell)$ where ${\operatorname{dec}}(x) = (x_1, \dots, x_k)$, ${\operatorname{dec}}(y) = (y_1, \dots, y_\ell)$, $x'_i \equiv x_i$, and $y'_j \equiv y_j$ for all $i \in [k]$ and $j \in [\ell]$. Moreover, as $\equiv$ is a congruence of PROs, $x' := x'_1 * \dots * x'_k \equiv x$ and $y' := y'_1 * \dots * y'_\ell \equiv y$. We then have $z = x' * y'$ with $x' \in [x]$ and $y' \in [y]$. This shows that ${\mathbf{S}}_z$ also appears in . ### Coproduct To prove that the linear span of the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$, where the $[x]$ are $\equiv$-equivalence classes of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, forms a subcoalgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ and provides the description of the coproduct of a ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$, we need the following notation. For any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, $$\label{equ:reduit_classe} {\operatorname{red}}\left([x]\right) := \left\{{\operatorname{red}}\left(x'\right) : x' \in [x]\right\}.$$ \[lem:congruence\_rigide\_reduit\_classe\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\equiv$ be a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$. For any element $x$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, $${\operatorname{red}}\left([x]\right) = \left[{\operatorname{red}}(x)\right].$$ Let us denote by $y$ the element ${\operatorname{red}}(x)$ and let $y' \in {\operatorname{red}}([x])$. Let us show that $y' \in [{\operatorname{red}}(x)]$. By Definition , there is an element $x'$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $x' \in [x]$ and ${\operatorname{red}}(x') = y'$. Since $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\], ${\operatorname{dec}}(x')$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(x)$ have the same length $\ell$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(x')_i \equiv {\operatorname{dec}}(x)_i$ for all $i \in [\ell]$. Moreover, since $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\], for all $i \in [\ell]$, ${\operatorname{dec}}(x')_i$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(x)_i$ are both reduced elements or are both wires. Hence, since ${\operatorname{dec}}(y')$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)$ are, respectively subwords of ${\operatorname{dec}}(x')$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(x)$, they have the same length $k$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(y')_j \equiv {\operatorname{dec}}(y)_j$ for all $j \in [k]$. Finally, since $\equiv$ is a congruence of PROs, $y' \equiv y$. This shows that $y' \in [{\operatorname{red}}(x)]$ and hence, ${\operatorname{red}}([x]) \subseteq [{\operatorname{red}}(x)]$. Again, let us denote by $y$ the element ${\operatorname{red}}(x)$ and let $y' \in [{\operatorname{red}}(x)]$. Let us show that $y' \in {\operatorname{red}}([x])$. Since $y' \equiv y$ and $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\], ${\operatorname{dec}}(y')$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)$ have the same length $\ell$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(y')_i \equiv {\operatorname{dec}}(y)_i$ for all $i \in [\ell]$. Moreover, since $y = {\operatorname{red}}(x)$, by Lemma \[lem:relation\_element\_et\_son\_reduit\], for some $p_1, \dots, p_{\ell + 1} {\geqslant}0$, we have $x = {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * {\operatorname{dec}}(y)_1 * \dots * {\mathds{1}}_{p_\ell} * {\operatorname{dec}}(y)_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{p_{\ell + 1}}$. Now, by setting $x' := {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * {\operatorname{dec}}(y')_1 * \dots * {\mathds{1}}_{p_\ell} * {\operatorname{dec}}(y')_\ell * {\mathds{1}}_{p_{\ell + 1}}$, the fact that $\equiv$ is a congruence of PROs implies $x' \equiv x$. Since $y' = {\operatorname{red}}(x')$, this shows that $y' \in {\operatorname{red}}([x])$ and hence, $[{\operatorname{red}}(x)] \subseteq {\operatorname{red}}([x])$. \[lem:congruence\_rigide\_meme\_reduit\_meme\_element\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO, $\equiv$ be a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$, and $y$ and $z$ be two elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $y \equiv z$. Then, ${\operatorname{red}}(y) = {\operatorname{red}}(z)$ implies $y = z$. By contraposition, assume that $y \ne z$. Since $y \equiv z$ and $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\], ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(z)$ have the same length $\ell$, and ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)_i \equiv {\operatorname{dec}}(z)_i$ for all $i \in [\ell]$. Moreover, as $y \ne z$, there exists a $j \in [\ell]$ such that ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)_j \ne {\operatorname{dec}}(z)_j$. Now, since $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\], ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)_j$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(z)_j$ are both reduced elements. Moreover, for all $i \in [\ell]$, ${\operatorname{dec}}(y)_i$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}(z)_i$ are both reduced elements or are both wires. Hence, there is $j' {\geqslant}1$ such that ${\operatorname{dec}}({\operatorname{red}}(y))_{j'} = {\operatorname{dec}}(y)_j$ and ${\operatorname{dec}}({\operatorname{red}}(z))_{j'} = {\operatorname{dec}}(z)_j$. Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is free, this implies that ${\operatorname{red}}(y) \ne {\operatorname{red}}(z)$. \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_coproduit\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\equiv$ be a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then, for any $\equiv$-equivalence class $[x]$, $$\Delta\left({\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}\right) = \sum_{\substack{[y], [z] \in {\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv \\ [y] \circ [z] = [x]}} {\mathbf{T}}_{{\operatorname{red}}([y])} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{{\operatorname{red}}([z])}.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\left({\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}\right) & = \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ y \circ z \in [x]}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \label{equ:coproduit_congruence_1} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{y, z \in {\mathcal{P}}\\ [y] \circ [z] = [x]}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y)} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z)} \label{equ:coproduit_congruence_2} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{[y], [z] \in {\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv \\ [y] \circ [z] = [x]}} \; \sum_{\substack{y' \in [y] \\ z' \in [z]}} {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(y')} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{{\operatorname{red}}(z')} \label{equ:coproduit_congruence_3} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{[y], [z] \in {\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv \\ [y] \circ [z] = [x]}} \; \sum_{\substack{y' \in {\operatorname{red}}([y]) \\ z' \in {\operatorname{red}}([z])}} {\mathbf{S}}_{y'} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{z'} \label{equ:coproduit_congruence_4} \\ & = \sum_{\substack{[y], [z] \in {\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv \\ [y] \circ [z] = [x]}} {\mathbf{T}}_{{\operatorname{red}}([y])} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{{\operatorname{red}}([z])}. \label{equ:coproduit_congruence_5} \end{aligned}$$ Let us comment the non-obvious equalities appearing in this computation. The equality between and comes from the fact that $\equiv$ is a congruence of PROs. The equality between and is a consequence of Lemma \[lem:congruence\_rigide\_meme\_reduit\_meme\_element\]. Finally, is, thanks to Lemma \[lem:congruence\_rigide\_reduit\_classe\], equal to . ### Sub-bialgebra The description of the product and the coproduct on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$ leads to the following result. \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\equiv$ be a stiff congruence of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then, the linear span of the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$, where the $[x]$ are $\equiv$-equivalence classes of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, forms a sub-bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$. By Propositions \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_produit\] and \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_coproduit\], the product and the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ are still well-defined on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$. Then, since the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$ are by sums of some ${\mathbf{S}}_{x'}$, this implies the statement of the theorem. We shall denote, by a slight abuse of notation, by ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv)$ the sub-bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ spanned by the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$, where the $[x]$ are $\equiv$-equivalence classes of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Notice that the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ as it was presented in Section \[subsec:PRO\_libre\_vers\_AHC\] is a special case of this latter when $\equiv$ is the most refined congruence of PROs. Note that this construction of sub-bialgebras of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ by taking an equivalence relation satisfying some precise properties and by considering the elements obtained by summing over its equivalence classes is analog to the construction of certain sub-bialgebras of the Malvenuto-Reutenauer Hopf algebra [@MR95]. Indeed, some famous Hopf algebras are obtained in this way, as the Loday-Ronco Hopf algebra [@LR98] by using the sylvester monoid congruence [@HNT05], or the Poirier-Reutenauer Hopf algebra [@PR95] by using the plactic monoid congruence [@DHT02; @HNT05]. ### The importance of the stiff congruence condition Let us now explain why the stiff congruence condition required as a premise of Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\] is important by providing an example of a non-stiff congruence of PROs failing to produce a bialgebra. Consider the PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$ quotient of the free PRO generated by $G := G(1, 1) \sqcup G(2, 2)$ where $G(1, 1) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$ and $G(2, 2) := \{{\mathtt{b}}\}$ by the finest congruence $\equiv$ satisfying $$\begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split} \begin{split}\quad \equiv \quad\end{split} \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}} \end{split}$$ Here, $\equiv$ is not a stiff congruence since it satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] but not \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\]. We have $${\mathbf{T}}_{ \left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \right]} \cdot {\mathbf{T}}_{ \left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \right]} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \cdot {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}$$ but this last element cannot be expressed on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$. Besides, by a straightforward computation, we have $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \enspace = \enspace \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(-1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \\ \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[{\mathds{1}}_0\right]} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N3)at(4,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E3); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[{\mathds{1}}_0\right]} \\ \enspace + \enspace 2\, {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \enspace + \enspace 2\, {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(4,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(2,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(4,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\left[ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\right]} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(2,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \begin{split} \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-4){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ showing that the coproduct is neither well-defined on the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$. ### Properties By using similar arguments as those used to establish Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\] together with the fact that $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\] and the product formula of Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_produit\], we obtain that ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv)$ is freely generated as an algebra by the ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]}$ where the $[x]$ are $\equiv$-equivalence classes of indecomposable and reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Moreover, when $\omega$ is a grading of ${\mathcal{P}}$ so that all elements of a same $\equiv$-equivalence class have the same degree, the bialgebra ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}}/_\equiv)$ is graded by the grading inherited from the one of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathcal{P}})$ and forms hence a combinatorial Hopf algebra. \[prop:congruence\_moins\_fine\_donne\_sous\_ahc\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a free PRO and $\equiv_1$ and $\equiv_2$ be two stiff congruences of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $\equiv_1$ is finer than $\equiv_2$. Then, ${\mathsf{H}}\left({\mathcal{P}}/_{\equiv_2}\right)$ is a sub-bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}\left({\mathcal{P}}/_{\equiv_1}\right)$. Since $\equiv_1$ is finer that $\equiv_2$, any ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]_{\equiv_2}}$, where $[x]_{\equiv_2}$ is a $\equiv_2$-equivalence class of reduced elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$, is a sum of some ${\mathbf{T}}_{[x']_{\equiv_1}}$. More precisely, we have $${\mathbf{T}}_{[x]_{\equiv_2}} = \sum_{[x']_{\equiv_1} \subseteq [x]_{\equiv_2}} {\mathbf{T}}_{[x']_{\equiv_1}},$$ implying the result. Related constructions --------------------- In this section, we first describe two constructions allowing to build stiff PROs. The main interest of these constructions is that the obtained stiff PROs can be placed at the input of the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$. We next present a way to recover the natural Hopf algebra of an operad through the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ and the previous constructions of stiff PROs. ### From operads to stiff PROs {#subsubsec:operades_vers_PROs_rigides} Any operad ${\mathcal{O}}$ gives naturally rise to a PRO ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ whose elements are sequences of elements of ${\mathcal{O}}$ (see [@Mar08]). We recall here this construction. Let us set ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}}) := \sqcup_{p {\geqslant}0} \sqcup_{q {\geqslant}0} {\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})(p, q)$ where $${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})(p, q) := \{x_1 \dots x_q : x_i \in {\mathcal{O}}(p_i) \mbox{ for all } i \in [q] \mbox{ and } p_1 + \dots + p_q = p\}.$$ The horizontal composition of ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is the concatenation of sequences, and the vertical composition of ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ comes directly from the composition map of ${\mathcal{O}}$. More precisely, for any $x_1 \dots x_r \in {\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})(q, r)$ and $y_{11} \dots y_{1q_1} \dots y_{r1} \dots y_{rq_r} \in {\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})(p, q)$, we have $$\label{equ:definition_compo_v_construction_r} x_1 \dots x_r \circ y_{11} \dots y_{1q_1} \dots y_{r1} \dots y_{rq_r} := x_1 \circ [y_{11}, \dots, y_{1q_1}] \dots x_r \circ [y_{r1}, \dots, y_{rq_r}],$$ where for any $i \in [r]$, $x_i \in {\mathcal{O}}(q_i)$ and the occurrences of $\circ$ in the right-member of refer to the total composition map of ${\mathcal{O}}$. For instance, if ${\mathcal{O}}$ is the free operad generated by a generator of arity $2$, ${\mathcal{O}}$ is an operad involving binary trees. Then, the elements of the PRO ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ are forests of binary trees. The horizontal composition of ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is the concatenation of forests, and the vertical composition $F_1 \circ F_2$ in ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$, defined only between two forests $F_1$ and $F_2$ such that the number of leaves of $F_1$ is the same as the number of trees in $F_2$, consists in the forest obtained by grafting, from left to right, the roots of the trees of $F_2$ on the leaves of $F_1$. \[prop:operade\_vers\_bon\_PRO\] Let ${\mathcal{O}}$ be an operad such that the monoid $({\mathcal{O}}(1), \circ_1)$ does not contain any nontrivial subgroup. Then, ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is a stiff PRO. As any operad, ${\mathcal{O}}$ is the quotient by a certain operadic congruence $\equiv$ of the free operad generated by a certain set of generators $G$. It follows directly from the definition of the construction ${\mathsf{R}}$ that the PRO ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is the quotient by the congruence of PROs $\equiv'$ of the free PRO generated by $G'$ where $$G'(p, q) := \begin{cases} G(p) & \mbox{if } p {\geqslant}1 \mbox{ and } q = 1, \\ \emptyset & \mbox{otherwise}, \end{cases}$$ and $\equiv'$ is the finest congruence of PROs satisfying $x \equiv' y$ for any relation $x \equiv y$ between elements $x$ and $y$ of the free operad generated by $G$. Since by hypothesis $({\mathcal{O}}(1), \circ_1)$ does not contain any nontrivial subgroup, for all elements $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathcal{O}}(1) \setminus \{{\mathds{1}}\}$, $x \circ_1 y \ne {\mathds{1}}$. Then, $\equiv'$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\]. Moreover, by definition of ${\mathsf{R}}$, $\equiv'$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\]. Hence, ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is a stiff PRO. ### From monoids to stiff PROs {#subsubsec:monoides_vers_PROs} Any monoid ${\mathcal{M}}$ can be seen as an operad concentrated in arity one. Then, starting from a monoid ${\mathcal{M}}$, one can construct a PRO ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ by applying the construction ${\mathsf{R}}$ on ${\mathcal{M}}$ seen as an operad. This construction can be rephrased as follows. We have ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}}) = \sqcup_{p {\geqslant}0} \sqcup_{q {\geqslant}0} {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, q)$ where $${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, q) = \begin{cases} \left\{x_1 \dots x_p : x_i \in M \mbox{ for all } i \in [p] \right\} & \mbox{if } p = q, \\ \emptyset & \mbox{otherwise}. \\ \end{cases}$$ The horizontal composition of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is the concatenation of sequences and the vertical composition $\circ : {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, p) \times {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, p) \to {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, p)$ of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ satisfies, for any $x_1 \dots x_p \in {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(p, p)$ and $y_1 \dots y_q \in {\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})(q, q)$, $$x_1 \dots x_p \circ y_1 \dots y_p = (x_1 \bullet y_1) \dots (x_p \bullet y_p),$$ where $\bullet$ is the product of ${\mathcal{M}}$. For instance, if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is the additive monoid of natural numbers, the PRO ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ contains all words over ${\mathbb{N}}$. The horizontal composition of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is the concatenation of words, and the vertical composition of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$, defined only on words with a same length, is the componentwise addition of their letters. \[prop:monoide\_vers\_bon\_PRO\] Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a monoid that does not contain any nontrivial subgroup. Then, ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is a stiff PRO. Since ${\mathcal{M}}$ does not contain any nontrivial subgroup, seen as an operad, the elements of arity one of ${\mathcal{M}}$ do not contain any nontrivial subgroup. Hence, by definition of the construction ${\mathsf{B}}$ passing by ${\mathsf{R}}$ and by Proposition \[prop:operade\_vers\_bon\_PRO\], ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is a stiff PRO. ### The natural Hopf algebra of an operad We call [abelianization]{} of a bialgebra ${\mathcal{H}}$ the quotient of ${\mathcal{H}}$ by the bialgebra ideal spanned by the $x \cdot y - y \cdot x$ for all $x, y \in {\mathcal{H}}$. Here is the link between our construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ and the construction ${\mathit{H}}$. \[prop:ahc\_naturelle\_par\_h\] Let ${\mathcal{O}}$ be an operad such that the monoid $({\mathcal{O}}(1), \circ_1)$ does not contain any nontrivial subgroup. Then, the bialgebra ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is the abelianization of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}}))$. By Proposition \[prop:operade\_vers\_bon\_PRO\], ${\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is a stiff PRO, and then, by Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}}))$ is a bialgebra. By construction, this bialgebra is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{T}}_x$ where $x \in {\mathcal{O}}$. Hence, the map $\phi : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})) \to {\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ defined for any $x \in {\mathcal{O}}$ by $\phi({\mathbf{T}}_x) := {\mathit{T}}_x$ can be uniquely extended into a bialgebra morphism, which we denote also by $\phi$. Since ${\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is generated by the ${\mathit{T}}_x$ where $x \in {\mathcal{O}}$, $\phi$ is surjective. Directly from the definition of the construction ${\mathit{H}}$, we observe that the kernel of $\phi$ is the bialgebra ideal $I$ spanned by the ${\mathbf{T}}_{x * y} - {\mathbf{T}}_{y * x}$ for all $x, y \in {\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}})$. Then, the associated map $\phi_I : {\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{R}}({\mathcal{O}}))/_I \to {\mathit{H}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is a bialgebra isomorphism. Examples of application of the construction {#sec:exemples} =========================================== We conclude this paper by presenting examples of application of the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$. The PROs considered in this section fit into the diagram represented by Figure \[fig:diagramme\_PROs\] and the obtained Hopf algebras fit into the diagram represented by Figure \[fig:diagramme\_AHC\]. (PRF)at(0,0)[${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$]{}; (FBT)at(3,2)[${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$]{}; (As)at(3,-2)[${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$]{}; (BAs)at(6,0)[${\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$]{}; (Heap)at(10,2)[${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$]{}; (FHeap)at(10,-2)[${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$]{}; (PRF)–(As); (FBT)–(BAs); (Heap)–(FHeap); (PRF)–(FBT); (As)–(BAs); (PRF)at(0,0)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$]{}; (FBT)at(3,2)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$]{}; (As)at(3,-2)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$]{}; (BAs)at(6,0)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma)$]{}; (Heap)at(10,2)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$]{}; (FHeap)at(10,-2)[${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$]{}; (As)–(PRF); (BAs)–(FBT); (FHeap)–(Heap); (FBT)–(PRF); (BAs)–(As); Hopf algebras of forests ------------------------ We present here the construction of two Hopf algebras of forests, one depending on a nonnegative integer $\gamma$, and with different gradings. The PRO we shall define in this section will intervene in the next examples. ### PRO of forests with a fixed arity Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative integer and ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ be the free PRO generated by $G := G(\gamma + 1, 1) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$, with the grading $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}) := 1$. Any prograph $x$ of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ can be seen as a planar forest of planar rooted trees with only internal nodes of arity $\gamma + 1$. Since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ have no wire, they are encoded by forests of nonempty trees. ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\], as an algebra, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{S}}_T$, where the $T$ are nonempty planar rooted trees with only internal nodes of arity $\gamma + 1$. Its bases are indexed by planar forests of such trees where the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{S}}_F$ is the number of internal nodes of $F$. Notice that the bases of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_0)$ are indexed by forests of linear trees and that ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_0)$ and ${\mathbf{Sym}}$ are trivially isomorphic as combinatorial Hopf algebras. ### Coproduct By definition of the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$, the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is given on a generator ${\mathbf{S}}_T$ by $$\label{equ:coproduit_forets} \Delta({\mathbf{S}}_T) = \sum_{T' \in {\mathrm{Adm}}(T)} {\mathbf{S}}_{T'} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{T/_{T'}},$$ where ${\mathrm{Adm}}(T)$ is the set of [admissible cuts]{} of $T$, that is, the empty tree or the subtrees of $T$ containing the root of $T$ and where $T/_{T'}$ denotes the forest consisting in the maximal subtrees of $T$ whose roots are leaves of $T'$, by respecting the order of these leaves in $T'$ and by removing the empty trees. For instance, we have $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.5,xscale=.9] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](10)at(6.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](11)at(7.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](12)at(8.00,-3.25){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](7)at(4.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](8)at(5.00,-9.75){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](4)at(5.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](6)at(4.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](9)at(6.00,-6.50){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](1)--(4); \draw[Arete](10)--(9); \draw[Arete](11)--(9); \draw[Arete](12)--(4); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](5)--(6); \draw[Arete](6)--(4); \draw[Arete](7)--(6); \draw[Arete](8)--(9); \draw[Arete](9)--(6); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.5,xscale=.9] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](10)at(6.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](11)at(7.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](12)at(8.00,-3.25){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](7)at(4.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](8)at(5.00,-9.75){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](4)at(5.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](6)at(4.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](9)at(6.00,-6.50){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](1)--(4); \draw[Arete](10)--(9); \draw[Arete](11)--(9); \draw[Arete](12)--(4); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](5)--(6); \draw[Arete](6)--(4); \draw[Arete](7)--(6); \draw[Arete](8)--(9); \draw[Arete](9)--(6); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \node[Feuille](b0)at(3.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](b2)at(4.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](b3)at(5.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](b5)at(6.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](b6)at(7.00,-4){}; \node[Noeud](b1)at(4.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](b4)at(6.00,-2){}; \draw[Arete](b0)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b2)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b3)--(b4); \draw[Arete](b4)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b5)--(b4); \draw[Arete](b6)--(b4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](6)at(4.00,-2){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,-2){}; \node[Noeud](4)at(3.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](1)--(4); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](5)--(4); \draw[Arete](6)--(4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](b0)at(3.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](b2)at(4.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](b3)at(5.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](b5)at(6.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](b6)at(7.00,-4){}; \node[Noeud](b1)at(4.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](b4)at(6.00,-2){}; \draw[Arete](b0)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b2)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b3)--(b4); \draw[Arete](b4)--(b1); \draw[Arete](b5)--(b4); \draw[Arete](b6)--(b4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(2.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-4){}; \node[Feuille](6)at(4.00,-2){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(2.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](3)at(2.00,-2){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(3); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](4)--(3); \draw[Arete](5)--(3); \draw[Arete](6)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \node[Feuille](0)at(3.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(4.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(5.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(4.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.5] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](7)at(4.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](8)at(5.00,-6.67){}; \node[Feuille](9)at(6.00,-3.33){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,-3.33){}; \node[Noeud](4)at(4.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](6)at(4.00,-3.33){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](1)--(4); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](5)--(6); \draw[Arete](6)--(4); \draw[Arete](7)--(6); \draw[Arete](8)--(6); \draw[Arete](9)--(4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.5] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.50){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-5.00){}; \node[Feuille](4)at(2.00,-5.00){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-7.50){}; \node[Feuille](7)at(4.00,-7.50){}; \node[Feuille](8)at(5.00,-7.50){}; \node[Feuille](9)at(6.00,-2.50){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(3.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](3)at(2.00,-2.50){}; \node[Noeud](6)at(4.00,-5.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(3); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](4)--(3); \draw[Arete](5)--(6); \draw[Arete](6)--(3); \draw[Arete](7)--(6); \draw[Arete](8)--(6); \draw[Arete](9)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-2.00){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-2.00){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,0.00){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.5,xscale=.9] \node[Feuille](0)at(0.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](10)at(6.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](11)at(7.00,-9.75){}; \node[Feuille](12)at(8.00,-3.25){}; \node[Feuille](2)at(1.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](3)at(2.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](5)at(3.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](7)at(4.00,-6.50){}; \node[Feuille](8)at(5.00,-9.75){}; \node[Noeud](1)at(1.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](4)at(5.00,0.00){}; \node[Noeud](6)at(4.00,-3.25){}; \node[Noeud](9)at(6.00,-6.50){}; \draw[Arete](0)--(1); \draw[Arete](1)--(4); \draw[Arete](10)--(9); \draw[Arete](11)--(9); \draw[Arete](12)--(4); \draw[Arete](2)--(1); \draw[Arete](3)--(1); \draw[Arete](5)--(6); \draw[Arete](6)--(4); \draw[Arete](7)--(6); \draw[Arete](8)--(9); \draw[Arete](9)--(6); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset}.\end{gathered}$$ This coproduct is similar to the one of the noncommutative Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra ${\mathbf{CK}}$ [@CK98]. The main difference between ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ and ${\mathbf{CK}}$ lies in the fact that in a coproduct of ${\mathbf{CK}}$, the admissible cuts can change the arity of some internal nodes; it is not the case in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ because for any $T' \in {\mathrm{Adm}}(T)$, any internal node $x$ of $T'$ has the same arity as it has in $T$. ### Dimensions The series of the algebraic generators of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is $$G(t) := \sum_{n {\geqslant}1} \frac{1}{n\gamma+1}\binom{n(\gamma + 1)}{n} t^n$$ since its coefficients are the Fuss-Catalan numbers, counting planar rooted trees with $n$ internal nodes of arity $\gamma + 1$. Since ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is free as an algebra, its Hilbert series is $H(t) := \frac{1}{1 - G(t)}$. The first dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_1)$ are $$\label{equ:dim_AHC_PRF_1} 1, 1, 3, 10, 35, 126, 462, 1716, 6435, 24310, 92378,$$ and those of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_2)$ are $$1, 4, 19, 98, 531, 2974, 17060, 99658, 590563, 3540464, 21430267.$$ The first sequence is listed in [@Slo] as Sequence [[[A001700]{}](http://oeis.org/A001700)]{} and the second as Sequence [[[A047099]{}](http://oeis.org/A047099)]{}. ### PRO of general forests We denote by ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty$ the free PRO generated by $G := \sqcup_{n {\geqslant}1} G(n, 1) := \sqcup_{n {\geqslant}1} \{{\mathtt{a}}_n\}$. Any prograph $x$ of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty$ can be seen as a planar forest of planar rooted trees. Since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty$ have no wire, they are encoded by forests of nonempty trees. Observe that for any nonnegative integer $\gamma$, ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ is a sub-PRO of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty$. ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ is a bialgebra. By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\], as an algebra, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{S}}_T$, where the $T$ are nonempty planar rooted trees. Its bases are indexed by planar forests of such trees. Besides, by Proposition \[prop:sous\_generateurs\_libre\_donne\_quotient\], since ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ is generated by a subset of the generators of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty$, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is a bialgebra quotient of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$. Moreover, the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ satisfies . To turn ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ into a combinatorial Hopf algebra, we cannot consider the grading $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}_n) := 1$ because there would be infinitely many elements of degree $1$. Therefore, we consider on ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ the grading $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}_n) := n$. In this way, the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{S}}_F$ is the number of edges of the forest $F$. By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. ### Dimensions The series of the algebraic generators of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ is $$G(t) := \sum_{n {\geqslant}1} \frac{1}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n} t^n$$ since its coefficients are the Catalan numbers, counting planar rooted trees with $n$ edges. As ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ is free as an algebra, its Hilbert series is $$H(t) := \frac{1}{1 - G(t)} = 1 + \sum_{n {\geqslant}1} \frac{1}{2}\binom{2n}{n} t^n.$$ The dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\infty)$ are then the same as the dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_1)$ (see ). The Faà di Bruno algebra and its deformations --------------------------------------------- We shall give here a method to construct the Hopf algebras ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$ of Foissy [@Foi08] from our construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ in the case where $\gamma$ is a nonnegative integer. ### Associative PRO Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative integer and ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ be the quotient of ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ by the finest congruence $\equiv$ satisfying $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \quad \equiv \quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,, \qquad k_1 + k_2 = \gamma, \ell_1 + \ell_2 = \gamma.$$ We can observe that ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ is a stiff PRO because $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\] and that ${\mathsf{As}}_0 = {\mathsf{PRF}}_0$. Moreover, observe that, when $\gamma {\geqslant}1$, there is in ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ exactly one indecomposable element of arity $n\gamma + 1$ for any $n {\geqslant}0$. We denote by $\alpha_n$ this element. We consider on ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ the grading $\omega$ inherited from the one of ${\mathsf{PRT}}_\gamma$. This grading is still well-defined in ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ since any $\equiv$-equivalence class contains prographs of a same degree and satisfies, for all $n {\geqslant}0$, $\omega(\alpha_n) = n$. Any element of ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ is then a word $\alpha_{k_1} \dots \alpha_{k_\ell}$ and can be encoded by a word of nonnegative integers $k_1 \dots k_{\ell}$. Since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ have no wire, they are encoded by words of positive integers. ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. As an algebra, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{T}}_n$, $n {\geqslant}1$, and its bases are indexed by words of positive integers where the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{T}}_{k_1 \dots k_\ell}$ is $k_1 + \dots + k_\ell$. ### Coproduct Since any element $\alpha_n$ of ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$ decomposes into $\alpha_n = x \circ y$ if and only if $x = \alpha_k$ and $y = \alpha_{i_1} \dots \alpha_{i_{k\gamma + 1}}$ with $i_1 + \dots + i_{k\gamma + 1} = n - k$, by Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_coproduit\], for any $n {\geqslant}1$, the coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ expresses as $$\label{equ:coproduit_analogue_FdBNC_gamma} \Delta({\mathbf{T}}_n) = \sum_{k = 0}^n {\mathbf{T}}_k \otimes \left(\sum_{i_1+\dots+ i_{k\gamma+1} = n - k} {\mathbf{T}}_{i_1}\dots {\mathbf{T}}_{i_{k\gamma+1}}\right),$$ where ${\mathbf{T}}_0$ is identified with the unity ${\mathbf{T}}_\epsilon$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$. For instance, in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_1)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \Delta({\mathbf{T}}_3) = {\mathbf{T}}_0 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_3 + {\mathbf{T}}_1 \otimes ({\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_2 + {\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_2{\mathbf{T}}_0) \\ + {\mathbf{T}}_2 \otimes ({\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1+{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0+{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0) + {\mathbf{T}}_3 \otimes ({\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0) \\ = {\mathbf{T}}_\epsilon \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_3 + 2\,{\mathbf{T}}_1\otimes {\mathbf{T}}_2 + {\mathbf{T}}_1 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{11} + 3\,{\mathbf{T}}_2\otimes {\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_3 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_\epsilon,\end{gathered}$$ and in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_2)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \Delta({\mathbf{T}}_3) = {\mathbf{T}}_0 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_3 + {\mathbf{T}}_1 \otimes ({\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_2 + {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_2{\mathbf{T}}_0 + {\mathbf{T}}_2{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0 + {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0) \\ + {\mathbf{T}}_2 \otimes ({\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0 + {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0 + {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0 + {\mathbf{T}}_1{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0) \\ + {\mathbf{T}}_3 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0{\mathbf{T}}_0 \\ = {\mathbf{T}}_\epsilon \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_3 + 3\,{\mathbf{T}}_1 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_2 + 3\,{\mathbf{T}}_1 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{11} + 5\,{\mathbf{T}}_2 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_1 + {\mathbf{T}}_3 \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_\epsilon.\end{gathered}$$ ### Isomorphism with the deformation of the noncommutative Faà di Bruno Hopf algebra \[thm:construction\_FdBNC\_gamma\] For any nonnegative integer $\gamma$, the Hopf algebra ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ is the deformation of the noncommutative Faà di Bruno Hopf algebra ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$. Let us set $\sigma_1 := \sum_{n{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{T}}_n$. By , we have $$\begin{aligned} \Delta(\sigma_1) & = \sum_{n{\geqslant}0}\sum_{k=0}^n {\mathbf{T}}_k \otimes \left(\sum_{i_1+\dots+ i_{k\gamma+1} = n-k} {\mathbf{T}}_{i_1}\dots {\mathbf{T}}_{i_{k\gamma+1}}\right) \\ & = \sum_{k{\geqslant}0}{\mathbf{T}}_k\otimes \left(\sum_{n{\geqslant}k} \enspace \sum_{i_1+\dots+ i_{k\gamma+1} = n-k} {\mathbf{T}}_{i_1}\dots {\mathbf{T}}_{i_{k\gamma+1}}\right)\\ & = \sum_{k{\geqslant}0}{\mathbf{T}}_k\otimes \left(\sum_{i_1+\dots+ i_{k\gamma+1}{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{T}}_{i_1}\dots {\mathbf{T}}_{i_{k\gamma+1}}\right)\\ & = \sum_{k{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{T}}_k\otimes \left(\sum_{i{\geqslant}0}{\mathbf{T}}_i\right)^{k\gamma+1}\\ & = \sum_{k{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{T}}_k\otimes \sigma_1^{k\gamma+1}, \end{aligned}$$ showing that for any $n {\geqslant}0$, $\Delta({\mathbf{T}}_n)$ is the homogeneous component of degree $n$ in $\sum_{k{\geqslant}0} {\mathbf{T}}_k\otimes \sigma_1^{k\gamma+1}$. Therefore, by the definition of the coproduct of ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$ (see ), the map ${\mathbf{T}}_n\mapsto {\mathbf{S}}_n$ from ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ to ${\mathbf{FdB}}_\gamma$ is an isomorphism of Hopf algebras. Hopf algebra of forests of bitrees ---------------------------------- Let us describe here a general construction on PROs. If $G$ is a bigraded set of the form $G = \sqcup_{p {\geqslant}1} \sqcup_{q {\geqslant}1} G(p, q)$, we denote by $G^{\mathrm{op}}$ the bigraded set defined by $$G^{\mathrm{op}}(p, q) := G(q, p), \qquad p, q {\geqslant}1.$$ From a geometrical point of view, any elementary prograph over $G^{\mathrm{op}}$ is obtained by reversing from bottom to top an elementary prograph over $G$. We moreover denote by ${\mathrm{rev}}: {\mathrm{Free}}(G^{\mathrm{op}}) \to {\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ the bijection sending any prograph $x$ of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G^{\mathrm{op}})$ to the prograph ${\mathrm{rev}}(x)$ of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ obtained by reversing $x$ from bottom to top. Now, given a PRO ${\mathcal{P}}:= {\mathrm{Free}}(G)/_\equiv$, we define ${\mathsf{S}}({\mathcal{P}})$ as the PRO $${\mathsf{S}}({\mathcal{P}}) := {\mathrm{Free}}\left(G \sqcup G^{\mathrm{op}}\right)/_{\cong},$$ where $\cong$ is the finest congruence of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G \sqcup G^{\mathrm{op}})$ satisfying $$x \cong y \quad \mbox{if } (x, y \in {\mathrm{Free}}(G) \mbox{ and } x \equiv y) \enspace \mbox{ or } \enspace (x, y \in {\mathrm{Free}}(G^{\mathrm{op}}) \mbox{ and } {\mathrm{rev}}(x) \equiv {\mathrm{rev}}(y)).$$ Notice that in this definition, we consider ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$ and ${\mathrm{Free}}(G^{\mathrm{op}})$ as sub-PROs of ${\mathrm{Free}}(G\sqcup G^{\mathrm{op}})$ in an obvious way. Notice also that if ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a free PRO ${\mathrm{Free}}(G)$, then the congruence $\equiv$ is trivial, so that $\cong$ is also trivial, and ${\mathsf{S}}({\mathcal{P}}) = {\mathrm{Free}}(G\sqcup G^{\mathrm{op}})$. Besides, as an other immediate property of this construction, remark that when ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a stiff PRO, the congruence $\cong$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\], and then, ${\mathsf{S}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is a stiff PRO. We shall present here two Hopf algebras coming from the construction ${\mathsf{S}}$ applied on ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ and ${\mathsf{As}}_\gamma$. ### PRO of forests of bitrees Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative integer and ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$ be the free PRO generated by $G := G(\gamma+1, 1) \sqcup G(1, \gamma+1)$ where $G(\gamma+1, 1) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$ and $G(1, \gamma+1) := \{{\mathtt{b}}\}$, with the grading $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}) := \omega({\mathtt{b}}) := 1$. One has ${\mathsf{S}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma) = {\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$. Any prograph $x$ of ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$ can be seen as a forest of [$\gamma$-bitrees]{}, that are labeled planar trees where internal nodes labeled by ${\mathtt{a}}$ have $\gamma+1$ children and one parent, and the internal nodes labeled by ${\mathtt{b}}$ have one child and $\gamma+1$ parents. Since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$ have no wire, they are encoded by forests of nonempty $\gamma$-bitrees. ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\], as an algebra, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$ is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{S}}_T$, where the $T$ are nonempty $\gamma$-bitrees. Its bases are indexed by planar forests of such bitrees where the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{S}}_F$ is the total number of internal nodes in the bitrees of $F$. Moreover, by Proposition \[prop:sous\_generateurs\_libre\_donne\_quotient\], since ${\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma$ is generated by a subset of the generators of ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{PRF}}_\gamma)$ is a quotient bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$. ### Coproduct The coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$ can be described, like the one of ${\mathbf{CK}}$ on forests, by means of admissible cuts on forests of $\gamma$-bitrees. We have for instance $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](N3)at(-2,-5){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](N3)at(-2,-5){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-.5,-3){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(.5,-3){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(-2,-3){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,-1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](N3)at(-1,-5){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N3)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,-1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-5){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](SS1)at(.5,4){}; \node[Feuille](SS2)at(-.5,4){}; \node[Feuille](EE1)at(0,0){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](NN1)at(0,2){}; \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS2); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE1); \node[Feuille](S1)at(2,4){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(1.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2.5,0){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(2,2){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-5){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](N3)at(-2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-.5,-3){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(.5,-3){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-1,-3){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(0,-5){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](SS1)at(.5,4){}; \node[Feuille](SS2)at(-.5,4){}; \node[Feuille](EE1)at(0,0){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](NN1)at(0,2){}; \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS1); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(SS2); \draw[Arete](NN1)--(EE1); \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{ \scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.7] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,1){}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1.5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2.5,-7){}; \node[Noeud](N1)at(0,-1){}; \node[Noeud](N2)at(1,-3){}; \node[Noeud,Marque1](N3)at(-2,-5){}; \node[Noeud](N4)at(2,-5){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N4); \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset}.\end{gathered}$$ ### Dimensions We only know the dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$ when $\gamma = 0$. In this case, $0$-bitrees of size $n$ are linear trees and can hence be seen as words of length $n$ on the alphabet $\{{\mathtt{a}}, {\mathtt{b}}\}$. Therefore, as ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma)$ is free as an algebra, the bases of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FBT}}_0)$ are indexed by multiwords on $\{{\mathtt{a}}, {\mathtt{b}}\}$ and its Hilbert series is $$H(t) := 1+\sum_{n{\geqslant}1}2^{2n-1}t^n.$$ ### PRO of biassociative operators and its Hopf algebra Let ${\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$ be the quotient of ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$ by the finest congruence $\equiv$ satisfying $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \quad \equiv \quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur](N1)at(0,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur](N2)at(0,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,, \qquad k_1 + k_2 = \gamma, \ell_1 + \ell_2 = \gamma,$$ and $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(0,2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(0,5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[above of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[above of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge k_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \quad \equiv \quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N1)at(0,2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,Marque1](N2)at(0,5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{b}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-5,7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(-3,7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(-1,7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(1,7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(3,7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(5,7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E6); \node[right of=E3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node(k1)[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[above of=k1,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math} \Huge \ell_1\end{math}}}; \node(k2)[right of=E5,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[above of=k2,node distance=.75cm] {\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell_2\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,, \qquad k_1 + k_2 = \gamma, \ell_1 + \ell_2 = \gamma.$$ We can observe that ${\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$ is a stiff PRO because $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\]. Notice that ${\mathsf{S}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma) = {\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$ and ${\mathsf{BAs}}_0 = {\mathsf{FBT}}_0$. We consider on ${\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$ the grading $\omega$ inherited from the one of ${\mathsf{FBT}}_\gamma$. This grading is still well-defined in ${\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma$ since any $\equiv$-equivalence class contains prographs of a same degree. Notice that ${\mathsf{BAs}}_1$ is very similar to the PRO governing bialgebras (see [@Mar08]). Indeed, it only lacks in ${\mathsf{BAs}}_1$ the usual compatibility relation between its two generators. Notice also that the PRO governing bialgebras is not a stiff PRO. By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma)$ is then a combinatorial Hopf algebra. Moreover, we can observe that ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{As}}_\gamma)$ is a quotient bialgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{BAs}}_\gamma)$. Hopf algebra of heaps of pieces ------------------------------- We present here the construction of a Hopf algebra depending on a nonnegative integer $\gamma$, whose bases are indexed by heaps of pieces. ### PRO of heaps of pieces Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative integer and ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ be the free PRO generated by $G := G(\gamma + 1, \gamma + 1) := \{{\mathtt{a}}\}$, with the grading $\omega$ defined by $\omega({\mathtt{a}}) := 1$. Any prograph $x$ of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ can be seen as a heap of pieces of width $\gamma + 1$ (see [@Vie86] for some theory about these objects). For instance, the prograph $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Feuille](S7)at(9,0){}; \node[Feuille](S8)at(10,0){}; \node[Feuille](S9)at(11,0){}; \node[Feuille](S10)at(14,0){}; \node[Feuille](S11)at(15,0){}; \node[Feuille](S12)at(16,0){}; \node[Feuille](S13)at(18,0){}; \node[Feuille](S14)at(19,0){}; \node[Feuille](S10a)at(11.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S10b)at(12.5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S10c)at(13.5,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-7){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-7){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N4)at(10,-7){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N5)at(15,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N6)at(18,-7){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N7)at(12.5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E7)at(9,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E8)at(10,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E9)at(11,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E10)at(14,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E11)at(16,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E12)at(16,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E13)at(17,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E14)at(18,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E15)at(19,-9){}; \node[Feuille](E10a)at(12.5,-9){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(S9); \draw[Arete](N5)--(S10); \draw[Arete](N5)--(S11); \draw[Arete](N5)--(S12); \draw[Arete](N6)--(S13); \draw[Arete](N6)--(S14); \draw[Arete](N7)--(S10a); \draw[Arete](N7)--(S10b); \draw[Arete](N7)--(S10c); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E7); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E8); \draw[Arete](N4)--(E9); \draw[Arete](N5)--(E10); \draw[Arete](N5)--(E11); \draw[Arete](N5)--(E12); \draw[Arete](N6)--(E13); \draw[Arete](N6)--(E14); \draw[Arete](N6)--(E15); \draw[Arete](N7)--(E10a); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N5)--(N6); \draw[Arete](N7)--(N4); \draw[Arete](N7)--(N5); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}$$ of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_2$ is encoded by the heap of pieces of width $3$ depicted by $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino3](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino3](1)at(3,0){}; \node[Domino3](2)at(1,.5){}; \node[Domino3](3)at(6,0){}; \node[Domino3](4)at(12,0){}; \node[Domino3](5)at(10,.5){}; \node[Domino3](6)at(8,1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,.$$ Notice that ${\mathsf{Heap}}_0 = {\mathsf{PRF}}_0$. Besides, since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ have no wire, they are encoded by horizontally connected heaps of pieces of width $\gamma + 1$. ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_bigebre\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$ is a combinatorial Hopf algebra. By Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\], as an algebra, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$ is freely generated by the ${\mathbf{S}}_\lambda$ where the $\lambda$ are heaps of pieces that cannot be obtained by juxtaposing two heaps of pieces. Its bases are indexed by horizontally connected heaps of pieces of width $\gamma + 1$ where the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{S}}_\Lambda$ is the number of pieces of $\Lambda$. ### Coproduct The coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$ can be described, like the one of ${\mathbf{CK}}$ on forests, by means of admissible cuts on heaps of pieces. Indeed, if $\Lambda$ is a horizontally connected heap of pieces, by definition of the construction ${\mathsf{H}}$, $$\Delta({\mathbf{S}}_\Lambda) = \sum_{\Lambda' \in {\mathrm{Adm}}(\Lambda)} {\mathbf{S}}_{\Lambda'} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\Lambda/_{\Lambda'}},$$ where ${\mathrm{Adm}}(\Lambda)$ is the set of [admissible cuts]{} of $\Lambda$, that is, the set of heaps of pieces obtained by keeping an upper part of $\Lambda$ and by readjusting it so that it becomes horizontally connected and where $\Lambda/_{\Lambda'}$ denotes the heap of pieces obtained by removing from $\Lambda$ the pieces of $\Lambda'$ and by readjusting the remaining pieces so that they form an horizontally connected heap of pieces. For instance, in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_1)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](3)at(2,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{S}}_{\emptyset}\,.\end{gathered}$$ ### Dimensions \[prop:dimensions\_PvH\_Heap\_gamma\] For any nonnegative integer $\gamma$, the Hilbert series $C_{\gamma}(t)$ of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$ satisfies $C_{\gamma}(t) = \sum_{n {\geqslant}0} C_{\gamma, n}(t)$, where $$C_{\gamma, n}(t) := P_{\gamma, n}(t) - \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} C_{\gamma, k}(t) P_{\gamma, n - k - 1}(t),$$ $$P_{\gamma, n}(t) := \frac{1}{F_{\gamma, n}(t)},$$ and $$F_{\gamma, n}(t) := \begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if } n {\leqslant}\gamma, \\ F_{\gamma, n - 1}(t) - t F_{\gamma, n - \gamma - 1}(t) & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ The proof of this statement uses the [Inversion Lemma]{} of Viennot [@Vie86] and some ideas employed in [@BMR02] for the enumeration of the so-called [connected heaps]{}. The first ingredient consists in the alternating generating series $$\sum_{x = {\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_{p_2} * \dots * {\mathds{1}}_{p_\ell} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_{p_{\ell + 1}} \in {\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma} (-1)^{\deg(x)} t^{\deg(x)}$$ of the heaps of pieces of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ of height no greater than $1$ (called [trivial heaps]{} in [@Vie86] and [@BMR02]). This series is obviously $F_{\gamma, n}(t)$. By the Inversion Lemma, we have that $P_{\gamma, n}(t)$ is the generating series of the elements of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ with exactly $n$ inputs (and thus, also $n$ outputs). Now, to count only the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$, observe that any element $x$ of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ with $n$ inputs is either reduced or is of the form $x = y * {\mathds{1}}_1 * z$ where $y$ is a reduced element of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ with $k$ inputs and $z$ is an element of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ with $n - k - 1$ inputs. Then, we have $$P_{\gamma, n}(t) = C_{\gamma, n}(t) + \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} C_{\gamma, k}(t) P_{\gamma, n - k - 1}(t),$$ so that $C_{\gamma, n}(t)$ counts the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ with $n$ inputs. Whence the result. By using Proposition \[prop:dimensions\_PvH\_Heap\_gamma\], one can compute the first dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$. The first dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_1)$ are $$\label{equ:dim_Heap_1} 1, 1, 4, 18, 85, 411, 2014, 9950, 49417, 246302, 1230623,$$ and those of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_2)$ are $$\label{equ:dim_Heap_2} 1, 1, 6, 42, 313, 2407, 18848, 149271, 1191092, 9553551, 76910632.$$ Since by Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_generation\_liberte\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$ is free as an algebra, the series $G_\gamma(t)$ of its algebraic generators satisfies $G_\gamma(t) = 1 - \frac{1}{C_\gamma(t)}$. The first dimensions of the algebraic generators of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_1)$ are $$\label{equ:dim_generateurs_Heap_1} 1, 3, 11, 44, 184, 790, 3450, 15242, 67895, 304267, 1369761,$$ and those of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_2)$ are $$1, 5, 31, 210, 1488, 10826, 80111, 599671, 4525573, 34357725, 262011295.$$ Among these four integer sequences, only is listed in [@Slo] as Sequence [[[A059715]{}](http://oeis.org/A059715)]{}. Hopf algebra of heaps of friable pieces --------------------------------------- From a PRO being a special quotient of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$, we construct a Hopf algebra structure on the $(\gamma+1)$-st tensor power of the vector space ${\mathbf{Sym}}$. ### PRO of heaps of friable pieces Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative integer and ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ be the quotient of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ by the finest congruence $\equiv$ satisfying $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.1] \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(6,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(-2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \node[above of=N1,node distance=2cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=N2,node distance=2cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[right of=S3,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[left of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=27] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=27] node[]{}(N2); \node[]at(2.0,-3.5) {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[]at(2,-3.9){\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split} \quad \equiv \quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.1] \node[Feuille](S1)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(0,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(5,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(8,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(2,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \node[above of=N1,node distance=2cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[below of=N2,node distance=2cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[right of=S4,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[right of=E2,node distance=1cm] {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=27] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=27] node[]{}(N2); \node[]at(4.0,-3.5) {\scalebox{2}{\begin{math}\Huge \dots\end{math}}}; \node[]at(4,-3.9){\scalebox{3}{\begin{math}\Huge \ell\end{math}}}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,, \qquad \ell \in [\gamma].$$ For instance, for $\gamma = 2$, the $\equiv$-equivalence class of $$\begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}$$ contains exactly the prographs $$\label{equ:exemple_classe_FHeap_3} \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(3,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(1,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(5,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(4,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-7){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-7){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-2){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-8){\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,.$$ We can observe that ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ is a stiff PRO because $\equiv$ satisfies \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_1\] and \[item:propriete\_bonnes\_congruences\_2\] and ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_0 = {\mathsf{Heap}}_0$. We call ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ the [PRO of heaps of friable pieces]{} of width $\gamma + 1$. This terminology is justified by the following observation. Any piece of width $\gamma + 1$ (depicted by $\scalebox{.4}{\tikz \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){};}$) consists in $\gamma + 1$ small pieces, called [bursts]{}, glued together. This forms a [friable piece]{} (depicted, for $\gamma = 2$ for instance, by $\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(1,0){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(2,0){}; \end{tikzpicture}}$). The congruence $\equiv$ of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ can be interpreted by letting all pieces break under gravity, separating the bursts constituting these. For instance, the prographs of , respectively, encoded by the heaps of pieces $$\label{equ:exemple_classe_Heap_3} \begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino3](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino3](1)at(1,.5){}; \node[Domino3](2)at(3,1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino3](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino3](1)at(3,0){}; \node[Domino3](2)at(1,.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino3](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino3](1)at(-1,.5){}; \node[Domino3](2)at(2,.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,\quad \begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino3](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino3](1)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino3](2)at(3,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,$$ all become the heap of friable pieces $$\label{equ:exemple_empilement_friable} \begin{split}\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(1,0){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(2,0){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(3,0){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(4,0){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(5,0){}; \node[Domino1](6)at(1,.5){}; \node[Domino1](7)at(2,.5){}; \node[Domino1](8)at(3,.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}$$ obtained by replacing each piece of any heap of pieces of by friable pieces. The grading $\omega$ of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ is the one inherited from the one of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$. This grading is still well-defined in ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ since any $\equiv$-equivalence class contains prographs of a same degree. Since the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ have no wire, they are encoded by horizontally connected heaps of friable pieces. Besides, ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ admits the following alternative description using the ${\mathsf{B}}$ construction (see Section \[subsubsec:monoides\_vers\_PROs\]). Indeed, ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ is the sub-PRO of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathbb{N}})$ generated by $1^{\gamma+1}$, where ${\mathbb{N}}$ denotes here the additive monoid of nonnegative integers and $1^{\gamma+1}$ denotes the sequence of $\gamma+1$ occurrences of $1 \in {\mathbb{N}}$. The correspondence between heaps of friable pieces and words of integers of this second description is clear since any element $x$ of the sub-PRO of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathbb{N}})$ generated by $1^{\gamma+1}$ encodes a heap of friable pieces consisting, from left to right, in columns of $x_i$ bursts for $i \in [n]$, where $n$ is the length of $x$. For instance, the word $122211$ encodes the heap of friable pieces of . ### Hopf algebra By Theorem \[thm:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\] and Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_graduation\], ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ is a combinatorial Hopf subalgebra of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma)$. The bases of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ are indexed by horizontally connected heaps of friable pieces of width $\gamma + 1$ where the degree of a basis element ${\mathbf{T}}_\Lambda$ is the number of pieces of $\Lambda$. ### Coproduct The coproduct of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ can be described with the aid of the interpretation of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ as a sub-PRO of ${\mathsf{B}}({\mathbb{N}})$. Indeed, if $\Lambda$ is an horizontally connected heap of friable pieces, by Proposition \[prop:PRO\_vers\_AHC\_congruence\_coproduit\], $$\Delta({\mathbf{T}}_\Lambda) = \sum_{\substack{\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2 \in {\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma \\ \Lambda = \Lambda_1 + \Lambda_2}} {\mathbf{T}}_{\Lambda'_1} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\Lambda'_2},$$ where $\Lambda_1 + \Lambda_2$ is the heap of friable pieces obtained by stacking $\Lambda_2$ onto $\Lambda_1$ and where $\Lambda'_1$ (resp. $\Lambda'_2$) is the readjustment of $\Lambda_1$ (resp. $\Lambda_2$) so that it is horizontally connected. For instance, we have in ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_1)$ $${\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(0,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(-1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{S}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino2](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino2](1)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino2](2)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}}\,,$$ $$\begin{gathered} \Delta {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace = \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\emptyset} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \\ \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \enspace + \enspace {\mathbf{T}}_{\scalebox{.4}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Domino1](0)at(0,0){}; \node[Domino1](1)at(-1,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](2)at(0,-.5){}; \node[Domino1](3)at(-1,-1){}; \node[Domino1](4)at(0,-1){}; \node[Domino1](5)at(1,-1){}; \end{tikzpicture}}} \otimes {\mathbf{T}}_{\emptyset}.\end{gathered}$$ ### Dimensions \[prop:dimensions\_PvH\_FHeap\_gamma\] For any nonnegative integer $\gamma$, the $n$-th homogeneous component of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ has dimension $(\gamma + 2)^{n - 1}$. Let us show that there are $(\gamma + 2)^{n - 1}$ reduced elements in ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$. Let $x$ be a prograph of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$. We say that $x$ is a [$\gamma$-falling staircase]{} if $x$ is of the form $$\label{equ:decomposition_escalier_FHeap} x = ({\mathds{1}}_{p_1} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_{q_1}) \circ ({\mathds{1}}_{p_1 + p_2} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_{q_2}) \circ \dots \circ ({\mathds{1}}_{p_1 + p_2 + \dots + p_\ell} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_{q_\ell}),$$ where $p_1 = 0$, $q_\ell = 0$, and $0 {\leqslant}p_i {\leqslant}\gamma$ for all $2 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}\ell$. Any $\gamma$-falling staircase can be encoded by the sequence $(p_2, \dots, p_\ell)$ involved in its decomposition . For instance, for $$\begin{split}x := \enspace\end{split} \begin{split}\scalebox{.25}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node[Feuille](S1)at(0,0){}; \node[Feuille](S2)at(1,0){}; \node[Feuille](S3)at(2,0){}; \node[Feuille](S4)at(4,0){}; \node[Feuille](S5)at(6,0){}; \node[Feuille](S6)at(7,0){}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N1)at(1,-2) {\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N2)at(3,-5) {\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Operateur,minimum width=3cm](N3)at(6,-8) {\begin{math}{\mathtt{a}}\end{math}}; \node[Feuille](E1)at(0,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E2)at(2,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E3)at(3,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E4)at(5,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E5)at(6,-10){}; \node[Feuille](E6)at(7,-10){}; \draw[Arete](N1)--(S1); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S2); \draw[Arete](N1)--(S3); \draw[Arete](N2)--(S4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(S6); \draw[Arete](N1)--(E1); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E2); \draw[Arete](N2)--(E3); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E4); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E5); \draw[Arete](N3)--(E6); \draw[Arete](N2)--(N3); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend left=20] node[]{}(N2); \draw[Arete](N1)edge[bend right=20] node[]{}(N2); \end{tikzpicture}}\end{split}\,,$$ we have $x = ({\mathds{1}}_0 * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_3) \circ ({\mathds{1}}_{0 + 1} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_2) \circ ({\mathds{1}}_{0 + 1 + 2} * {\mathtt{a}}* {\mathds{1}}_0)$ so that $x$ is a $2$-falling staircase encoded by the sequence $(1, 2)$. Moreover, we say that $x$ is a [$\gamma$-standard form]{} if $x$ is an horizontal composition of $\gamma$-falling staircases. Any $\gamma$-standard form can be encoded by the sequence of the sequences encoding, from left to right, its falling staircases. By definition of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ as a quotient of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$, one can observe that two different $\gamma$-standard forms are sent to two different heaps of friable pieces by the canonical surjection ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$. Besides, one can straightforwardly prove by induction on the degree that any reduced element of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ is $\equiv$-equivalent to a $\gamma$-falling staircase. This shows that the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ are in bijection with the standard forms of ${\mathsf{Heap}}_\gamma$ of a same degree. Hence, the reduced elements of ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ of degree $n$ can be encoded by sequences of $k$ words on the alphabet $\{0\} \cup [\gamma]$, having a total of $n - k$ letters. Whence the result. ### Miscellaneous properties By the dimensions of ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ provided by Proposition \[prop:dimensions\_PvH\_FHeap\_gamma\], as a graded vector space, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ is the $\gamma + 1$-st tensor power of the underlying vector space of ${\mathbf{Sym}}$. Indeed, the $n$-th homogeneous components of these two spaces have the same dimension. Besides, notice that since ${\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma$ is by definition a sub-PRO of the PRO obtained by applying the construction ${\mathsf{B}}$ on a commutative monoid, ${\mathsf{H}}({\mathsf{FHeap}}_\gamma)$ is cocommutative. Concluding remarks and perspectives {#concluding-remarks-and-perspectives .unnumbered} =================================== We have defined a construction ${\mathsf{H}}$ establishing a new link between the theory of PROs and the theory of combinatorial Hopf algebras, by generalizing a former construction from operads to bialgebras. By the way, we have exhibited the so-called stiff PROs which is the most general class of PROs for which our construction works. By using ${\mathsf{H}}$, we have defined some new and recovered some already known combinatorial Hopf algebras by starting with very simple PROs. Nevertheless, we are very far from having exhausted the possibilities, and it would not be surprising that ${\mathsf{H}}$ could reconstruct some other known Hopf algebras, maybe in an unexpected basis. Computing the Hilbert series of a combinatorial Hopf algebra is, usually, a routine work. Nevertheless, in the general case, it is very difficult to compute the Hilbert series of ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ when ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a free PRO. Indeed, this computation requires to know, given a free PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$, the series $$F_{\mathcal{P}}(t) := \sum_{x \in {\operatorname{red}}({\mathcal{P}})} t^{\deg(x)},$$ which seems difficult to explicitly describe in general and is not known to the knowledge of the authors. As an other perspective, it is conceivable to go further in the study of the algebraic structure of the bialgebras obtained by ${\mathsf{H}}$. The question of the potential autoduality of ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ depending on some conditions on the PRO ${\mathcal{P}}$ is noteworthy. A way to solve this problem is to provide enough conditions on ${\mathcal{P}}$ to endow ${\mathsf{H}}{\mathcal{P}}$ with a bidendriform bialgebra structure [@Foi07]. In such algebraic structures, there are two products $\prec$ and $\succ$ and two coproducts $\Delta_\prec$ and $\Delta_\succ$ satisfying some precise axioms. This way to solve this perspective is based upon the fact that any bidendriform bialgebra is free and self-dual as a bialgebra [@Foi07].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This article is dedicated to geometric structure of the Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces in case of the pure atomic measure. We study complete criteria for order continuity, the Fatou property, strict monotonicity and strict convexity in the sequence Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{p,w}$. Next, we present a full characterization of extreme points of the unit ball in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. We also establish a complete description with an isometry of the dual and predual spaces of the sequence Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{1,w}$ written in terms of the Marcinkiewicz spaces. Finally, we show a fundamental application of geometric structure of $\gamma_{1,w}$ to one-complemented subspaces of $\gamma_{1,w}$.' author: - 'Maciej Ciesielski$^{1}$ and Grzegorz Lewicki' title: Sequence Lorentz spaces and their geometric structure --- [ ]{} [ Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces, strict monotonicity, strict convexity, order continuity, extreme point, existence set, one-complemented subspace.]{} Introduction ============ Geometric structures with application of the Lorentz spaces $\Gamma_{p,w}$ and Marcinkiewicz spaces $M_\phi$ in case of the non-atomic measure have been investigated extensively by many authors [@Cies-geom; @CKKP; @CiesKamPluc; @KMGam; @KamMal]. In contrast to the non-atomic case there are only few papers concerning geometric structure of sequence Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces. The first crucial paper devoted to the Marcinkiewicz spaces appeared in 2004 [@KamLee], where authors have studied the biduals and order continuous ideals of the Marcinkiewicz spaces for the pure atomic measure. The next significant paper was published in 2009 [@KamLeeLew], in which there has been investigated, among others, strict monotonicity, smooth points and extreme points with application to one-complemented subspaces. For other results concerning the issue devoted to one-complemented subspaces please see a.g. [@DaEn; @JamKamLew; @KamLew]. The purpose of this article is to explore geometric properties of the sequence Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{p,w}$ and its dual and predual spaces. It is worth mentioning that we present an application of geometric properties to a characterization of one-complemented subspaces in the Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{p,w}$ in case of the pure atomic measure. It is necessary to mention that a characterization of geometric structure of the sequence Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces does not follow immediately as a consequence of well known results from the case of non-atomic measure in general. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the needed terminology. In section 3, we show an auxiliary result devoted to a relationship between the global convergence in measure of a sequence $(x_n)\subset\ell^0$ and the pointwise convergence of its sequence of decreasing rearrangements $(x_n^)$. In case of the pure atomic measure, we also establish a correspondence between an identity of signs of the values for two different sequences in $\ell^0$ and an additivity of the decreasing rearrangement operation for these sequences. Section 4 is devoted to an investigation of geometric structure of sequence Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{p,w}$. Namely, we focus on complete criteria for order continuity and the Fatou property in Lorentz spaces for the pure atomic measure. Next, we present a characterization of strict monotonicity and strict convexity of $\gamma_{p,w}$ written in terms of the weight sequence $w$. In spirit of the previous result, we describe an equivalent condition for extreme points of the unit ball in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. In section 5, we solve the essential problem showing a full description of the dual and predual spaces of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. First, we answer a crucial question under which condition does an isometric isomorphism exist between the dual space of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ and the sequence Marcinkiewicz space $m_\phi$. Next, we discuss complete criteria which guarantee that the predual space of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ coincides with the sequence Marcinkiewicz space $m_\phi^0$. Additionally, we investigate necessary condition for the isometry between the predual of $\gamma_{1,w}$ and the Marcinkiewicz space $m_\phi^0$. In section 5, we present an application of geometric properties of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ to a characterization of one-complemented subspaces. Namely, using an isometry between the classical Lorentz space $d_{1,w}$ and the Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$, we prove that there exists norm one projection on any nontrivial existence subspace of $\gamma_{1,w}$. Additionally, by the previous investigation and in view of [@KamLeeLew], we establish a full characterization of smooth points in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ and its predual and dual spaces. Finally, we study an equivalent condition for an extreme points in the dual space of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. Preliminaries ============= Let $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{R}^+$ and $\mathbb{N}$ be the sets of reals, nonnegative reals and positive integers, respectively. A mapping $\phi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ is said to be quasiconcave if $\phi(t)$ is increasing and $\phi(t)/t$ is decreasing on $\mathbb{N}$ and also $\phi(n)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We denote by $\ell^{0}$ the set of all real sequences, and by $S_X$ (resp. $B_X)$ the unit sphere (resp. the closed unit ball) in a Banach space $(X,{\ensuremath{\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert_{X}^{}}})$. Let us denote by $(e_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ a standard basis in $\mathbb{R}^\infty$. A sequence quasi-Banach lattice $(E,\Vert \cdot \Vert _{E})$ is said to be a quasi-Banach sequence space (or a quasi-Köthe sequence space) if it is a sequence sublattice of $\ell^{0}$ and holds the following conditions - If $x\in\ell^0$, $y\in E$ and $\|x\|\leq\|y\|$, then $x\in E$ and $\\|x\\|_E\leq\\|y\\|_E$. - There exists a strictly positive $x\in E$. For simplicity let us use the short symbol $E^{+}={\{x \in E:x \ge 0\}}$. An element $x\in E$ is called a point of order continuity, shortly $x\in{E_a}$, if for any sequence $(x_{n})\subset{}E^+$ such that $x_{n}\leq \left\vert x\right\vert $ and $x_{n}\rightarrow 0$ pointwise we have $\left\Vert x_{n}\right\Vert _{E}\rightarrow 0.$ A quasi-Banach sequence space $E$ is said to be order continuous, shortly $E\in \left( OC\right)$, if any element $x\in{}E$ is a point of order continuity. A space $E$ is said to be reflexive if $E$ and its associate space $E'$ are order continuous. Given a quasi-Banach sequence space $E$ is said to have the Fatou property if for all $\left( x_{n}\right)\subset{}E^+$, $\sup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\Vert x_{n}\Vert _{E}<\infty$ and $x_{n}\uparrow x\in\ell^{0}$, then $x\in E$ and $\Vert x_{n}\Vert _{E}\uparrow\Vert x\Vert _{E}$ (see [@LinTza; @BS]). We say that $E$ is strictly monotone if for any $x,y\in{E^+}$ such that $x\leq{y}$ and $x\neq{y}$ we have ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{E}^{}}}<{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{E}^{}}}$. Let $(X,{\ensuremath{\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert_{X}^{}}})$ be a Banach space. Recall that $x\in{S_X}$ is an extreme point of $B_X$ if for any $y,z\in{S_X}$ such that $x=(y+z)/2$ we have $x=y=z$. A Banach space $X$ is called rotund or strictly convex if any $x\in{}S_X$ is an extreme point of $B_X$. An element $x\in{X}$ is called a smooth point of $X$ if there exists a unique linear bounded functional $f\in{S_{X^}}$ such that $f(x)={\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{X}^{}}}$. The distribution* for any sequence $x\in\ell^{0}$ is defined by $$d_{x}(\lambda) =\operatorname{card}\left\{k\in\mathbb{N}:\left\vert x\left(k\right) \right\vert >\lambda \right\},\qquad\lambda \geq 0.$$ For any sequence $x\in\ell^{0}$ its decreasing rearrangement is given by $$x^{}\left(n\right) =\inf \left\{ \lambda\geq 0:d_{x}\left( \lambda \right)\leq n-1\right\}, \text{ \ \ }\quad{n\in\mathbb{N}}.$$ In this article we use the notation $x^{}(\infty)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x^{}(n)$. For any sequence $x\in\ell^{0}$ we denote the maximal sequence* of $x^{\ast }$ by $$x^{\ast \ast }(n)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}x^{}(i).$$ It is easy to notice that for any point $x\in\ell^{0}$, $x^{\ast }\leq x^{\ast \ast },$ $x^{\ast \ast }$ is decreasing, continuous and subadditive. For more details of $d_{x}$, $x^{\ast }$ and $x^{\ast \ast }$ see [@BS; @KPS]. We say that two sequences $x,y\in{\ell^0}$ are equimeasurable, shortly $x\sim y$, if $d_x=d_y$. A quasi-Banach sequence space $(E,{\ensuremath{\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert_{E}^{}}})$ is called symmetric* or rearrangement invariant (r.i. for short) if whenever $x\in\ell^{0}$ and $y\in E$ such that $x \sim y,$ then $x\in E$ and $\Vert x\Vert_{E}=\Vert y\Vert _{E}$. The fundamental sequence $\phi_E$ of a symmetric space $E$ we define as follows $\phi_{E}(n)=\Vert\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n\}}\Vert_{E}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ (see [@BS]). Let $0<p<\infty$ and $w=(w(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a nonnegative real sequence and let for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ $$W(n)=\sum_{i=1}^n{w(i)}\quad\textnormal{and}\quad{W}_p(n)=n^p\sum_{i=n+1}^\infty\frac{w(i)}{i^p}<\infty.$$ For short notation the sequence $w$ is called a nonnegative weight sequence. In the whole paper, unless we say otherwise we suppose that $w$ a nonnegative weight sequence is nontrivial, i.e. there is $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $w(n)>0$. Now, we recall the sequence Lorentz space $d_{1,w}$ which is a subspace of $\ell^0$ such that for any sequence $x=(x(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in{d_{1,w}}$ we have $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{d_{1,w}}^{}}}=\sum_{i=1}^\infty{x}^{}(n)w(n)<\infty.$$ It is well known that the Lorentz space $d_{1,w}$ is a symmetric space with the Fatou property (see [@KamMal]). The sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is a collection of all real sequences $x=(x(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty({x}^{}(n))^pw(n)\right)^{1/p}<\infty.$$ Let us notice that for any nonnegative sequence $w=(w(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is a r.i. (quasi-)Banach sequence space equipped with the (quasi-)norm ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}$. It is easy to observe that the fundamental sequence of the Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is given by $\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n)={\ensuremath{\left\Vert\chi_{\{i\leq{n},i\in\mathbb{N}\}}\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=(W(n)+W_p(n))^{1/p}$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $\phi$ be a quasiconcave sequence. The Marcinkiewicz space $m_{\phi}$ and (resp. $m_\phi^0$) consists of all real sequences $x=(x(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{m_\phi}^{}}}=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left\{x^{}(n)\phi(n)\right\}<\infty\quad\left(\textnormal{resp.}\quad{m_\phi^0\subset}m_\phi\quad\textnormal{and}\quad\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x^{}(n)\phi(n)=0\right).$$ Recall that $m_\phi$ and $m_\phi^0$ are symmetric spaces equipped with the norm ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert_{m_\phi}^{}}}$ (for more details see [@KamLee]). properties of decreasing rearrangement for a pure atomic measure ================================================================ In this section, first we present an auxiliary lemma devoted to a correspondence between the global convergence in measure on $\mathbb{N}$ of an arbitrary sequence of elements in $\ell^0$ to an element in $\ell^0$ and the pointwise convergence of their decreasing rearrangements. Although the similar result emerges in case of the non-atomic measure space (see [@KPS]), the proof of it is not valid in case of the pure atomic measure space. It is worth mentioning that in the pure atomic measure space the proof of the wanted result is quite long and requires new techniques. \[lem:properties\] Let $x_m,x\in\ell^0$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. If $x_m$ converges to $x$ globally in measure, then $x_m^$ converges to $x^$ on $\mathbb{N}$. Let $(x_m)\subset\ell^0$, $x\in\ell^0$ be such that $x_m\rightarrow{x}$ globally in measure. Since for any $\epsilon>0$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $$\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:{\ensuremath{\left\vertx_m(n)-x(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}>\epsilon\}\geq\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:{\ensuremath{\left\vert\|x_m(n)\|-\|x(n)\|\right\vert_{}^{}}}>\epsilon\},$$ without loss of generality we may assume that $x\geq{0}$ and $x_m\geq{0}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $B=\{b_i\}$ be a set of all values for a function $x:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$. Define for any $i\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(B)\}$, $$N_i=\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x(n)=b_i\},\quad\textnormal{and}\quad c_i=\sum_{j=1}^{i}\operatorname{card}(N_j),\quad{c_0}=0.$$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $(b_i)$ is strictly decreasing. Now we present the proof in three cases.\ Case $1.$* Suppose that $\operatorname{card}(N_1)=\infty$. Then, it is easy to see that $x^(n)=b_1\chi_{\mathbb{N}}$. If $b_1=0$ then for all $m\geq M_{\delta_1}$ we have $$d_{x_m}(\delta_1)=\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:\|x_m(n)\|>\delta_1\}<1.$$ Hence, since $d_{x_m^}(\delta_1)=d_{x_m}(\delta_1)$ for every $m\geq{M_{\delta_1}}$, we get $x_m^\rightarrow{0}$ globally in measure, whence we infer that $x_m^\rightarrow{0}$ pointwise. In case when $B=\{b_1\}$ then we take $b_2=0$. Denote $\delta_1=(b_1-b_2)/4$. Since $x_m\rightarrow{x}$ globally in measure, there exists $M_{\delta_1}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $m\geq M_{\delta_1}$, $$\label{equ:1:converg} \operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:{\ensuremath{\left\vertx_m(n)-x(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}>\delta_1\}<1.$$ Now, we claim that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $x_m^(n)\rightarrow{x^(n)}$. Indeed, by we conclude that for any $m\geq{M_{\delta_1}}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $${\ensuremath{\left\vertx(n)-x_m(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq\delta_1.$$ If $\operatorname{card}(\mathbb{N}\setminus{N_1})=0$, then we are done. Otherwise, for any $n\in{N_1}$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}\setminus{N_1}$ we observe that $$x_m(n)\geq{x(n)-\delta_1}=b_1+\frac{3(b_1-b_2)}{4}=b_1+3\delta_1> x(k)+3\delta_1\geq x_m(k)+2\delta_1$$ for all $m\geq M_{\delta_1}$. Consequently, for every $m\geq M_{\delta_1}$ we obtain $x_m^=\left(x_m\chi_{N_1}\right)^$ and also ${\ensuremath{\left\vertb_1-x_m(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq\delta_1$ for each $n\in{N_1}$. Therefore, for all $m\geq{M_{\delta_1}}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ it is easy to notice that $$\delta_1\geq{\ensuremath{\left\vertb_1-x_m^(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\vertx^(n)-x_m^(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}.$$ Case $2.$* Assume that there exists $b_{j_0}\in{B}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $\operatorname{card}(N_{j_0})=\infty$ and $0<\operatorname{card}(N_j)<\infty$ for any $j\in\{1,\dots,j_0-1\}$. Then, we have $$\label{equ:2:converg} x^(n)=\left(\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}b_j\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n)=\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}b_j\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:c_{j-1}+1\leq{i}\leq{c_j}\}}(n).$$ In case when $\operatorname{card}{(B)}={j_0}$ then we assume that $b_{j_0+1}=0$. Denote for any $i\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(B)\}$, $$\delta_i=\frac{b_i-b_{i+1}}{4}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad\delta=\min_{1\leq i\leq{j_0}}\{\delta_i\}.$$ Since $x_m\rightarrow{x}$ globally in measure, there exists $M_{\delta}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $m\geq M_{\delta}$, $$\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:{\ensuremath{\left\vertx_m(n)-x(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}>\delta\}<1.$$ Therefore, for any $m\geq{M_\delta}$ and $n_i\in{N_i}$ where $1\leq i\leq j_0$ we have $$\label{equ:3:converg} \delta\geq{\ensuremath{\left\vertx(n_i)-x_m(n_i)\right\vert_{}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\vertb_i-x_m(n_i)\right\vert_{}^{}}}.$$ Hence, for all $m\geq{M_\delta}$ and $n_i\in{N_i}$ where $1\leq i\leq j_0-1$ we easily observe $$x_m(n_i)=b_i-\delta\geq b_{i+1}+3\delta\geq x_m(n_{i+1})+2\delta.$$ In consequence, by we get for every $m\geq{M_\delta}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\label{equ:4:converg} x_m^(n)=\left(\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n)=\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}\left(x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n-c_{j-1})\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:c_{j-1}+1\leq{i}\leq{c_j}\}}(n).$$ Clearly, there exists $\sigma:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\bigcup_{j=1}^{j_0}N_j$ a permutation such that $x^(n)=x(\sigma(n))$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus, for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $j\in\{1,\dots,j_0\}$ such that $\sigma(n)\in{N_j}$ and by we obtain $$\delta\geq\|x_m(\sigma(n))-x(\sigma(n))\|=\|x_m(\sigma(n))-b_j\|=\|(x_m\chi_{N_j})^(n-c_{j-1})-b_j\|$$ for all $m\geq{M_{\delta}}$. Therefore, by and we infer that $$\begin{aligned} x_m^(n)=&\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}\left(x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n-c_{j-1})\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:c_{j-1}+1\leq{i}\leq{c_j}\}}(n)\\ &\rightarrow\sum_{j=1}^{j_0}b_j\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:c_{j-1}+1\leq{i}\leq{c_j}\}}(n)=x^(n). \end{aligned}$$ Case $3.$ Suppose that for any $b_j\in{B}\setminus\{0\}$ we have $\operatorname{card}(N_j)<\infty$. If $\operatorname{card}(B)<\infty$ then without loss of generality we may assume that $j_0=\operatorname{card}(B)$ and $b_{j_0}=0$. Next, letting for any $i\in\{1,\dots,j_0-1\}$, $$\delta_i=\frac{b_i-b_{i+1}}{4}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad\delta=\min_{1\leq i\leq{j_0-1}}\{\delta_i\},$$ and proceeding analogously as in case $2$ we may show that $x_m^\rightarrow{x^}$ on $\mathbb{N}$, in case when $\operatorname{card}(B)<\infty$. Now, assume that $\operatorname{card}(B)=\infty$. Then, since $(b_j)$ is strictly decreasing and bounded we conclude $$\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}b_j=b\geq{0}.$$ First, let us consider that $b=0$. Let $\epsilon>0$. Then, there exists $j_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $j\geq{j_0}$ we have $$\label{equ:5:converg} 0<b_j<\frac{\epsilon}{4}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad{b_{j_0-1}\geq\frac{\epsilon}{4}}.$$ Define for any $i\in\{1,\dots,j_0\}$, $$\delta_i=\frac{b_i-b_{i+1}}{4}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad\delta=\min\left\{\frac{\epsilon/4-b_{j_0}}{4},\min_{1\leq i\leq{j_0}}\{\delta_i\}\right\}.$$ Similarly as in case $2$ there is $M_\delta\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $m\geq{M_\delta}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $k\in\bigcup_{j\geq j_0}{N_j}$ we get $$\label{equ:6:converg} {\ensuremath{\left\vertx_m(n)-x(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq\delta\quad\textnormal{and}\quad{}x_m(k)\leq{\delta}+x(k)\leq\delta+b_{j_0}<\delta+\frac{\epsilon}{4}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}.$$ Moreover, we may observe that $$x_m(n_i)\geq x_m(n_{i+1})+2\delta$$ for every $m\geq{M_\delta}$ and $n_i\in{N_i}$ where $i\in\{1,\dots,j_0-1\}$. Next, assuming that $\sigma:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}N_j$ is a permutation such that $x^(n)=x(\sigma(n))$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ with $n\leq{c_{j_0-1}}$ there exists $j\in\{1,\dots,j_0-1\}$ such that $\sigma(n)\in{N_j}$ and by we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon>\delta&\geq\|x_m(\sigma(n))-x(\sigma(n))\|=\|x_m(\sigma(n))-b_j\|\\ &=\|(x_m\chi_{N_j})^(n-c_{j-1})-b_j\|={\ensuremath{\left\vert\left(\sum_{j=1}^{j_0-1}x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n)-b_j\right\vert_{}^{}}} \end{aligned}$$ for all $m\geq{M_{\delta}}$. On the other hand, if $n>c_{j_0-1}$ then there is $j\geq{j_0}$ such that $\sigma(n)\in N_j$ and by and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\vert\left(\sum_{j=j_0}^{\infty}x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n-c_{j_0-1})-x^(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}&=\|x_m(\sigma(n))\chi_{N_j}(\sigma(n))-x(\sigma(n))\|\\ &=\|x_m(\sigma(n))-b_j\|<\epsilon \end{aligned}$$ for all $m\geq{M_{\delta}}$. Now, let us notice that for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$x^(n)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}b_j\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:c_{j-1}+1\leq{i}\leq{c_j}\}}(n)$$ and $$x_m^(n)= \begin{cases} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{j_0-1}x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n)&\textnormal{if}\quad{n}\leq{c_{j_0-1}},\\ \left(\sum_{j=j_0}^{\infty}x_m\chi_{N_j}\right)^(n-c_{j_0-1})&\textnormal{if}\quad{n}>{c_{j_0-1}}. \end{cases}$$ Hence, we infer that for any $m\geq{M_\delta}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$x_m^(n)\rightarrow{x^(n)}.$$ Now, we assume that $b>0$. Then, it is easy to see that $x^(\infty)=b>0$. Next, taking $$y=x\chi_{\operatorname{supp}(x)}+b\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus\operatorname{supp}(x)}\quad\textnormal{and}\quad{}y_m=x_m\chi_{\operatorname{supp}(x)}+b\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus\operatorname{supp}(x)}$$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$, we may show that $x^=y^$ and $x_m^=y_m^$ for sufficiently large $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Next, passing to subsequence and relabeling if necessary, it is enough to prove that $y_m^\rightarrow{y^}$ on $\mathbb{N}$. Clearly, by definition of $y$ and $y_m$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$ we may observe that $y_m-b$ converges $y-b$ globally in measure and $(y-b)^(\infty)=0$. Finally, using analogous technique as previously, in case $3$ for $b=0$, we finish the proof. \[property:sequence\] Let us notice that using analogous techniques as in the proof of the property $9^0$ in [@KPS] and by the property $7^0$ in [@KPS] (see pp. 64-65), in view of Theorem 2.7 and Proposition 3.3 in [@BS] we are able to show the below assertion.\ For any two sequences $x$ and $y$ with $x^(\infty)=0$ and $y^(\infty)=0$ the following conditions are equivalent. - For any $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $$(x+y)^(i)={x^(i)}+{y^(i)}.$$ - $\operatorname{sgn}(x(i))=\operatorname{sgn}(y(i))$ for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$ and there exists $(E_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ a countable collection of sets such that for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $\operatorname{card}(E_n)=n$ and $$x^{}(n)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in{E_n}}\|x(i)\|\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad y^{}(n)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in{E_n}}\|y(i)\|.$$ geometric structure of sequence lorentz spaces $\gamma_{p,w}$ ============================================================= In this section, we discuss complete criteria for order continuity, the Fatou property, strict monotonicity and strict convexity and also extreme points of the unit ball in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$. \[thm:OC:Lorentz\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $0<p<\infty$. The Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is order continuous if and only if $W(\infty)=\infty$. Necessity. Suppose that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is not order continuous. Then, there exists $(x_m)\subset{\gamma_{p,w}^+}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $x_m\downarrow{0}$ pointwise and $d=\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}>0$. Next, passing to subsequence and relabeling if necessary we may assume that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}\downarrow{d}$. Since $W(\infty)=\infty$ we claim that $d_{x}(\lambda)<\infty$ for all $\lambda>0$ and $x\in\gamma_{p,w}$. Indeed, assuming for a contrary that there is $x\in\gamma_{p,w}$ such that $x^(\infty)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x^(n)>0$ we obtain $\ell^\infty\hookrightarrow{\gamma_{p,w}}$. Define $z=\chi_{\mathbb{N}}$. Then, we have $z^{*}=z\in\gamma_{p,w}$ and also ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertz\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=W(\infty)=\infty$, which gives us a contradiction and proves the claim. Let $\epsilon>0$. Define two sets $$E_1=\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x_1(n)>\epsilon\}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad{E_2=\mathbb{N}}\setminus{E_1}.$$ Now, since $x_1^(\infty)=0$ it is easy to notice $\operatorname{card}(E_1)=d_{x_1}(\epsilon)<\infty$ and $E_1\cap{E_2}=\emptyset$. Therefore, since $x_m\downarrow{0}$ pointwise we have $$d_{x_m}(\epsilon)=\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x_m(n)>\epsilon\}\rightarrow{0}\quad\textnormal{as}\quad m\rightarrow\infty.$$ Hence, by Lemma \[lem:properties\] it follows that $x_m^\rightarrow{0}$ pointwise on $\mathbb{N}$. Consequently, since ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_1\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}<\infty$ and $x^{}(n)<\infty$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, applying twice the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem we conclude ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}\rightarrow{0}$.\ Sufficiency.* Assume for a contrary that $W(\infty)<\infty$. Then, it is easy to see that $x=\chi_{\mathbb{N}}\in\gamma_{p,w}$, $x^{}=x$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=W(\infty)$. Define $x_m=\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\geq m\}}$ for any $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Clearly, we have $x_m\downarrow{0}$ and $x_m\leq{x}$ pointwise for every $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, we observe that $x_m^{}=x^{}$ for any $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Hence, we get ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=W(\infty)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, which contradicts with assumption that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is order continuous. \[rem:embedding\] First, let us observe that for any sequence symmetric space $E$, Proposition 5.9 in [@BS] is true. Namely, using analogous technique as in [@BS] we clearly get the embedding $E\hookrightarrow{m_\phi}$ holds with constant $1$, i.e. for all $x\in{E}$, $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{m_\phi}^{}}}=\sup\{x^{}(n)\phi_E(n)\}\leq{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{E}^{}}},$$ where $\phi_E$ is the fundamental sequence of a symmetric space $E$ on $\mathbb{N}$. Next, in view of Remark 3.2 in [@Cies-FR] and assuming that $E$ has the Fatou property, we may show that $\phi_E(\infty)=\infty$ if and only if $x^(\infty)=0$ for any $x\in{E}$. \[lem:Fatou:Lorentz\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $0<p<\infty$. The Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ has the Fatou Property. Let $(x_m)\subset\gamma_{p,w}^+$, $x\in\ell^0$ and $x_m\uparrow{x}$ pointwise and $\sup_{m\in\mathbb{N}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}} <\infty$. Immediately, by Proposition 1.7 in [@BS] it follows that $x_m^\uparrow{x^}$. Next, applying twice Lebesgue Monotone Convergence Theorem [@Royd] we get ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}\uparrow{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}$. Finally, since $\sup_{m\in\mathbb{N}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}<\infty$ it follows that $x\in\gamma_{p,w}$. \[thm:SM:Lorentz\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $0<p<\infty$. The Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly monotone if and only if $W(\infty)=\infty$. Necessity.* Assume for a contrary that $W(\infty)<\infty$. Then, we may show that $\ell^\infty\hookrightarrow\gamma_{p,w}$. Next, defining two sequences $$x=\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i>1\}}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad{y=\chi_{\mathbb{N}}}$$ we easily observe that $x\leq{y}$, $x\neq{y}$ and $x^{}=y^{}=y$. Consequently, ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}$, which contradicts with assumption that the Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly monotone.\ Sufficiency. Let $x,y\in\gamma_{p,w}^+$, $x\leq{y}$ and $x\neq{y}$. Since $x\neq{y}$ there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $x(n_0)<y(n_0)$. Define $$\delta_0=\max\{y(n_0)/2,x(n_0)\}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad N_0=\{n\in\mathbb{N}:y(n)>\delta_0\}.$$ Since $W(\infty)=\infty$, by the proof of Theorem \[thm:OC:Lorentz\] it follows that $y^(\infty)=x^(\infty)=0$. Hence, since $n_0\in N_0$ we get $$0<\operatorname{card}(N_0)=d_y(\delta_0)<\infty.$$ Now, we claim that there exists $m_0\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(N_0)\}$ such that $x^(m_0)<y^(m_0)$. Indeed, if it is not true then for all $n\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(N_0)\}$ we have $x^(n)=y^(n)$. Moreover, there is a permutation $\sigma:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ such that $\sigma(n)\in{N_0}$ and $y^(n)=y(\sigma(n))$ for every $n\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(N_0)\}$. So, we have $$x^(n)=y^(n)=y(\sigma(n))\geq{x(\sigma(n))}$$ for any $n\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(N_0)\}$. Let $m_0\in\{1,\dots,\operatorname{card}(N_0)\}$ be such that $\sigma(m_0)=n_0$. Then, we observe that $$x^(m_0)=y^(m_0)=y(\sigma(m_0))=y(n_0)>{x(n_0)}.$$ Therefore, we obtain $$x^(m_0)>{x(n_0)}=x(\sigma(m_0)),$$ which implies that there exists $k_0\in\mathbb{N}\setminus{N_0}$ such that $x(k_0)=y(n_0)$. On the other hand, it is well known that $x(k_0)\leq y(k_0)$, whence $$y(k_0)\geq x(k_0)=y(n_0)=y^(m_0).$$ In consequence, by definition of $N_0$ this yields that $k_0\in{N_0}$ and gives us a contradiction. Now, since $x^(n)\leq{y^}(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $x^(n_0)<y^(n_0)$ for some $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ it follows that $$x^{}(n)\leq{y^{}(n)}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad\sum_{i=1}^{k}x^(i)<\sum_{i=1}^{k}y^(i)$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $k\geq{n_0}$. Finally, by assumption that $W(\infty)=\infty$ there exists $(n_k)\subset\mathbb{N}$ such that $w(n_k)>0$ for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Hence, we infer that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}<{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}$. The immediate consequence of the previous theorem and Proposition 2.1 in [@KamLeeLew] is the following result. \[coro:extrem-point\] Let $w\geq{0}$ be a weight sequence such that $W(\infty)=\infty$ and let $0<p<\infty$. An element $x\in S_{\gamma_{p,w}}$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{p,w}}$ if and only if $x^$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{p,w}}$. Next, we show that the Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex for $1<p<\infty$ and $w$ a positive weight sequence such that $W(\infty)=\infty$. In some parts of the proof of the following theorem we use the similar techniques to Theorem 3.1 in [@CiesKamPluc] (see also Theorem 2.3 in [@CKKP]). For the sake of completeness and reader’s convenience we show all details of the proof. Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence. The Lorentz space $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex if and only if $1<p<\infty$ and $w(n)>0$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and also $W(\infty)=\infty$. Necessity. Assume that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex. For a contrary we suppose that $p=1$. Let $x,y\in S_{\gamma_{p,w}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=2$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $x=x^$ and $y=y^$. Then, we have $(x+y)^{}=x^{}+y^{}$ and also $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}+{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=2.$$ Consequently, since $x$ and $y$ are arbitrary and $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex we conclude a contradiction. Now, assume that $W(\infty)<\infty$. Define $$x=\frac{1}{W(\infty)^{1/p}}\chi_{\{2n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}}\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad{y}=\frac{1}{W(\infty)^{1/p}}\chi_{\mathbb{N}}.$$ Clearly, we have for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$x^{}(n)=y^{}(n)=\frac{1}{W(\infty)^{1/p}}.$$ Moreover, we observe that $$(x+y)^{}(n)=\frac{1}{W(\infty)^{1/p}}\left(2\chi_{\{2n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}}+\chi_{\{2n-1:n\in\mathbb{N}\}}\right)^{}(n)=\frac{2}{W(\infty)^{1/p}}$$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Hence, we get $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}}{2}=1.$$ Therefore, by assumption that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex we obtain a contradiction. Now, let us suppose for a contrary that there is $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $w(n_0)=0$. If $n_0=1$, then take $\epsilon\in(0,1/\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2))$ and define $$x=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\{1,2\}}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad{}y=\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}+\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{1\}}+\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}-\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{2\}}.$$ It is easy to see that $x\neq{y}$ and $$x^{}(n)=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\{1,2\}}(n)+\frac{2}{n\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1,2\}}(n)$$ and also $$y^{}(n)=\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}+\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{1\}}(n)+\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\{2\}}(n)+\frac{2}{n\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1,2\}}(n).$$ Therefore, since $w(1)=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=&{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=\left(\frac{1}{(\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2))^p}w(2)+\frac{2^p}{(\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2))^p}\sum_{n=3}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n^p}\right)^{1/p}\\ =&\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\left(W(2)+W_p(2)\right)^{1/p}=1. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we observe that $$\begin{aligned} (x+y)^{}(n)=&\left(\left(\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}+\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{1\}}+\left(\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}-\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{2\}}\right)^{}(n)\\ =&\left(\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}+\epsilon\right)\chi_{\{1\}}(n)+\frac{4}{n\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\}}(n). \end{aligned}$$ Hence, since $w(1)=0$, we get $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=&\left(\frac{4^p}{(\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2))^p}\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n^p}\right)^{1/p}=\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\left(w(2)+2^p\sum_{n=3}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n^p}\right)^{1/p}\\ =&\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(2)}\left(W(2)+W_p(2)\right)^{1/p}=2. \end{aligned}$$ So, in case when $w(1)=0$, it follows that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is not strictly convex. Assume that $n_0>1$. Define $$x=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)}\chi_{[1,n_0]}\qquad\textnormal{and}\qquad{y}=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)}\left(\chi_{[1,n_0-1]}+\frac{1}{2}\chi_{\{n_0,n_0+1\}}\right).$$ Then, we easily observe that $x\neq y$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=1$. Moreover, we have $$y^{}(n)=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)} \begin{cases} 1&\textnormal{if }n<n_0,\\ \frac{n_0-1/2}{n_0}&\textnormal{if } n=n_0,\\ \frac{n_0}{n}&\textnormal{if } n>n_0, \end{cases}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} (x+y)^{}(n)&=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)}\left(2\chi_{[1,n_0-1]}+\frac{3}{2}\chi_{\{n_0\}}+\frac{1}{2}\chi_{\{n_0+1\}}\right)^{}(n)\\ &=\frac{2}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)} \begin{cases} 1&\textnormal{if }n<n_0,\\ \frac{n_0-1/4}{n_0}&\textnormal{if } n=n_0,\\ \frac{n_0}{n}&\textnormal{if } n>n_0. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Hence, since $w(n_0)=0$, we conclude that $${\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}=\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}}{2}=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{p,w}}(n_0)}\left(W(n_0-1)+W_p(n_0)\right)^{1/p}=1.$$ In consequence, by assumption that $\gamma_{p,w}$ is strictly convex we get a contradiction.\ Sufficiency. Let $x,y\in{S}_{\gamma_{p,w}}$ and $x\neq{y}$. We consider the proof in two cases.\ Case $1$. Assume that there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $x^{}(n_0)\neq{y}^{}(n_0)$. Then, by strict convexity of the power function $u^p$ for $1<p<\infty$ we have $$\left(\frac{1}{2}x^{}(n_0)+\frac{1}{2}y^{}(n_0)\right)^{p}<\frac{1}{2}x^{p}(n_0)+\frac{1}{2}{y}^{p}(n_0).$$ Therefore, since for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\left(\frac{1}{2}x^{}(n)+\frac{1}{2}y^{}(n)\right)^{p}\leq\frac{1}{2}x^{p}(n)+\frac{1}{2}{y}^{p}(n)$$ by assumption that $w(n)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we infer that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx+y\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{}}}<2$.\ Case $2$. Suppose that $x^{}(n)=y^{}(n)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus, we have $x^(n)=y^(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We claim that there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$(x+y)^{}(n_0)<x^{}(n_0)+y^{*}(n_0).$$ Indeed, assuming that it is not true it follows that $(x+y)^{}(n)=x^{}(n)+y^{}(n)$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Consequently, since $W(\infty)=\infty$, by Remark \[property:sequence\] we obtain $\|x+y\|(n)=\|x(n)\|+\|y(n)\|$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and there exists $(E_n)$ an increasing sequence of sets such that $\operatorname{card}(E_n)=n$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and also $$\sum_{i\in{E_n}}\|x(i)\|=\sum_{i=1}^n{x^}=\sum_{i=1}^n{y^}=\sum_{i\in{E_n}}\|y(i)\|.$$ In consequence, $\|x(n)\|=\|y(n)\|$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and so $x(n)=y(n)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Therefore, in view of assumption $x\neq{y}$ we get a contradiction. Finally, applying the triangle inequality for the maximal function we infer that $${\ensuremath{\left\Vert\frac{x+y}{2}\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{p}}}<\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{p}}}+\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{p,w}}^{p}}}=1.$$ Finally, we present a complete criteria for an extreme point in the ball of the Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. It is worth mentioning that in some parts of the proof we use similar technique to the proof of Theorem 2.6 in [@KamLeeLew]. For the sake of completeness and reader’s convenience we present all details of the proof of the following theorem. \[thm:extreme\] Let $w\geq{0}$ be a weight sequence such that $W(\infty)=\infty$. An element $x\in S_{\gamma_{1,w}}$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}}$ if and only if there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\label{extreme:point} x^=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}$$ and in case when $n_0>1$, $W(n_0-1)>0$. Letting $x\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}}}$, by Corollary \[coro:extrem-point\] we may consider that $x=x^$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}}$. Denote $$n_0=\sup\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x^(n)=x^(1)\}.$$ Since $W(\infty)=\infty$ and $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)=W(n)+W_1(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, by Lemma \[lem:Fatou:Lorentz\] and by Remark \[rem:embedding\] it follows that $x^(\infty)=0$ and so $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$. We claim that $x^(n_0+1)=0$. Suppose on the contrary that $x^(n_0+1)>0$ and denote $$n_1=\operatorname{card}\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x^(n)=x^(n_0+1)\}$$ and $$d=\min\{x^(1)-x^(n_0+1),x^(n_0+1)-x^(n_0+n_1+1)\}.$$ First, notice that $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n+1)>\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)>0$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Indeed, since $W(\infty)=\infty$ we infer that $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Now, assuming for a contrary that there is $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n+1)=\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$, we easily obtain $$w(n+1)=-(n+1)\sum_{i=n+2}^{\infty}\frac{w(i)}{i}<0.$$ Hence, since $w(n+1)\geq{0}$ we get a contradiction. Now, we are able to find $a,b\in(0,d)$ such that $$\label{equ:1:thm:extreme} b=a\frac{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0+n_1)-\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}.$$ Define $$y=x^-b\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}+a\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:n_0<i\leq n_0+n_1\}}$$ and $$z=x^+b\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}-a\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:n_0<i\leq n_0+n_1\}}.$$ Clearly, $y\neq{z}$ and $x=(y+z)/2$. Since $y=y^$ and $z=z^$, by we have $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}y^{}(n){w(n)}\\ =&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(x^{}(j)-b\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}(j)+a\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:n_0<i\leq n_0+n_1\}}(j)\right)\\ =&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x^{*}(n)w(n)-b\left(\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}w(n)+n_0\sum_{n=n_0+1}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\right)\\ &+a\left(\sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_0+n_1}\frac{w(n)}{n}(n-n_0)+n_1\sum_{n=n_0+n_1+1}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\right)\\ =&{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}-b\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)+a\left(\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0+n_1)-\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)\right)\\ =&{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=1. \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we may show that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertz\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=1$. Therefore, in view of assumption that $x$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}}$ we conclude a contradiction, which proves our claim. In case when $n_0>1$ we assume that $w(n)=0$ for all $n\in\{1,\dots,n_0-1\}$. Then, for $a\in(0,x^(n_0))$ we define $$y=x^+a\chi_{\{1\}}-a\chi_{\{n_0\}}\quad\textnormal{and}\quad{}z=x^-a\chi_{\{1\}}+a\chi_{\{n_0\}}.$$ Next, it is clearly observe that $y\neq{z}$, $x=(y+z)/2$, $y^=y=z^$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertz\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=\sum_{n=n_0}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(x^{}(j)+a\chi_{\{1\}}(j)-a\chi_{\{n_0\}}(j)\right)=1.$$ Consequently, by assumption that $x$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}}$ we have a contradiction. So, this implies that if $n_0>1$ then it is needed $W(n_0-1)>0$. Now, assume that $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ and satisfies . For simplicity of our notation we denote $c=1/\gamma_{1,w}(n_0)$. If $n_0=1$, then by Theorem \[thm:SM:Lorentz\] we conclude that $x$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}}$. Consider that $n_0>1$. suppose that $y,z\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}}}$, $y\neq{z}$ and $x=(y+z)/2$. We claim that $y(i)=z(i)=0$ for all $i>n_0$. Indeed, if $y(i)>0$ for some $i>n_0$, then it is obvious that $z(i)=-y(i)<0$ for some $i>n_0$. Next, defining two elements $$u=y\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad{}v=z\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}$$ we have $x=(u+v)/2$. On the other hand, by Theorem \[thm:SM:Lorentz\] we infer that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertu\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}<{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=1$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertv\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}<{\ensuremath{\left\Vertz\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=1$. In consequence, we get $$1={\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertu+v\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}\leq\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\Vertu\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}+{\ensuremath{\left\Vertv\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}}{2}<1,$$ which yields a contradiction and proves our claim. Now, define $$\begin{aligned} &I_1=\{i\in\mathbb{N},i\leq{n_0};y(i)>c\},\\ &I_2=\{i\in\mathbb{N},i\leq{n_0};y(i)=c\},\\ &I_3=\{i\in\mathbb{N},i\leq{n_0};y(i)<c\}. \end{aligned}$$ We can easily notice that $y,z\in\gamma_{1,w}^+$. Indeed, if it is not true then we may define $u,v\in\gamma_{1,w}^+$ such that $u\leq\|y\|$, $u\neq\|y\|$ and $v\leq\|z\|$, $v\neq\|z\|$ and also $x=(u+v)/2$. Therefore, by Theorem \[thm:SM:Lorentz\] we obtain a contradiction. Next, since $\gamma_{1,w}$ is strictly monotone and $y\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}}}$, $y\neq{x}$ we observe that $\operatorname{card}(I_1)>0$ and $\operatorname{card}(I_3)>0$, whence $y(1)>y(n_0)$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $y=y^$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:2:thm:extreme} 1=&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0-1}y^{*}(n)w(n)+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\\ =&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(i)\frac{w(n)}{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by assumption that $z\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}}}$ and $x=(y+z)/2$ it follows that $z(i)=2c-y(i)$ for any $i\in\{1,\dots,n_0\}$ and $z(i)=0$ for all $i>n_0$. Thus, we obtain $$z^(n)=\left(2c-y(n_0+1-n)\right)\chi_{\{i\in\mathbb{N}:i\leq n_0\}}(n)$$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned} 1=&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}z^{*}(n)w(n)+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}z(i)\sum_{n=n_0+1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\\ =&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}\left(2cn-\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(n_0+1-i)\right)\frac{w(n)}{n}+\left(2cn_0-\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\right)\sum_{n=n_0+1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\\ =&2c\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)-\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(n_0+1-i)\frac{w(n)}{n}-\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0+1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, by definition of $c$ we obtain that $$\label{equ:3:thm:extreme} 1=\sum_{n=1}^{n_0-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(n_0+1-i)\frac{w(n)}{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}.$$ Furthermore, since $y=y^$ and $y(1)>y(n_0)$, we infer that for every $n<{n_0}$, $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(i)>\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(n_0+1-i).$$ In consequence, since $W(n_0-1)>0$, by and we conclude $$\begin{aligned} 1=&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(i)\frac{w(n)}{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\\ >&\sum_{n=1}^{n_0-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y(n_0+1-i)\frac{w(n)}{n}+\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y(i)\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}=1, \end{aligned}$$ which gives us a contradiction and finishes the proof. dual and predual spaces of sequence lorentz spaces $\gamma_{1,w}$ ================================================================= Now, we present a characterization of the dual and predual spaces of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. \[thm:dual\] Let $w=(w(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and let $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}$ be the fundamental sequence of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. Then $W(\infty)=\infty$ if and only if every linear bounded functional $f$ on $\gamma_{1,w}$ has the form $$f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x(n)y(n)}\qquad\textnormal{for any}\quad x\in\gamma_{1,w},\quad\textnormal{and}\quad{\ensuremath{\left\Vertf\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}^}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}$$ where $y\in{m_{\psi}}$ and $\psi(n)=n/\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Sufficiency.* Suppose that $W(\infty)<\infty$. We claim that $\ell^\infty\hookrightarrow\gamma_{1,w}$. Indeed, taking $x=\chi_{\mathbb{N}}$ it is easy to see that $x^{*}=x$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=W(\infty)<\infty$, which implies our claim. Let $f\in\gamma_{1,w}^$. Then, by assumption there exists $y\in{m_\psi}$ such that $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertf\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}^}^{}}}={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}\geq\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y^(k)$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Next, in view of the inequality $$W(n)\leq\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)\leq{W(\infty)<\infty}$$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, it follows that $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(\infty)=W(\infty)<\infty$. Thus , we have $${\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(\infty)}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertf\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}^}^{}}}\geq\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}y^(k),$$ whence $y\in\ell^1$. Therefore, we observe that $m_\psi\hookrightarrow\ell^1$. Moreover, since $\gamma_{1,w}$ and $m_\psi$ are symmetric by Corollary 6.8 in [@BS] we conclude that $\gamma_{1,w}\hookrightarrow\ell^\infty$ and $\ell^1\hookrightarrow{m_\psi}$. Hence, since $\ell^\infty$ is the dual space of $\ell^1$ (see [@LinTza]) we have a contradiction.\ Necessity. Since $\gamma_{1,w}$ is a symmetric space, by Corollary 4.4 and Theorem 2.7 in [@BS] we get the associate space $\gamma_{1,w}'$ of $\gamma_{1,w}$ is a symmetric space and $$\gamma_{1,w}'=\left\{y=(y(n)):\sup_{x\in B_{\gamma_{1,w}}}\left\{\sum_{n=1}^\infty{y^(n)}x^(n)\right\}<\infty\right\}.$$ Next, in view of Theorem \[thm:OC:Lorentz\] it follows that $\gamma_{1,w}$ is order continuous if and only if $W(\infty)=\infty$. Hence, by Theorem 4.1 in [@BS] we have $W(\infty)=\infty$ if and only if the dual space $\gamma_{1,w}^$ and the associate space $\gamma_{1,w}'$ of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ coincide, i.e. $\gamma_{1,w}^=\gamma_{1,w}'$. Consequently, assuming that $\psi$ is the fundamental sequence of the dual space $\gamma_{1,w}^$, by Remark \[rem:embedding\] we conclude that $\gamma_{1,w}^\hookrightarrow{m_{\psi}}$. Now, we prove the reverse embedding, i.e. ${m_{\psi}}\hookrightarrow\gamma_{1,w}^$. First, by Theorem 5.2 in [@BS] we obtain $\psi(n)\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)=n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:marcinkie} m_{\psi}&=\left\{x=(x(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:\sup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\{x^{}(n)\psi(n)\}<\infty\right\}\\ &=\left\{x=(x(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:\sup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left\{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}x^{}(i)}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)}\right\}<\infty\right\}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We claim that for any $y\in{m_{\psi}}$ the mapping $f_y$ given by $$f_y(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x(n)y(n)}\quad\textnormal{for all}\quad x\in\gamma_{1,w}$$ is a linear bounded functional on $\gamma_{1,w}$. Indeed, taking $y\in{m_\psi}$, by the Hardy-Littlewood inequality we obtain that for any $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$, $${\ensuremath{\left\vertf_y(x)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\|x(n)y(n)\|\leq\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x^(n)y^(n).$$ Now, for simplicity of our notation let us denote $[1,i]=\{1,2,\dots,i\}$ for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$. Next, picking $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ with a finite measure support, without loss of generality we may assume that $$x^(n)=\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\chi_{[1,i_k]}(n),$$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, where $(i_k)_{k=1}^N\subset\mathbb{N}$ is strictly increasing and $a_k>0$ for any $k\in\{1,\dots,N\}$. Then, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ1:dual} {\ensuremath{\left\vertf_y(x)\right\vert_{}^{}}}&\leq\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x^(n)y^(n)=\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\chi_{[1,i_k]}(n)y^(n)\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\sum_{n=1}^{i_k}y^(n)\leq\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(i_k)\sup_{1\leq{k}\leq{N}}\left\{\frac{\sum_{n=1}^{i_k}y^(n)}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(i_k)}\right\}\nonumber\\ &\leq{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(i_k).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we observe that $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}&=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x^{*}(n)w(n)}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\chi_{[1,i_k]}(j)\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\min\{n,i_k\}\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^{N}a_k\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\min\{n,i_k\} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(i_k)=W(i_k)+W_1(i_k)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\min\{n,i_k\} \end{aligned}$$ for every $k\in\{1,\dots,N\}$. Hence, by it follows that $$\label{equ2:dual} {\ensuremath{\left\vertf_y(x)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}$$ for any $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ with a finite measure support. Finally, since $W(\infty)=\infty$, by Theorem \[thm:OC:Lorentz\] we get $\gamma_{1,w}$ is order continuous, and so every element $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ can be expressed as a limit of a sequence of elements in $\gamma_{1,w}$ with finite measure support. Thus, we conclude that holds for any $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$. Now, we show that there exists an isometry between ${m_\psi}$ and ${\gamma_{1,w}^}$. Next, it is easy to see that there exists a permutation $\sigma:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ such that $y^(n)={\ensuremath{\left\verty\circ\sigma(n)\right\vert_{}^{}}}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We present the proof in two cases.\ Case $1.$* Assume that there is $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\label{equ:assum:1} {\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\sum_{i=1}^{n_0}y^(i)$$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $y^(i)>0$ for all $i\in[1,n_0]$. Define $$x(n)= \begin{cases} \frac{\operatorname{sgn}(y(n))}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}&\textnormal{if}\quad{}n\in\sigma{([1,n_0])},\\ 0&\textnormal{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Then, we have for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$x^{}(n)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\chi_{[1,n_0]}(i)=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\left(\chi_{[1,n_0]}(n)+\frac{n_0}{n}\chi_{\mathbb{N}\setminus[1,n_0]}(n)\right).$$ Consequently, we get $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x^{}(n)w(n)}=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}w(n)+n_0\sum_{n=n_0+1}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}\right)=1.$$ Next, by we observe that $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:case:1} f_y(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x(n)y(n)&=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\sum_{n\in\sigma([1,n_0])}\|y(n)\|\\ &=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\sum_{n\in[1,n_0]}\|y\circ\sigma(n)\|\nonumber\\ &=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n_0)}\sum_{n=1}^{n_0}y^(n)={\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Case $2.$* Suppose that $$\label{equ:assum:2} {\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}=\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}y^(i).$$ Then, defining a sequence $(x_m)$ by $$x_m(n)= \begin{cases} \frac{\operatorname{sgn}(y(n))}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(m)}&\textnormal{if}\quad{}n\in\sigma{([1,m])},\\ 0&\textnormal{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ and proceeding analogously as in case $1$ we obtain ${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx_m\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=1$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, by , passing to subsequence and relabeling if necessary we have $$\label{equ:case:2} f_y(x_m)=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(m)}\sum_{n\in\sigma([1,m])}\|y(n)\|=\frac{1}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(m)}\sum_{n=1}^{m}y^(n)\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}.$$ Finally, combining both cases and according to , and we finish the proof. \[thm:predual\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence. The Marcinkiewicz space $m_\psi^0$ is the predual of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ if and only if $W(\infty)=\infty$, where $$\psi(n)=\frac{n}{\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)}\quad\textnormal{for any}\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Additionally, if $W(\infty)=\infty$ then there exists an isometry between the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ and the dual space $(m_\psi^0)^$ of the Marcinkiewicz space $m_\psi^0$. First, we define for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $$v(i)=\sum_{k=i}^{\infty}\frac{w(k)}{k}.$$ Clearly, $(v(i))_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a decreasing sequence and $0\leq v(i)<\infty$ for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, we easily observe that for every $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $$v(i)=\sum_{k=i}^{\infty}\frac{w(k)}{k}=w(i)+\sum_{k=i+1}^{\infty}\frac{w(k)}{k}-\frac{(i-1)w(i)}{i}.$$ Hence, we evaluate $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)&=\sum_{i=1}^n{w(i)}+n\sum_{i=n+1}^\infty\frac{w(i)}{i}\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^n\left(w(i)+\sum_{k=i+1}^{\infty}\frac{w(k)}{k}-\frac{(i-1)w(i)}{i}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n{v(i)} \end{aligned}$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Next, since $\psi(n)=n/\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, by and by Theorem 3.4 in [@KamLee] it follows that $m_\psi$ is the bidual of $m_\psi^0$ if and only if $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(\infty)=\infty$. Now, we claim that $W(\infty)=\infty$ if and only if $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(\infty)=\infty$. Indeed, it is easy to see that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned} W(n)\leq\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)\leq\sum_{i=1}^nw(i)+n\sum_{i=n+1}^\infty\frac{w(i)}{n}=W(\infty), \end{aligned}$$ which implies our claim. Therefore, according to Theorem \[thm:dual\] we obtain that the Marcinkiewicz space $m_\psi^0$ is the predual of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ if and only if $W(\infty)=\infty$. Now, we show that there exists an isometry between $(m_\psi^0)^$ and $\gamma_{1,w}$. First, since $\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(\infty)=\infty$, in view of Theorem 3.2 in [@KamLee] it follows that $m_\psi^0$ is a non-trivial subspace of all order continuous elements of $m_\psi$. Then, defining for any $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ the linear mapping $f_x$ by $$f_x(y)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x(n)y(n)}\quad\textnormal{ for any }\quad y\in{}m_\psi^0,$$ and proceeding analogously as in Theorem \[thm:dual\] we are able to show that $$\label{equ:dual:2:inequal} {\ensuremath{\left\vertf_x(y)\right\vert_{}^{}}}\leq{\ensuremath{\left\Verty\right\Vert_{m_\psi}^{}}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}$$ for any $y\in{m_\psi^0}$. On the other hand, it is well known that there exists $\sigma:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ a permutation such that $x^(n)=\|x\circ\sigma(n)\|$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Define $$y(n)= \begin{cases} \operatorname{sgn}(x(n))v(\sigma^{-1}(n))&\textnormal{if }n\in\sigma(\mathbb{N}),\\ 0&\textnormal{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, we have $$f_x(y)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x(n)y(n)}=\sum_{n\in\sigma(N)}{\|x(n)\|v\circ\sigma^{-1}(n)}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x^(n)v(n)}={\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}},$$ whence, according to we finish the proof. Application =========== This section is devoted to a relationship between the existence set and one-complemented subspaces of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. Moreover, we present a complete characterization of smooth points in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ and its dual space and predual space. Finally we show full criteria for extreme points in the dual space of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. First, let us recall some basic definitions and notations that corresponds to the best approximation. Let $X$ be a Banach space and $C\subset{X}$ be a nonempty set. A continuous surjective mapping $P:X\rightarrow{C}$ is called a projection onto $C$, whenever $P\|_{C}=\operatorname{Id}$, i.e. $P^2=P$. Given a subspace $V$ of a Banach space $X$, by $P(X,V)$ we denote the set of all linear bounded projections from $X$ onto $V$. Let us recall that a closed subspace $V$ of a Banach space $X$ is said to be one-complemented if there exists a norm one projection $P\in P(X,V)$. A set $C\subset X$ is said to be an existence set of the best approximation if for any $x\in{X}$ we have $$R_C(x)=\left\{y\in C:{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx-y\right\Vert_{X}^{}}}=\inf_{c\in C}{\ensuremath{\left\Vertx-c\right\Vert_{X}^{}}}\right\}\neq\emptyset.$$ It is obvious that any one-complemented subspace is an existence set. The converse in general is not true. By a deep result of Lindenstrauss [@Lind] there exists a Banach space $X$ and a linear subspace $V$ of $X$ such that $V$ is an existence set in $X$ and $V$ is not one-complemented in $X$. However, if $X$ is a smooth Banach space both notions are equivalent (see Proposition 5 in [@BeaMor]). We will show that both notions are equivalent in $\gamma_{1,w}$, which is obviously not a smooth space. First, we establish an isometry between the sequence Lorentz spaces $\gamma_{1,w}$ and $d_{1,v}$ for some nonnegative sequences $w$ and $v$. \[rem:isometry:lorentz\] Assuming that $w=(w(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a nonnegative weight sequence, we may easily show that there exits a linear surjective isometry $T$ form the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ onto the sequence Lorentz space $d_{1,v}$, where $v=(v(n))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is given by $$\label{new:weight} v(i)=\sum_{n=i}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\quad\textnormal{ for any }\quad i\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Indeed, taking $x\in\gamma_{1,w}$ we observe that $${\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{\gamma_{1,w}}^{}}}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{w(n)}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}{x}^{}(i)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty{x^(i)}\sum_{n=i}^{\infty}\frac{w(n)}{n}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty{x^(n)v(n)}={\ensuremath{\left\Vertx\right\Vert_{d_{1,v}}^{}}}.$$ Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and let $V\subset\gamma_{1,w}$, $V\neq\{0\}$ be a linear subspace. If $V$ is an existence set, then $V$ is one-complemented. Let $v$ be a nonnegative sequence given by . Then, by Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\] there exists a linear surjective isometry $T:\gamma_{1,w}\rightarrow{d_{1,v}}$. Hence, since $V$ is an existence set in $\gamma_{1,w}$, by Lemma 3.4 in [@KamLeeLew] it follows that $T(V)\neq\{0\}$ is an existence set in $d_{1,v}$. In consequence, by Theorem 3.10 in [@KamLeeLew] we infer that $T(V)$ is one complemented in $d_{1,v}$. Finally, applying again Lemma 3.4 in [@KamLeeLew] we get that $V$ is one-complemented in $\gamma_{1,w}$. We present a full criteria for smooth points in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$ and its dual and predual spaces. First, let us notice that by Theorem 1.10 in [@KamLeeLew] and by Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\], the next theorem follows immediately. Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and let $x\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}}}$. Then, an element $x$ is a smooth point in $\gamma_{1,w}$ if and only if the following conditions are satisfied - $\operatorname{card}(\operatorname{supp}(x))=\infty$. - If there is $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $w(n)>0$, then $x^(n)>x^(n+1)$. Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $\psi(n)=n/\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $x\in{S_{m_\psi^0}}$. Then, an element $x$ is a smooth point in $m_\psi^0$ if and only if $$\operatorname{card}\left\{n\in\mathbb{N}:x^{}(n)\psi(n)=1\right\}=1.$$ Let $v$ be a sequence given by and let $V(n)=\sum_{i=1}^n{v(i)}$. Then, by Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\] we easily observe that $V(n)=\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)=\frac{n}{\psi(n)}$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $$m_\psi^0=\left\{x\in{m_\psi}:\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{V(n)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}x^(i)=0\right\}.$$ Hence, in view of Theorem 1.5 in [@KamLeeLew] we complete the proof. Directly, by Theorem 1.9 in [@KamLeeLew] and Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\] and also Theorem \[thm:dual\] we infer the following theorem. Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $\psi(n)=n/\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $x\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}^}}$. Then, an element $x$ is a smooth point in $B_{\gamma_{1,w}^}$ if and only if there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$x^{}(n_0)\psi(n_0)=1>\sup_{n\neq{n_0}}\{x^{}(n)\psi(n)\}.$$ The last essential application of Theorem \[thm:dual\] and Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\], in view of Theorem 2.2 in [@KamLeeLew], is the next result which presents an equivalent condition for extreme points in the dual space $\gamma_{1,w}^$ of the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$. Let $w$ be a nonnegative weight sequence and $\psi(n)=n/\phi_{\gamma_{1,w}}(n)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $x\in{S_{\gamma_{1,w}^}}$. Then, $x$ is an extreme point of $B_{\gamma_{1,w}^}$ if and only if $x^(n)=\sum_{i=n}^\infty\frac{w(i)}{i}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Although applying Theorem 2.6 in [@KamLeeLew] and Remark \[rem:isometry:lorentz\] we are able to find successfully an equivalent condition for an extreme point in the sequence Lorentz space $\gamma_{1,w}$, with $w$ a nonnegative weight sequence, we present the proof of this problem with all details (see Theorem \[thm:extreme\]). It is worth mentioning that the techniques, that was presented in the proof of Theorem \[thm:extreme\], might be interesting for readers and applicable to search a complete characteristic of an extreme point in $\gamma_{p,w}$ with $1<p<\infty$. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} --------------- $^$The first author (Maciej Ciesielski) is supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland, grant number 04/43/DSPB/0094. [99]{} B. Beauzamy, and B. Maurey, Points minimaux et ensembles optimaux dans les espaces de Banach, J. Functional Analysis 24* (1977), no. 2, 107–139. C. Bennett and R. Sharpley, Interpolation of operators, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 129. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1988. M. Ciesielski, On geometric structure of symmetric spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 430 (2015), no. 1, 98-125. M. Ciesielski, Relationships between $K$-monotonicity and rotundity properties with application, J. Math. Anal. Appl. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2018.05.008. M. Ciesielski, A. Kamińska, P. Kolwicz and R. Płuciennik, Monotonicity and rotundity of Lorentz spaces $\Gamma_{p,w}$, Nonlinear Anal. 75 (2012), no. 5, 2713-2723. M. Ciesielski, A. Kamińska and R. Płuciennik, Gâteaux derivatives and their applications to approximation in Lorentz spaces $\Gamma_{p,w}$, Math. Nachr. 282 (2009) no. 9, 1242-1264. W.J. Davis and P. Enflo, Contractive projections on $l_p$ spaces, Analysis at Urbana, Vol. I (Urbana, IL, 1986-1987), 151-161, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 137, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1989. J.E. Jamison, A. Kamińska, and G. Lewicki, One-complemented subspaces of Musielak-Orlicz sequence spaces, J. Approx. Theory 130 (2004), no. 1, 1-37. A. Kamińska and H. J. Lee, $M$-ideal properties in Marcinkiewicz spaces, Comment. Math. (Prace Mat.) 2004, Tomus specialis in Honorem Juliani Musielak, 123-144. A. Kamińska, H. J. Lee and G. Lewicki, Extreme and smooth points in Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces with applications to contractive projections, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 39 (2009), no. 5, 1533-1572. A. Kamińska and G. Lewicki, Contractive and optimal sets in modular spaces, Math. Nachr. 268 (2004), 74-95. A. Kamińska and L. Maligranda, On Lorentz spaces $\Gamma _{p,w}$, Israel J. Math. 140 (2004), 285-318. A. Kamińska and L. Maligranda, Order convexity and concavity of Lorentz spaces $\Lambda_{p,w}$, $0<p<\infty$, Studia Math. 160 (2004), no. 3, 267-286. S. G. Krein, Yu. I. Petunin and E. M. Semenov, Interpolation of linear operators, Translated from the Russian by J. Szűcs. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 54. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1982. J. Lindenstrauss, On projections with norm $1$-an example, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 1964 403-406. J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri, Classical Banach spaces. II. Function spaces, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas\], 97. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979. B. Randrianantoanina, Norm-one projections in Banach spaces. International Conference on Mathematical Analysis and its Applications (Kaohsiung, 2000), Taiwanese J. Math. 5 (2001), no. 1, 35-95. H. L. Royden, Real analysis, Third edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1988. $\begin{array}{lr} \textnormal{\small Maciej Ciesielski} & \textnormal{\small Grzegorz Lewicki}\\ \textnormal{\small Institute of Mathematics} & \textnormal{\small Department of Mathematics}\\ \textnormal{\small Faculty of Electrical Engineering} & \textnormal{\small and Computer Science}\\ \textnormal{\small Pozna\'{n} University of Technology} & \textnormal{\small Jagiellonian University}\\ \textnormal{\small Piotrowo 3A, 60-965 Pozna\'{n}, Poland} & \textnormal{\small\qquad \L ojasiewicza 6, 30-348 Krak\'ow, Poland}\\ \textnormal{\small email: [email protected]} & \textnormal{\small email: [email protected]} \end{array}$	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The results of bar-driven mass inflow are directly observable in high-resolution [HST]{} observations of their circumnuclear regions. These observations reveal a wealth of structures dominated by dust lanes, often with a spiral-like morphology, and recent star formation. Recent work has shown that some of these structures are correlated with the presence or absence of a bar. I extend this work with an investigation of circumnuclear morphology as a function of bar strength for a sample of 48 galaxies with both measured bar strengths and “structure maps” computed from [HST]{} images. The structure maps for these galaxies, which have projected spatial resolutions of 2 – 15 pc, show that the fraction of galaxies with grand-design (GD) circumnuclear dust spirals increases significantly with bar strength, while tightly wound dust spirals are only present in the most axisymmetric galaxies. In the subset of galaxies classified SB(s), SB(rs), or SB(r), GD structure is only found at the centers of SB(s) or SB(rs) galaxies, and not SB(r). Bar strength measurements of 45 SB(s), SB(rs), and SB(r) galaxies show that SB(s) galaxies have the strongest bars, while SB(r) galaxies have the weakest bars. As SB(s) galaxies are also observed to most commonly possess dust lanes along their leading edges, this is further support of a connection between GD structure and bar-driven inflow on larger scales. There is also a modest increase in the fraction of loosely wound dust spirals at later morphological types, and a corresponding decrease in the fraction of chaotic structures. This trend may reflect an increase in the fraction of galaxies with circumnuclear, gaseous disks. The trend appears to reverse at type Scd, where the fraction of galaxies with chaotic circumnuclear dust structure increases dramatically, although these data are of poorer quality.' author: - Paul Martini --- Barred galaxies, galaxy classification, circumnuclear structure Introduction ============ Bars are the most effective means of driving gas toward the centers of isolated galaxies, inflow which is often invoked to explain circumnuclear star formation and secular evolution (e.g. Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). Observations of many barred galaxies show evidence for dust lanes along the leading edges of the bar and these dust lanes likely trace the shocks and inflow driven by gravitational torques. The structure of circumnuclear dust within the semiminor axis of the bar can provide important information about the effectiveness of bar-driven mass transport. It is now possible to quantitatively study the connection between bars and their circumnuclear region due to a combination of three factors: near-infrared surface photometry of a large number of nearby galaxies, a relatively straightforward measure of bar strength $Q_b$ from near-infrared images (Buta & Block 2001) through application of the gravitational torque method of Combes & Sanders (1981), and [HST]{} images of many of these galaxies. In this contribution I begin with a brief overview of the classification of circumnuclear dust structure. I then apply this system to a large sample of nearby galaxies and investigate correlations between bar strength and circumnuclear structure. Circumnuclear Structure in Galaxies =================================== Martini et al. (2003a) conducted an imaging survey of 123 nearby galaxies with the NICMOS and WFPC2 cameras on [HST]{} to study circumnuclear dust. These data were used to develop a purely empirical classification system based on common features in the dust distribution and without regard to either the larger scale or nuclear properties of the galaxy. This system is thus complementary to the subject of this conference as it is a dust classification scheme, rather than a [dust-penetrated]{} classification scheme. The classification system has six categories: - Grand design (GD): Two dominant and coherent dust spirals - Tightly wound (TW): Coherent and large pitch angle dust spirals - Loosely wound (LW): Coherent and small pitch angle dust spirals - Chaotic spiral (CS): Multiple, fragmented dust lanes implying the same sense of rotation. - Chaotic (C): Dust structure without a well-defined morphology - No Structure (N): No evidence for nuclear dust structure An example of each of these classes is shown in Figure 1. ![ $(V-H)$ color maps of prototypes for the six circumnuclear morphology classes proposed by Martini et al. (2003a) and reproduced from their Figure 3. ](martini.f1p.eps){width="4.5in"} \[fig:class\] The initial sample was culled of all galaxies with $\upsilon > 5000$ km s$^{-1}$ and inclinations $R_{25} > 0.30$ and then each unbarred galaxy was matched with a barred galaxy of approximately the same morphological ($T$) type, blue luminosity, heliocentric velocity, inclination, and angular size. This resulted in an extremely well-matched set of 19 barred and 19 unbarred galaxies. The distribution of these 38 galaxies into the six circumnuclear dust classes is shown in Figure 2. This figure clearly demonstrates two connections between bars and their circumnuclear region: GD structure is only found in barred galaxies, while TW structure avoids barred galaxies (Martini et al. 2003b). In addition, GD structure often (but not always) connects to the dust lanes along the leading edges of the bar at larger scales. ![ The frequency of the six circumnuclear classes in the sample of 19 barred and 19 unbarred galaxies studied by Martini et al. (2003b) and based on their Figure 2. GD structure is only found in barred galaxies, while TW structure appears to avoid barred galaxies. ](martini.f2p.eps){width="4.5in"} These correlations also validate the classification system itself, as they indicate that the classification bins are connected to physically relevant quantities and are not simply lost in the dust. However, these results were limited by the absence of bar strength measurements for most of the sample. Although Martini et al. (2003a) collected data on whether or not a galaxy was barred from the literature, these data varied substantially in quality and were deemed too heterogeneous to investigate correlations between the circumnuclear morphology and bar strength. In the next section, I apply this classification system to [HST]{} observations of a large sample of galaxies with measured bar strengths. Bar Strength and Circumnuclear Structure ======================================== The new sample described here was compiled from all galaxies with published bar strengths (Buta & Block 2001; Laurikainen & Salo 2002; Block et al. 2004), visible-wavelength images with [HST]{}, and inclinations $R_{25} < 0.30$. Galaxies with low signal-to-noise (S/N), unfavorable placement on the WFPC2 detectors, or of type Scd ($T=6$) or later were barred from inclusion, although Scd galaxies are discussed separately below. The final sample contains 48 galaxies of type S0 to Sc. I used the structure map technique developed by Pogge & Martini (2002) to identify circumnuclear morphology. For this application, structure maps are superior to color maps because they can be applied to the entire (larger) field of view of the WFPC2 camera and many galaxies only have WFPC2 images. Mathematically, structure maps are: $$S = \left[\frac{I}{I \otimes P}\right]\otimes P^{t}$$ where $S$ is the structure map, $I$ is the original image, $P$ is the PSF, $P^{t}$ the transpose of the PSF, and $\otimes$ is the convolution operator. Structure maps effectively emphasize structures on the scale of the PSF and deemphasize larger-scale spatial variations. In all of the structure maps shown here, dusty regions are dark and emission regions, such as star formation knots, are bright. Figure 3 shows images, color maps, and structure maps of four representative galaxies. ![ Comparison of $V$, $V-H$, and structure maps for NGC 1530, NGC 3081, NGC 4254, and NGC 4314. Both the color and structure maps effectively uncover dust features and star formation over a wider intensity range than the $V$ image, even with the log intensity scaling shown. Dusty regions are dark, while emission line regions are light. The structure and color maps are similar, although the structure maps place greater emphasis on features near the resolution limit. Each panel is $19''$ on a side and displays north up and east to the left. ](martini.f3p.eps){width="4.5in"} ![ Structure maps for 48 galaxies with measured bar strengths ordered such that bar strength increases downward and to the right. Each panel shows the inner 5% of $D_{25}$ from the RC3 catalog. The projected size of a kpc or 100pc is shown to the lower left, while a $1''$ scale bar is shown at lower right. North is up and east is to the left. ](martini.f4p.eps){width="4.5in"} The galaxies were classified with the same system described in the previous section. The only modification is that instead of the fixed angular size of $19''$ employed by Martini et al. (2003a), I have chosen to classify the sample within a fixed 5% fraction of each galaxy’s angular diameter $D_{25}$. This fractional size corresponds to a projected physical size range of $0.4\rightarrow2.4$kpc, while the projected physical size of the PSF is $2\rightarrow14$pc. Figure 4 presents structure maps of the central 5% of the 48 galaxies. There are fourteen galaxies common to this sample and Martini et al. (2003a) and as a check they were reclassified without reference to the prior classification. Nine received the same classification, three switched between the similar classes LW and CS, and only two (14%) changed significantly: NGC 6300 (C$\rightarrow$GD) and NGC 4314 (LW$\rightarrow$GD). ![ Fraction of each NC class in bins of $Q_b$. Only a small fraction of weakly barred galaxies have GD structure, while it is present in 5/9 galaxies with $Q_b > 0.3$. TW structure is only present in galaxies with $Q_b < 0.1$. The number of galaxies in each bin is shown above it. ](martini.f5p.eps){width="4.5in"} Figure 5 shows the distribution of circumnuclear structure classes as a function of $Q_b$. The N class was not employed here because it was only populated by one galaxy (NGC 1398). Only four of 31 galaxies (13%) with $Q_b < 0.2$ have GD structure, while it is present in five of nine (56%) galaxies with $Q_b > 0.3$. More strongly barred galaxies are therefore more likely to have GD structure. The one GD galaxy with $Q_b < 0.1$ is NGC 6814, which was also classified GD in Martini et al. (2003a). This galaxy is listed as unbarred in the RC3, although it is classified as barred in the near-infrared. There are also no galaxies with TW structure and $Q_b>0.1$. Large pitch angle dust spirals are therefore not found in galaxies with a significant nonaxisymmetric component. While only two galaxies were classified as TW, the probability that both would have $Q_b < 0.1$ is 4%. This result reinforces the suggestion of Martini et al. (2003b) that TW structure is only present in unbarred galaxies, and also supports recent simulation results (Maciejewski 2004). Connection to larger-scale spirals: SB(s) and SB(r) galaxies ------------------------------------------------------------ GD structure is preferentially found in galaxies with large $Q_b$ and in many cases appears to be the continuation of the dust lanes along the leading edges of large scale bars, dust lanes that models show are formed by strong bars (Athanassoula 1992). Another historical measure of bar strength is whether the large-scale spiral arms originate at the ends of a bar SB(s), from an inner ring at the radius of the bar SB(r), or are intermediate SB(rs). Observations show that dust lanes along the bar are a characteristic of SB(s) galaxies, rather than SB(r) galaxies (e.g. Sandage & Bedke 1994). The presence of dust lanes suggests SB(s) bars should be strong, although hydrodynamic simulations find SB(s) spirals form with weak, fast bars and SB(r) spirals with strong, slow bars (Sanders & Tubbs 1980). I have investigated the frequency of GD structure in all galaxies classified as SB in the RC3 (11 galaxies). This sample shows a correlation between GD structure and the connection between the bar and the large-scale spiral arms: Neither of the two SB(r) galaxies in this sample have GD structure, although it is present in $3/6$ SB(rs) galaxies and $2/3$ SB(s) galaxies. To test the connection between these classes and $Q_b$ for a larger sample, I have computed the mean $Q_b$ for all 45 galaxies classified as type SB(r): 0.28 (15), SB(rs): 0.35 (12), and SB(s) 0.43 (18). On average SB(s) is thus the most strongly barred type and SB(r) the weakest. However, the SB(s) sample does include more galaxies with late $T$ type and large $Q_b$. If only galaxies with $T \leq 5$ are included (the range of the SB(r) sample), the mean value of $Q_b$ for the SB(s) class decreases to 0.35 (11 galaxies). It would be valuable to revisit the SB(r)/SB(s) classification with near-infrared images. Connection to global properties ------------------------------- I have also used this sample to investigate if circumnuclear structure depends on $T$ type, luminosity, or distance. The sample was divided into early ($T\leq1$; 10 galaxies), intermediate ($T=2,3$; 16), and late ($T=4,5$; 22) type bins. There is a gradual increase in the fraction of LW structure ($1/10\rightarrow4/16\rightarrow10/22$) and an approximately corresponding decline in the fraction of C structure ($4/10\rightarrow3/16\rightarrow3/22$). No change is observed in the fractional distribution of the remaining classes. The increase in the LW fraction at the expense of the C fraction suggests an increase in the fraction of galaxies that have circumnuclear gaseous disks, as a circumnuclear disk is required for spiral dust lanes to form (types GD, TW, LW, CS). There are no obvious trends with distance or luminosity, although this is not surprising because these galaxies span a relatively narrow range in luminosity and distance. This does indicate that the approximately factor of five range in the projected physical size of the kernel does not affect these results. Very late-type galaxies ----------------------- Figure 6 displays the nine Scd galaxies with measured $Q_b$ in the [HST]{} archive, although only two meet the standards of the main sample. These two galaxies are both of type C, as are all but two of the other (lower S/N) galaxies. This may indicate that there is a dramatic increase in the fraction of galaxies with chaotic structure at very late $T$ type, or it may only reflect the importance of high S/N for accurate classification of circumnuclear dust structure. .2in ![ Same as Figure 4 for late-type galaxies ($T=6$). Only NGC 2139 and NGC 3184 meet the same S/N and position requirements as the main sample. The structures in most panels are dominated by star forming regions, rather than dust. ](martini.f6p.eps){width="4.5in"} Discussion and Summary ====================== I have computed structure maps from [HST]{} data for 48 galaxies with measured bars strengths $Q_b$. These data clearly shown that the fraction of galaxies with GD structure increases sharply for stronger bars, while TW structure is only found in the most axisymmetric galaxies. GD structure is more common in galaxies classified as type SB(s), which are commonly observed to have dust lanes along the leading edges of their bars. Measurement of the mean $Q_b$ for SB(s) and SB(r) galaxies shows that SB(s) galaxies generally have stronger bars. GD structure, SB(s) structure, and dust lanes along bars are therefore all correlated with bar strength. The fraction of galaxies with nuclear dust spirals increases at later $T$ type, perhaps indicating an increase in the fraction of galaxies with circumnuclear gaseous disks. There is some evidence that this trend reverses at type Scd with an increase in the fraction of C structure, although the available data for these galaxies are significantly poorer quality. I was supported during the course of this work by a Clay Fellowship at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I acknowledge the support of the American Astronomical Society and the National Science Foundation in the form of an International Travel Grant, which enabled me to attend this conference. Support for this work was also provided by NASA through grant number AR-9547 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. [1]{} Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345 Block, D.L. et al. 2004, AJ, [press]{}, (astro-ph/0405227) Buta, R. & Block, D.L. 2001, ApJ, 550, 243 Buta, R., Laurikainen, E., & Salo, H. 2004, AJ, 127, 279 Combes, F. & Sanders, R.H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164 Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, R.C. 2004, ARA&A, [in press]{} Laurikainen, E., & Salo, H. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1118 Maciejewski, W. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Pasadena: Carnegie Observatories,\ http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium1/proceedings.html) Martini, P., Regan, M.W., Mulchaey, J.S., & Pogge, R.W. 2003, ApJS, 146, 353 Martini, P., Regan, M.W., Mulchaey, J.S., & Pogge, R.W. 2003, ApJ, 589, 774 Pogge, R.W. & Martini, P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 624 Sandage, A., & Bedke, J. 1994, The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies (Publ. 638; Washington, DC: Carnegie Inst. Washington) Sanders, R.H. & Tubbs, A.D. 1980, ApJ, 235, 803	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present joint observations of the Sun by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS). The observations were made of a solar active region on 2015 December 18 as part of the ALMA science verification effort. A map of the Sun’s continuum emission of size $2.4'' \times 2.3''$ was obtained by ALMA at a wavelength of 1.25 mm (239 GHz) using mosaicing techniques. A contemporaneous map of size $1.9''\times 2.9''$ was obtained in the Mg II h doublet line at 2803.5Å by IRIS. Both [mm/submm-$\lambda$]{} continuum emission and ultraviolet (UV) line emission are believed to originate from the solar chromosphere and both have the potential to serve as powerful and complementary diagnostics of physical conditions in this poorly understood layer of the solar atmosphere. While a clear correlation between [mm/submm-$\lambda$]{} brightness temperature $T_B$ and the [Mg II h line ]{}radiation temperature $T_{rad}$ is observed the slope is $<1$, perhaps as a result of the fact that these diagnostics are sensitive to different parts of the chromosphere and/or the Mg II h line source function includes a scattering component. There is a significant offset between the mean $T_B$(1.25 mm) and mean $T_{rad}$(Mg II), the former being $\approx 35\%$ greater than the latter. Partitioning the maps into “sunspot", “quiet regions", and “plage regions" we find that the slope of the scatter plots between the IRIS [Mg II h line ]{}$T_{rad}$ and the ALMA brightness temperature $T_B$ is 0.4 (sunspot), 0.56 (quiet regions), and 0.66 (plage regions). We suggest that this change may be caused by the regional dependence of the formation heights of the IRIS and ALMA diagnostics, and/or the increased degree of coupling between the UV source function and the local gas temperature in the hotter, denser gas in plage regions.' author: - \| T. S. Bastian, G. Chintzoglou, B. De Pontieu, M. Shimojo, D. Schmit,\ J. Leenaarts, M. Loukitcheva title: A First Comparison of Millimeter Continuum and M II Ultraviolet Line Emission from the Solar Chromosphere --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The solar chromosphere is a poorly understood region of the solar atmosphere in which non-radiative heating becomes manifest. It is a highly dynamic layer through which acoustic waves propagate from below and shock, dissipating their energy. The chromosphere is also permeated by complex magnetic fields. The plasma $\beta$ parameter, the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure, varies by orders of magnitude within the chromosphere, as does the ionization fraction. Hence, establishing the structure and dynamics of the solar chromosphere and understanding the transfer of radiative and mechanical energy through the chromosphere pose significant challenges. Optical and UV line emission, as well as infrared, millimeter, and submillimeter wavelength continuum emission, originate from the chromosphere and have the potential to serve as powerful probes of its structure and dynamics but their utility has sometimes been limited by either their accessibility to observation (UV) or by technical challenges ([mm/submm-$\lambda$]{}). Recently, high resolution observations of the solar chromosphere in UV lines became accessible thanks to the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) small explorer space mission (De Pontieu et al. 2014). Among the newly available UV lines, the Mg II h and k doublet lines are of particular interest. Magnesium is more abundant than calcium in the solar atmosphere and it therefore samples a wider range of heights of the solar chromosphere than other common line diagnostics such as the Ca II H and K lines, the He I 10830Å line, or H$\alpha$ (Leenaarts et al. 2013a). Interest in the Mg II h and k lines as a means of diagnosing key parameters at chromospheric heights has therefore been strong and effort has been focused on modeling their radiative transfer in the context of chromospheric models (Leenaarts et al. 2013ab; Pereira et al. 2013; Sukhorukov & Leenaarts 2017). Continuum observations at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths (mm/submm) are also an attractive probe of the chromosphere (e.g., Bastian 2002). The dominant sources of opacity – collisions between free electrons and ions (free-free opacity) and between free electrons and neutral hydrogen (H$^-$ opacity) – are well understood; the radiation is formed under conditions of LTE and the source function is therefore the Planckian. Since $h\nu/KT\ll 1$ the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation is valid and the observed intensity is linearly proportional to the temperature of the emitting material. We note that the degree of ionization for hydrogen and helium is not in statistical equilibrium in the solar chromosphere (Carlsson & Stein 2002; Leenaarts et al. 2007; Golding et al. 2016); while the source function is in LTE, the opacity can be far from its LTE value (Wedemeyer-Böhm et al. 2007).The primary disadvantage to observations at [mm/submm-$\lambda$]{}has been the relatively poor angular resolution available in past years as a result of the fact that most observations were acquired using single dishes (e.g., White et al. 2017). With the advent of the the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), high resolution observations of the Sun are now possible and direct comparisons with other diagnostics of the solar atmosphere have become feasible. In this Letter we present a first comparison of solar observations of the chromosphere in a solar active region made by ALMA in the 1.25 mm band (239 GHz) with those of the same region made in the ultraviolet Mg II h doublet line by IRIS. In §2 we briefly describe the instruments and the observations. In §3 we present maps of the 1.25 mm continuum brightness temperature and the UV Mg II h2v radiation temperature. We discuss mm/UV-wavelength correlations for various regions and suggest underlying reasons for their attributes. We conclude in §4. Observations and Analysis {#sec:obs} ========================= Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array {#sec:ALMA} -------------------------------------------- ALMA is a powerful, general purpose interferometer comprised of the 12m array (50 $\times 12$m antennas) and the Atacama Compact Array (ACA: $12 \times 7$m antennas and $4 \times 12$m total power antennas). ALMA is designed to perform imaging observations and spectroscopy of astrophysical phenomena in frequency bands that will ultimately span 35-950 GHz, or wavelengths of 0.32-8.6 mm. Limited solar observing modes were released to the scientific community in 2016 (ALMA Cycle 4). Specifically, continuum observations are possible in band 3 (100 GHz/3 mm) and band 6 (239 GHz/1.25 mm). In order to observe the Sun with ALMA, special hardware modifications and calibration procedures were developed. The testing and commissioning effort that enabled solar observing with ALMA in bands 3 and 6 are described in detail by Shimojo et al. (2017) and White et al. (2017). The final solar testing campaign prior to the release of solar observing modes in ALMA Cycle 4 was conducted in December 2015. A variety of targets and modes were observed to ensure that systems performed as expected. Among the observations were band 6 observations of NOAA active region number 12470 on 18 December 2015 from 19:11:41 - 20:09:59 UT when the active region was at approximately N15E05. The band 6 observations were acquired in 4 spectral windows, each 2 GHz in bandwidth, centered on 230, 232, 246, and 248 GHz. The mean frequency was 239 GHz, or a wavelength of 1.25 mm. The instantaneous field of view (FOV) of ALMA is determined by the primary beam of a single antenna: for band 6 the full width at half maximum of an ALMA 12m antenna is $24"$. While this is sufficient for some types of observing programs, the restricted FOV hampers others. For programs that require mapping an area larger than the antenna FOV, mosaicing techniques are used where the interferometer points to a grid of locations that are specified relative to a reference pointing. In doing so, care must be taken to correct the individual mosaic pointings for the physical ephemeris of the Sun and the Sun’s differential rotation. The ALMA band 6 map of AR 12470 presented here was formed from a mosaic of 149 pointings (Nyquist sampled), each pointing of duration 6.048s. In order to produce maps calibrated in absolute terms, units of flux density or brightness temperature, it is necessary to recover all angular scales present in the target. An interferometer acts as a high-pass spatial filter. A map produced by interferometry alone filters out angular scales larger than those measured by the minimum spacing between two antennas. ALMA was carefully designed to recover all relevant angular scales in most cases, but for sources that are complex and extended it is necessary to use both interferometric and total power (TP) measurements. The TP antennas enable maps of the Sun on the largest angular scales, from the angular resolution of a single 12m antenna to the angular scale of the Sun itself ($\approx 1920"$), allowing power on all spatial frequencies to be restored. Calibration of the TP measurements is described by White et al. (2017) where the brightness temperature of the quiet Sun at the center of the solar disk is scaled to 5900 K (1.25 mm). The interferometric and TP mapping data were combined using “feathering" techniques as described by Shimojo et al. (2017). The 1.25 mm map of AR 12470 produced on 18 December 2015 is $143" \times 139"$ in size and has an angular resolution of $2.4"\times 0.9"$ (position angle -76.7$^\circ$). The photometric calibration of the resulting map is dominated by the total power mapping measurements. These are expected to be calibrated in absolute terms to $\approx 5\%$ (see White et al. 2017). Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph {#sec:IRIS} ------------------------------------- The Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS; De Pontieu et al 2014) conducted high spatial ($0.16"$ pix$^{-1}$), temporal and spectral resolution (0.025Å) observations of the Mg II h line at 2803.5Å of AR 12470 in coordination with ALMA. The IRIS data presented here were obtained on 2015 December 18 starting at 19:33:13 UT. They are comprised of three dense ($0.35"$) 320-step very large raster scans (FOV $112" \times 175"$) centered at $(x,y)=(-59" \times 231")$. Spatial binning ($\times 2$) was performed on the slit dimension and also on the spectra (again $\times 2$). The exposure time was 2 s and each raster scan was obtained in 1,026 s (with a total duration for the observation of 3078 s). We present the first large, dense raster – from 19:33:13 to 19:51:09 UT. All spectral data sets have been organized as level-2 FITS files and were already corrected as appropriate for the instrumental effects (such as dark subtraction, flat-fielding, geometric and wavelength corrections). We limit our analysis here to the Mg II h doublet line at 2803.5Å. The average solar Mg II h line profile is an emission line with a reversed core (yielding red “h2r” and a blue “h2v” peaks on either side of the “h3” core). However, pertinent to the local conditions, the opacity modulates the double-peaked profile, making it asymmetric or even single peaked. We used a nine-parameter double-Gaussian model (Schmit et al. 2015) based on MPFIT (Markwardt 2009) to model the line profile by a linear combination of a wide positive-amplitude Gaussian and a negative narrower-width Gaussian. We stored the model fits in separate arrays for the intensities and wavelengths for both the red and blue Mg II h2 peaks. Wherever the line core was not depressed, thus rendering the Mg II h line a single-peaked profile, the intensity and wavelength of that single peak was recorded in the arrays (in a way to prevent missing values in our rasters). We then used the model fits for the intensity rasters and performed radiometric calibration to convert the intensity from DN s$^{-1}$ to physical intensity units (in erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$). We used the latest calibration values to date for this purpose (i.e. version “004”). Using the radiometrically calibrated intensity rasters – absolute calibration of order 15% – we derived the radiation temperatures $T_{rad}$ for each peak that we used in our analysis. ![(a) A map of the IRIS Mg II h2v radiation temperature convolved to the resolution of the ALMA map; (b) a map of the the ALMA 1.25 mm continuum brightness temperature; (c) a comparison between the IRIS map of $T_{rad}$ (greyscale) and the ALMA map of $T_B$ (contours); (d) A map of the IRIS Mg II h2v line radiation temperature showing the masked areas corresponding to the sunspot (blue), quiet regions (red), and plage regions (yellow).](ALMA_IRIS_Fig1r.png){width="6.5in"} Results and Discussion {#sec:disc} ====================== In order to compare the IRIS raster data with ALMA imaging data several steps were taken. The ALMA map was obtained in the geocentric coordinate frame (right ascension and declination). It was therefore necessary to correct the final map for the solar position angle. For IRIS, pixels for which the fitting procedure failed ($<0.1\%$) were filled through the use of a median filter. There was a small amount of position “offset" from raster to raster. To correct for this, the IRIS raster data were interpolated onto a uniform grid ($0.4"\times 0.4"$ pixels). The resulting map of $T_{rad}$ in the Mg II h2v line was then convolved with a Gaussian kernel so that it had the same angular resolution as the corresponding ALMA map. We note that the conversion of the Mg II h2v line intensity to radiation temperature removes the nonlinearity of the Planck function in UV so that the subsequent smoothing step does not bias the radiation temperature, as would have been the case had the steps had been reversed. Finally, the maps were corrected for position offsets and differing FOVs to bring them into alignment to allow comparisons to be made on a pixel by pixel basis. Note, however, that we have not corrected for the fact that pixels are correlated on the scale of ALMA’s resolution; i.e., the pixel size is $0.4"\times 0.4"$ and they are correlated on an angular scale of $2.4"\times 0.9"$. The matched-resolution maps obtained by ALMA and IRIS are shown in Fig. 1. A clear correlation is evident between the ALMA map of the 1.25 mm continuum brightness temperature $T_B$ and the IRIS map of the Mg II h2v radiation temperature $T_{rad}$. To better characterize the nature of the correlation we formed scatter plots of the ALMA and IRIS observations as shown in Fig. 2. The central panel shows a scatter plot of all pixels in common to the two maps (grey pixels). While the trend remains clear, the scatter of pixels is significant. The Pearson correlation coefficient for all pixels is 0.78. We note that the mean and range of 1.25 mm continuum brightness temperatures are approximately 7380 K and 5200-8700 K, respectively, whereas the mean and range of the Mg II h2v radiation temperatures are approximately 5470 K and 4500-6500 K, respectively. Hence, there is a significant offset between $T_B(\rm 1.25~mm)$ and $T_{rad}$(Mg II), and a compression in range of the latter relative to the former. A linear fit to the data yields a slope of $m=0.57$. The causes for the slope, the offset and the degree of scatter between the 1.25 mm brightness temperature and the radiation temperature derived from Mg II h2v are not fully clear. Preliminary results from advanced numerical models (e.g., those computed with the Bifrost model: Gudiksen et al. 2011; see also Carlsson et al. 2016 and references therein) of quiet Sun conditions indicate that the Mg II h2v feature forms in the middle chromosphere over a range of heights from 600 to 2,000 km with a peak around 1,400 km (Leenaarts et al., 2013b). Synthetic observables calculated from the Bifrost at a wavelength of 1.3 mm, near that reported here, suggest that the radiation mostly originates at similar heights, with a peak at 1150 km (Loukitcheva et al., 2017). While the diagnostics are formed in roughly the same region of the atmosphere, it is unclear whether there are systematic differences in formation height along individual lines of sight. For both diagnostics the formation height surface is highly corrugated with large variability expected from location to location. It is possible that the height difference between these diagnostics is larger than predicted by the models. There are already indications that the Bifrost model does not properly reproduce the middle to upper chromosphere where significant opacity for both IRIS and ALMA diagnostics occurs, as exemplified by the large discrepancy in line width between observed and synthetic Mg II h profiles from the simulations (Leenaarts et al. 2013a). In particular, the Bifrost model appears to lack opacity from upper chromospheric features such as spicules and fibrils. Hence, one possibility is that the observed slope is in part caused by a differing sensitivity of the diagnostics to local conditions in such features, with ALMA more sensitive and IRIS less sensitive because of the scattering nature of the Mg II line. It is also possible that the compressed temperature range deduced from the optically thick Mg II h2v feature could be caused by radiative transfer effects. Since the Mg II h and k lines are scattering lines, the source function has a scattering contribution that leads to a source function that is not coupled to the local conditions and is lower than the local Planck function. Leenaarts et al. (2013b) also show that while the model correlation is good between the Mg II line radiation temperature and gas temperature, the radiation temperature underestimates the gas temperature by $\sim500$ K (much smaller than the offset between $T_{rad}$(Mg II) and $T_B$(1.25 mm) observed). However, at low intensities the correlation shows a significant scatter with many pixels having gas temperatures that are significantly higher than $T_{rad}$(Mg II) – again the result of radiation scattering. While the slope and scatter of the correlation may be qualitatively understood, in part, the significant offset between $T_{rad}$(Mg II) and $T_B(\rm 1.25~mm)$ is not understood within the context of current modeling efforts. We caution that it is in any case unclear how applicable these quiet Sun models are to our observations of AR 12470, where even the quietest regions are affected by the super-penumbra that surrounds the sunspot and plage. Nevertheless, taken together these observations thus provide stringent constraints on future numerical models of the chromosphere. It is interesting to compare various regions in the ALMA and IRIS maps. To do so, areas of AR 12470 mapped by both instruments were identified as corresponding to the sunspot, “quiet” regions (see comment above about the impact of the super-penumbra), and plage regions. Fig. 2d shows the masked areas corresponding to the sunspot (blue contour), to “quiet” regions (red contour), and to plage regions (yellow contour). Considering each of these regions separately shows that the correlation between the 1.25 mm brightness temperature and the Mg II h2v line radiation temperature is nonlinear. The solid line in Fig. 2 shows a linear fit to sunspot pixels (slope $m=0.4$); the dashed line shows the same for “quiet” regions pixels ($m=0.56$), and the dot-dash line shows the same for plage regions ($m=0.66$). The reason for this behavior is not fully understood. In an analysis of IRIS Mg II k line profiles in plage regions Carlsson et al. (2015) suggest that the observed line profiles arise naturally in hot, dense plasma, ensuring better coupling of the source function to the local temperature. Hence, the increased slope observed in the correlation between the 1.25 mm continuum emission and the Mg II h2v line may similarly reflect a higher degree of coupling of the source function to the local gas temperature. We have checked sources of possible systematic error in both datasets to ensure that the attributes we have described are robust. Chief among these is the absolution calibration of the two datasets. As noted in previous sections, the ALMA brightness scale is dominated by the total power measurements, believed to be accurate to $\approx 5\%$. Radiometric calibration of the IRIS observations is of order 15%. Another possible source of error is the fact that the two data sets not obtained strictly simultaneously - the IRIS data were obtained during the course of $\sim18$ min during ALMA mosaic mapping ($\sim 50$ min duration). While time variability likely increases the scatter in the correlation between the two datasets, it cannot account for the offsets and slopes of the scatter plots. In the case of IRIS, using contemporaneous sparse raster data, we estimate an rms of $\sigma=300$ K in the sunspot umbral region (largely due to oscillations) and $\sigma=200$ K in plage regions. ALMA data at 1.25 mm suitable for characterizing the time variability of the continuum mm emission are not available for this active region. A study of the mm and UV time variability in sunspot, quiet, and plage regions will be pursued separately. Another consideration In the case of ALMA is whether the contribution of the overlying corona to the observed brightness temperature, $\Delta T_B$(1.25 mm), is significant. The dominant source of opacity over the active region at mm-$\lambda$ is free-free absorption. The optical depth of a differential layer $dz$ overlying the active region is $d\tau\approx 0.2 (\lambda/c)^2 n_e^2 T^{-3/2} dz$. The brightness temperature contribution of the overlying (optically thin) coronal material at 1.25 mm was then estimated as $$\Delta T_B (1.25~{\rm mm}) \approx \int T d\tau \approx 0.2{\lambda^2\over c^2} \int T^{-1/2} n_e^2 dz = 0.2{\lambda^2\over c^2} \int T^{-1/2} \phi(T) dT$$ where $\phi(T)=n_e^2(T) dz/dT$ is the differential emission measure of the coronal material over AR 12470. We estimated $\phi(T)$ using measurements by the Solar Dynamics Observatory Atmospheric Imaging Assembly and found that $\Delta T_B$(1.25 mm) was no more than 2%. We conclude that none of the potential sources of systematic error likely has a significant impact on the ALMA/IRIS correlation properties observed. ![The main panel shows a scatter plot of IRIS Mg II h2v radiation temperatures versus the corresponding ALMA 1.25 mm continuum brightness temperatures. The grey points represent all common pixels in the two maps. The blue points represent pixels in the sunspot umbra; red points represent pixels in “quiet” Sun areas; and yellow pixels represent pixels in plage regions. The corresponding histograms are shown for the ALMA data (top panel) and the IRIS data (right panel). The mean 1.25 mm brightness temperature of the sunspot, quiet, and plages regions are 6555 K, 7045 K, and 7735 K, whereas the mean Mg II h line radiation temperatures are 5116 K, 5076 K, and 5707 K, respectively. Linear fits to pixels representing the sunspot umbra, “quiet” regions, and plage regions are shown as solid, dashed, and dot-dashed lines, respectively.](ALMA_IRIS_Fig2r.png){width="6.5in"} Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conc} ======================= We have presented a first comparison of high angular resolution observations of the 1.25 mm continuum emission from a solar active region (AR 12470) made by ALMA on 2015 December 18 with nearly simultaneous observations of the Mg II h doublet line obtained by IRIS. The two radiation regimes hold promise as powerful and complementary diagnostics of the structure and dynamics of the solar chromosphere. In comparing maps of the ALMA 1.25 mm brightness temperature and the IRIS Mg II h2v radiation temperature we find a clear correlation between $T_B$(1.25 mm) and $T_{rad}$(Mg II) although the Mg II radiation temperatures are offset to significantly lower values than the corresponding 1.25 mm brightness temperatures. Furthermore, the slope of the correlation is significantly smaller than unity. While the temperature offset is not understood, the slope $<1$ may, in part, be the result of the fact that the Mg II h line source function has a radiation scattering component, also compatible with the the significant scatter in the correlation. Masking the active region into pixels corresponding to sunspot umbra, “quiet” regions, and plage regions, we find that the correlation between $T_B$(1.25 mm) and $T_{rad}$(Mg II) is nonlinear. The slopes of the linear fits increase from 0.4, to 0.56, to 0.66 for sunspot, quiet, and plage pixels, respectively. Qualitatively, the larger slope measured in plage regions may be due to a higher degree of coupling of the source function to the gas in hotter, denser regions. These observations highlight the need for chromospheric models not only for quiet Sun conditions, but of active region conditions as well. Future observations will focus on expanding joint [mm/submm-$\lambda$]{}and UV line observations to a variety of chromospheric environments and comparing them with the numerical models in detail as a means of better understanding the utility of the two wavelength regimes as complementary probes of the chromosphere. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA \#2011.0.00020.SV. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. IRIS is a NASA small explorer mission developed and operated by LMSAL with mission operations executed at NASA Ames Research center and major contributions to downlink communications funded by ESA and the Norwegian Space Centre. M.S. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K05397. This work was partly carried out on the solar data analysis system and common-use data analysis computer system operated by ADC/ NAOJ. G.C. and B.D.P. are both supported by NASA contract NNG09FA40C (IRIS). M.L. acknowledges NSF grant AST-1312802 and NASA grant NNX14AK66G. Bastian, T. S. 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 271 Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 2002, , 572, 626 Carlsson, M., Leenaarts, J., & De Pontieu, B. 2015, , 809, L30 Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., Gudiksen, B. V., Leenaarts, J., & De Pontieu, B. 2016, , 585, A4 de la Cruz Rodr[í]{}guez, J., Leenaarts, J., & Asensio Ramos, A. 2016, , 830, L30 De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, , 289, 2733 Golding, T. P., Leenaarts, J., & Carlsson, M. 2016, , 817, 125 Gudiksen, B. V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2011, , 531, A154 Leenaarts, J., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V., & Rutten, R. J. 2007, , 473, 625 Leenaarts, J., Pereira, T. M. D., Carlsson, M., Uitenbroek, H., & De Pontieu, B. 2013a, , 772, 90 Leenaarts, J., Pereira, T. M. D., Carlsson, M., Uitenbroek, H., & De Pontieu, B. 2013b, , 772, 89 Loukitcheva, M., White, S. M., Solanki, S. K., Fleishman, G. D., & Carlsson, M. 2017, , 601, A43 Pereira, T. M. D., Leenaarts, J., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., & Uitenbroek, H. 2013, , 778, 143 Schmit, D., Bryans, P., De Pontieu, B., et al. 2015, , 811, 127 Shimojo, M., Bastian, T. S., Hales, A. S., White, S. M., Iwai, K., et al. 2017, , 123, 45 Sukhorukov, A. V., & Leenaarts, J. 2017, , 597, A46 Wedemeyer-B[ö]{}hm, S., Ludwig, H. G., Steffen, M., Leenaarts, J., & Freytag, B. 2007, , 471, 977 Wedemeyer, S., Bastian, T., Braj[š]{}a, R., et al. 2016, , 200, 1 White, S. M., Iwai, K, Phillips, N. M., Hills, R. E., Hirota, A., et al. 2017, , 123, 45	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Using elementary counting methods, we calculate the universal perturbative invariant (also known as the $LMO$ invariant) of a 3-manifold $M$, satisfying $H_1(M,\BZ)=\BZ$, in terms of the Alexander polynomial of $M$. We show that $+1$ surgery on a knot in the 3-sphere induces an injective map from finite type invariants of s to finite type invariants of knots. We also show that weight systems of degree $2m$ on knots, obtained by applying finite type $3m$ invariants of s, lie in the algebra of Alexander-Conway weight systems, thus answering the questions raised in [@Ga].' address: - \| Department of Mathematics\ Brandeis University\ Waltham, MA 02254-9110, U.S.A. - \| UMR 6629 du CNRS, Université de Nantes\ Département de Mathématiques\ 2 rue de la Houssinière\ 44072 NANTES Cedex 03, France author: - Stavros Garoufalidis - Nathan Habegger date: 'Prliminary version, July 22,1997. This version ' title: ' The Alexander polynomial and finite type 3-manifold invariants' --- [^1] Introduction ============ History ------- In their fundamental paper, T.T.Q. Le, J. Murakami and T. Ohtsuki [@LMO] constructed a map $\ZL$ which associates to every oriented 3-manifold an element of the graded (completed) Hopf algebra $\Ao$ of trivalent graphs.[^2] The restriction of this map to the set of oriented s was shown in [@L] to be the [universal]{} of s (i.e., it classifies such invariants). Thus $\ZL$ is a rich (though not fully understood) invariant of s. However, the invariant $\ZL$ behaves differently as soon as the first Betti number of the 3-manifold, $b_1(M)$, is positive. In [@Ha2], the second author used an elementary counting argument to deduce that $\ZL(M)=1$, if $b_1(M) > 3$, and to compute $\ZL(M)$, if $b_1(M)=3$ (and also for $b_1(M)=2$, see [@BH]), in terms of the Lescop invariant [@Le] of $M$. It is an open problem to compute $\ZL(M)$, for $b_1(M) =0,1$. It is the purpose of the present paper to exploit elementary counting methods in order to calculate $\ZL(M)$, for 3-manifolds $M$ which satisfy $H_1(M,\BZ)=\BZ$, in terms of a “classical invariant” of $M$, namely its Alexander polynomial. This includes the special case of 0-[surgery]{}[^3] of a knot $K$ in $S^3$, $S^3_{K,0}$, in which case the Alexander polynomial of $S^3_{K,0}$ is the Alexander-Conway polynomial of $K$.[^4] An important ingredient of our computation is the recent result of A. Kricker, B. Spence, and I. Aitchinson, [@Kr; @KSA], calculating the Conway weight system on Chinese characters. Although the invariant $\ZL(S^3_{K_,+1})$, of +1-surgery on a knot $K$ (in contrast to 0-surgery), is not determined by the Alexander-Conway polynomial of $K$ (there are examples with nontrivial invariant, and trivial Alexander polynomial), we show that after truncating $\ZL$ at degree $m$, the associated degree $2m$ knot [weight system]{} lies in the algebra of the Alexander-Conway weight systems. Similar methods allow us to show that s of s are determined by their associated knot invariants, thus answering positively the questions (see below) that were posed in [@Ga] prior to the construction of the LMO invariant. (At that time, the only known finite type invariant of 3-manifolds was the Casson invariant.) Statement of the results ------------------------ All 3-manifolds and links considered in the present paper will be oriented. Let $M$ be an oriented, closed, connected 3-manifold satisfying $H_1(M,\BZ)=\BZ$. The universal invariant $\ZL(M) \in \Ao$ can be calculated in terms of the Alexander-Conway polynomial $A(M)$ of the 3-manifold. Conversely, the Alexander polynomial of $M$ can be calculated in terms of the universal invariant $\ZL(M) \in \Ao$. A precise formula relating the two invariants will be given in section \[sec.pre\]. 8 We outline here the basic idea of the proof, which though somewhat technical, really is quite elementary: If a manifold $M$ is obtained by $0$-surgery on a knot $K$ in $S^3$ (the general case of a manifold satisfying $H_1(M,\BZ)=\BZ$ is not much harder), then quite immediately from the definitions, the degree $m$ part of $\ZL(M)$ can be computed from the part of the Kontsevich integral of $K$ (written in Chinese characters) which has $2m$ legs and $2m$ internal vertices. Since there are no components which are intervals (because of the 0-framing), and since by the anti-symmetry relation, all trees vanish, the only contributing part consists of wheels. But this part is known to determine the Alexander polynomial of $K$, and thus that of $M$. 8 Before we state the next result, we need to recall some standard definitions and notation from the theory of s of knots and s, see [@B-N; @Oh; @Ga; @LMO]. Let $\K$ denote the vector space over $\BQ$ on the set of isotopy classes of oriented knots in $S^3$ and let $\FV m$ (for a nonnegative integer $m$) denote the vector space of finite type (i.e., Vassiliev) invariants of knots of type $m$, [@B-N]. Similarly, let $\M$ denote the vector space over $\BQ$ on the set of orientation preserving diffeomorphism classes of oriented s, and let $\FO m$ denote the vector space of finite type (i.e., Ohtsuki) invariants of s of type $m$, [@Oh]. In [@Ga] we considered the map $K \mapsto S^3_{K,+1}$. This is a classical map, often used in the study of knots (or 3-manifolds). This yields a map $ \K \to \M$ and a dual map $\Phi: \M^\ast \to \K^\ast$ (where $V^\ast$ denotes the dual of a vector space $V$). In [@Ga] the following questions were posed: 8 Q1 : Does the above map send $\FO {3m}$ to $\FV {2m}$? Q2 : Is the restriction of the map $\Phi$ to $\FO {3m}$ one-to-one, for all $m$? Q3 : Assuming the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, and given $v \in \FO {3m}$, is it true that the associated degree $2m$ knot weight system lies in the algebra of the Alexander-Conway weight systems? Let $v$ be a $\BQ$-valued invariant of s and let $\Phi(v)$ be the associated invariant of knots in $S^3$. Question 1 asks whether $\Phi(v)$ is a finite type invariant of knots in $S^3$ (together with an estimate of the type of the invariant), if $v$ is a finite type invariant of s. Question 2 asks whether $\Phi(v)$ determines $v$. (It should be noted, however, that there are s that cannot be obtained by $\pm 1$ surgery on a knot in $S^3$, see [@A].) Question 3 is concerned with the finite type knot invariant $\Phi(v)$ and asks whether in degree $2m$ (the maximum possible degree by question 1), $\Phi(v)$ is a classical knot invariant (on elements in the $2m$-th term of the Vassiliev filtration), given by a polynomial in the Alexander-Conway coefficients. Building on work of the first author and J. Levine (a preliminary version of [@GL2]), Question 1 was answered affirmatively by the second author, [@Ha]. Alternative proofs were later given in [@GL2; @L]. The methods used in [@Ha] and [@GL2] were a mixture of geometric topology together with a counting argument. On the other hand, [@L] used the $\ZL$ invariant and an elementary counting argument. Using elementary counting arguments similar to those in [@L], together with properties of the $\ZL$ invariant, enables us to show that Questions 2 and 3 above are true. The association, which takes a knot in $S^3$ to the integral homology sphere obtained by +1-framed surgery on the knot, induces an injection from the space of finite type 3-manifold invariants (in the sense of Ohtsuki), to the space of finite type (Vassiliev) knot invariants. Let $v$ be a finite type $3m$ invariant (in the sense of Ohtsuki) of homology 3-spheres. Then the associated degree $2m$ knot weight system lies in the algebra of the Alexander-Conway weight systems. Theorem \[thm.q2\] does not hold at the graded level, i.e., the associated graded map $\G_m\Phi: \GO {3m}\to \GV {2m}$ is not one-to-one for $ m \geq 4$ (see remark \[rem.gr2\]). Acknowledgment -------------- We would like to thank Dror Bar-Natan, Vincent Franjou, Jerry Levine, Thang T.Q. Le, Christine Lescop, Gregor Masbaum, Paul Melvin, Xiao-Song Lin, Dylan Thurston and Pierre Vogel for useful conversations. We also wish to thank the referee for numerous suggestions and comments. 8 Preliminaries ============= Preliminaries on Chinese characters ----------------------------------- Recall that a [Chinese character]{} is a graph such that every vertex has valency $1$ or $3$ (often called a uni-trivalent graph), together with a cyclic order of the edges at each of its trivalent vertices. There is a degree-preserving linear isomorphism $\chi: \B \to \Ai$ between the graded coalgebra $\B$ of Chinese characters (modulo the antisymmetry and IHX relations) and the graded coalgebra of chord diagrams $\Ai$ on a circle, see [@B-N theorem 8], given by mapping a Chinese character $C$ with $n$ legs to $1/n!$ times the sum of the $n!$ ways of joining all of its legs to $n$ chosen ordered points on a fixed circle. The degree of a Chinese character or chord diagram is half the number of vertices, and the primitive diagrams are the connected ones. Since the map $\chi$ is a vector space isomorphism, we will [identify]{} $\B$ and $\Ai$ via $\chi$. Note that $\B$ has [two]{} commutative multiplications;[^5] one is induced by the multiplication on $\Ai$ via $\chi$, denoted by $\cdot_\times$, and the other is the disjoint union of Chinese characters, denoted by $\cdot_\sqcup$. In what follows, we will suppress $\cdot_\times$ from the notation, but will explicitly use $\cdot_\sqcup$. Thus, $\exp_\sqcup$ will be used to designate the exponential with respect to the $\cdot_\sqcup$ multiplication, and $\exp$ will be used to designate the exponential with respect to the $\cdot_\times$ multiplication. We will be interested in several important subspaces of $\B$. Let $\Bi$ denote the subspace of $\B$ which is spanned by Chinese characters, no component of which is (homeomorphic to) an [interval]{}.[^6] $\Bi$ is a subalgebra of $\B$ with respect to either multiplication. Note that $\Bi$ is a direct summand of $\B$ with complementary factor the span of Chinese characters which contain an interval component. $\Bi$ is related to a [deframing]{} projection map $F: \Ai \to \Ai$ (whose image will be denoted by $\Ap$) defined in [@B-N part 2 of Theorem 4 and exercise 3.16]. Using the isomorphism $\chi$, the image of the induced deframing map (also denoted by $F$) $F:\B \to \B$[^7] was shown in [@KSA Corollary 4.4] to coincide with $\Bi$.[^8] Let $\Bii$ denote the subspace of $\B$ which is spanned by Chinese characters some component of which has more trivalent vertices than univalent ones. $\Bii$ is a direct summand of $\Bi$. In fact, one has the direct sum decomposition $\Bi=\Bii\oplus \Bwh$, where $\Bwh$[^9] denotes the subspace of $\B$ spanned by all s every component of which is a wheel (see section 2.2 below). Let $P_{wh}: \B \to \B$ denote the composition of the deframing map $F$ followed by the projection to the subspace $\Bwh$. We close this section with the following characterization of the algebra of Alexander-Conway weight systems, due to [@KSA; @Kr]. Recall that a [weight system]{} $W$ is a linear map $W: \Ai\to\BQ$. Weight systems can be multiplied and thus they form an algebra. Given a finite type invariant of knots (or a power series of such invariants, such as the Alexander-Conway polynomial, which will be discussed in greater detail in the next section) there is an associated weight system, generating a subalgebra in the algebra of weight systems. We now have the following [@Kr; @KSA] A weight system $W: \Ai \to \BQ$ lies in the algebra of Alexander-Conway weight systems if and only if it factors through $P_{wh}$. The Alexander-Conway polynomial and its weight system ----------------------------------------------------- In this section we review some well known properties of the Alexander-Conway polynomial and its associated weight system. (For the Alexander-Conway polynomial and further references, see for example the exposition in the appendix of [@Le].) The [Conway]{} polynomial $C$ [@Co; @Ka] of a knot (considered as a polynomial in $z$) is defined by the relations: $$\begin{gathered} {C}\left({\printname{overcross} \setlength{\unitlength}{0.03\standardunitlength} \begin{array}{c} \hspace{-1.7mm} \raisebox{-8pt}{\input draws/overcross.tex } \hspace{-1.9mm} \end{array} } \right) -{C}\left({\printname{undercross} \setlength{\unitlength}{0.03\standardunitlength} \begin{array}{c} \hspace{-1.7mm} \raisebox{-8pt}{\input draws/undercross.tex } \hspace{-1.9mm} \end{array} } \right) =z {C}\left({\printname{vbridge} \setlength{\unitlength}{0.03\standardunitlength} \begin{array}{c} \hspace{-1.7mm} \raisebox{-8pt}{\input draws/vbridge.tex } \hspace{-1.9mm} \end{array} } \right), \\ C\left(\text{$c$-component unlink}\right)=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if }c=1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \notag\end{gathered}$$ With the terminology of [@B-NG section 3.1], the Conway polynomial itself is not a [canonical]{} Vassiliev power series, but its renormalized reparametrized version $$\tilde{C}(\hb)= \frac{\hb}{e^{\hb/2}-e^{-\hb/2}}C(e^{\hb/2}-e^{-\hb/2})$$ is a canonical Vassiliev power series (i.e., it satisfies $\tilde{C}(K)(h) = W_{C,\hb} \circ \ZK (K)$, see below). Similarly, the [Alexander]{} polynomial, defined by $A(t)=C(t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2})$, is not a canonical Vassiliev power series, but it becomes canonical when multiplied by $\frac{\hb}{e^{\hb/2}-e^{-\hb/2}}$ and evaluated at $t=e^\hb$ (as this product is $\tilde{C}(\hb)$). Let $W_C : \Ai \to \BQ$ denote the [weight system]{} of $\tilde{C}$ (which is equal to the weight system of $C$). It has the property that it is a deframed multiplicative weight system. (Recall that a weight system $W: \Ai \to \BQ$ is called [deframed]{} if it factors as a composition $\Ai \stackrel{F}{\to} \Ai \to \BQ$, where $F$ is the deframing map. Furthermore, a weight system $W: \Ai \to \BQ$ is called [multiplicative]{} if for all chord diagrams $CD_1, CD_2$ of degrees $m_1, m_2$ respectively, we have: $W_{m_1+ m_2}(CD_1 \cdot CD_2)=W_{m_1}(CD_1) W_{m_2}(CD_2)$.) The weight system $W_C$ was calculated on linear chord diagrams in [@B-NG Theorem 3]. Its expression in terms of Chinese characters in $\Bi$ was given by Kricker [@Kr Theorem 2.10] as follows: $$\lbl{eq.wac} W_C (\xi) = \begin{cases} (-2)^p & \text{if $m=2n$ and $\xi$ is a disjoint union of} \\ & \text{$p$ even-legged wheels} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$ where $\omega_{2n}$ is a wheel with $2n$ legs, see Figure \[w2n\]. 8 $${\begin{array}{c} \hspace{-1.3mm} \raisebox{-4pt}{\psfig{figure=draws/w2n.ps,width=0.4in}} \hspace{-1.9mm}\end{array}}$$ 8 Let $\ZK: \K \to \Ai$ denote the [universal]{} of knots, constructed by Kontsevich [@Ko] (see [@B-N]), and let $\xi(K) \eqdef \text{log} \ZL(K)$ denote its logarithm. (N.b., since knots are considered as unframed, their image under the map $\ZK$ lies in the image of the deframing map.[^10] For an extension to a functor $Z$ on the category of framed $q$-tangles, see e.g., [@B2; @Ca; @KT; @LM]. Then for a $0$-framed knot $K$ in $S^3$, $\ZK(K)$ coincides with the value of $Z$ on $K$. In particular, $\xi(K)$ lies in (the primitive part of, see for example [@LM2]) $\Ap\simeq\Bi$. So $P_{wh} \xi(K)$ consists of a sum of (even-legged) wheels. Define $ a_{2m}(K)$ by $$\lbl{eq.axi} \sum_{m=1}^\infty a_{2m}(K) \omega_{2m} \eqdef P_{wh} \xi(K).$$ Let $W_{C,\hb}$ denote the product of $W_C$ and $\hb^{\deg}$, where $\hb^{\deg}$ is the operator that multiplies every degree $m$ diagram by $\hb^m$. Let $\U$ denote the (zero-framed) unknot[^11] and set $b_{2m}=a_{2m}(\U)$. We now claim that 8 - [[Fact 1.]{}]{} For a zero framed knot in $S^3$ we have: $$-1/2 \text{log}(A(K)(e^\hb)) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty a'_{2m}(K) \hb^{2m},$$ where $a'_{2m}(K)=a_{2m}(K)-b_{2m}$. Indeed, one has that ------------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- $\tilde{C}(K)(h)$ = $W_{C,\hb} \circ \ZK (K)$ since $\tilde{C}$ is canonical = $\exp( W_{C,\hb} \xi(K))$ since $W_{C,\hb}$ is multiplicative = $\exp(-2 \sum_{m=1}^\infty a_{2m}(K) \hb^{2m})$ by equation . ------------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 8 Thus we have, $-1/2 \text{log}(\tilde{C}(K)(\hb)) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty a_{2m}(K) \hb^{2m}.$ In particular, $-1/2 \text{log}(\frac{\hb}{e^{\hb/2}-e^{-\hb/2}}) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty b_{2m} \hb^{2m},$ and the result follows since $\tilde{C}(K)(\hb)=\tilde{C}(\U)(\hb) A(K)(e^\hb)$. 8 Define $\alpha(K)$ in (the completion of) $\Bwh$ by: $$\lbl{eq.xif} \alpha(K) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty (b_{2m}+ a_{2m}(K)) \omega_{2m}$$ Note that $\alpha(K)=\sum_{m=1}^\infty (2b_{2m}+ a'_{2m}(K)) \omega_{2m}.$ Similarly, let $M$ denote a 3-manifold which satisfies $H_1(M,\BZ)=\BZ$, and let $A(M)(t)$ denote its Alexander polynomial, normalized so that it is symmetric (in $t$ and $t^{-1}$) and evaluates to $1$ at $t=1$. We define $a'_{2m}(M)$ by $-1/2 \text{log}(A(M)(e^\hb)) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty a'_{2m}(M)\hb^{2m}$. Define $\alpha(M)$ by: $$\lbl{eq.xxif} \alpha(M)\eqdef \sum_{m=1}^\infty (2b_{2m}+ a'_{2m}(M)) \omega_{2m}.$$ Obviously, $\alpha(M)$ and $A(M)$ can be computed from each other. Preliminaries on the $LMO$ invariant ------------------------------------ In this section we review some well known properties of the invariant $\ZL$. We denote by $\{x\}_m$ the degree $m$ part of $x$. Recall from [@LMO] that for every integer $f$, and every knot $K$ in $S^3$, the value of the universal invariant on $S^3_{K,f}$ is given by: $$\ZL(S^3_{K,f})=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \Big\{ \frac{\i_m(c(f)\ZK(K))}{c_m(f)} \Big\}_m \in \Ao$$ (the product in $\B$ is taken with respect to the $\cdot_\times$ multiplication), where $c(f)=\exp( \frac{f}{2}\Theta) \ZK(\O)$ and $c_m(f)= \i_m (\exp( \text{sgn}(f) \Theta/2 ) \ZK(\O)^2)$ (resp. $1$) if $ f \neq 0$ (resp. $f=0$). Here $\Theta$ denotes the unique chord diagram of degree 1 on a circle, $\i_m : \Ai\to \Ae{}$ is a map defined in [@LMO section 2], $\O$ is the zero framed unknot, and $\ZK(K)$ is the value of the universal knot invariant with the [zero]{} framing. Note that $\ZK(\O)$ is denoted by $\nu$ in [@LMO; @L]. Let $\pi_m$ denote the projection $\Ao \to \Ae{\le m}$. In the special case when $f=+1$ (n.b., the formula below holds since we are in the case of an integral homology sphere, see [@LMO]), one has the formula $$\pi_m(\ZL(S^3_{K_,+1}))=\pi_m\big(\frac{\i_m(c\ZK(K))}{c_m}\big) \in \Ae{\le m}$$ where $c= \exp(\frac{1}{2}\Theta)\ZK(\O)$ and where $c_m=\i_m (\exp( \frac{1}{2}\Theta) \ZK(\O)^2)$. 8 The map $\i_m$, though rather complicated when evaluated on chord diagrams on a circle, becomes more transparent when evaluated on Chinese characters. In particular, it follows from its definition that for a Chinese character $C$ with $l$ legs, we have: $$\i_m (C)= \begin{cases} O_{-2m}(\clos{C}) & \text{if $l=2m$}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$ where $\clos{C}$ denotes the closure of $C$, i.e., the sum of all $(2m-1)!!$ ways of closing its legs by joining the univalent vertices in pairs, and $O_{-2m}$ is the map which sets circle components equal to $-2m$.[^12] Note that in the special case that no connected component of $C$ is an interval $I$, then no connected component of $\clos{C}$ is a circle, and so $O_{-2m}(\clos{C})=\clos{C}$. Note also that if $C$ has $2k$ legs, then $O_{-2m}(\clos{C\cdot_\sqcup I})= (-2)(m-k)O_{-2m}(\clos{C})$. We have the following: - [[Fact 2.]{}]{} Fix a nonnegative integer $m$. Given $a \in 1 + \B_{\ge 1}$, $b \in \B'_{\ge 2m}$, $c \in 1 + \Ae{\ge 1}$, then: $$\Big\{\frac{\i_m (a b))}{c}\Big\}_m = \clos{P_{wh}(\{b\}_{2m})} \in \Ae{m}.$$ Note that this identity holds with respect to either multiplication in $\B$. For the proof, note that $\i_m$ reduces degree by $m$. In particular, the only part of $b$ which contributes to both sides is $\{b\}_{2m}$, the degree $2m$ part of $b$ lying in $\B'_{2m}$. Note also that an element of $\B'_{2m}$ has at most $2m$ legs; moreover, it has exactly $2m$ legs if and only if it lies in $(\Bwh)_{2m}$, i.e., it is a linear combination of Chinese characters, all of whose components are even-legged wheels. This shows the above claim. Proofs ====== In this section we give the proofs of theorems \[thm.al\], \[thm.q2\] and \[thm.q3\]. 8 The map $x\mapsto \clos{x}$ from $\Bwh\to \Ae{}$ is injective, but its restriction $(\Bwh)_{2n} \to \Ae n$ for $n \geq 4$, is not surjective. Note that the map $\clos{\ }$ sends connected Chinese characters to connected trivalent graphs. In particular it induces a map of primitives of $\Bwh$ which is easily seen to be injective.[^13] Now note further that the map $\clos{\ }$, although not multiplicative, sends a product of primitives to the product of their closures, plus terms with fewer connected components. This implies that the map $\clos{\ }$ on $\Bwh$ is injective, and further that the preimage of the set of primitives is the set of primitives of $\Bwh$. Thus, were the map also surjective as well, it would send the primitives onto the primitives. But as the primitive part of $(\Bwh)_{2n}$ is of dimension 1, and since the dimension of the primitive part of $\Ae{n}$ is $>1$, for $n \geq 4$ (see e.g. [@B-N]), it follows that $\clos{\ }$ is not surjective in degree $n \geq 4$. 8 \[Proof of theorem \[thm.al\]\] We first give the proof in case $M=S^3_{K,0}$ is obtained by surgery on a zero-framed knot $K$ in $S^3$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \ZL(M) & = & \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \{ \i_m(\ZK(\O) \ZK(K)) \}_m \\ & = & \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \{ \i_m (\exp(\xi(\O))\exp(\xi(K))) \}_m \\ & = & \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \{ \i_m (\exp(\xi(\O)+\xi(K))) \}_m \\ & = & \clos{P_{wh}\exp(\xi(\O)+ \xi(K))} \\ & = & \clos{\exp_\sqcup(P_{wh}(\xi(\O)+\xi(K)))} \\ & = & \clos{\exp_\sqcup(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} (a_{2m}(\O) + a_{2m}(K))w_{2m}))}\\ & = & \clos{\exp_\sqcup\alpha(K)}\end{aligned}$$ where the first and second equality is by definition, the third follows since we are in a commutative algebra, the fourth follows from fact 2 (with $a=c=1$), the fifth follows since $P_{wh}$ is an algebra homomorphism, and the last two follow from the definitions. This shows that the invariant $\ZL(S^3_{K,0})$ is determined by the Alexander polynomial $A(K)$. Since $A(K)=A(M)$ (and hence $\alpha(K)=\alpha(M)$), the result follows. Conversely, by Lemma \[lem.clos\], the map $\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} c_{2m} w_{2m}\to \clos{\exp_\sqcup(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} c_{2m} w_{2m})}$ is the composite of two injective maps and hence is injective. It follows that $\ZL(S^3_{K,0})$ determines the Alexander polynomial. 8 To prove the general case, first note that we may obtain $M$ via surgery on a boundary link $K\cup L$ in $S^3$, where the framing on $K$ is the zero framing, and the framing of each component of $L$ is $\pm 1$. Indeed, one may obtain $M$ by zero-framed surgery on a knot in an integral homology sphere, which in turn may be obtained by surgery on a $\pm 1$-framed boundary link $L$. It suffices to isotope, in this homology sphere, the Seifert surface for the knot so as to be disjoint from the Seifert surfaces of the components of $L$.[^14] In this case, one still has $A(K)=A(M)$ (since the link is a boundary link, the Seifert form on $K$ in $S^3$ is the same as the Seifert form of $K$ in the homology sphere obtained by surgery on $L$). Moreover, since the link is boundary, its Milnor invariants vanish, and hence, by [@HM], $\ZK(K\cup L_0)$ consists of diagrams, none of which are trees (where $L_0$ denotes the link $L$ with zero framing). Consequently, using a counting argument similar to [@Ha2], one can check that: $\iota_m(c'(f)\ZK(K\cup L_0))=\iota_m(c'(f)\ZK(K\sqcup L_0))$ where $c'(f)$ are terms that depend on the framing of $L$, and $K \sqcup L_0$ denotes the disjoint union of the links $K$ and $L_0$. The definition of the $LMO$ invariant and its multiplicative property under connected sum implies that $\ZL(M)=\ZL(S^3_{K,0} \sharp S^3_{L})= \ZL(S^3_{K,0})$, thus finishing the proof of the theorem. \[Proof of theorem \[thm.q2\].\] Recall, [@L], that $\ZL_{\le m}: \M/\M_{3m+1}\to\Ae{\le m}$ is an isomorphism. We will prove that the map $\K\to\M/\M_{3m+1}$ is onto (or equivalently, that the composite map $\B'\to\B'_{\le 2m}=\K/\K_{2m+1}\to\M/\M_{3m+1}=\Ae{\le m}$ is onto), which is dual to the statement of theorem \[thm.q2\]. The map $\B'_{\le 2m}\to \Ae{\le m}$ is given by the formula $$x\mapsto \pi_m\big(\frac{\i_m(c x)}{c_m}\big) \in \Ae{\le m},$$ where $c,c_m$ are as in secion 2.3. Let $x$ be a Chinese character with $2k$ legs of degree $n+k$, having no interval components, $n\le m$, $k\le m$. Then $\clos{x}$ has degree $n$. Under the above mapping, a computation shows that $x\mapsto (-1)^k\clos{x} + o(n+1)$, where $o(n+1)$ denotes terms of degree $\ge n+1$. Note that any connected graph is the closure of a connected Chinese character with 2 legs. Moreover, the map $x\mapsto \clos{x}$ sends a product of connected Chinese characters (without interval components) to the product of their closures plus terms each of which has fewer components. It follows by downward induction on the degree and upward induction on the number of components, that the map $\B'\to \Ae{\le m}$ is surjective. 8 \[Proof of theorem \[thm.q3\]\] Consider the map $\hpsi : \K \to \Ao $ given by: $$\lbl{eq.tpsi} \hpsi(K)= \ZL(S^3_{K,+1})$$ as well as its truncation, $\hpsi_{\le m}=\pi_m \circ\hpsi$, where $\pi_m$ is the projection $\Ao \to \Ae{\le m}$. Let $S$ be a $K$-admissible $2m$-component set. Here $S \subset S^3$ denotes the union of $2m$ disjoint embedded balls that intersect the knot in a $\pm$ crossing, and $[K,S]$ is the signed sum of all knots obtained by changing the crossings. (Recall that such sums generate the $2m$-th term of the Vassiliev filtration.) One has that: $$\begin{aligned} \hpsi_{\le m}([K,S])& = & \pi_m(\sum_{S' \subseteq S} (-1)^{\|S'\|}\ZL(S^3_{K_{S'},+1})) \\ & = &\pi_m \big( \frac{\i_m (c \ZK([K,S]))}{c_m} \big) \\ & = &\big\{ \frac{\i_m (c \ZK([K,S]))}{c_m} \big\}_m \\ & = & (-1)^m \{ \clos{P_{wh}(\ZK([K,S]))} \}_m\end{aligned}$$ (since by [@LMO], $\{c_m\}_0=(-1)^m$). Similar computations show that $\hpsi_{\le m}([K,S])$ vanishes, if $S$ is a $K$-admissible $n$-component set, with $n>2m$. It follows that $\hpsi_{\le m}$ is a $\Ae{\le m}$-valued of knots of order $2m$. Moreover, the above shows that the weight system $W_{\Psi,m}: \Aps{2m} \to \Ae{m}$ factors through the projection $P_{wh}$ to $\Bwh$. It follows from Theorem \[lem.con\] that $W_{\Psi,m}$ lies in the algebra of Alexander-Conway weight systems with values in $\Ao$. The above formula shows that the weight system is explicitly calculated as the composite of the projection to $(\Bwh)_{2m}$ followed by the closure mapping $\clos{\ }\colon (\Bwh)_{2m}\to \Ae{m}$. This proves the statement dual to that of Remark \[rem.gr\], since by Lemma \[lem.clos\], the closure mapping on $\Bwh$ is injective, but not surjective. [\[EMSS\]]{} D. Auckly, [Surgery numbers of 3-manifolds, a hyperbolic example]{}, Geometric topology, Athens GA (1993) 21–32. D. Bar-Natan, [On the Vassiliev knot invariants]{}, Topology, [34]{} (1995) 423–472. D. Bar-Natan, [Non-Associative Tangles]{}, In: Geometric Topology (W. Kazez, Ed.), Proc. Georgia Int. Topology Conf. 1993, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 1997. D. Bar-Natan, S. Garoufalidis, [On the Melvin-Morton-Rozansky conjecture]{}, Inventiones, [125]{} (1996) 103–133. D. Bar-Natan, S. Garoufalidis, L. Rozansky, D. Thurston, [Wheels, wheeling and the Kontsevich integral of the unknot]{}, preprint, February 1997. [ to3em]{}, [The Arhus invariant of rational homology 3-spheres I,II: A highly non trivial flat connection on $S^3$]{}, to appear in Selecta Math. A. Beliakova, N. Habegger, [The Casson-Walker-Lescop Invariant as a Quantum $3$-manifold Invariant]{}, preprint July 1997. G. Burde, H. Zieschang, [On knots,]{} de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics [5]{}, Berlin, 1985. P. Cartier, [Construction combinatoire des invariants de Vassiliev-Kontsevich des nœuds,]{} C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [316]{}, 1993, 1205–1210. V. Chari, A. Pressley, [Quantum groups]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994. J. H. Conway, [An enumeration of knots and links and some of their algebraic properties]{}, in [Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra]{}, 329–358, Pergamon, New-York 1970. S. Garoufalidis, [On finite type 3-manifold invariants I]{}, J. Knot Theory and its Ramifications [5]{}, no. 4 (1996) 441–462. S. Garoufalidis, J. Levine, [On finite type 3-manifold invariants II]{}, Math. Annalen, [306]{} (1996) 691–718. [ to3em]{}, [On finite type 3-manifold invariants IV: comparison of definitions]{}, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, [122]{} (1997) 291–300. S. Garoufalidis, T. Ohtsuki, [On finite type 3-manifold invariants III: manifold weight systems]{}, Topology, [37]{} (1998) 227–244. N. Habegger, [Finite type 3-manifold invariants: a proof of a conjecture of Garoufalidis]{}, preprint, July 1995. [ to3em]{}, [A Computation of the Universal Quantum 3-manifold Invariant for Manifolds of Rank Greater than 2]{}, preprint, December 1996. N. Habegger, G. Masbaum, [The Kontsevich Integral and Milnor’s Invariants]{}, preprint, April 1997. L. H. Kauffman, [On knots]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1987. C. Kassel and V. Turaev, [Chord diagram invariants of tangles and graphs]{}, University of Strasbourg preprint, January 1995. M. Kontsevich, [Vassiliev’s knot invariants]{}, Adv. in Sov. Math., [16(2)]{} (1993) 137–150. A. Kricker, [Alexander-Conway limits of many Vassiliev invariants]{}, J. Knot Theory and its Ramifications [6]{} no. 5, (1997) 687–714. A. Kricker, B. Spence, I. Aitchinson, [Cabling the Vassiliev invariants]{}, J. Knot Theory and its Ramifications [6]{} no. 3, (1997) 327–358. T.T.Q. Le, J. Murakami, [The universal Vassiliev-Kontsevich invariant for framed oriented links]{}, Compositio Math. 102, 1996, 41–64. [ to3em]{}, [The parallel version of the Kontsevich integral]{}, J. Pure and Applied Algebra, [121]{} (1997), 271–291. T.T.Q. Le, J. Murakami, T. Ohtsuki, [A universal perturbative invariant of 3-manifolds]{}, Topology, [37]{} (1998) 539–574. T.T.Q. Le, [An invariant of s which is universal for all s]{}, Soliton Geometry and Topology: On the crossroad, AMS Translations [2]{} Eds. V. Buchstaber, S. Novikov, 75–100. [ to3em]{}, [On Denominators of the Kontsevich Integral and the Universal Perturbative Invariant of 3-manifolds]{}, preprint [q-alg 9704017]{}. C. Lescop [Global surgery formula for the Casson-Walker invariant]{}, Annals of Math Studies, [140]{} Princeton Univ. Press 1996. T. Ohtsuki, [Finite type invariants of integral homology 3-spheres]{}, J. Knot Theory and its Rami. [5]{} (1996) 101–115. P. Vogel, [Algebraic structures on modules of diagrams]{}, preprint August 1995. [^1]: The authors were partially supported by NSF grant DMS-95-05105 and by the CNRS respectively. This and related preprints can also be obtained at [http://www.math.brown.edu/$\sim$stavrosg ]{} and at [http://www.math.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/preprints/ ]{} [^2]: For a different construction of $\ZL(M)$ for a rational homology 3-sphere $M$, see [@BGRT2]. [^3]: given a framed link $L$ in a 3-manifold $M$, we denote by $M_L$ the result of Dehn surgery on $L$. [^4]: An earlier version of this paper contained only this special case. We extend special thanks to C. Lescop, for help in extending to the general case and to D. Thurston, for pointing out that the result should hold in this generality. [^5]: The two multiplications are different. For a conjectural relation between these two multiplications, see [@BGRT Conjecture 2]. [^6]: An interval is a Chinese character of degree $1$ with $2$ univalent vertices and no trivalent ones. [^7]: Note that $F$ is [not]{} the projection in the above direct-sum decomposition of $\B$. [^8]: As an exercise, the reader may try to find a conjectural formula for $F$ in terms of Chinese characters using [@BGRT Conjecture 2]. [^9]: With respect to the $\cdot_\sqcup$ multiplication, $\Bwh$ is a polynomial algebra on the set of wheels with an even number of legs (the odd-legged wheels vanish by antisymmetry). [^10]: Actually, $\ZK(K)$ lies in a quotient of $\Ai$ isomorphic to $\Ap$. [^11]: It may be of interest to note that the value of $\ZK(\O)$ is conjecturally given by the equation $P_{wh}(\xi(\O))=\xi(\O)$. (See [@BGRT Conjecture 1], where it is shown that the conjecture holds on the level of semisimple Lie algebras.) Note also that the Alexander-Conway polynomial is determined by the ${\mathfrak s \mathfrak l}_N$ colored Jones polynomial (see [@B-NG]). [^12]: To see this, see [@L2], note that the total symmetrization of the element $T_l^m$, described in [@LMO], vanishes, if $l$ is different from $2m$. The formula follows, since the total symmetrization of $T_{2m}^m$, applied to a Chinese character, corresponds to the sum of all ways of closing up the character. [^13]: Indeed, consider the multiplicative map $W : {\Ao} \to {\BQ}[\![c]\!]$ defined by imposing the relation $W(H)=W(=)-W(X)$ and setting any resulting circle components equal to $c$. Here $H$ denotes a diagram which in a neighborhood of some arc looks like an $H$, and $=$, resp. $X$, is obtained from $H$ by replacing this neighborhood by two arcs joining the 4 points on the boundary of the neighborhood which are on the same side of the arc, resp. diametrically opposed. Then one has that $W(\clos{w_{2}})=c^2-c$ and that $W(\clos{w_{2m+2}})=(c+2m) W(\clos{w_{2m}})$, so $\clos{w_{2m}}\ne 0$. [^14]: The same argument can be used to see that every integral homology sphere, $\Sigma$, can be obtained by unit-framed surgery on a boundary link: First note that $\Sigma$ is surgery on some link and after stabilization and handle sliding, the link may be assumed to be $\pm 1$-framed with zero linking numbers. In particular, $\Sigma$ can be obtained by a sequence of $\pm 1$-framed surgeries on knots in homology spheres. Arguing by induction and applying the Seifert surface argument above, establishes the result.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
In quantum mechanics, the superposition principle, requiring that all formal superpositions of quantum states give rise to new physical states, plays a fundamental role [@Dirac]. In particular, it implies that probability densities of observable quantities, in a superposition state, usually exhibit interference effects instead of simply being added. This principle has been successfully applied to explain a large class of new phenomena in the microscopic level. As an important example one can refer to the prediction of superpositions of the $K^0$ meson and its antiparticle as forming new and different states, the so called $K^0_{1}$ and $K^0_2$ particles [@Gell-Mann]. Superpositions of product states of composite systems also lead to the fundamental quantum nonlocality, characteristic of quantum entanglement. The quantum correlations resulting of such superpositions lead to the violation of the Bell’s inequalities [@Bell] and are essential ingredients for quantum computation [@qc] and quantum cryptography [@crypto]. Despite its experimental manifestations in the microscopic level, the quantum superposition principle seems not to be applicable in the macroscopic world, as it would predict, for example, the existence of superpositions of a macroscopic object being at different places. Such situation would stay in clear contradiction to our observations and measurements of macroscopic phenomena. In fact, the great majority of states predicted by the superposition principle are not observed in our daily life. In recent years decoherence[@Zurek] is being widely accepted as the mechanism responsible for this fact and, consequently, for the emergency of classicality. It consists in the fast decay of quantum superpositions into statistical mixtures, and can be viewed as a consequence of always present interactions between a quantum system and its environment. It precludes, in general, the existence of macroscopic superpositions, except for very short time intervals and is the key to understanding the fuzzy boundary between quantum and classical behavior. As coherence disappears very fast as the system grows, it is important to be able to generate mesoscopic superposition of states and analyze how it looses its coherence. In this context, superpositions of coherent states of both the electromagnetic field in a high $Q$ microwave cavity[@Haroche] and of the vibrational motion of a single trapped ion[@Wineland2000] have been generated and their behavior in the presence of the environment has been studied. Fast generation of superposition of states involving a large number of particles and excitations has become an experimental challenge in order to understand how the transition from quantum to classical occurs. In this paper, we discuss some proposals for generating, in a fast and controllable way, vibronic superpositions of mesoscopic states involving, in principle, an arbitrary number $N$ of ions. Relying on homogeneous resonant bichromatic excitations of the $N$ ions with laser light, we show that is possible to generate superpositions of $N+1$ coherent states of the center of mass (CM) vibration of the $N$ ions, equally spaced in phase space. We also show that it is possible to obtain mesoscopic entangled states involving the internal and external degrees of freedom of the $N$ ions and odd and even coherent superpositions of the CM motion of the ions, by additionally using a dispersive bichromatic interaction. Our procedure opens the possibility of generating mesoscopic superpositions of several massive particles in a scalable and fast way. Let us consider $N$ two-level ions of mass $m$, confined to move in the $z$ direction in a Paul trap. They are cooled down to very low temperatures [@king; @sackett] and may perform small oscillations around their equilibrium positions, $z_{j0},j=1,2...N.$ We denote by $Z=\sum_{j=1,N} z_j/N,$ the center of mass coordinate and we set the origin at its equilibrium position. All ions are simultaneously illuminated by two classical homogeneous Raman effective pulses $\vec{E}_{I}= \vec{E}_{0I}e^{i(\vec{q}_{1}\cdot\vec{r}-\omega _{I}t-\varphi_I)}$ and $\vec{E}_{II} = \vec{E}_{0II}\,e^{i(\vec{q}_{2}\cdot\vec{r}-\omega _{II}t-\varphi_{II})},$ with angular frequencies $\omega_{I}$ and $\omega_{II}$ and wave vectors $\vec{q}_1=\vec{q}_{2}=\vec{q},$ parallel to the $z$ direction. The Raman pulses frequencies will be chosen to be quasi-resonant with a long-living electronic transition between two ionic hyperfine levels $\|e_{j} \rangle $ and $\|g_{j} \rangle $ $(j=1,...N),$ with energies $\hbar\omega_0$ and $0$, respectively. The Raman laser relative phases are chosen to be the same $\varphi_I=\varphi_{II}=\varphi.$ The total Hamiltonian of the system may be written, in the optical rotating wave approximation (RWA), as $$\hat{H}=\hat{H}_0+\hat{H}_{{\rm int}},$$ with $$\label{H0} \hat{H}_0=\hbar \omega_0\sum_{j=1,N}\|e_j \rangle \langle e_j\| + \hbar \nu \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} + \sum_{\lambda=1,N-1} \hbar\nu_\lambda \hat{b}_\lambda^\dagger \hat{ b}_\lambda\, ,$$ and $$\label{Hint} \hat{H}_{\rm int}=\hbar \Omega \sum_{j=1,N} e^{i(q\hat{z}_j{-\varphi})} \| e_j\rangle\langle g_j\| \left(e^{-i\omega_{I}t}+ e^{-i\omega_{II}t}\right)+{\rm H.c.}$$ The operators $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}_\lambda$ ($\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{b}_\lambda^{\dagger }$) are the annihilation (creation) operators associated with the center of mass mode of frequency $\nu$ and with the $N-1$ other vibrational modes of frequency $\nu_\lambda,$ respectively. For simplicity, we have assumed that the same Rabi frequency $\Omega$ (taken as real) is associated with both lasers. We start by taking the frequencies $\omega_I$ and $\omega_{II}$ resonant with the center of mass vibronic transition in the $k$-th blue and $k$-th red sideband as $$\label{freq} \omega_{I} = \omega_0 + k\nu \quad {\rm and} \quad \omega_{II} =\omega_0 -k\nu\, .$$ For small $k$ values, we may safely assume that only the center of mass motion will be excited, given that the next eigenfrequency is $\nu_r = \sqrt{3}\nu,$ corresponding to the stretch mode. The following frequencies $(\ge\sqrt{29/5} \nu) $depend on the number of ions and have being calculated in Ref. [@James]. Following the usual treatment for one single ion interacting with a laser field [@vogel], we make the RWA with respect to the CM vibrational frequency and select the terms that oscillate with minimum frequency. In the Lamb-Dicke limit the interaction Hamiltonian may be written, in the interaction picture, as $$\label{geral} H_{\rm int}=\frac{2\hbar\Omega \eta^k}{k!}\hat{J}_{\rm T}(\hat{a}^k + \hat{a}^{\dagger k })$$ where $\eta =q\sqrt{\hbar /2Nm\nu }$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter associated to the center of mass motion of the $N$ ions, $\hat J_{\rm T}$ is an angular momentum-like operator[@Nussenzveig] defined as $$\label{Jx} \hat{J}_{\rm T}=\frac{i^k e^{-i\varphi}}{2}\sum_{j=1,N}\hat{\sigma}_{j+} +{\rm H.c.}$$ Here $\widehat{\sigma}_{+j}=\|\uparrow_j\rangle\langle \downarrow_j \|$ $=e^{iqz_{j0}} \| e_j\rangle\langle g_j \|$ is a flip operator associated with the electronic transition $\| g_j\rangle\rightarrow\| e_j \rangle$ in the ion $j$ and $\widehat{\sigma}_{j-}= \widehat{\sigma}_{j+}^\dagger.$ Without loss of generality we may set the phase $\varphi=k\pi/2,$ so that $\hat{J}_{\rm T}=\hat{J}_x$ in the usual angular momentum operator convention for phases. Similarly, by choosing a phase $\varphi=(k+1)\pi/2,$ $\hat{J}_{\rm T}=\hat{J}_y.$ We also may define the $z$ component of the angular momentum by $\hat J_z=\frac12\sum_j (\| e_j\rangle\langle e_j \|-\| g_j\rangle\langle g_j \|). $ From Eq. (\[geral\]), it is easy to show that the time evolution operator, in the interaction picture, at time $t,$ is a sum of products of unitary operators on the motional states and projection operators on the ion internal states $$\label{evoltime} \hat U_k(t)=\sum_{j,m }\hat D_k(m\alpha_k(t)) \|{j,m}\rangle_{x\, x}\langle{j,m }\|$$ where $$\label{displacement} \hat{D}_k(\alpha_k)=e^{\alpha_k \hat{a}^{k\dagger} -\alpha_k* \hat{a}^k}\, ,$$ with $\alpha_k(t)=2i\Omega t \eta^k/k!.$ Also, $\|j,m\rangle_x$ are the simultaneous eigenvectors of the operators $\hat J_x$ and $\hat J^2\equiv \hat J_x^2+\hat J_y^2+\hat J_z^2,$ associated with the eigenvalues $m=-j,-(j-1), .....j$ and $j(j+1),$ respectively. $j$ varies from $0$ $(1/2)$ to $N/2$ by steps of $1,$ if $N$ is even (odd). The action of the time evolution operator $\hat U_k$ of Eq. (\[evoltime\]) corresponds to unitary operations $\hat{D}_k(m\alpha_k)$ on the motional degrees of freedom conditioned to the value $m$ of the $x$ component of the “angular momentum” electronic state. From now on we set $k=1$ that is, the excitation occurs in the first red and blue sidebands. In this case $\hat D_1(\alpha)$ is the displacement operator which generates, when acting on the ground state, coherent states of the vibrational motion of the center of mass $$\|\alpha\rangle_{\rm coh}=e^{(\alpha \hat{a}^{\dagger} -\alpha* \hat{a})} \|0\rangle=e^{-\|\alpha\|^2/2}\sum \frac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}}\|n\rangle\, .$$ If initially the ions are in the vibronic ground state, $\|ggg...\rangle\otimes\|0\rangle$ $\equiv \|N/2,-N/2\rangle_z\otimes\|0\rangle,$ their state, after an interaction time $t$ with the laser fields, will be given by $$\label{Ncats} \sum_{m,m'}d^{N/2}_{m',m}(\pi/2) d^{N/2}_{m,-N/2}(-\pi/2) \|{N/2,m'}\rangle_z\otimes\|m\alpha\rangle_{\rm coh} ,$$ where $\alpha=2i\eta\Omega t. $ Here, $d^{j}_{m',m}(\theta)=_z\langle j, m'\| e^{-i\theta J_y} \|j, m\rangle_z$ are the matrix elements of the rotation operator along the $y$ axis in the $\{\|j, m\rangle_z\}$ basis of the eigenstates of $\hat J_z$ and $\hat J^2$ [@Gottfried]. This allows us to prepare in a very simple way and with a single Raman pulse, a mesoscopic superposition of vibronic quantum states in $N$ trapped ions. If we now measure the electronic state of the ions and find the totally excited state $\|eee...\rangle,$ we know that the motional state is given, up to a normalization factor, by $$\label{motionNcats} \sum_{m=-N/2,N/2}\frac{(-1)^{(N/2-m)}}{(N/2-m)!(N/2+m)!}\|m\alpha\rangle_{\rm coh}.$$ If $N$ is even, this state is a superposition of the vacuum and a series of coherent states of amplitudes $m\alpha,$ the probability for measuring them decreasing with $\|m\|.$ If $N$ is odd, the vacuum is not present in the superposition. When we have only one ion Eq. (\[motionNcats\]) represents a single odd coherent state. Note that the procedure above relies on a resonant excitation of the ions and therefore can be accomplished with very [short]{} interaction times. The measurement of the electronic state can be done by monitoring the fluorescence of a cyclic transition of the ions [@Dehmelt], where a dark event detects the totally excited state. In Fig. 1, we show the Wigner function for the state given by Eq. (\[motionNcats\]), when $\|\alpha\|=3$ and $N=3.$ Note that the vacuum is not present, as $N$ is odd, and that interference manifests strongly, due to the multiple superposition of coherent states. If the frequencies of the lasers in Eq. (\[Hint\]) are slightly off resonance and such that $\omega_I=\omega_0 +\nu+\delta$ and $\omega_{II}=\omega_0 -\nu-\delta,$ the time evolution operator may be written, for small values of $\eta,$ approximately as $e^{-i\lambda t \hat{J}_y^2},$ where $\lambda= 8( \Omega\eta)^2 /\delta $ and we have chosen $\varphi=0.$ This dispersive bichromatic interaction does not change the motional state and has been studied in a series of recent papers[@sorensenbell; @sorensenGHZ; @sorensenres; @SMZ]. It has been implemented successfully in the laboratory for generating GHZ states in two and four ions[@sackett]. We now show that, by using both the dispersive and the resonant bichromatic interaction, it is possible to prepare even and odd coherent states of large amplitudes and involving a large number of ions. It will be convenient to consider first the case where we have an odd number of ions $N.$ If we start with the ground state $\|ggg...\rangle\otimes\|0\rangle$ and apply the dispersive bichromatic interaction during a time $t=\pi/(2\lambda),$ we get, using the properties of the rotation matrices[@Gottfried], $$\label{Nodd} e^{-i\hat{J}_y^2\pi/2}\|j,-j\rangle_z\otimes\|0\rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\|j,j\rangle_x-\|j,-j\rangle_x)\otimes\|0\rangle \, ,$$ where $j=N/2.$ Now we apply a second pulse using the resonant lasers of frequencies $\omega_0\pm\nu,$ with a relative phase of $\pi/2$ with respect to the previous pulse, during a time $\tau.$ This corresponds to apply the operator $U_1(\tau)$ on the state given in Eq. \[Nodd\] leading to the state $$\begin{aligned} \label{firstcat} &\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}&(\|N\alpha/2\rangle_{\rm coh}\otimes\|N/2,N/2\rangle_x \nonumber\\ &-&\|-N\alpha/2\rangle_{\rm coh}\otimes\| \|N/2,-N/2\rangle_x \, .\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=2i\Omega\eta\tau.$ This state is a superposition of two vibronic states involving, in principle, a large number $N$ of ions. The two internal states $\|N/2,\pm N/2\rangle_x$ are strongly correlated to the two vibrational states $\|\pm N\alpha/2\rangle_{\rm coh},$ whose average amplitude of oscillation, $\|N\alpha/2 \|,$ is proportional both to $\sqrt{N}$ and $\Omega\tau.$ This state is an example of a strongly entangled mesoscopic state that is scalable, and its experimental realization may become a useful tool in analyzing the dependence of decoherence on the number of degrees of freedom of this system. If, after the preparation of the state given in Eq. (\[firstcat\]), we measure the state $\|eee...\rangle$, we obtain $$\label{secondcat} \frac{\|N\alpha/2\rangle_{\rm coh} +\|-N\alpha/2\rangle_{\rm coh}}{\sqrt{2+2e^{-\|N\alpha\|^2/2}}} \, .$$ The state given in Eq. (\[secondcat\]) is an even coherent state of the center of mass motion of an odd large number of ions. An odd coherent state is obtained if one measures the state $\|ggg...\rangle$ instead of $\|eee...\rangle.$ Thus, we have a procedure that generates a superposition of two states of motion, vibrating out of phase, where a large number of particles may be involved. In principle, the number of ions in this state is limited mostly by decoherence and by the capacity of producing lasers with high homogeneity. For large $N,$ the probability to produce these state superpositions by this procedure decreases as ${1/2}^N.$ However, an efficient method to obtain even or odd coherent states, each one with probability $1/2,$ even for large $N,$ will be described below. As before, we start with the ground state and apply in succession the dispersive bichromatic interaction as in Eq. (\[Nodd\]) and the resonant bichromatic interaction to obtain the state given in Eq. (\[firstcat\]). We then apply again the same dispersive bichromatic interaction during the same interval of time. The resulting state is $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{1}{2}\{\|eee..\rangle\otimes(\|N\alpha /2\rangle -\|-N\alpha /2\rangle ) \nonumber \\ &&-\|ggg...\rangle\otimes(\|N\alpha /2\rangle +\|-N\alpha /2\rangle )\}\end{aligned}$$ Measuring the dark fluorescence of either the $N-$ electronic excited state or the $N-$ electronic ground state, we get the associated odd or even coherent state with probability 1/2. This procedure shows how to generate efficiently mesoscopic superposition states for a large number of ions. Similar results may be obtained for $N$ even, if an additional resonant carrier $\pi/2$ pulse, is applied at the same time and with a relative phase $\varphi=\pi/2$ with respect to the dispersive pulse. In conclusion, we have presented a procedure to generate several kinds of mesoscopic superpositions of states involving $N$ ions. Superpositions of coherent states evenly spaced on a line may be generated rapidly, through resonant interactions. Even or odd coherent state may be obtained if we use also dispersive bichromatic interactions. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first proposal to generate, in a scalable way, mesoscopic superpositions of collective motional states of $N$ trapped ions. Note that, as long as the field is spatially homogeneous over the trapped ions, the only parameter that depends on $N,$ in our model, is the time we applied the laser pulses, which varies with $\sqrt{N}(N)$ during the resonant (dispersive) interaction. We also expect that the cooling of the vibrational modes for $N$ ions will be achieved with the same effectiveness as in the case of four ions[@sackett]. For this reason the constraints, in our proposal, on parameters like laser pulse timing, laser frequencies, as well as cooling to the ground state should remain almost the same as in the case of a single trapped ion. Then, the number of ions involved will be limited mostly by the scale of time in which decoherence occurs. We believe that the proposals presented in this letter are ready to be implemented in the laboratory. They should help to build larger mesoscopic quantum superpositions in trapped ions, to study experimentally, at large scale, decoherence processes and for applications in quantum information processing. This work was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient[í]{}fico e Tecnológico (CNPq), the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), the Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX) and Fundação José Bonifácio (FUJB). P. A. M. Dirac, [The Principles of Quantum Mechanics]{}, Claredon Press, Oxford (1947). M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. [97]{}, 1387 (1955); T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [104]{}, 254 (1956). J. S. Bell, Physics [1]{}, 195 (1964). D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. London A [400]{}, 97 (1985); A. Berthiaume and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual IEEE Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, Boston, June 1992 (IEEE, New York, 1989), p. 132. S. Wiesner, Sigact News [15]{}, 78 (1983); A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [67]{}, 661 (1991); C. H. Benett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, [ibid]{} [68]{}, 557 (1992); C. H. Benett, [ibid]{} [ 68]{}, 3121 (1992); A. K. Ekert, J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, and G. M. Palma, [ibid]{} [69]{}, 1293 (1992). W. H. Zurek Physics Today [44]{}, 36 (1991); Roland Omnès in [The Interpretaion of Quantum Mechanics]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994; D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu, and H. D. Zeh, [Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical Word in Quantum Theory]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (1996); J. P. Paz and W. H. Zurek [Environment-induced decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical]{}, LXXII Les Houches Summer School, 1999. E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften [23]{}, 807(1935). M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Maître, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 4887(1996). C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, Science [272]{}, 1131 (1996); C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, Q. A. Turchette, C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature,[403]{},269 (2000); Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A [62]{}, 053807 (2000). W. Neuhauser, M. Hohenstatt, P. Toschek, and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 233 (1978); B. E. King, C. S. Wood, C. J. Myatt, Q. A. Turchette, D. Leibfried, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{}, 1525 (1998); C. F. Roos, D. Leibfried, A. Mundt, F. SchmidtKaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 547 (2000). C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland and C. Monroe, Nature [404]{}, 256 (2000). D. F. V. James, Appl. Phys. B [66]{}, 181 (1998). W. Vogel and R.L. de Matos Filho, Phys. Rev. A[52]{}, 4214 (1995). see for example H. M. Nussenzveig, in Introduction to Quantum Optics, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973, pgs. 174-176 H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. A[13]{}, 2226 (1971). see for example K. Gottfried, in Quantum Mechanics, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1966, pgs. 264-288. W. Nagourney and J. Sandberg and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett., [56]{}, 2797 (1986). A. S[ø]{}rensen and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 82]{}, 1971 (1999). K. Mølmer and A. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. Lett.[ 82]{},1835 (1999). A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A, [62]{}, 022311 (2000). E. Solano, R. L. de Matos Filho, and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev. A, [59]{}, R2539 (1999); [61]{}, 029903(E) (2000). Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A, [62]{}, 053807 (2000).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the spatial evolutionary dynamics of solid tumors as they obtain additional driver mutations. We start with a cancer clone that expands uniformly in three dimensions giving rise to a spherical shape. We assume that cell division occurs on the surface of the growing tumor. Each cell division has a chance to give rise to a mutation that activates an additional driver gene. The resulting clone has an enhanced growth rate, which generates a local ensemble of faster growing cells, thereby distorting the spherical shape of the tumor. We derive analytic formulas for the geometric boundary that separates the original cancer clone from the new mutant as well as the expanding frontier of the new mutant. The total number of original cancer cells converges to a constant as time goes to infinity, because this clone becomes enveloped by mutants. We derive formulas for the abundance and diversity of additional driver mutations as function of time. Our model is semi-deterministic: the spatial growth of the various cancer clones follows deterministic equations, but the arrival of a new mutant is a stochastic event.' address: - '$^1$School of Mathematics, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom' - '$^2$Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA' - '$^3$Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Mathematics, and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA' author: - Tibor Antal$^1$ - 'P. L. Krapivsky$^2$' - 'M. A. Nowak$^3$' title: \| Spatial evolution of tumors\ with successive driver mutations --- Introduction ============ Cancer arises when somatic cells receive multiple mutations that enhance their net reproductive rate [@vogelstein98]. Tumors contain 35 to 70 genetic alterations that change protein sequences [@vogelstein13]. The vast majority of those mutations are passengers that do not confer a selective growth advantage. A small subset, however, are driver mutations that promote tumorigenesis. In the human genome about 135 genes are known that can function as drivers when mutated (either by point mutation, insertion, deletion or amplification). Driver mutations affect pathways that regulate cell survival, proliferation and genome maintenance. Any one tumor contains between 2 to 8 driver mutations [@vogelstein13]. In this paper we study the accumulation of such drivers in a spatial model of tumor growth. Mathematical models of cancer evolution have studied the age incidence of cancers [@moolgavkar81], the effect of tissue geometry and chromosomal instability [@nowak02; @komarova03] on cancer initiation; the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes [@nowak04], the accumulation of driver and passenger mutations in expanding tumors [@beerenwinkel07; @bozic10]; the molecular clock of cancer [@yachida10] and the emergence of resistance to cancer therapy [@komarova05; @michor05; @iwasa06; @komarova06; @bozic13]. Modeling the genetic evolution of cancer has been predominantly performed in the homogeneous setting. This is an obvious idealization, especially for solid tumors, but it greatly simplifies the mathematical analysis. The homogeneous setting allows researches to focus on the temporal dynamics. It provides a useful theoretical laboratory to probe the efficacy of drug combinations. A more faithful spatial modeling is necessary [@bryne06; @roose07] for understanding tumor invasion and metastasis [@baraldi13], and efforts in this direction are growing. Previous spatial models mainly focus on the evolution of already existing types of cells in space. Most models are either continuum mathematical models consisting of partial differential equations [@roose07; @sherratt92] or discrete cell population models using cellular automata-type computer simulations [@Torq11]. Simulations are often performed at cell levels, incorporating cell movement and different cell types, and are either lattice based or off-lattice [@roose07; @Torq11; @matteis13]. When using partial differential equations to describe the density of different cell types in space, the boundary of the tumor is also evolving (free boundary problem) [@friedman06; @bryne97; @cui01]. Here we break new ground by developing a geometric approach for the accumulation of driver mutations in spatially expanding tumors. The spatial inhomogeneity of tumors and the spatial distribution of genetic mutations has been studied in recent experimental and theoretical works [@yachida10; @sottoriva12]. Since different mutations are present in different spatial regions of the tumor, spatial inhomogeneity is relevant for choosing the optimal targeted drug therapy for patients. In this paper we are mainly interested in the evolving shape of the tumor and its interplay with the onset of successive driver mutations. We deliberately simplify the model as much as possible, while keeping the key features, namely the spatial growth and the competition between different mutants. The goal is to eventually apply spatial tumor modeling of the accumulation of driver mutations to problems which were recently analyzed in the idealized framework of space-less cancer, that is in well mixed population of cells [@beerenwinkel07; @bozic10; @durrett10], as well as to other problems which can only be formulated in the spatial framework. Our model is reminiscent of the pioneering lattice model of cancer which incorporates mutation [@williams72; @bramson80; @bramson81]. In contrast to this earlier work, we assume that mutations occur only on the surface of the growing tumor. Furthermore, we assume that the spatial expansion is deterministic. Only mutational events are stochastic. We also mention a few more recent related studies. In Ref. [@martens11], the accumulation of many successive driver mutations was studied by computer simulations on a two-dimensional lattice. It was found that space makes the arrival of new driver mutations slower than in a well mixed population. Since including both space and mutation make models quite complex, one usually resorts to simulation results and approximations. Conversely, in [@komarova06; @komarova13; @nowak03] analytic results are derived for one-dimensional tissue geometry and in [@durrett12] for the accumulation of neutral mutations in any dimension. Our model has two basic ingredients: stochastic nucleation of new mutants and deterministic growth of existing cell types. Nucleation and growth are ubiquitous natural phenomena, and our model overlaps with classical models of such processes. Perhaps the closest connection is with the polynuclear growth model of crystals (see [@Evans93] for a review). Similar models have been used in cosmology (see [@Kleban11] for a review). The contrasting features of our model is the nucleation on the surface of the growing tumor and differences in the growth rates; in other applications nucleation events usually happen in the bulk and growth rates are equal. For example, in cosmological applications [@Kleban11] cosmic bubbles grow at a speed of light. In our model a mutation activating a driver gene leads to enhanced growth rate leading to the distortion of the spherical shape of the original tumor. We analyze in detail the simplest case of the competition between the original cancer clone and one mutant clone. We establish analytical formulas for the boundary separating the clones, and determine the time when the mutant clone envelopes the original cancer clone which thereby ceases to grow any further. Results ======= In our model, cells only proliferate on the surface of the tumor. Inside the tumor, cells are non dividing, hence there are no evolutionary dynamics there. This assumption is plausible for early stages of tumor progression, where only tumor cells close to the surface can get enough oxygen or other nutritions to divide. A typical tumor developing in vivo has most of its cell proliferation constrained to the border [@bru03; @drasko05], which suggests that cell surface diffusion is the main mechanism responsible for growth in any type of tumor. At later stages of tumor progression, when angiogenesis starts to work, this assumption may no longer be valid, but there can always be interior regions with low supply of nutrients and oxygen and low activity of cell division. The dynamics of our model is given by the growth rate on the surface of the tumor, and by the arrival rate of new driver mutations. Without mutations, the original tumor grows spherically [@chaplain01; @drasko05; @ciarletta13]. Since cell divisions only occur on the surface of the tumor, mutations can only arrive there, at a constant rate per unit surface area and unit time. We include in this mutation rate the survival probability of mutant clones. In other words, we are only tracking mutants that survive. Since we assume that these mutants have selective advantage over the original tumor, the mutant clones keep spreading. By setting the length scale and the time scale, we set the speed of the original tumor growth and the mutation rate to one. Hence without mutations, the original tumor is a ball of radius $t$ at time $t$. We are mostly interested in the three-dimensional case, but we also present a few basic results for two dimensions. Now we have to specify the tumor growth in the presence of advantageous mutants. Each point on the surface is characterized by a growth speed, corresponding to different mutant types. The surface of the tumor then grows in the normal direction at the rate of the local growth speed. In the simplest case we consider two types of cells: (i) the initiating cancer cell with growth rate one; and (ii) a mutant cancer cell with growth rate $v>1$. The mutant cell arises by activation of an additional driver. The surface of the tumor either belongs to a mutant clone or the original tumor. A point at a distance $dt$ from the surface of the tumor will be occupied by a mutant clone $dt$ times later, if a mutant can reach that point earlier than a non-mutant (see a more detailed description later). Since a mutant clone grows a distance $vdt$ during this time, a surface location will be occupied by a mutant if there is a mutant clone on the surface within a distance $\beta dt$, with $$\beta = \sqrt{v^2-1}$$ Hence the mutant area on the surface is expanding, with the boundary moving at constant speed $\beta$. Due to the simplicity of the model, there is only a single parameter $v$ (or equivalently $\beta$). We have achieved this by rescaling the length-scale and the time scale. The dependence of the results on the detailed parameters is discussed below. Shape of mutant clones ---------------------- ![Slices of a tumor with a single mutant clone at times $t=2,4,16.6,20$. The slice is along any plane which goes through the initial points of the original and the mutant clones. The original tumor is initiated at the origin, and the mutant is initiated at $t=1$ at $(1,0,0)$ and has fitness $v=1.5$. The tumor at the time of mutant initiation is drawn with thin black line at each stage to show the length scale. The boundaries of the original tumor is depicted by gray, and the outer boundary of the mutant clone is red and purple: referring to the different functional forms of the curves. On the lower left picture the original tumor is captured by the mutant clone at $t_\mathrm{c}=e^{\pi/\beta}=16.6087\dots$, and on the lower right one the mutant overgrows the enclosed original tumor.[]{data-label="Fig:earlier"}](growth2d_2){width="90.00000%"} Let us describe first the shape of the mutant clones. Let us focus on the shape of a single clone, as they all look identical. At time $t=0$ the original tumor starts growing spherically. Let us initiate a single mutant clone at time $t=1$ from point $(x,y,z)=(1,0,0)$ in cartesian coordinates. At this point the original tumor covers a ball of radius one around the origin. Since the tumor stays rotationally symmetric around the $x$ axes, we describe here a two dimensional cut through the $(x,y)$ plane. Since the shape of the tumor is a revolution body around the $x$ axes, we only give the boundaries for $y\ge 0$. For a mutant clone initiated at spherical coordinates $(r_0, \theta_0, \phi_0)$ the shape is the same as the one initiated at $(r_0=1, \theta_0=0, \phi_0=0)$, but with space and time stretched by $r_0$ and rotated by $\theta_0$, $\phi_0$. ![The final “barnacle” shape of the original tumor after it has been captured by the mutant clone at different fitness values $v=1.3, 1.5, 2$ of the mutant. The mutant is always initiated at $t=1$, and the capture takes place at $t_\mathrm{c}=e^{\pi/\beta}=43.9052, 16.6087, 6.13371$ respectively for the different fitness values. The black circle in the middle represents the original tumor at the initiation of the mutant clone $t=1$.[]{data-label="Fig:barnacle"}](finalprime2d_1){width=".8\textwidth"} In the two dimensional cut through the $(x,y)$ plane, the shape of the original tumor at time $t$ has generally two parts: the boundary between the original tumor and the mutant, which in polar coordinates is $r(\theta)=e^{\theta/\beta}$, or in cartesian coordinates $$\label{between} \begin{split} x(\theta)&=e^{\theta/\beta} \cos \theta\\ y(\theta)&=e^{\theta/\beta} \sin \theta \end{split}$$ for $0\le \theta\le \theta_0$, where $$\label{theta_0} \theta_0 = \beta \log t$$ For $\theta>\theta_0$, the original tumor is a sphere of radius $t$ around the origin. The mutant at time $t$ is separated from the original tumor by the boundary given by , and the mutant’s outer limits are given by two segments. The middle part is a sphere around $(1,0)$ with radius $v(t-1)$ $$\begin{split} x(\theta)&= 1+v(t-1)\cos \theta\\ y(\theta)&= v(t-1)\sin \theta \end{split}$$ for $0\le \theta\le \arccos 1/v$, and the outer part next to the original tumor is given by $$\label{outer} \begin{split} x(\theta) &= [(1-\beta)e^{\theta /\beta}+\beta t]\cos\theta -(t-e^{\theta /\beta})\sin\theta\\ y(\theta) &= [(1-\beta)e^{\theta /\beta}+\beta t]\sin\theta -(t-e^{\theta /\beta})\cos\theta \end{split}$$ for $0 \le \theta\le \beta \log t$. Note that $\theta$ is only a parameter here, and not a polar coordinate. Rotating these curves around the $x$ axes we obtain the surfaces to the tumor clones. The boundary on the surface of the tumor between the original tumor and the mutant are at an angle $\theta_0=\beta \log t$ with the $x$ axes from the origin. When this angle becomes $\pi$, the original tumor is completely covered by the mutant, which happens at time $$t_\mathrm{c} = e^{\pi/\beta}$$ After this time the original tumor ceases to grow any further, and its final volume is $$\label{Vfinal} V_\mathrm{c}(\beta) = \frac{2\pi}{3}\, \frac{\beta^2}{\beta^2+9} \left( 1+e^{3\pi/\beta} \right)$$ A two dimensional cut of a single mutant clone is depicted on Fig \[Fig:earlier\] for several time points, and on Fig \[Fig:barnacle\] the final shape of the original tumor is shown after its capture by a single mutant. On Fig \[Fig:3dsingle\] the tumor with a single mutant clone is depicted in three dimension, and on Fig. \[Fig:3dmulty\] a tumor with multiple mutant clones is drawn for illustration. ![Shape of the tumor with a single mutant clone at times $t=2,3$ and 5.5. The mutant is initiated at $t=1$ and has fitness $v=1.5$. The boundaries of the original tumor is depicted by gray, and that of the mutant clone by red.[]{data-label="Fig:3dsingle"}](shapes3d_4s){width="\textwidth"} ![Shape of the tumor with many mutant clones arrived at different times with different fitness values. Mutant clones are initiated stochastically at constant rate on the surface of the original tumor, and then they grow deterministically at constant rate. The growth rates of the mutant clones were chosen randomly between 1 and 2 for this illustration.[]{data-label="Fig:3dmulty"}](multi3d_2s){width="60.00000%"} Total volume of original tumor clone ------------------------------------ Now we allow several mutations to arrive at the tumor, and we are interested in the total volume of the mutant clones and original tumor clone. Since outside of the ball of radius $t$ all tumor cells are mutants, the question is the ratio of mutant clones inside the ball of radius $t$. That is also the probability that a random point inside this ball is a mutant. There can be many mutant clones and they can touch each other too. We assume, however, that no successive mutations arrive inside mutant clones, or at least that those “second order" clones stay confined inside their originator mutant clone. A time $t$, a random point at distance $r$ from the origin (that is on the sphere of radius $r$), with $r\le t$, is non-mutant with probability $$W_r = e^{-b(\beta)r^3}$$ with $$b(\beta) = \frac{2\pi}{3}\, \frac{\beta^2}{\beta^2+9} \left( 1+e^{-3\pi/\beta} \right)$$ A random point in the tumor within a ball of radius $r$, with $r\le t$, is non-mutant with probability $$W_{\le r} = \frac{1-e^{-b(\beta)r^3}}{b(\beta)r^3}$$ This is the fraction of non-mutant volume in the tumor within radius $r$. The total non-mutated tumor volume tends to a constant for large times $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{4\pi}{3} t^3 W_{\le t} = \frac{4\pi}{3b(\beta)}$$ Time till first mutant clone ---------------------------- Let’s denote the number of mutant clones by $N_t$ at time $t$. We can give an exact result for the probability of no mutant clones at time $t$, which is also the probability that the arrival time $T$ of the first mutant clone is greater than $t$. Since the total rate of arrival of mutants till time $t$ is just the volume of the sphere $$\label{lambda} \Lambda_t = \frac{4\pi t^3}{3}$$ hence $$P(N_t=0) = P(T>t)= e^{-\Lambda_t} = e^{-4\pi t^3/3}$$ that is the first mutant arrives according to the density function $$f_T(t) = 4 \pi t^2 e^{-4 \pi t^3/3}$$ Consequently, the first mutant arrives after a mean time with variance $$ET= \frac{\Gamma(1/3)}{6^{2/3} \pi^{1/3}} \approx 0.55396, \quad \mathrm{Var} T = \frac{6 \Gamma(2/3)-\Gamma(1/3)^2}{6^{4/3} \pi^{2/3}} \approx 0.0405358$$ Since the original tumor grows at rate one, the first mutant clone appears also at distance $T$ from the origin. That is it appears on average at distance $ET\approx 0.55396$. If we wait long enough, a mutant will appear with probability one. The probability that there are no further mutations from the original tumor, so the original tumor has a final barnacle shape, is $$\frac{9+\beta^2}{\beta^2} \frac{2}{1+ e^{3\pi/\beta}}$$ This probability is quite small for realistic relative speeds; it is around $0.36\%$ for $v=1.5$, and around $3.5\%$ for $v=2$, although it approaches one as $v\to\infty$. Number of different clones -------------------------- If we allow subsequent mutations within mutant clones, and assume that all mutation rates are one, what is the total number of clones $N_t$ at time $t$? Since with mutations the shape of the tumor becomes very irregular, it is hard to give an exact expression for larger values of $N_t$. But let us approximate the tumor as a ball of radius $t$ at time $t$, which is a not too bad approximation if all the fitnesses are sufficiently similar. the total number of mutants in this approximation is $N_t\sim \mathrm{Poisson}(\Lambda_t)$, that is $$P(N_t=n) \approx \frac{\Lambda_t^n}{n!} e^{-\Lambda_t}$$ The mean number of clones and its variance is $$EN_t \approx \mathrm{Var} N_t \approx \Lambda_t$$ Reduction of parameters {#parameters} ----------------------- Our basic model has only a single parameter, $v$, denoting the relative growth rate of mutant clones. But this is the consequence of a reduction of parameters, which we discuss now. Let us measure time in days, and distance in cm. In general we have the following parameters describing the system. The surface of the original tumor grows in the normal direction at rate $\mathcal{V}_0$, and mutations arrive at the surface of the tumor at rate $\mathcal{U}$ per unit time and unit surface area. The mutant clone growth at rate $\mathcal{V}_1$. Let us define the new unit length and time as $$L_0 = \left( \frac{\mathcal{V}_0}{\mathcal{U}}\right)^{1/3} \quad T_0 = (\mathcal{UV}_0^2)^{-1/3} = \frac{L_0}{\mathcal{V}_0}$$ Measuring length and time in these new units, the original clone grows at rate one, and mutations arrive at rate one. The speed of the fronts and mutation rates per surface area might be directly accessible experimentally. Having obtained the unit length and time $L_0, T_0$ for the tumor, all results of the paper could be used when replacing time with $t\to t/T_0$ and all lengths with $l\to l/L_0$. The scaled speed of the mutant clone is $$v=\mathcal{V}_1/\mathcal{V}_0$$ which is the only parameter of the scaled model. We can obtain some estimates for the values of the above parameters as follows. In our model the original tumor grows only on the surface as a sphere. Starting from a single cell it reaches volume $V_T$ in time $T$. In the scaled coordinates the tumor is just a ball of radius scaled time, but here we include explicitly the scaling for the space and time units as given above to obtain $$\frac{V_T}{L_0^3} = \frac{4\pi}{3} \left( \frac{T}{T_0} \right)^{1/3}$$ Equivalently, we can rewrite this expression as $$V_T = \frac{4\pi}{3} (\mathcal{V}_0 T)^3$$ This gives an estimate for the growth rate $$\mathcal{V}_0 = \frac{1}{T} \left( \frac{3 V_T}{4\pi} \right)^{1/3}$$ We estimate the surface mutation rate from the number of driver clones found in a tumor. Our expression for the mean number of clones given in Eq. is $$\Lambda_T = \frac{4\pi}{3} \left( \frac{T}{T_0} \right)^{1/3} = \frac{V_T}{L_0^3} = V_T \frac{\mathcal{U}}{\mathcal{V}_0}$$ which then leads to the estimate $$\mathcal{U} = \frac{\mathcal{V}_0 \Lambda_T}{V_T}$$ From the above formulas we can obtain an order estimate for our parameters. We expect a tumor of $V_T \approx 1-10 ~\mathrm{cm}^3$ after 5 to 10 years of growth (so $T\approx 5-10\times 365$ day), and we expect of the order of $\Lambda_T\approx 1-10$ driver clones [@vogelstein13; @bozic10]. Note that we expect more clones in larger tumors, so roughly $$\frac{\mathcal{U}}{\mathcal{V}_0} = \frac{\Lambda_T}{V_T}\approx \frac{1}{\mathrm{cm}^3}.$$ This leads to the estimates $$\mathcal{V}_0 \approx 10^{-3} - 10^{-4} \frac{\mathrm{cm}}{\mathrm{day}} \quad \quad \mathcal{U} \approx 10^{-3} - 10^{-4} \frac{1}{\mathrm{cm}^2 \mathrm{day}}$$ Finally, let us estimate the relative speed of the mutant clone $v=\mathcal{V}_1/\mathcal{V}_0$. In [@bozic10] it was estimated that the birth rate of cells with $k$ driver mutations is larger by $sk$ than their death rate (that is their fitness is $sk$), with $s$ being $0.005$. If the original clone has $k$ driver mutations, the mutant clone is expected to have $k+1$ mutations. We assume that the speed of a clone is proportional to its fitness advantage, and since everything else is assumed to be the same in the clones, the relative speed of the mutant clone becomes $$v = \frac{k+1}{k}$$ Since $k$ is typically an integer between 1 and 8 [@vogelstein13; @bozic10], the speed is $1< v\le 2$. This is the only parameter of the scaled model. Derivations =========== The tumor occupies a subset of the $d$-dimensional space $T\subset \mathbf{R}^d$, and each point has a fitness $f:T\to\mathbf{R}^+$. The tumor can only grow at the surface in the normal direction each point at rate $f(\cdot)$ (wherever the surface is differentiable). Hence to obtain the shape of the tumor an infinitesimally small time $dt$ later, draw a ball of radius $f(\cdot) dt$ around each point on the surface of the tumor, and the outer envelope of the union of these balls becomes the new surface. If a mutant of fitness $v>1$ is initiated at a point on a locally flat surface of the original tumor of fitness one, then $dt$ times later the mutant occupies a sector of radius $v dt$ and half angle $\phi=\arccos(1/v)$, while the original tumor progressed a distance $dt$ and it is around the mutant sector. The angle between the surface of the original and the mutant is $\pi-\phi$, and it stays constant during the evolution. After the initiation the boundary of the mutant clone keeps moving at speed $\beta=\sqrt{v^2-1}$ on the surface of the original tumor. Shape of clones --------------- The original tumor is initiated at the origin at time $t=0$. Let us focus on the shape of a mutant clone initiated at $t=r_0$ at the cartesian point $(r_0,0)$ in $d=2$ or $(r_0,0,0)$ in $d=3$. Since the tangential speed of the boundary of the mutant clone on the surface (that is at distance $t$) is a constant $\beta$, the shape of the clone and the original tumor stay rotationally symmetric around the $x$ axes. Hence it is sufficient to describe the shape of the tumor in two dimensions, and for $y\ge 0$. ![Illustration for the spreading of the mutant clone. Only a two dimensional cut is shown. On the left panel the initiation of a mutant clone is captured. A tiny segment of the surface of the original clone is almost flat and depicted by a shaded grey region. For a small time interval $dt$ later the surface is composed by a circular arc and straight segments. On the right panel the evolution of the surface of the tumor is shown for later times. Note that the angle $\phi$ stays constant during the process.[]{data-label="Fig:growth"}](illust3 "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Illustration for the spreading of the mutant clone. Only a two dimensional cut is shown. On the left panel the initiation of a mutant clone is captured. A tiny segment of the surface of the original clone is almost flat and depicted by a shaded grey region. For a small time interval $dt$ later the surface is composed by a circular arc and straight segments. On the right panel the evolution of the surface of the tumor is shown for later times. Note that the angle $\phi$ stays constant during the process.[]{data-label="Fig:growth"}](illust2 "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Illustration for calculating the shape of the mutant clone. Only a two dimensional cut is shown. The black dot at the origin is the center of the original tumor. The mutant clone is initiated at $(1,0)$. The purple segment can be reached directly from the initial mutant position, and hence its outer boundary is a circle of radius $v(t-1)$. The thick grey line indicates the boundary of the original tumor, and the curve between the original tumor and the mutant clone is given by the parametric curve $r(\theta)$. The top black dot represents a general point on the red curve (outer boundary of themutant clone). It is reached by the mutant clone originating from the middle black dot in time $t-r(\theta)$ at speed $v$.[]{data-label="Fig:illust1"}](illust1){width="70.00000%"} Let us use polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$ for now. The growth mechanism of the clone is explained on Fig. \[Fig:growth\]. A small time $dt$ after initiation the mutant clone occupies a circular segment of radius $vdt$, and angle $2\phi$ with $\phi=\arccos(1/v)$. This arc is at an angle $\pi-\phi$ with surface of the original clone, and this angle stays constant during the evolution. The boundary between the mutant and the original clone keeps moving at constant speed $\beta=\sqrt{v^2-1}$, as can be seen on Fig. \[Fig:growth\]. Hence the boundary of a mutant clone initiated at $(r_0, 0)$ at time $t=r_0$ is described by the differential equation $$r \theta'(r) = \beta$$ with solution $$\theta(r) = \beta \log \frac{r}{r_0}$$ or equivalently $$\label{between2} r(\theta) = r_0 e^{\theta/\beta}$$ for $0\le\theta\le\theta_0$, where $\theta_0=\beta\log t/r_0$, and we measure $\theta$ from the $x$ axes. This is equivalent to for $r_0=1$. The boundary between the original tumor and the mutant becomes a closed curve at time $t_\mathrm{c}=r_0 e^{\pi/\beta}$, after which time the original tumor ceases to grow. Its final volume is calculated later. For earlier times, $t<t_\mathrm{c}$, the outer boundary of the original tumor is a sphere of radius $t$, for $\theta_0<\theta<\pi$. These boundaries, as well as the initial boundary of the original tumor (the unit circle $r=1$) are shown on Fig. \[Fig:earlier\] as red curves. The boundary of the mutant clone contains the boundary with the original tumor given by and two other pieces corresponding to the outer boundary of the mutant. The first one is a circle (green curve on Fig. \[Fig:earlier\]) centered at the seed of the mutant clone, i.e. at $(r_0,0)$, with radius $R=v[t-r_0]$. The opening half-angle $\phi$ of this part of the circle is found by computing the inclination angle between curve and the $x$ axis. One obtains $\phi=\arccos(1/v)$. To determine the remaining part of the boundary (blue curve on Fig. \[Fig:earlier\]) one draws straight lines in the tangential direction from each point of the curve as it is illustrated on Fig. \[Fig:illust1\]. The angle between this tangential and the $x$ axes is $\phi$ at any point of $r(\theta)$. If we draw the tangential from the point given by polar coordinates $(r(\theta),\theta)$, the mutant clone has still time $t-r$ to grow, so the boundary will be at $$\begin{split} x(\theta) &= r(\theta)\cos\theta + v[t-r(\theta)]\cos[\theta+\arccos(1/v)]\\ y(\theta) &= r(\theta)\sin\theta + v[t-r(\theta)]\sin[\theta+\arccos(1/v)] \end{split}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{split} x(\theta) &= [(1-\beta)r(\theta)+\beta t]\cos\theta -[t-r(\theta)]\sin\theta\\ y(\theta) &= [(1-\beta)r(\theta)+\beta t]\sin\theta -[t-r(\theta)]\cos\theta \end{split}$$ If we now rescale both space and time by $r_0$, we recover the shape of a clone initiated at $(1,0,0)$, as given in . Let us compute the area $A_\mathrm{cover}$ covered by the original tumor at the moment of capture. Using for $r_0=1$ we get $$A_\mathrm{c}=\int_0^\pi d\theta\,r^2(\theta) =\frac{\beta}{2}\left(e^{2\pi/\beta}-1\right)$$ Similarly, in three dimensions, the volume of the original tumor at capture is given by $$V_\mathrm{c} = \frac{2\pi}{3}\int_0^\pi d\theta\,\sin\theta\, r^3(\theta) = \frac{2\pi}{3}\,\frac{\beta^2}{\beta^2+9}\left(e^{3\pi/\beta}+1\right)$$ as announced in . For general $r_0$ these formulas are multiplied by $r_0^d$. Many mutations for $d=2$ ------------------------ What fraction of the tumor is mutated at time $t$? Point $(r,0)$ is covered by a mutant initiated at $(r_0, \theta_0)$ if this initial point is on or within the boundaries $$r_0 = r e^{-\|\theta_0\|/\beta}$$ with $-\pi\le\theta_0\le\pi$. Mutations arrive as an inhomogeneous Poisson process, hence we need the total rate of arrival for such a mutation is this region $$A = 2 \int_0^\pi \frac{r_0(\theta)^2}{2} d\theta = a(\beta) t^2, \quad a(\beta) = \frac{\beta}{2} \left( 1-e^{-2\pi/\beta} \right)$$ Hence the probability of no mutant at distance $r$ in the tumor is $$W_r = e^{-a(\beta)r^2}$$ More formally, let $w$ be a function $w:\mathbf{R^d}\to\mathbf{N}$ counting the number of subsequent mutations present at a given point in the tumor. Inside the original tumor clone $w(.)=0$, it is one at mutant clones arisen from the original tumor, and $k+1$ for mutant clones arisen from mutant clones with $w(\cdot)=k$. Let $R$ be a uniform random vector within a ball of radius $t$. Hence we just calculated the probability $$P[w(R)=0\big\|\|R\|=r] = W_r = e^{-a(\beta)r^2}$$ The probability that a (uniformly picked) random point in the tumor of ball $r$ is not mutated, that is the fraction of non-mutated tumor is $$\begin{split} W_{\le r} &= P[w(R)=0\big\|\|R\|\le r] = E[P(w(R)=0\|R)\big\|\|R\|\le r]\\ &= \frac{1}{\pi r^2} \int_0^r e^{-a(\beta)r'^2} 2\pi r' dr' = \frac{1-e^{-a(\beta)r^2}}{a(\beta)r^2}\\ \end{split}$$ Interestingly, the non-mutated tumor mass tends to a constant for large times $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \pi t^2 W_{\le t} = \frac{\pi}{a(\beta)}$$ Many mutations for $d=3$ ------------------------ The calculation is similar in 3 dimensions. Here, the boundary of points which cover $(r,\theta=0,\phi=0)$ is given by the same expression $r_0(\theta)$ as in 2 dimensions, and the total rate of mutants arriving in this region equals to its volume, which is $$V = \frac{2\pi}{3} \int_0^\pi r_0^3(\theta) \sin(\theta) d\theta = b(\beta) t^3, \quad b(\beta) = \frac{2\pi}{3}\, \frac{\beta^2}{\beta^2+9} \left( 1+e^{-3\pi/\beta} \right)$$ At time $t$, a random point at distance $r$ is non-mutant with probability $$W_r=P(w(R)=0\big\|\|R\|=r) = e^{-V} = e^{-b(\beta)r^3}$$ and a random point in a ball of radius $r$ is non-mutant with probability $$\begin{split} W_{\le r} &= P[w(R)=0\big\|\|R\|\le r] = E[P(w(R)=0\|R)\big\|\|R\|\le r]\\ &= \frac{3}{4\pi r^3} \int_0^r e^{-b(\beta)r'^3} 4\pi r'^2 dr' = \frac{1-e^{-b(\beta)r^3}}{b(\beta)r^3} \end{split}$$ As before, the non-mutated tumor mass tends to a constant for large times $$§ \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{4\pi}{3} t^3 P[w(R)=0\big\|\|R\|\le t] = \frac{4\pi}{3b(\beta)}$$ Probability of a single mutant clone ------------------------------------ The probability of having no mutant clone till time $t$ goes to zero faster than exponential in time. Recall that $N_t$ is the total number of mutations raised either from the original clone, or from any mutant clones by time $t$. Conversely, let $N_{1,t}$ be the number of clones initiated only from the original tumor by time $t$. We are interested in the eventual number of such clones $N_1=\lim_{t\to\infty} N_{1,t}$. (Note that this variable is finite with probability one, since $P(N_1=0)=0$, and the original tumor stops growing a finite time interval after the first mutant clone was initiated). What is the probability that there is only a single mutant clone from the original clone, that is $P(N_1=1)$? In that case we could observe the final barnacle shape of the original tumor. The first mutant clone appears at a random time $T$, and at distance $T$ from the origin. Conditioning on this time, there are no further mutations with probability $$P(N_1=1 \| T=t) = e^{-[V_\mathrm{c}(\beta)-4\pi/3] t^3}$$ since $[V_\mathrm{c}(\beta)-4\pi/3] t^3$ is the total rate of production of the second mutant. Now taking the average over the initiation time $$\begin{split} P(N_1=1) &= E P(N_1=1 \| T) = 4\pi \int_0^\infty t^2 e^{-V_\mathrm{c}(\beta)t^3} dt\\ &= \frac{4\pi}{3V_\mathrm{c}} = 2 \left( 1+\frac{9}{\beta^2} \right) \left( 1+ e^{3\pi/\beta} \right)^{-1} \end{split}$$ This function monotone grows from zero to one with $0\le\beta\le\infty$. We can also calculate the probability distribution of the time of the second mutation. Let $T_1$ be the time of the first mutation (which is finite with probability one), and let $T_2$ be the time of the second mutation with $T_2>T_1$, which is finite with probability $1-P(N_1=1)$. As before, we can write the conditional probability $$P(T_2/T_1>\tau\| T_1=t) = e^{-[V(\tau)-4\pi/3]t^3}$$ where $1\le\tau\le t_\mathrm{c}=e^{\pi/\beta}$, and $$V(\tau) = 2 \pi \frac{ \beta ^2+\left(\beta ^2+9\right) \tau^3 +3 \tau^3 [\beta \sin (\beta \log \tau)+3 \cos (\beta \log \tau)]}{3 \left(\beta ^2+9\right)}$$ is the volume of the original tumor. The simplest way to obtain this volume is from its derivative $dV/d\tau=2\pi\tau^2[1+\cos(\beta \log \tau)]$, which is the surface of a sector with half cone angle $\pi-\theta_0=\pi-\beta\log \tau$. Now averaging over the arrival time of the first mutant clone we obtain $$P(T_2/T_1>\tau) = E P(T_2/T_1>\tau\| T_1) = 4\pi \int_0^\infty t^2 e^{-V(\tau)t^3} dt = \frac{4 \pi}{3 V(\tau)}$$ for $1\le \tau\le e^{\pi/\beta}$. Of course, $P(T_2/T_1>1)=1$, and $P(T_2/T_1>\tau)=P(N_1=1) = 4\pi/(3 V_\mathrm{c})$ for $\tau\ge t_\mathrm{c}=e^{\pi/\beta}$, which corresponds to no second mutation. Discussion ========== Many mathematical models of cancer evolution are based on the assumption of well-mixed populations. This homogeneous setting represents a reasonable framework for the modeling of liquid tumors, but in solid tumors the effects of spatial structure can be important. Here the reliance on well-mixed cell populations is mostly caused by the better mathematical tractability of that simple framework. In this paper, we have developed a model of cancer which describes both spatial and temporal evolution and accounts for mutations that activate additional driver genes, leading to enhanced proliferation rates of cancer cells. Our model depends on very few parameters. In the simplest case of one mutant, there is only a single parameter, $v$, denoting the ratio of the growth rates of the mutant clone and the initiating cancer clone. Even in this setting the emerging behavior is rich. For example, given enough time we observe the inevitable capture of the initial clone by the mutant. Hence the initial clone grows to a fixed size as time goes to infinity. The capture time, however, is much larger than the naive estimate would suggest. This finding correlates with the general conclusion emerging from other studies, see e.g. [@martens11], namely that spatial structure reduces the rate of cancer progression. Throughout this paper we assumed that if successive mutant clones are initiated inside mutant clones then they stay confined in the parental mutant clone. But what happens if inside a clone of fitness $v_{i}$ a new mutant arrives with fitness $v_{i+1}>v_i$? The new clone’s boundary has a tangential speed on the surface of the parent clone given by $\beta_{i+1} = \sqrt{v_{i+1}^2-v_{i}^2}$. Note that it can be smaller than $\beta_i$ for a more fit mutant $v_{i+1}>v_i$. Since the first clone eventually covers the parental clone and becomes asymptotically circular, a newly arriving clone eventually covers the previous clone. Our model is semi-deterministic – the spatial growth of the tumor is deterministic, while the birth of new mutants is stochastic. The former feature simplifies the analysis. The rules of the dynamics are isotropic: in isolation a mutant clone exhibits a spherical growth. Yet the stochasticity of the arrival of mutant clones and the strong interaction between the initial clone and mutant clones, and also between different types of mutant clones, results in highly anisotropic shapes. One of the main virtues of the model is its simplicity; we can derive exact results describing the basic behavior of the model. This simplicity is encouraging to pursue further extension of the model. It would be interesting to study the effect of random growth rates for each mutant clone, the dynamics of new mutant clones arising within mutant clones, and the time it takes to accumulate several additional driver mutations [@beerenwinkel07; @jones08; @bozic10; @durrett10; @yachida10; @martens11] in a spatial setting. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== Support from the John Templeton Foundation and the program for Foundational Questions in Evolutionary Biology is gratefully acknowledged (T.A. and M.A.N.). [99]{} Vogelstein B and Kinzler KW (1998) The genetic basis of human cancer (McGraw-Hill). Vogelstein B et al. (2013) Cancer Genome Landscapes, Science 339, 1546. Moolgavkar SH, Knudson AG (1981) Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66: 1037–1052. Nowak MA et al (2002) The role of chromosomal instability in tumor initiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 16226–16231. Komarova NL, Sengupta A, Nowak MA (2003) Mutation-selection networks of cancer initiation: tumor suppressor genes and chromosomal instability. J. Theor Biol. 223: 433–450. Nowak MA, Michor F, Komarova NL, Iwasa Y (2004). Evolutionary dynamics of tumor suppressor gene inactivation, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 10635–10638. Beerenwinkel N et al (2007) Genetic Progression and the Waiting Time to Cancer. PLoS Comput Biol 3, e225 Bozic I et al. (2010) Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 18545–18550. Yachida S et al. (2010) Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 467: 1114–1117. Bryne HM et al. (2006) Modelling aspects of cancer dynamics: a review, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 364: 1563Ð1578. Baraldi MM et al. (2013) Growth and form of melanoma cell colonies, J. Stat. Mech. P02032. Komarova NL, Wodarz D (2005) Drug resistance in cancer: Principles of emergence and prevention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 9714. Michor F et al. (2005) Dynamics of chronic myeloid leukaemia. Nature 435: 1267–1270. Iwasa Y et al. (2006) Evolution of Resistance During Clonal Expansion. Genetics 172: 2557–2566. Komarova, N. (2006) Stochastic modeling of drug resistance in cancer. J. Theor. Biol. 239: 351–366. Bozic I et al. (2013) Evolutionary dynamics of cancer in response to targeted combination therapy, eLife 2013: e00747. Roose T, Chapman SJ, Maini PK (2007) Mathematical Models of Avascular Tumor Growth, SIAM Rev. 49: 179 Sherratt JA and Nowak MA (1992) Oncogenes, anti-oncogenes and the immune response to cancer: a mathematical model, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 248:261-271. Jiao Y, Torquato S (2011) Emergent Behaviors from a Cellular Automaton Model for Invasive Tumor Growth in Heterogeneous Microenvironments, PLoS Comput. Biol. 7: e1002314. De Matteis G, Graudenzi A, Antoniotti AM (2013) A review of spatial computational models for multi-cellular systems, with regard to intestinal crypts and colorectal cancer development, J. Math. Biol. 66: 1409. Friedman A (2006) Cancer Models and Their Mathematical Analysis, Lect. Notes Math. 1872: 223–246. Bryne HM and Chaplain MAJ (1997) Free boundary value problems associated with the growth and development of multicellular spheroids, Euro. J. of Applied Mathematics 8: 639Ð658. Cui S and Friedman A (2001) Analysis of a Mathematical Model of the Growth of Necrotic Tumors, J. Math. Analysis and Applications 255: 636–677. Sottoriva A (2012) Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics, PNAS 110: 4009Ð4014 Durrett R and Moseley S (2010) Evolution of resistance and progression to disease during clonal expansion of cancer. Theoretical Population Biology 77: 42–48. Williams T, Bjerknes R (1972) Stochastic model for abnormal clone spread through epithelial basal layer. Nature. 235: 19–21. Bramson M, Griffeath D. (1980) On the Williams-Bjerknes tumour growth model. II. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 88: 339–357. Bramson M, Griffeath D. (1981) On the Williams-Bjerknes tumour growth model. I. Ann. Probab. 9: 173–185. Martens EA et al. (2011) Spatial structure increases the waiting time for cancer, New Journal of Physics 13: 115014. Komarova NL (2013) Spatial Stochastic Models for Cancer: Fitness, Migration, Invasion, Math. Biosciences and Engineering 10: 3. Nowak MA, Michor F, Iwasa Y (2003) The linear process of somatic evolution, PNAS 100: 14966–14969. Durrett R, Moseley S. Spatial Moran Models I. Stochastic Tunneling in the Neutral Case, preprint. Evans JW (1993) Random and cooperative sequential adsorption, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65: 1281. Kleban M (2011) Cosmic bubble collisions, Class. Quantum Gravity 28: 204008. Brú A et al. (2003) The Universal Dynamics of Tumor Growth, Biophysical J. 85, 2948. Drasdo D and Höhme S (2005) A single-cell-based model of tumor growth in vitro: monolayers and spheroids, Phys. Biol. 2: 133Ð147. Chaplain MAJ, Ganesh M, Graham IG (2001) Spatio-temporal pattern formation on spherical surfaces: numerical simulation and application to solid tumour growth, J. Math. Biol. 42, 387Ð423. Ciarletta P, Ambrosi D, Maugin GA, and Preziosi L (2013) Mechano-transduction in tumour growth modelling, Eur. Phys. J. E 36: 23. Jones, S., et al. (2008) Comparative lesion sequencing provides insights into tumor evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 4283-4288	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - Thomas Preibisch title: 'The origin of X-ray emission from T Tauri stars' --- Introduction ============ T Tauri stars (TTS) are low-mass ($M \leq 2\,M_\odot$) pre-main sequence stars with typical ages between $\la 1$ Myr and a few Myr. They come in two flavors: the classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) show H$\alpha$ emission and infrared excesses, which are a signature of circumstellar disks from which the stars accrete matter. The weak-line T Tauri stars (WTTS), on the other hand, have already lost (most of) their circumstellar material and show no evidence of accretion. TTS generally show highly elevated levels of X-ray activity, with X-ray luminosities up to $\sim 10^4$ times and plasma temperatures up to $\sim 50$ times higher than seen in our Sun [e.g., @FeigelsonMontmerle99]. This strong X-ray emission has far-reaching implications for the physical processes in the circumstellar environment, the formation of planetary systems, and the evolution of protoplanetary atmospheres [e.g., @Glassgold05; @Wolk05]. After the first discoveries of X-ray emission from TTS with the EINSTEIN satellite [e.g., @Feigelson81], many star forming regions and young clusters have been observed with different X-ray observatories [e.g., @Casanova95; @Gagne95; @Preibisch96; @Feigelson02; @Preibisch02; @Flaccomio03]. While these observations provided important information about the X-ray properties of TTS, there were also serious limitations. First, the typical samples of X-ray detected objects in each observation contained hardly more than $\sim 100$ objects, too few to allow well founded statistical conclusions to be drawn. Second, a large fraction of the known cluster members (especially low-mass stars) remained undetected in X-rays, and any correlation studies had therefore to deal with large numbers of upper limits. Third, especially in dense clusters, the individual sources could often not be spatially resolved, and so the proper identification of the X-ray sources was difficult or impossible. Finally, in most X-ray data sets, only a relatively small number of individual young stars were bright enough in X-rays to allow their spectral and temporal X-ray properties to be studied in detail, and it was not clear whether these stars really are “typical” cases or perhaps peculiar objects. The basic, still unresolved question concerns the exact origin of the X-ray activity of TTS. Although there is strong evidence that in most TTS the X-ray emission is related to coronal magnetic activity, it is unclear what kind of structures may be the building blocks of TTS coronae and whether these coronae are created and heated by solar-like (although strongly enhanced) magnetic dynamo processes, or whether different kinds of magnetic structures and heating mechanisms are involved. Furthermore, a fundamentally different source of X-ray emission may be present in actively accreting TTS: the shocks where the accreted material crashes onto the stellar surface seem to produce soft X-ray emission in some TTS [see, e.g., @Kastner02]. Hot ($\ga 10 - 30$ MK) coronal plasma may coexist with cool ($\la 1-3$ MK) plasma in accretion shocks [@Schmitt05]. An important question, therefore, is whether accretion shocks are an important source of TTS X-ray emission or only relevant in a few, perhaps peculiar, objects. Large X-ray projects on TTS =========================== Very significant progress on these and other questions has been made in the last few years with two major observational projects that provided unprecedented X-ray data sets on TTS. The first one is the $Chandra$ Orion Ultradeep Project (COUP), a unique, 10-day long (total exposure time of 838100 sec) observation of the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) with $Chandra$/ACIS [for details of the observation and data analysis see @Getman05]. This is the deepest and longest X-ray observation ever made of a young stellar cluster and produced the most comprehensive dataset ever acquired on the X-ray emission of young stars. Nearly all of the 1616 detected X-ray sources could be unambiguously identified with optical or near-infrared counterparts. With a detection limit of $L_{\rm X,min} \sim 10^{27.3}$ erg/sec for lightly absorbed sources, X-ray emission from more than 97% of the $\sim 600$ optically visible and well characterized late-type (spectral types F to M) cluster stars was detected [@Preibisch_coup_orig]; as the remaining $<3\%$ undetected stars are probably no cluster members but unrelated field stars, the COUP TTS sample is [complete]{}. The other large project is the XMM-Newton Extended Survey of the Taurus Molecular Cloud (XEST), a survey of the densest stellar populations of the Taurus Molecular Cloud, in X-rays and in the near ultraviolet [for details, see @Guedel07]. The principal data were extracted from 28 different XMM-Newton exposures with the EPIC cameras, covering a total of 5 square degrees, and provided X-ray data on 110 optically well characterized TTS. For several bright objects, high-resolution X-ray spectra were obtained with the Reflection Grating Spectrometers. The main papers discussing the origin of TTS X-ray emission are @Preibisch_coup_orig for COUP and @Briggs07 for XEST. Note that several of the results discussed below were already suspected from the data of shorter X-ray observations of different star forming regions, but were confirmed with better data quality and much higher statistical power in the COUP and XEST data sets. Some general results ==================== Nearly all TTS show $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol} > 10^{-5}$ and are therefore much more X-ray active than the Sun ($L_{\rm X,\odot}/L_{\rm bol,\odot} \sim 10^{-6}$). There is thus no indication for the existence of an “X-ray quiet” population of stars with suppressed magnetic activity. The detection of X-ray emission from several spectroscopically-identified brown dwarfs [e.g., @Preibisch_coup_bd] clearly shows that the X-ray activity does not terminate at the stellar mass limit but extends well into the sub-stellar regime. The X-ray luminosities of the TTS are correlated to stellar mass (Fig. \[lx\_m\_tx\_fx.fig\], left) with a power-law slope similar to that found for the NEXXUS stars [@Schmitt04], a complete sample of nearby late-type field stars. The plasma temperatures of the COUP TTS derived in fits to the X-ray spectra with two-temperature models are shown in the right panel of Fig. \[lx\_m\_tx\_fx.fig\]. The temperature of the hot plasma component increases with increasing surface flux. The temperatures of the cool plasma component of most TTS are remarkable similar and around 10 MK. The TTS generally show high-amplitude rapid variability, with typically one or two very powerful flares ($L_{\rm X, peak} \ga 10^{30 \dots 32}\,\rm erg/sec$) per week on each star. X-ray emission and accretion ============================ Is X-ray emission from accretion shocks important ? --------------------------------------------------- According to the magnetospheric accretion scenario, accreted material crashes onto the stellar surface with velocities of up to several 100 km/sec, what should cause shocks with temperatures of up to about $\sim 10^6$ K, in which strong optical and UV excess emission and perhaps also soft X-ray emission is produced. The expected characteristics of X-ray emission from accretion shocks would be a very soft spectrum (due to the low plasma temperature in the shock), and perhaps simultaneous brightness variations at optical/UV wavelengths and in the X-ray band. Recent high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of [some]{} TTS [e.g. TW Hya, XZ Tau and BP Tau, see @Kastner02; @Favata03; @Schmitt05] yielded very high electron densities ($n_e \sim 10^{13}\,\rm cm^{-3}$) in the coolest (1…5 MK), OVII and NeIX forming plasma components, what has been interpreted as evidence for X-ray emission originating from accretion shocks (rather than coronal loops, with their typical densities of $n_e \sim 10^{9\dots 11}\,\rm cm^{-3}$). However, neither the COUP nor the XEST results provided support for a scenario in which the X-ray emission from TTS is dominated by accretion shocks. First, the X-ray luminosities of many accreting TTS are [larger]{} than, or similar to, their accretion luminosities, ruling out the possibility that the bulk of the observed X-ray emission from the TTS could originate from accretion processes. Second, the X-ray spectra of nearly all TTS show much higher plasma temperatures (typically a $\sim 10$ MK cool component and $\gtrsim 20$ MK hot component) than the $\lesssim 1-3$ MK expected from shocks for the typical accretion infall velocities. The vast majority of the TTS show neither significant plasma components at temperatures below 3 MK, nor indications for soft ($\la 1$ keV) excesses that may hint towards emission from accretion shocks. Third, the high-resolution spectra of TTS analyzed in the XEST project did not show any evidence for the high plasma densities as expected for accretion shocks; the derived densities are only $n_e \sim 3 \times 10^{11}\,\rm cm^{-3}$ for BP Tau and $n_e < 10^{11}\,\rm cm^{-3}$ for T Tau N and the Herbig star AB Aur [@Telleschi07]. Such low densities are not compatible with standard assumptions of accretion shocks. Fourth, from simultaneous X-ray and optical monitoring of 800 stars in the ONC, [@Stassun06] found that 95% of the ONC TTS did [not]{} show any time-correlated X-ray - optical modulations that would be expected if surface accretion shocks were the dominant sites of X-ray production. These results show clearly that in the vast majority of TTS the X-ray emission must be dominated by a coronal component, and not by accretion shocks. Of course, these arguments do not exclude the possibility that accretion shocks may contribute [some fraction]{} of the X-ray emission in TTS. It is critical to note that the CCD detectors of $Chandra$ and XMM-Newton are not very sensitive to the cooler plasma expected from these accretion shocks. However, note that the scenario of X-ray emitting accretion shocks also faces problems from theoretical considerations. The existence of accretion shocks does [not]{} necessarily imply that one should expect [detectable]{} X-ray emission from these shocks: according to models of the shock structure [e.g., @Calvet98], the material above the shock has typical column densities of $\ga 10^{23}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$ and should thus completely absorb and thermalize the soft ($\la 0.5$ keV) X-rays emitted from the shock plasma within or close to the shock zone. This problem has also been highlighted by @Drake05, who argued that for the typically estimated accretion rates in TTS ($\dot{M} \approx 10^{-7}\, M_\odot/{\rm yr}$), the shock is buried too deeply in the stellar atmosphere to allow the soft X-ray emission to escape and be detected; only for very low accretion rates ($\dot{M} \la 10^{-9}\, M_\odot/{\rm yr}$) detectable soft X-ray emission can be expected. The suppression of X-ray emission by accretion ---------------------------------------------- The COUP data confirmed previous indications for systematic differences in the X-ray properties of accreting and non-accreting TTS. The absolute as well as the fractional X-ray luminosities of accreting TTS are systematically [lower]{} by a factor of $\sim 2-3$ than the corresponding values for non-accreting TTS. Also, X-ray activity appears to be anti-correlated with mass accretion rate. These results were very well confirmed with the XEST data and one can thus conclude that the X-ray activity of accreting TTS is somehow suppressed. The most likely explanation for this effect are changes in the coronal magnetic field structure by the accretion process. The pressure of the accreting material may distort the large-scale stellar magnetic field [e.g. @Romanova04] and the magnetospheric transfer of material to the star can give rise to instabilities of the magnetic fields around the inner disk edge. The presence of accreting material should also lead to higher densities in (parts of) the magnetosphere; these high densities may inhibit magnetic heating of the accreting material to X-ray emitting temperatures. The accreting material will also cool the corona when it penetrates into active regions and mixes with hot plasma. If the plasma gets cooled below a few MK, its very soft X-ray emission is essentially undetectable for the CCD X-ray detectors of $Chandra$ and XMM-Newton, and thus the observed X-ray luminosity of the accreting stars is lower than that of non-accretors [see also @Telleschi07]. @Jardine06 have recently modeled the X-ray emission of TTS assuming that they have isothermal, magnetically confined coronae. In stars without a circumstellar disk, these coronae extend outwards until the pressure of the hot coronal gas overcomes the magnetic field, explaining the observed increase in the X-ray emission measure with increasing stellar mass. In stars that are surrounded by a circumstellar accretion disk, the outer parts of the coronal magnetic field are stripped by the interaction with the disk. This stripping provides a good explanation for the observed lower X-ray luminosities of accreting stars. X-ray emission from magnetic star-disk interactions? ==================================================== Another possibility for a non-solar like origin of the X-ray emission from TTS may be plasma trapped in magnetic fields that connect the star with its surrounding accretion disk. The dipolar stellar magnetic field lines anchored to the inner part of the accretion disk should be twisted around because of the differential rotation between the star of the disk. This twisting should lead to reconnection events that heat the trapped plasma to very hot, X-ray emitting temperatures and produce large X-ray flares. @Favata05 performed a detailed MHD model analysis for the $\sim 30$ largest flares seen in COUP data. The analysis suggests that very long magnetic structures (more than a few times the stellar radius) actually are present in [some]{} of the most active TTS. Such very large structures may indicate a magnetic link between these stars and their disks. However, for the majority of the analyzed flares much smaller loop lengths were found. Furthermore, the COUP and XEST results show that, in general, the X-ray luminosity is strongly linked to stellar parameters like bolometric luminosity and mass, but does not strongly depend on the presence or absence of circumstellar disks as traced by near-infrared excess emission. The bulk of the observed X-ray emission from TTS therefore originates probably from more compact coronal structures, presumably with geometries resembling solar coronal fields. X-ray emission, rotation, and dynamos\[rotation.sec\] ===================================================== X-ray activity and rotation --------------------------- For main-sequence stars, the well established correlation between fractional X-ray luminosity and rotation period [e.g. @Pallavicini81; @Pizzolato03] constitutes the main argument for a solar-like dynamo mechanism as the origin of their X-ray activity. The existence of a similar relation between rotation and X-ray activity could never be convincingly established for TTS; in most studies the small number of X-ray detected TTS with known rotation periods did not allow to draw sound conclusions. A relation between rotation and X-ray activity was previously suggested for the TTS in the Taurus star forming region [@Stelzer01]; however, new data have now revealed that this is only apparent because the Taurus TTS population is biased toward fast rotators having, on average, higher mass, thus being brighter in X-rays [@Briggs07]. The COUP and the XEST data have both clearly confirmed that the TTS do [not]{} follow the activity–rotation relation for main-sequence stars (see Fig. \[x\_rot.fig\], left panel). Theoretical studies of the solar-like $\alpha\!-\!\Omega$ dynamo show that the dynamo number is not directly related to the rotation period, but to more complicated quantities such as the radial gradient of the angular velocity and the characteristic scale length of convection at the base of the convection zone. It can be shown that the dynamo number is essentially proportional to the inverse square of the Rossby number $Ro$ [e.g. @Maggio87], which is defined as the ratio of the rotation period to the convective turnover time $\tau_c$, i.e. $Ro := P_{\rm rot}/\tau_c$. For main-sequence stars, the theoretical expectations that the stellar activity should show a tighter relationship to the Rossby number than to rotation period are well confirmed [e.g. @Montesinos01]. For large Rossby numbers, activity rises strongly as $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol} \propto Ro^{-2}$ until saturation at $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol} \sim 10^{-3}$ is reached around $Ro \sim 0.1$, which is followed by a regime of “supersaturation” for very small Rossby numbers, $Ro \lesssim 0.02$. The convective turnover time scale is a sensitive function of the physical properties in the stellar interior. The use of semi-empirical interpolations of $\tau_c$ values as a function of, e.g., $B-V$ color, may be appropriate for main-sequence stars, but is clearly insufficient for TTS which have a very different and quickly evolving internal structure. In the analysis of the COUP data by @Preibisch_coup_orig, convective turnover times for the ONC TTS were computed from detailed stellar evolution models with the Yale Stellar Evolution Code. The right panel in Fig. \[x\_rot.fig\] shows the fractional X-ray luminosities of the ONC TTS versus the resulting Rossby numbers. The plot shows no strong relation between these two quantities. All TTS have Rossby numbers $< 0.2$ and therefore are in the saturated or super-saturated regime of the activity – Rossby number relation for main-sequence stars. However, a remarkable difference between the TTS and the main-sequence stars is apparent in the very wide dispersion of fractional X-ray luminosities at a given Rossby number among the TTS. The scatter extends over about three orders of magnitude and is in strong contrast to the tight relation found for main-sequence stars, where the scatter in $\log\left(L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol}\right)$ at a given Rossby number is only about $\pm0.5$ dex [e.g., @Pizzolato03]. This seems to suggest that additional factors, other than rotation, are important for the level of X-ray activity in TTS. Implications for magnetic dynamos --------------------------------- The activity-rotation relation shown by main-sequence stars is usually interpreted in terms of the $\alpha\!-\!\Omega$-type dynamo that is thought to work in the Sun. Solar dynamo models assume that the strong differential rotation in the tachocline, a region near the bottom of the convection zone in which the rotation rate changes from being almost uniform in the radiative interior to being latitude dependent in the convection zone, generates strong toroidal magnetic fields. While most of the toroidal magnetic flux is stored and further amplified in the tachocline, instabilities expel individual flux tubes, which then rise through the convection zone, driven by magnetic buoyancy, until they emerge at the surface as active regions. The power of the dynamo (i.e. the magnetic energy created by the dynamo per unit time) is principally dependent on the radial gradient of the angular velocity in the tachocline and the characteristic scale length of convection at the base of the convection zone. Faster rotating stars have stronger velocity shear in the thin tachoclinal layer, causing the empirical relationship between X-ray luminosity and rotation rate in main-sequence stars. Most TTS, however, are thought to be fully convective, or nearly fully convective, so the tachoclinal layer is either buried very deeply, or does not exist at all. Another kind of dynamo is thus required to explain the magnetic activity of TTS. Theoreticians have developed alternative dynamo concepts [e.g. @Durney93; @Giampapa96; @Kueker99; @Dobler06] that may work in fully convective stars. A general problem with these and other models is that they disagree on the type of large-scale magnetic topologies that fully convective stars can generate, and that they usually do not make quantitative predictions that can be easily tested from observations. Therefore, we once again consider the example of the Sun. Although the solar coronal activity is most likely dominated by the tachoclinal dynamo action, this does not prevent other dynamo processes from [also]{} operating. It is assumed that small scale turbulent dynamo action is taking place throughout the solar convection zone and is thought to be responsible for the small-scale intra-network fields. This means that two conceptually distinct magnetic dynamos are simultaneously operating in the contemporary Sun, although the solar coronal activity is most likely dominated by the tachoclinal dynamo action. It is therefore reasonable to assume that in the (nearly) fully convective TTS, a convective dynamo is the main source of the magnetic activity. Implications for coronal structure ================================== The up to $10^4$ times higher fractional X-ray luminosities of TTS clearly require that the structure of their coronae must be quite different from that of the Sun, where the X-ray emission is dominated by a moderate number of active regions with magnetic field configurations typically limited to heights of well below one stellar radius. The coronae of TTS must be either much more extended (at least several $R_\ast$) or consist of structures with considerably higher plasma densities than those on the Sun. Various observational constraints are now available: @Flaccomio05 and @Stassun06 used the COUP data to search for time-correlated X-ray - optical modulations in the ONC TTS. More than 90% of the TTS did not show such time-correlated variability, what suggest a spatially rather homogenous distribution of X-ray emitting regions on the surface of the TTS. On the other hand, some TTS did show apparently periodic X-ray modulations with the same period as their rotation period [@Flaccomio05]. This detection of rotational modulation in some TTS implies that the dominant X-ray emitting regions of these stars must be rather compact, distributed unevenly around the star, and do not extend significantly more than a stellar radius above the surface. As mentioned above, the detailed MHD modeling of large flares by [@Favata05] suggested that most of these flares occurred in rather compact loops ($l \la R_\ast$) with geometries resembling solar coronal fields. Another (tentative) clue can be derived from the remarkable similarity of the temperatures ($\sim 10$MK) of the cool plasma component in the COUP TTS sample. This 10 MK component seems to be a general feature of coronally active stars [e.g., @Sanz03] and may be related to a class of very compact loops with high plasma density, presumably similar to X-ray bright points on the Sun. Conclusions =========== The observed X-ray properties of TTS strongly suggest that the bulk of their X-ray emission has its origin in coronal magnetic activity. The surface of the TTS is probably covered by a large number of compact and very dense magnetic structures, which confine the X-ray emitting plasma. Magnetic interaction between these regions may be the driving source of the frequent and powerful X-ray flares. In [some]{} TTS, very extended magnetic structure with lengths of $\,>\!10 \times R_\ast$, which presumably connect the star to the circumstellar disk, seem to be involved. The TTS do not follow the activity-rotation relation seen in late-type main-sequence stars and the action of a solar-like $\alpha\!-\!\Omega$-type dynamo seems to be excluded by their (nearly) fully convective stellar structure. The ultimate origin of the X-ray activity of the TTS may be a turbulent dynamo working in the stellar convection zone. Accretion shocks at the stellar surface can not be responsible for the bulk of the observed X-ray emission in the vast majority of TTS. Despite observational hints towards accretion shock related X-ray emission in some TTS, this emission mechanism seems important (in comparison to coronal emission) only in a few exceptional objects. I would like to thank Hans Zinnecker for many years of motivation and advice in studying the X-ray emission of T Tauri stars. Briggs, K. R., et al.2007, , in press \[astro-ph/0701422\] Calvet, N., & Gullbring, E. 1998, , 509, 802 Casanova, S., Montmerle, T., Feigelson, E.D., & André, P. 1995, , 439, 752 Dobler, W., Stix, M., & Brandenburg, A. 2006, , 638, 336 Drake, J. J. 2005, in Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun: 13th Cambridge Workshop, ed. F. Favata & G. Hussain (ESA-SP; Noordwijk: ESA), p. 519 Durney, B.R., De Young, D.S., Roxburgh, I.W. 1993, SolPhys, 145, 2070 Favata, F. & Micela, G. 2003, Space Science Reviews, 108, 577 Favata, F., Giardino, G., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Damiani, F.2003, , 403, 187 Favata, F., et al. 2005, , 160, 469 Feigelson, E. D. & Montmerle, T. 1999, , 37, 363 Feigelson, E.D., & DeCampli, W.M. 1981, , 243, L89 Feigelson, E. D., Garmire, G. P., & Pravdo, S. H. 2002, , 572, 335 Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2003, , 584, 911 Flaccomio, E., et al. 2003, , 582, 398 Flaccomio, E., et al. 2005, , 160, 450 Gagné, M., Caillault, J.-P. & Stauffer, J. R. 1995, , 445, 280 Getman, K. V., et al.2005a, , 160, 319 Giampapa, M.S., et al. 1996, , 463, 707 Glassgold, A. E., Feigelson, E. D., Montmerle, T., & Wolk, S. 2005, ASP Conf. Ser. 341: Chondrites and the Protoplanetary Disk, 341, 165 Güdel, M., et al. 2007, , in press \[astro-ph/0609160\] Jardine, M., et al. 2006, , 367, 917 Kastner, J. H., et al. 2002, , 567, 434 Küker, M., & Rüdiger, G.1999, , 346, 922 Maggio, A., Sciortino, S., Vaiana, G.S., et al. 1987, , 315, 687 Messina, S., Pizzolato, N., Guinan, E.F., & Rodono, M. 2003, , 410, 671 Montesinos, B., Thomas, J.H., Ventura, P., & Mazzitelli, I. 2001, , 326, 877 Pallavicini, R., et al. 1981, , 248, 279 Pizzolato, N., et al. 2003, , 397, 147 Preibisch, Th. & Zinnecker, H. 2002, , 123, 1613 Preibisch, Th., Zinnecker, H., & Herbig, G.H. 1996, , 310, 456 Preibisch, Th., et al. 2005a, , 160, 401 Preibisch, Th., et al. 2005b, , 160, 582 Romanova, M.M., et al. 2004, , 616, L151 Sanz-Forcada, J., Brickhouse, N.S., Dupree, A.K. 2003, , 145, 147 Schmitt, J.H.M.M. & Liefke, C. 2004, , 417, 651 Schmitt, J. H. M. M., et al. 2005, , 432, L35 Stassun, K. G., van den Berg, M., Feigelson, E., & Flaccomio, E. 2006, , 649, 914 Stelzer, B., Neuhäuser, R. 2001, , 377, 538 Telleschi, A., et al. 2007, , in press \[astro-ph/0612338\] Wolk, S.J., et al. 2005, , 160, 423	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'V. Bergelson$^{}$, A. Gorodnik' title: 'Weakly mixing group actions: a brief survey and an example' --- Introduction ============ At its inception in the early 1930’s, ergodic theory concerned itself with continuous one-parameter flows of measure preserving transformations ([@birk], [@neum], [@kn], [@hop1], [@hop2]). Soon it was realized that working with $\mathbb{Z}$-actions rather than with $\mathbb{R}$-actions, has certain advantages. On the one hand, while the proofs become simpler, the results for $\mathbb{R}$-actions can often be easily derived from those for $\mathbb{Z}$-actions (see, for example, [@kolm]). On the other hand, dealing with $\mathbb{Z}$-(or even with $\mathbb{N}$-) actions extends the range of applications to measure preserving transformations which are not necessarily embeddable in a flow. Weakly mixing systems were introduced (under the name [dynamical systems of continuous spectra]{}) in [@kn]. By the time of publishing in 1937 of Hopf’s book [@hop3], the equivalence of the following conditions (which, for convenience, we formulate for $\mathbb{Z}$-actions) was already known. It is perhaps worth noticing that, while in most books either (i) or (ii) below is taken as the “official” definition of weak mixing, the original definition in [@kn] corresponds to the condition (vi). \[th\_mix\_cond\] Let $T$ be an invertible measure-preserving transformation of a probability measure space $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$. Let $U_T$ denote the operator defined on the space of measurable functions by $(U_Tf)(x) = f(Tx)$. The following conditions are equivalent: 1. For any $A,B\in {\mathcal B}$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \vert \mu(A\cap T^{-n}B) - \mu(A)\mu(B)\vert = 0.$$ 2. For any $A,B\in {\mathcal B}$, there is a set $P\subset \N$ of density zero such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty,\, n\notin P} \mu(A\cap T^{-n}B) = \mu(A)\mu(B).$$ 3. $T\times T$ is ergodic on the Cartesian square of $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$. 4. For any ergodic probability measure preserving system $(Y,{\mathcal D}, \nu, S)$, the transformation $T\times S$ is ergodic on $X\times Y$. 5. If $f$ is a measurable function such that for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb C},\; U_Tf = \lambda f$ a.e., then $f= const$ a.e. 6. For $f\in L^2(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$ with $\int_X f d\mu=0$, consider the representation of the positive definite sequence $\langle U_T^n f, f\rangle , n\in \Z$, as a Fourier transform of a measure $\nu$ on ${\mathbb T}=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$: $$\langle U_T^n f, f\rangle = \int_ {\mathbb T} e^{2\pi inx} d\nu,\quad n\in \Z$$ (this representation is guaranteed by Herglotz theorem, see [@he]). Then $\nu$ has no atoms. \[12\] It is not too hard to show that condition (i) can be replaced by the following more general condition: 1. For any $A,B\in {\mathcal B}$ and any sequence of intervals $I_N=[a_N+1,a_N+2,\ldots,b_N]\subset\mathbb{Z}$, $N\ge 1$, with $\|I_N\|=b_N-a_N\to\infty$, one has $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{\|I_N\|} \sum_{n=a_N+1}^{b_N} \vert \mu(A\cap T^{-n}B) - \mu(A)\mu(B)\vert = 0.$$ Condition ($\hbox{i}^\prime$), in its turn, is equivalent to a still more general condition in which the sequence of intervals $\{I_N\}_{N\ge 1}$ is replaced by an arbitrary [Følner]{} sequence, i.e. a sequence of finite sets $F_N\subset \mathbb{Z}$, $N\ge 1$, such that for any $a\in Z$, $$\frac{\|(F_N+a)\cap F_N\|}{\|F_N\|}\to 1\quad\hbox{as}\quad N\to\infty.$$ This more general form of condition ($\hbox{i}^\prime$) makes sense for any (countably infinite) amenable group and, as we shall see below (cf. Theorem \[th\_dye\]), can be used to define the notion of weak mixing for actions of amenable groups. \[r12\] If $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$ is a [separable]{} space (which will be tacitly assumed from now on), the condition (ii) can be replaced by the following condition (see Theorem I in [@kn]): 1. There exists a set $P\subset\mathbb{N}$ of density zero such that for any $A,B\in {\mathcal B}$, one has $$\mathop{\lim}_{n\to\infty,n\notin P} \mu (A\cap T^{-n} B)=\mu (A)\mu(B).$$ Condition (ii) in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond\] indicates the subtle but significant difference between weak and strong mixing: while for strong mixing one has $\mu (A\cap T^{-n}B)\to \mu (A)\mu(B)$ as $n\to\pm\infty$ for [any]{} pair of measurable sets, a weakly mixing system which is not strongly mixing is characterized by the [absence]{} of mixing for [some]{} sets along [some]{} rarefied (i.e. having density zero) sequence of times. Although the first examples of weakly but not strongly mixing measure preserving transformations were quite complicated, numerous classes of measure preserving systems that satisfy this property are known by now. For instance, one can show that the so-called interval exchange transformations (IET) are often weakly mixing ([@ks], [@ve]). On the other hand, A. Katok proved in [@ka] that the IET are never strongly mixing. It should be also mentioned here that weakly mixing measure preserving transformations are “typical”, whereas strongly mixing ones are not (see, for example, [@halm]). Before moving our discussion to weakly mixing actions of general groups, we would like to formulate some more recent results which exhibit new interesting facets of the notion of weak mixing. \[th\_mix\_cond2\] Let $T$ be an invertible measure-preserving transformation of a probability measure space $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$. The following conditions are equivalent: 1. The transformation $T$ is weakly mixing. 2. Weakly independent sets are dense in ${\mathcal B}$. (Here a set $A\in {\mathcal B}$ is [weakly independent]{} if there exists a sequence $n_1 < n_2 < \cdots $ such that the sets $T^{-n_i}A$, $i\ge 1$, are mutually independent). 3. For any $A\in {\mathcal B}$ and $k\in \N,\ k\ge 2,$ one has $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \mu(A\cap T^{-n}A\cap T^{-2n}A\cap\cdots \cap T^{-kn}A ) = (\mu(A))^{k+1}.$$ 4. For any $k\in \N,\ k\ge 2,$ any $f_1, f_2,...,f_k \in L^\infty(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$, and any non-constant polynomials $p_1(n), p_2(n),..., p_k(n) \in \Z [n]$ such that for all $i\neq j$, , one has $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} f_1(T^{p_1(n)}x) f_2(T^{p_2(n)}x)\cdots f_k(T^{p_k(n)}x) = \int\!\! f_1d\mu \int\!\! f_2d\mu\cdots \int\!\! f_kd\mu$$ in $L^2$-norm. Condition (ii) is due to U. Krengel (see [@k] for this and related results). Condition (iii) plays a crucial role in Furstenberg’s ergodic proof of Szemerédi’s theorem on arithmetic progressions (see [@f_n] and [@fbook]). Criterion (iv) was obtained in [@b_n]. Similarly to the “linear” case (iii), the condition (iv) (or, actually, some variations of it) plays an important role in proofs of polynomial extensions of Szemerédi’s theorem (see [@bl_n], [@bm1], [@bm2], [@l]). Note that the assumption $k\ge 2$ in (iii) and (iv) is essential. Indeed, for $k=1$ condition (ii) expresses just the ergodicity of $T$, whereas for $k=1$, condition (iv) is equivalent to the assertion that all non-zero powers of $T$ are ergodic. The following equivalent form of condition (iv) is, however, both true and nontrivial already for $k=1$ (cf. condition ($\hbox{ii}^\prime$) in Remark \[r12\]): 1. For any $k\ge 1$ and any nonconstant polynomials $p_1(n),\ldots,p_k(n)\in\mathbb{Z}[n]$ such that for all $i\ne j$, $\hbox{deg}(p_i-p_j)>0$, there exists a set $P\subset\mathbb{N}$ having zero density such that for any sets $A_0,\ldots,A_k\in {\mathcal B}$, one has $$\mathop{\lim}_{n\to\infty,n\notin P} \mu (A_0\cap T^{p_1(n)} A_1\cap \cdots \cap T^{p_k(n)}A_k)=\mu (A_0)\mu(A_1)\ldots\mu(A_k).$$ Theorems \[th\_mix\_cond\], \[th\_mix\_cond2\], and numerous appearances and applications of weakly mixing one-parameter actions in ergodic theory hint that the notion of weak mixing could be of interest and of importance for actions of more general groups. One wants, of course, not only to be able to come up with a definition (this is not too hard: for example, condition (iii) in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond\] makes sense for any group action), but also to be able to have, similarly to the case of one-parameter actions, many diverse equivalent forms of weak mixing including those which pertain to independence and higher degree mixing properties of the type given in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond2\]. Let $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ be a measure preserving action of a locally compact group $G$ on a probability measure space $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$. If $G$ is amenable, one can replace condition (i) in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond\] (or, rather, condition ($\hbox{i}^\prime$) in remark \[12\]) by the assertion that the averages of the expressions $\|\mu(A\cap T_g B)-\mu(A)\mu(B)\|$ taken along any Følner sequence in $G$ converge to zero. If $G$ is noncommutative, one also has to replace condition (v) by the assertion that the only finite-dimensional subrepresentation of $(U_g)_{g\in G}$ (where $U_g$ is defined by $(U_gf)(x)=f(T_g^{-1}x)$, $f\in L^2(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$) is the restriction to the subspace of constant functions. H. Dye has shown in [@dye] that under these modifications the conditions (i), (iii), and (v) in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond\] are equivalent. Dye’s results are summarized in the following theorem (cf. [@dye], Corollary 1, p. 129). Again, for the sake of notational convenience, we state the theorem for the case of a countable group $G$. \[th\_dye\] Let $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ be a measure preserving action of a countable amenable group $G$ on a probability measure space $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent: 1. For every Følner sequence $(F_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ in $G$ and any $A,B\in\mathcal{B}$, one has $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{\|F_n\|}\sum_{g\in F_n} \|\mu(A\cap T_g B)-\mu(A)\mu(B)\|=0.$$ 2. The only finite dimensional subrepresentation of $(U_g)_{g\in G}$ is its restriction to the space of constant functions. 3. The diagonal action of $(T_g\times T_g)_{g\in G}$ on the product space $(X\times X, {\mathcal B}\otimes {\mathcal B}, \mu\otimes\mu)$ is ergodic (i.e. has no nontrivial invariant sets). \[r17\] [As a matter of fact, it is not too hard to show that conditions (ii) and (iii) in Theorem \[th\_dye\] are equivalent for any locally compact noncompact second countable group. See, for instance, [@mo], Proposition 1, p. 157. ]{} A measure preserving system $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu, T)$ is called a system with [discrete spectrum]{} if $L^2(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$ is spanned by the eigenfunctions of the induced unitary operator $U_T$. It is not hard to show that the condition (v) in Theorem \[th\_mix\_cond\] implies that a measure preserving system $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu, T)$ is weakly mixing if and only if it does not have a nontrivial factor which is a system with discrete spectrum. Remark \[r17\] hints that a natural generalization of this fact to general group actions holds as well. (A measure preserving action of a group $G$ on a probability space $(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$ has discrete spectrum if $L^2(X, {\mathcal B}, \mu)$ is representable as a direct sum of finite-dimensional invariant subspaces.) In [@neum2] and [@halm] von Neumann and Halmos have shown that an ergodic one-parameter measure preserving action has discrete spectrum if and only if it is conjugate to an action by rotations on a compact abelian group. Again, this result has a natural extension to general group actions. See [@mac] for details and further discussion. The duality between the notion of weak mixing and discrete spectrum extends to the [relative case]{}, namely, to the situation where one studies the properties of a system relatively to its factors. The theory of relative weak mixing is in the core of highly nontrivial structure theory developed by H. Furstenberg in the course of his proof ([@f_n]) of Szemerédi theorem. See also [@fk] and [@fbook], Chapter 6. In [@zi1] and [@zi2] the duality between weak mixing and discrete spectrum is generalized to extensions of general group actions. In particular, Zimmer established a far reaching “relative” version of Mackey’s results on actions with discrete spectrum. A useful interpretation of condition (i) in Theorem \[th\_dye\] is that if $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ is a weakly mixing action of an amenable group $G$, then for every $A,B\in\mathcal{B}$ and $\varepsilon>0$, the set $$R_{A,B}=\{g\in G: \|\mu(A\cap T_g B)-\mu (A)\mu (B)\|<\varepsilon\}$$ is large in the sense that it has density $1$ with respect to any Følner sequence $(F_n)_{n=1}^\infty$: $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\|R\cap F_n\|}{\|F_n\|}=1.$$ A natural question that one is led to by this fact is whether there is a similar characterization of the sets $R_{A,B}$ in the case when $G$ is not necessarily amenable. It turns out that for every locally compact group which acts in a weakly mixing fashion on a probability space, the set $R_{A,B}$ is always “conull”, and in more than one sense. One approach, undertaken in [@br], is to utilize the classical fact that functions of the form $\psi(g)=\mu(A\cap T_g A)$ are positive definite. This implies that such $\psi (g)$, as well as a slightly more general functions of the form $\phi(g)=\mu(A\cap T_g B)$, are [weakly almost periodic]{} (see [@eb]). By a theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski (see [@rn]), there is a unique invariant mean on the space $\hbox{WAP}(G)$ of weakly almost periodic functions. Denoting this mean by $M$ and assuming that for every $A,B\in\mathcal{B}$, the function $g\mapsto \mu(A\cap T_gB)$ is continuous on $G$, let us call the action $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ weakly mixing if for all $$f_1,f_2\in L^2_0(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)\stackrel{def}{=}\{f\in L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu): \int_X fd\mu=0\},$$ one has $$M\left(\left\|\int_X f_1(x)f_2(T_gx)d\mu(x)\right\|\right)=0.$$ \[th\_br\] ([@br], Theorem 4.1) Let $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ be a measure preserving action of a locally compact second countable group $G$ on a probability space $(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$. The following are equivalent: 1. $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ is weakly mixing. 2. For every $f_1,f_2\in L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, $$M\left(\left\|\int_X f_1(x)f_2(T_gx)d\mu(x)-\int f_1d\mu\int f_2d\mu\right\|\right)=0.$$ 3. For every $f_0,\ldots,f_n\in L^2_0(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$ and $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $g\in G$ with $$\left\|\int_X f_0(x)f_i(T_gx)d\mu(x)\right\|<\varepsilon,\quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ 4. For every $g_1,\ldots,g_n\in G$, $f\in L^2_0(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, and $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $g\in G$ such that $$\left\|\int_X f(T_gx)f(T_{g_i}x)d\mu(x)\right\|<\varepsilon,\quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ 5. For all $F\in L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, where $F$ is not equivalent to a constant, the set $\{f(T_gx):g\in G\}$ is not relatively compact in $L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$. 6. $L^2_0(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$ contains no nontrivial finite dimensional invariant subspaces of $(U_g)_{g\in G}$. 7. $(T_g\times T_g)_{g\in G}$ is ergodic. 8. $(T_g\times T_g)_{g\in G}$ is weakly mixing. We shall describe now one more approach to weak mixing for general group actions (see [@b], Section 4, for more details and discussion). Let $G$ be a countably infinite, not necessarily amenable discrete group. For the purposes of the following discussion it will be convenient to view $\beta G$, the Stone-Čech compactification of $G$, as the space of ultrafilters on $G$, i.e. the space of $\{0,1\}$-valued finitely additive probability measures on the power set $\mathcal{P}(G)$ of $G$. Since elements of $\beta G$ are $\{0,1\}$-valued measures, it is natural to identify each $p\in\beta G$ with the set of all subsets having $p$-measure $1$, and so we shall write $A\in p$ instead of $p(A)=1$. (This explains the terminology: ultrafilters are just [maximal]{} filters.) Given $p,q\in G$, one defines the product $p\cdot q$ by $$A\in p\cdot q \Leftrightarrow \{x:Ax^{-1}\in p\}\in q.$$ The operation defined above is nothing but convolution of measures, which, on the other hand, is an extension of the group operation on $G$. (Note that elements of $G$ are in one-to-one correspondence with point masses, the so-called [principal]{} ultrafilters.) It is not hard to check that the operation introduced above is associative and that $(\beta G,\cdot)$ is a left topological compact semigroup (which, alas, is never a group for infinite $G$). For a comprehensive treatment of topological algebra in the Stone-Čech compactification, the reader is referred to [@his]. By a theorem due to R. Ellis [@e1], any compact semigroup with a left continuous operation has an idempotent. (There are, actually, plenty of them since there are $2^\mathfrak{c}$ disjoint compact semigroups in $\beta G$.) Idempotent ultrafilters find numerous applications in combinatorics (see, for example, [@hin_su] and [@his], Part 3) and also are quite useful in ergodic theory and topological dynamics (see, for example, [@b0], [@b]). Given an ultrafilter $p\in\beta G$ and a sequence $(x_g)_{g\in G}$ in a compact Hausdorff space, one writes $$\plim_{g\in G} x_g=y$$ if for any neighborhood $U$ of $y$, one has $$\{g\in G: x_g\in U\}\in p.$$ Note that in compact Hausdorff spaces p-limit always exists and is unique. The following theorem, which is an ultrafilter analogue of Theorem 1.7 from [@fk2], illustrates the natural connection between idempotents in $\beta G$ and ergodic theory of unitary actions. \[th\_ult\] Let $(U_g)_{g\in G}$ be a unitary action of a countable group $G$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. For any nonprincipal idempotent $p\in \beta G$ and any $f\in\mathcal{H}$ one has $$\plim_{g\in G} U_gf=Pf\quad (\hbox{weakly})$$ where $P$ is the orthogonal projection on the subspace $\mathcal{H}_r$ of , that is, the space defined by $$\mathcal{H}_r=\{f:\plim U_gf=f\}.$$ Theorem \[th\_ult\] has a strong resemblance to the classical von Neumann’s ergodic theorem. In both theorems a generalized limit of $U_gf$, $g\in G$, (in case of von Neumann’s theorem this is the Cesáro limit) is equal to an orthogonal projection of $f$ on a subspace of $\mathcal{H}$. But while von Neumann’s theorem extends via Cesáro averages over Følner sets to amenable groups only, Theorem \[th\_ult\] holds for nonamenable groups as well. Given an element $p\in\beta G$, it is easy to see that $R=p\cdot\beta G$ is a right ideal in $\beta G$ (that is, $R\cdot\beta G\subseteq R$). By using Zorn’s lemma one can show that any right ideal contains a minimal ideal. It is also not hard to prove that any minimal right ideal in a compact left topological semigroup is closed (see [@b], Theorem 2.1 and Exercise 6). Now, by Ellis’ theorem, any minimal ideal in $\beta G$ contains an idempotent. Idempotents belonging to minimal ideals are called minimal. It is minimal idempotents which allow one to introduce a new characterization of weak mixing for general groups. Recall that a set $A\subseteq \Z$ is called [syndetic]{} if it has bounded gaps and [piecewise-syndetic]{} if it is an intersection of a syndetic set with a union of arbitrarily long intervals. The following definition extends these notions to general semigroups. Let $G$ be a (discrete) semigroup. 1. A set $A\subseteq G$ is called syndetic if for some finite set $F\subset G$, one has $$\bigcup_{t\in F}At^{-1}=G.$$ 2. A set $A\subseteq G$ is piecewise syndetic if for some finite set $F\subset G$, the family $$\left\{ \left(\bigcup_{t\in F}At^{-1}\right)a^{-1}:\ a\in G\right\}$$ has the finite intersection property. The following proposition establishes the connection between minimal idempotents and certain notions of largeness for subsets of $G$. It will be used below to give a new sense to the fact that for a weakly mixing action on a probability space $(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, the set $R_{A,B}$ is large for all $\varepsilon>0$ and $A,B\in\mathcal{B}$. (see [@b], Exercise 7) Let $G$ be a discrete semigroup and $p\in (\beta G,\cdot)$ a minimal idempotent. Then 1. For any $A\in p$, the set $B=\{g:\ Ag^{-1}\in p\}$ is syndetic. 2. Any $A\in p$ is piecewise syndetic. 3. For any $A\in p$, the set $$A^{-1}A = \{x\in G:yx\in A\hbox{ for some }y\in A\}$$ is syndetic. (Note that if $G$ is a group, then $A^{-1}A= \{g_1^{-1}g_2 : g_1,g_2 \in A\}$.) A set $A\subseteq G$ is called central if there exists a minimal idempotent $p\in\beta G$ such that $A\in p$. A set $A\subseteq G$ is called a $C^$-set (or central$^$ set) if $A$ is a member of any minimal idempotent in $\beta G$. [The original definition of central sets (in $\Z$), which is due to Furstenberg (see [@fbook], p. 161), was the following: a subset $S\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is a central set if there exists a system $(X, T)$, a point $x\in X$, a uniformly recurrent point $y$ proximal to $x$, and a neighborhood $U_y$ of $y$ such that $S=\{ n:\ T^nx\in U_y\}$. The fact that central sets can be equivalently defined as members of minimal idempotents was established in [@bh_nm]. See also Theorem 3.6 in [@b]. ]{} The following theorem gives yet another characterization of the notion of weak mixing. (see [@b], Section 4) Let $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ be a measure preserving action of a countable group $G$ on a probability space $(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$. Then the following are equivalent: 1. $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ is weakly mixing. 2. For every $f\in L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$ and any minimal idempotent $p\in\beta G$, one has $$\plim_{g\in G} f(T_gx)=\int_X fd\mu\quad\hbox{(weakly)}.$$ 3. There exists a minimal idempotent $p\in\beta G$ such that for any $f\in L^2(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, one has $\plim_{g\in G} f(T_gx)=\int_X fd\mu$ (weakly). 4. For any $A,B\in {\mathcal B}$ and any $\varepsilon > 0$, the set $$\{ g\in G : \vert\mu(A\cap T_gB) - \mu(A)\mu(B)\vert < \varepsilon\}$$ is a C$^$-set. Given a weakly mixing action of, say, a countable (but not necessarily amenable) group $G$, one would like to know whether the action has higher order mixing properties along some massive and/or well-organized subsets of $G$. For example, it is not hard to show that for any weakly mixing $\mathbb{Z}$-action and any nonconstant polynomial $p(n)\in\mathbb{Z}[n]$, one can find an $IP$-set $S$ such that for any $A,B \in\mathcal{B}$, one has $$\mathop{\lim}_{n\to\infty,n\in S} \mu (A\cap T^{p(n)} B)=\mu (A)\mu(B).$$ (An [$IP$]{}-set generated by a sequence $\{n_i:i\ge 1\}$ is, by definition, any set of the form $\{n_{i_1}+\cdots+n_{i_k}:i_1<\cdots <i_k;\; k\in\mathbb{N}\}$.) Another example of higher degree mixing along structured sets is provided by a theorem proved in [@brud], according to which any weakly mixing action of a countable infinite direct sum $G=\oplus_{n\ge 1} \mathbb{Z}_p$, where $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is the field of residues modulo $p$, has the property that the restriction of the action of $G$ to an infinite subgroup (which is isomorphic to $G$) is Bernoulli (see also [@bkm1], [@bkm2], [@bklm], [@jrw], [@j], [@begun1]). In Section 2 below we give a detailed analysis of higher order mixing properties for a concrete classical example — the standard action of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ on the $2$-dimensional torus $\mathbb{T}^2$. Since $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ contains mixing automorphisms (namely, hyperbolic automorphisms), this action is weakly mixing. On the other hand, this action is not strongly mixing because $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ contains nontrivial unipotent elements. While many of the results obtained below hold (sometimes, after an appropriate modification) for toral actions of $\hbox{\rm SL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ and even in more general situations, we intentionally deal here with $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$-actions in order to make the paper more accessible and important issues more transparent. Here is a sample of what is proved in the next section: - (cf. Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\]) Let $T_1,\ldots, T_k\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$. Then the following assertions are equivalent: 1. For every $A_0,\ldots, A_k\in\mathcal{B}$, $$\mu(A_0\cap T_1^nA_1\cap \cdots \cap T_k^nA_k)\to \mu(A_0)\cdots\mu(A_k)\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ 2. Each $T_i$ is hyperbolic, $T_i\ne \pm T_j$ for $i\ne j$, and for every $\rho>1$, there are at most two matrices among $T_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, having an eigenvalue $\lambda$ such that $\|\lambda\|=\rho$. - (cf. Proposition \[p\_rohlin\]) Let $T_1,\ldots,T_k\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be hyperbolic automorphisms. Denote by $\lambda_i$ the eigenvalue of $T_i$ such that $\|\lambda_i\|>1$. Put $a_{0,n}=0$, $n\ge 1$. Let $k\ge 1$ and $a_{i,n}\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, be such that $$\min\{ \left\|\log \|\lambda_i\|\cdot a_{i,n}-\log \|\lambda_j\|\cdot a_{j,n}\right\|:0\le i<j\le n\}\to\infty\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ Then for every $A_0,\ldots, A_k\in\mathcal{B}$, $$\mu(A_0\cap T_1^{a_{1,n}}A_1\cap \cdots \cap T_k^{a_{k,n}}A_k)\to \mu(A_0)\cdots\mu(A_k)\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ This result generalizes Rokhlin’s theorem [@roh] in the case of $2$-dimensional torus. See also Proposition \[p\_um\] for an analogue of this result for unipotent automorphisms. - While every abelian group of automorphisms $G$, which acts in a mixing fashion on $\mathbb{T}^2$, is mixing of order $k$ for every $k\ge 1$, (that is, for every $k\ge 1$ and sequences $g_{0,n}=e$, $g_{1,n},\ldots, g_{k,n}\in G$ such that $$g_{i,n}^{-1}g_{j,n}\to \infty\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty\quad\hbox{for}\quad 0\le i<j\le k,$$ one has $$\mu(A_0\cap g_{1,n}A_1\cap \cdots \cap g_{k,n}A_k)\to \mu(A_0)\cdots\mu(A_k)\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty)$$ a nonabelian group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{T}^2$ is never mixing of order $2$ (see Proposition \[p\_no\_3\]). Note that there are nonabelian groups of automorphisms that act in a mixing fashion on $\mathbb{T}^2$ (see the discussion after Proposition \[p-np\]). $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$-action on torus ============================================= A sequence $T_n\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, is called mixing if for every $f_1,f_2\in L^\infty (\mathbb{T}^2)$, $$\label{eq_mixing} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_1(T_n\xi)f_2(\xi)d\xi\to \left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}f_1(\xi)d\xi\right)\left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}f_2(\xi)d\xi\right)\quad \hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ A transformation $T\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is called mixing if the sequence $T^n$, $n\ge 1$, is mixing. Note that this definition is different from the one given in [@berb]. Recall that a matrix $T$ is called [hyperbolic]{} if its eigenvalues have absolute values different from $1$, and [unipotent]{} if all its eigenvalues are equal to $1$. It is well-known that an automorphism $T\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is mixing on the torus $\mathbb{T}^2$ if and only if it is hyperbolic. This implies that the action of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ on $\mathbb{T}^2$ is weakly but not strongly mixing and motivates the following problem: give necessary and sufficient conditions for a sequence $T_n\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, to be mixing. We start with a useful and straightforward lemma (cf. Theorem 3.1(1) in [@ber]). For a matrix $T$, denote by $\t T$ its transpose. \[l\_mix1\] A sequence $T_n\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, is mixing if and only if for every $(x,y)\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$, the equality $\t T_n x+y=0$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. To prove that $T_n$ is mixing, it is sufficient to check (\[eq\_mixing\]) for $f_1$ and $f_2$ in the dense subspace of trigonometric polynomials. It follows that $T_n$ is mixing if and only if (\[eq\_mixing\]) holds for $f_1$ and $f_2$ that are characters of the form $$\label{eq_xi} \chi_{_x}(\xi)=e^{2\pi i\left<x,\xi\right>},\quad x\in\mathbb{Z}^2, \xi\in\mathbb{T}^2.$$ For $x,y\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, one has $$\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_x}(T_n\xi)\chi_{_y}(\xi)d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_{\t T_nx+y}}(\xi)d\xi= \begin{cases} 0 & \hbox{if}\quad \t T_nx+y\ne 0,\\ 1 & \hbox{if}\quad \t T_nx+y= 0.\\ \end{cases}$$ It follows that for $(x,y)\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$, $$\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_x}(T_n\xi)\chi_{_y}(\xi)d\xi\to \left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}\chi_{_x}(\xi)d\xi\right)\left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}\chi_{_y}(\xi)d\xi\right)=0\quad \hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty$$ if and only if the equality $\t T_n x+y=0$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. This proves the lemma. Denote by $\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{K})$ the set of $2\times 2$-matrices over a field $\mathbb{K}$. Using Lemma \[l\_mix1\], we can now prove the following proposition. \[p\_mix\_1\] Let $T_n\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, $\\|\cdot\\|$ be the $\max$-norm on $\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{R})$, and $\mathcal{D}\subset\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{R})$ denote the set of limit points of the sequence $\frac{T_n}{\\|T_n\\|}$ as $n\to\infty$. Then the sequence $T_n$ is not mixing if and only if there exist $A\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{Q})$ and $B\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{Q})$ such that $B\in \mathcal{D}$ and $T_n=A+ \\|T_n\\|B$ for infinitely many $n\ge 1$. We may assume that $\\|T_n\\|\rightarrow\infty$. (Indeed, if $\\|T_n\\|\nrightarrow\infty$, then there exists a matrix $T_0$ such that $T_n=T_0$ for infinitely many $n$, and the statement is obvious.) “$\Leftarrow$”: Let $T_n=A+ \\|T_n\\|B$. Since $$\det B= \mathop{\lim}_{n\to\infty} \det \left(\frac{T_n}{\\|T_n\\|}\right)=\mathop{\lim}_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{\\|T_n\\|^2}=0,$$ $B$ is degenerate. Thus, there exists $x\in\mathbb{Z}^2-\{0\}$ such that $\;\t Bx=0$. Then for infinitely many $n$, $\t T_nx=\t Ax$, and, by Lemma \[l\_mix1\], $T_n$ is not mixing. “$\Rightarrow$”: By Lemma \[l\_mix1\], there exists $(x,y)\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$ such that $\t T_nx=-y$ for infinitely many $n$. By passing, if needed, to a subsequence, we may assume that this equality holds for all $n\ge 1$. It is clear that $\gcd (x_1,x_2)=\gcd (y_1,y_2)$. Thus, we may assume that $x$ and $y$ are [primitive]{} (that is, the $\gcd$ of their coordinates is $1$). Take $C,D\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $Ce_1=x$ and $De_1=-y$ where $e_1=(1,0)$. Then $$ T\_n=D( ----- ------- $1$ $a_n$ $0$ $1$ ----- ------- )C\^[-1]{}=DC\^[-1]{}+a\_n D( ----- ----- $0$ $1$ $0$ $0$ ----- ----- )C\^[-1]{} $$ for some $a_n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Put $\t F_1=DC^{-1}$ and $\;\t F_2=D\left(\begin{tabular}{rr} $0$ & $1$\\ $0$ & $0$ \end{tabular} \right)C^{-1}$. We have $$\label{eq_m0} T_n=F_1+a_nF_2,$$ and $$\label{eq_m1} \|a_n\|\cdot\\|F_2\\|-\\|F_1\\|\le \\|T_n\\|\le \|a_n\|\cdot\\|F_2\\|+\\|F_1\\|.$$ Hence, $\\|T_n\\|\sim \|a_n\|\cdot\\|F_2\\|$ as $n\to\infty$. Replacing, if necessary, $F_2$ by $-F_2$ and $a_n$ by $-a_n$ we may assume that $a_n>0$ for infinitely many $n$. Then $B\stackrel{def}{=}\frac{F_2}{\\|F_2\\|}\in \mathcal{D}$. Passing to a subsequence, we get that $a_n>0$ for $n\ge 1$. By triangle inequality and (\[eq\_m1\]), $$\left\\| T_n- \\|T_n\\|\frac{F_2}{\\|F_2\\|} \right\\| \le \\| T_n-a_nF_2 \\| + \left\\| a_n F_2-\\|T_n\\|\frac{F_2}{\\|F_2\\|} \right\\| =\\|F_1\\|+\left\| a_n\\|F_2\\|-\\|T_n\\|\right\|\le 2\\|F_1\\|.$$ Thus, for infinitely many $n$, $T_n- \\|T_n\\|B=A$ for some $A\in \hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{Q})$. This proves the proposition. We illustrate the usefulness of Proposition \[p\_mix\_1\] by the following two propositions. Let $U,V\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be unipotent matrices. Then the sequence $T_n=U^{-n}V^n$ is mixing if and only if $UV\ne VU$. If $U$ and $V$ commute, one can show that they are powers of a single unipotent transformation. Hence, in this case, the sequence $T_n=U^{-n}V^n$ is not mixing. Conversely, suppose that $UV\ne VU$. There exist $A,B\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $$ U=A\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $u$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )AV=B\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $v$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )B $$ for some $u,v\in\mathbb{Z}-\{0\}$. It is sufficient to show that the sequence $S_n=A T_nB^{-1}$ is mixing. Let $AB^{-1}=\left(\begin{tabular}{rr} $a$ & $b$\\ $c$ & $d$ \end{tabular} \right)$. We have $$ S\_n=( ----- ------- $1$ $-nu$ $0$ $1$ ----- ------- )AB\^[-1]{}( ----- ------ $1$ $nv$ $0$ $1$ ----- ------ ) =( ----------- ---------------------- $a-(cu)n$ $b-(av+du)n-(cv)n^2$ $c$ $d+(cv)n$ ----------- ---------------------- ). $$ When $c=0$, $$ V=B\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $v$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )B =B\^[-1]{}(AB\^[-1]{})\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $v$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )(AB\^[-1]{})B= A\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $v$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )A, $$ and it follows that $U$ and $V$ commute. Thus, $c\ne 0$. We apply now Proposition \[p\_mix\_1\]. For sufficiently large $n$, $\\|S_n\\|=\|b-(av+du)n-(cv)n^2\|$. Also $$ ( ----- -------------------- $0$ $-\hbox{sign}(cv)$ $0$ $0$ ----- -------------------- ) C. $$ Since $S_n-\\|S_n\\|C$ is not constant for infinitely many $n$, the sequence $S_n$ is mixing. When $U,V\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ are commuting unipotent transformations, the sequence $U^{-n}V^n$ is relatively mixing in the sense of Definition \[def\_rmix\] below. Using a similar argument, one proves the following proposition: Let $U,V\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $U$ is unipotent, and $V$ is hyperbolic. Then the sequence $T_n=U^{-n}V^n$ is mixing. Denote by $E_{ij}$ the $2\times 2$ matrix with $1$ in position $(i,j)$ and $0$’s elsewhere. For some $A,B\in\hbox{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $\lambda$ with $\|\lambda\|>1$, $$ U=A\^[-1]{}( ----------- ---------------- $\lambda$ $0$ $0$ $\lambda^{-1}$ ----------- ---------------- )AV=B\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $1$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )B. $$We write$$ T\_n=A\^[-1]{}( ---------------- ------------- $\lambda^{-n}$ $0$ $0$ $\lambda^n$ ---------------- ------------- )AB\^[-1]{}( ----- ----- $1$ $n$ $0$ $1$ ----- ----- )B =\^[-n]{} C+ \^[-n]{}n D+ \^[n]{} E +\^[n]{}n F $$where$$ C=A\^[-1]{}E\_[11]{}A, D=A\^[-1]{}E\_[11]{}AB\^[-1]{}E\_[12]{}B, E=A\^[-1]{}E\_[22]{}A, F=A\^[-1]{}E\_[22]{}AB\^[-1]{}E\_[12]{}B. $$ Suppose that $F\ne 0$. Then $\frac{T_n}{\\|T_n\\|}\to \frac{F}{\\|F\\|}$. By Proposition \[p\_mix\_1\], we need to show that there is no $X\in\hbox{M}(2,\mathbb{R})$ such that $T_n-\\|T_n\\|\frac{F}{\\|F\\|}=X$ for infinitely many $n$. Since $F$ is degenerate, one of the matrices $C$, $D$, $E$ is not a scalar multiple of $F$ (say $C$). Take a basis of $\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{R})$ which contains $C$ and $F$. The $C$-coordinate of $T_n-\\|T_n\\|\frac{F}{\\|F\\|}$ with respect to this basis is equal to $\lambda^{-n}+\alpha\lambda^{-n}n+\beta \lambda^{n}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$. This shows that the sequence $T_n-\\|T_n\\|\frac{F}{\\|F\\|}$ consists of distinct matrices for sufficiently large $n$. Thus, $T_n$ is mixing. Suppose that $F=0$. Then $\frac{T_n}{\\|T_n\\|}\to \frac{E}{\\|E\\|}$. By the same argument as in the previous paragraph, the sequence $T_n-\\|T_n\\|\frac{E}{\\|E\\|}$ consists of distinct matrices for sufficiently large $n$. This implies that $T_n$ is mixing. [When $U,V\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ are hyperbolic and $U\ne V$, the sequence $U^{-n}V^n$ is mixing. This follows from Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\] below. ]{} Next, we study multiple mixing for general sequences. Let $T_{i,n}\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, i=1,…,k. The sequences $T_{1,n},\ldots,T_{k,n}$ are jointly mixing if for every $f_i\in L^\infty (\mathbb{T}^2)$, $i=1,\ldots,k+1$, $$\label{eq_mixm} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_1(T_{1,n}\xi)\cdots f_k(T_{k,n}\xi)f_{k+1}(\xi)d\xi\to \left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}f_1(\xi)d\xi\right)\cdots\left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}f_{k+1}(\xi)d\xi\right)$$ as $n\to\infty$. Transformations $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ are called jointly mixing if the sequences $T_1^n,\ldots,T_k^n$, $n\ge 1$, are jointly mixing. In [@ber], this property was called w-jointly strongly mixing (see Definition 3.6 in [@ber]). In the course of proving Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\] below, we shall need the following immediate extension of Lemma \[l\_mix1\] (cf. Theorem 4.3(1) in [@ber]). \[l\_mixm\] Let $T_{i,n}\in \hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, i=1,…,k. The sequences $T_{1,n},\ldots,T_{k,n}$ are jointly mixing if and only if for every $(x_1,\ldots, x_{k+1})\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^{k+1}-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ the equality $$\t T_{1,n} x_1+\cdots + \t T_{k,n}x_k+x_{k+1}=0$$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. \[eq\_mix\_main\] Let $T_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$. The transformations $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ are jointly mixing if and only if each of $T_i$ is hyperbolic, $T_i\ne \pm T_j$ for $i\ne j$, and for every $\rho>1$, there are at most two matrices among $T_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, having an eigenvalue $\lambda$ such that $\|\lambda\|=\rho$. If a matrix $T\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ has complex eigenvalues, they are units in an imaginary quadratic field. This implies that the eigenvalues of $T$ are roots of unity. Hence, the transformation $T$ is not mixing on $\mathbb{T}^2$. Therefore, we may assume that the eigenvalues of $T$ are real. Next, we note that one can assume without loss of generality that the eigenvalues of $T_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, are positive. Indeed, put $\tilde{T}_i=-T_i$ if the eigenvalues of $T_i$ are negative and $T_i$ otherwise. Clearly, transformations $T_i$, $i=1,\ldots, k$, are jointly mixing if and only if transformations $\tilde{T}_i$, $i=1,\ldots, k$, are jointly mixing. Let the transformations $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ be jointly mixing. Then each of the sequences $T_i^n$ and $T_i^{-n} T_j^n$, $i\ne j$, is mixing too. This implies that all $T_i$ are hyperbolic and $T_i\ne T_j$ for $i\ne j$. To show that the conditions of the theorem are necessary, we consider transformations $T_1,T_2,T_3\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ that have the same eigenvalue $\lambda>1$. We claim that there exists $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^3-\{(0,0,0)\}$ such that $$\label{eq_non_mix} \t T_1^n x_1+\t T_2^n x_2+\t T_3^n x_3=0$$ for every $n\ge 1$, which, in view of Lemma \[l\_mixm\], implies that the sequences $T_1^n,T_2^n,T_3^n$ are not jointly mixing. Since $T_i$, $i=1,2,3$, have the same eigenvalues, there exist $A,B\in\hbox{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ such that $$\label{eq_T2} T_2=A^{-1}T_1A\quad\hbox{and}\quad T_3=B^{-1}T_1B.$$ Note that the matrix $A$ is a solution of the matrix equation $$\label{eq_lin} XT_2=T_1X,$$ which can be rewritten as a homogeneous system of linear equations with rational coefficients. The set of rational solutions of (\[eq\_lin\]) is dense in the space of real solutions. It follows that there exists a rational solution (\[eq\_lin\]) such that $\det(X)\ne 0$. This shows that we may choose $A$ and $B$ in $\hbox{GL}(2,\mathbb{Q})$. For every $v\in\mathbb{R}^2$, $v=v_{+}+v_{-}$ where $v_{+}$ and $v_{-}$ are eigenvectors of $\t T_1$ with eigenvalues $\lambda$ and $\lambda^{-1}$ respectively ($\lambda >1$). Define linear maps $P_+:v\mapsto v_+$ and $P_-:v\mapsto v_-$. Then $$\label{eq_ppm} \t T_1=\lambda P_+ +\lambda^{-1} P_-,\;\;\; P_+P_-=P_-P_+=0,\;\;\; P_\pm^2=P_\pm,\;\;\; P_++P_-=\hbox{id}.$$ Note that $P_+,P_-\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}))$ for some $d\in\mathbb{N}$ determined by $\lambda$. When $\sqrt{d}\in\mathbb{Q}$, $\lambda$ and $\lambda^{-1}$ are algebraic integers in $\mathbb{Q}$, and it follows that that $\lambda=\pm 1$, which is a contradiction. Thus, $\sqrt{d}\notin\mathbb{Q}$. Denote by $\sigma$ the nontrivial Galois automorphism of the field extension $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})/\mathbb{Q}$. Then $\lambda^\sigma=\lambda^{-1}$ and $(P_+)^{\sigma}=P_{-}$. Using (\[eq\_T2\]) and (\[eq\_ppm\]), we may rewrite equation (\[eq\_non\_mix\]) as $$\lambda^n\left(P_+x_1+ \t A P_+ \t A^{-1}x_2+\t B P_+\t B^{-1}x_3\right) +\lambda^{-n}\left(P_-x_1+ \t A P_- \t A^{-1}x_2+\t B P_-\t B^{-1}x_3\right)=0.$$ The columns of the matrices $P_+$, $\t A P_+ \t A^{-1}$, and $\t B P_+\t B^{-1}$ lie in the vector space $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})^2$ that has dimension $4$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Thus, these columns are linearly dependent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and there exists $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^3-\{(0,0,0)\}$ such that $$P_+x_1+ \t A P_+ \t A^{-1}x_2+\t B P_+\t B^{-1}x_3=0.$$ Applying $\sigma$ to this equality, we get $$P_-x_1+ \t A P_- \t A^{-1}x_2+\t B P_-\t B^{-1}x_3=0.$$ This implies (\[eq\_non\_mix\]) and proves that the conditions in the proposition are necessary for mixing. To prove sufficiency consider $S_i,T_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, such that $S_i$ and $T_i$ have the same eigenvalue $\lambda_i>1$, and $\lambda_i<\lambda_j$ for $i<j$. We need to show that the transformations $S_1,T_1,\ldots,S_k,T_k$ are jointly mixing. By Lemma \[l\_mixm\], it is enough to prove that there is no $(x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_k,y_k,z)\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^{2k+1}-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ such that the equality $$\label{eq_no_mix_pf} \t S_1^nx_1+\t T_1^ny_1+\cdots + \t S_k^nx_k+ \t T_k^ny_k+z=0.$$ holds for infinitely many $n\ge 1$. Suppose that such a $(2k+1)$-tuple exists. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $y_k\ne 0$. As above, we define $P_{i,\pm},Q_{i,\pm}\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{R})$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \t S_i=\lambda_i P_{i,+} +\lambda_i^{-1} P_{i,-},\;\;\; P_{i,+}P_{i,-}=P_{i,-}P_{i,+}=0,\;\;\; P_{i,\pm}^2=P_{i,\pm},\;\;\; P_{i,+}+P_{i,-}=\hbox{id},\\ \t T_i=\lambda_i Q_{i,+} +\lambda_i^{-1} Q_{i,-},\;\;\; Q_{i,+}Q_{i,-}=Q_{i,-}Q_{i,+}=0,\;\;\; Q_{i,\pm}^2=Q_{i,\pm},\;\;\; Q_{i,+}+Q_{i,-}=\hbox{id}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[eq\_no\_mix\_pf\]) can be rewritten as $$\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_{i}^{-n}(P_{i,-}x_i+Q_{i,-}y_i)+ \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_{i}^{n}(P_{i,+}x_i+Q_{i,+}y_i)+z=0.$$ Dividing this equality by $\lambda_k^n$ and taking a limit over a subsequence $n_j\to\infty$, we deduce that $$P_{k,+}x_k+Q_{k,+}y_k=0.$$ Suppose that $Q_{k,+}y_k=0$. Then $y_k\ne 0$ is a rational eigenvector of $S_k$ with eigenvalue $\lambda_k^{-1}$. It follows that $\lambda_k,\lambda_k^{-1}\in\mathbb{Q}$. On the other hand, $\lambda_k$ and $\lambda_k^{-1}$ are algebraic integers. Hence, $\lambda_k=\pm 1$, which is a contradiction. This shows that $$v\stackrel{def}{=}P_{k,+}x_k=-Q_{k,+}y_k\ne 0.$$ We have $$S_k v=\lambda_k v=T_k v.$$ As above, we denote by $\sigma_k$ the nontrivial automorphism of the quadratic extension $\mathbb{Q}(\lambda_k)/\mathbb{Q}$. Then $$P_{k,+}^{\sigma_k}=P_{k,-},\quad Q_{k,+}^{\sigma_k}=Q_{k,-},\quad \lambda_k^{\sigma_k}=\lambda_k^{-1},$$ and it follows that $$S_k v^{\sigma_k}=\lambda_k^{-1} v^{\sigma_k}=T_k v^{\sigma_k}.$$ Since $v$ and $v^{\sigma_k}$ are linearly independent, this implies that $S_k=T_k$, which is a contradiction. Thus, (\[eq\_no\_mix\_pf\]) holds for finitely many $n$ only. The proposition is proved. Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\] shows, in particular, that transformations $T_1,T_2,T_3\in\hbox{SL}(2,\Z)$ need not be jointly mixing even when every two of them are jointly mixing. Nonetheless, pairwise conditions are sufficient to imply mixing in the commutative situation. \[p\_abel\] Let $T_1,\ldots,T_k\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\Z)$ be commuting automorphisms of $\mathbb{T}^2$. Then they are jointly mixing if and only if the transformations $T_i$ and $T_i^{-1}T_j$, $i\ne j$, are mixing. It is clear that if $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ are jointly mixing, then $T_i$ and $T_i^{-1}T_j$, $i\ne j$, are mixing. Conversely, suppose that $T_i$ and $T_i^{-1}T_j$, $i\ne j$, are mixing. Then $T_i\ne \pm T_j$ for $i\ne j$. Since $T_i$ and $T_j$ commute and are hyperbolic, they can be simultaneously reduced to the diagonal form. Thus, if $T_i$ and $T_j$ have the same eigenvalues of the same modulus, then $T_i=\pm T_j^{\pm 1}$. It follows that the conditions of Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\] are satisfied and hence, $T_1,\ldots,T_k$ are jointly mixing. One can show that the natural analog of Proposition \[p\_abel\] holds in every dimension. In the case of a single measure preserving transformation $T$, $T$ is mixing if and only if for every $k\ge 1$, the transformation $T^k$ is mixing. In the following proposition, we investigate what happens for general sequences in our group: \[p212\] Let $T_n\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, be hyperbolic automorphisms. Let $\lambda_n$ be the eigenvalue of $T_n$ with $\|\lambda_n\|>1$. 1. For any $k\ge 1$, if the sequence $\lambda_n$ is bounded, then $T_n$ is mixing if and only if $T_n^k$ is mixing. 2. For any $k\ge 2$, if $\lambda_n\to\infty$, the sequence $T_n^k$ is always mixing. Let $t_n=\hbox{Trace}(T_n)$. Then $T_n$ is a root of its characteristic polynomial $x^2-t_nx+1$. Using the polynomial identity: $$x^k=P(x)(x^2-t_nx+1)+\alpha_{n,k}x+\beta_{n,k}$$ where $\alpha_{n,k},\beta_{n,k}\in \mathbb{Z}$, $$\alpha_{n,k}=\frac{\lambda_n^k-\lambda_n^{-k}}{\lambda_n-\lambda_n^{-1}},\quad \beta_{n,k}=\frac{\lambda_n^{-k+1}-\lambda_n^{k-1}}{\lambda_n-\lambda_n^{-1}},$$ we deduce that $$\label{eq_ab} T_n^k=\alpha_{n,k}T_n+\beta_{n,k}.$$ Suppose that $\lambda_n$, $n\ge 1$, is bounded. Then the sequences $\alpha_{n,k}$ and $\beta_{n,k}$ are bounded, hence take on only finitely many values. Hence, the equality $$\label{eq_tnk} \t T_n^kx+y=\t T_n(\alpha_{n,k}x)+(\beta_{n,k}x+y)=0$$ holds for some $(x,y)\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$ and infinitely many $n$ if and only if the equality $\t T_nx'+y'=0$ holds for some $(x',y')\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$ and infinitely many $n$. By Lemma \[l\_mix1\], this proves the first part of the proposition. We assume now that $\lambda_n\to\infty$. Then $$\alpha_{n,k}\sim\lambda_n^{k-1}\quad\hbox{and}\quad\beta_{n,k}\sim-\lambda_n^{k-2}\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ By Lemma \[l\_mix1\], it is sufficient to show that if (\[eq\_tnk\]) holds for infinitely many $n$, then $x=y=0$. Suppose that (\[eq\_tnk\]) holds for infinitely many $n$. Dividing by $\alpha_{n,k}$ and taking a limit over a subsequence $n_j\to\infty$, we conclude that $T_{n_j}x\to 0$. Since the sequence $T_{n_j}x$ is discrete, it follows that $x=0$, and $y=0$. Thus, $T_n^k$ is mixing. Note that the statement in part (2) of Proposition \[p212\] fails for $k=1$. For example, let $$ T\_n=( ----- ------- $n$ $n-1$ $1$ $1$ ----- ------- ),n1, $$ If $\lambda_n$ denotes the largest eigenvalue of $T_n$, then clearly, $\lambda_n\to\infty$. However, the sequence $T_n$, $n\ge 1$, is not mixing. (This follows from Proposition \[p\_mix\_1\].) Recall a theorem of Rokhlin [@roh]: [(Rokhlin)]{} Let $T$ be a mixing automorphism of a compact abelian group. Then the sequences $T^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T^{a_{k,n}}$ are jointly mixing provided that $$\min\{\|a_{i,n}-a_{j,n}\|:0\le i<j\le n\}\to\infty\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty,$$ where $a_{0,n}=0$. The following proposition shows that a naive generalization of Rokhlin’s theorem to a general sequence of automorphisms $T_n$ is false. \[p213\] Let $T_n\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$. Denote by $\lambda_n$ the eigenvalue of $T_n$ such $\|\lambda_n\|>1$. If the sequence $\lambda_n$, $n\ge 1$, is bounded, then for any choice of $a_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, ($k>1$) the sequences $T_n^{a_1},\ldots, T_n^{a_k}$ are not jointly mixing. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $a_i>0$, $i=1,\ldots,k$. By Lemma \[l\_mixm\], it sufficient to show that there exists a tuple $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k+1})\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^{k+1}-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ such that for infinitely many $n$, $$\t T_n^{a_1}x_1+\cdots+\t T_n^{a_k}x_k+x_{k+1}=0.$$ By (\[eq\_tnk\]), the last equality reduces to $$\label{eq_last} \t T_n(\alpha_{n,a_1}x_1+\cdots+\alpha_{n,a_k}x_k)+\beta_{n,a_1}x_1+\cdots+\beta_{n,a_k}x_k+x_{k+1}=0.$$ Since the sequence $\lambda_n$, $n\ge 1$, is bounded, the sequences $\alpha_{n,a_i}$ and $\beta_{n,a_i}$ are bounded too. Thus, they are constant for infinitely many $n$. Now one can easily choose $x_i\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, $i=1,\ldots,k+1$, not all zero, such that (\[eq\_last\]) holds. For example, one can take all $x_i$’s to be multiples a fixed nonzero integer vector. Even if a sequence $T_n\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$, is such that 1. $T_n$ is hyperbolic and mixing on $\mathbb{T}^2$ for all $n$, 2. $\lambda_n\to\infty$, where $\lambda_n$ is the eigenvalue of $T_n$ such that $\lambda_n>1$, the sequences $T_n$ and $T_n^2$ need not be jointly mixing. For example, put $$ T\_n=( ----- --------- $n$ $n^2-1$ $1$ $n$ ----- --------- ),n1. $$ Then $\t T_n^2 x+\t T_ny+ z=0$ for $x=\t (0,1)$, $y=\t (-2,0)$, $z=\t (0,-2)$ which implies that the sequences $T_n$ and $T_n^2$ are not jointly mixing. On the other hand, it follows from Proposition \[p\_mix\_1\] that the sequence $T_n$ is mixing. This example also demonstrates that pairwise conditions are not sufficient to guarantee joint mixing even when the elements commute for every fixed $n$. We give here a generalization of Rokhlin’s theorem in the case of the $2$-dimensional torus. (A similar extension of Rokhlin’s theorem holds in any dimension.) \[p\_roh\] Let $T_n\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $n\ge 1$. Denote by $\lambda_n$ the eigenvalue of $T_n$ such that $\|\lambda_n\|\ge 1$. Put $a_{0,n}=0$, $n\ge 1$. Let $k\ge 1$ and $a_{i,n}\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$. Denote $$\gamma_n=\min\{\|a_{i,n}-a_{j,n}\|:0\le i<j\le n\}.$$ Suppose that one of the following conditions holds: 1. The sequence $T_n$ is mixing, and $$\left\{ \frac{\\|T_n\\|}{\lambda_n^{\gamma_n}}:\; n\ge 1\right\} \hbox{ is bounded}.$$ 2. $$\frac{\\|T_n\\|}{\lambda_n^{\gamma_n}}\to 0\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ Then the sequences $T_n^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_n^{a_{k,n}}$ are jointly mixing. [Part (2) of the theorem with $T_n=T$, $n\ge 1$, implies Rokhlin’s theorem for the case of $2$-dimensional torus. ]{} Since $T_n$ is measure-preserving, we are allowed to replace $a_{i,n}$ by $a_{i,n}-\min \{a_{i,n}:i=0,\ldots,k\}$. It follows that without loss of generality, we may assume that $$\min \{a_{i,n}:i=0,\ldots,k\}=0.$$ Also by changing order and passing, if needed, to subsequences, we may assume that $$\max \{a_{i,n}:i=1,\ldots,k\}=a_{k,n}.$$ Suppose that the sequences $T_n^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_n^{a_{k,n}}$ are not jointly mixing. By Lemma \[l\_mixm\], there exists a tuple $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k+1})\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^{k+1}-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ such that the equality $$\t T_n^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots+\t T_n^{a_{k,n}}x_k+x_{k+1}=0$$ holds for infinitely many $n$. By (\[eq\_ab\]), the last equality is equivalent to $$\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_{n,a_{i,n}}\t T_n x_i+ \sum_{i=1}^k \beta_{n,a_{i,n}} x_i +x_{k+1}=0.$$ Note that in both cases, $\lambda_n^{\gamma_n}\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Therefore, it follows that $\lambda_n^{a_{n,k}-a_{n,i}}\to\infty$. $$\alpha_{n,a_{i,n}}\sim \frac{\lambda_n^{a_{i,n}}}{\lambda_n-\lambda_n^{-1}}, \quad \beta_{n,a_{i,n}}\sim \frac{-\lambda_n^{a_{i,n}-1}}{\lambda_n-\lambda_n^{-1}},\quad i=1,\ldots,k.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \t T_n x_k &=& -\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \frac{\alpha_{n,a_{i,n}}}{\alpha_{n,a_{k,n}}}\t T_n x_i- \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{\beta_{n,a_{i,n}}}{\alpha_{n,a_{k,n}}} x_i -\frac{x_{k+1}}{\alpha_{n,a_{k,n}}}\\ &=& O\left(\frac{\\|T_n\\|}{\lambda_n^{\gamma_n}}\right)+O(\lambda_n^{-\gamma_n})+\lambda_n^{-1}x_k.\end{aligned}$$ Assume that condition (1) holds. Then the sequence $\t T_nx_k$ is bounded by infinitely many $n$. Thus, it is constant for infinitely many $n$. It follows from Lemma \[l\_mix1\] that $x_k=0$. Suppose that condition (2) holds. We prove that $x_k=0$. If $\lambda_n\to\infty$, then $\t T_n x_k\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, and this implies that $x_k=0$. Otherwise, the sequences $\lambda_n$ and $\t T_n x_k$ are bounded for infinitely many $n$, and consequently, they are constant for infinitely many $n$. Thus, $\t T_{n_j} x_k=\lambda_{n_j}^{-1}x_k$ for a subsequence $n_j$, and if $x_k\ne 0$, then $\lambda_{n_j},\lambda_{n_j}^{-1}\in\mathbb{Q}$. Since $\lambda_{n_j}$ is an algebraic integer, $\lambda_{n_j}=\pm 1$, which contradicts condition (2). This shows that $x_k=0$. Now the proof can be completed by induction on $k$. Condition (1) is not necessary for joint mixing of the sequences $T_n^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_n^{a_{k,n}}$. For example, put $$ T\_n=( ------- --------- $n^2$ $n^3-1$ $1$ $n$ ------- --------- ), n1,a\_[i,n]{}=i, i=1,2. $$ Even though $\frac{\\|T_n\\|}{\lambda_n}\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, one can check with the help of Lemma \[l\_mixm\] that the sequences $T_n$ and $T_n^2$ are jointly mixing. It would be of interest to find a necessary and sufficient condition for joint mixing of sequences of the form $T_n^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_n^{a_{k,n}}$. The following proposition is yet another generalization of Rokhlin’s theorem. \[p\_rohlin\] Let $T_1,\ldots,T_k\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be hyperbolic automorphisms. Denote by $\lambda_i$ the eigenvalue of $T_i$ such that $\|\lambda_i\|>1$. Put $a_{0,n}=0$, $n\ge 1$. Let $k\ge 1$ and $a_{i,n}\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$ be such that $$\label{eq_roh} \min\{ \left\|\log \|\lambda_i\|\cdot a_{i,n}-\log \|\lambda_j\|\cdot a_{j,n}\right\|:0\le i<j\le n\}\to\infty\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ Then the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are jointly mixing. As in the proof of Proposition \[p\_roh\], we reduce the proof to the case when $$\log \|\lambda_{i+1}\|\cdot a_{i+1,n}-\log \|\lambda_i\|\cdot a_{i,n}\to\infty\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty$$ for $i=0,\ldots,k-1$. Suppose that the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are not jointly mixing. By Lemma \[l\_mixm\], there exists $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k},y)\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^{k+1}-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ such that the equality $$\label{eq_last0} \t T_1^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots+\t T_k^{a_{k,n}}x_k +y=0$$ holds for infinitely many $n$. Let $P_{i,+},P_{i,-}\in\hbox{M}(2,\mathbb{R})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, be such that $$\t T_i=\lambda_i P_{i,+} +\lambda_i^{-1} P_{i,-},\;\;\; P_{i,+}P_{i,-}=P_{i,-}P_{i,+}=0,\;\;\; P_{i,\pm}^2=P_{i,\pm},\;\;\; P_{i,+}+P_{i,-}=\hbox{id}.$$ By (\[eq\_last0\]), $$\label{eq_last1} \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i^{a_{i,n}} P_{i,+}x_i+\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i^{-a_{i,n}} P_{i,-}x_i+y=0$$ holds by infinitely many $n$. Dividing by $\lambda_k^{a_{k,n}}$ and taking limit over a subsequence $n_j\to\infty$, we conclude that $P_{k,+}x_k=0$. If $x_k\ne 0$, it is an eigenvector of $\t T_k$ with the eigenvalue $\lambda_k^{-1}$. This implies that $\lambda_k\in\mathbb{Q}$. On the other hand, $\lambda_k$ is an algebraic integer. Thus, $\lambda_k=\pm 1$. This contradiction shows that $x_k=0$. Using induction on $k$, we deduce from (\[eq\_last1\]) that $x_i=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$. This shows that the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are jointly mixing. [It clear that condition (\[eq\_roh\]) in Proposition \[p\_rohlin\] follows from the following condition: $$a_{1,n}\to\infty\quad\hbox{and}\quad \frac{a_{i+1,n}}{a_{i,n}}\to\infty,\;\; i=1,\ldots,k,\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty,$$ which also appears in Proposition \[p\_um\]. ]{} \[def\_rmix\] Let $T_{i}\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$. Denote by $P_i:L^2(\mathbb{T}^2)\to L^2(\mathbb{T}^2)$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, the orthogonal projection on the subspace of $T_i$-invariant functions. Let $a_{i,n}\in \mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, $n\ge 1$. We call the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ relatively jointly mixing if for every $f_i\in L^\infty (\mathbb{T}^2)$, $i=1,\ldots,k+1$, $$\label{eq_rel_mixing} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_1(T_1^{a_{1,n}}\xi)\cdots f_k(T_k^{a_{k,n}}\xi)f_{k+1}(\xi)d\xi\to \int_{\mathbb{T}^2}(P_1f_1)(\xi)\cdots (P_kf_k)(\xi)f_{k+1}(\xi)d\xi \quad \hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ We have the following criterion for relative joint mixing of tuples of unipotent elements: \[p\_relm\] Let $T_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, be unipotent elements. Denote by $v_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, a nonzero vector such that $\t T_iv_i=v_i$. Let $a_{i,n}\in \mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, $n\ge 1$. Then the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are relatively jointly mixing if and only if for every $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in\mathbb{Z}^k-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ and $z\in\mathbb{Z}^2-\{0\}$, the equality $$\label{eq_rem} \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i a_{i,n} v_i+z=0$$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. For some $A_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ and $s_i\in\mathbb{Z}-\{0\}$, $$\label{eq_unip} \t T_i^{a_{i,n}}=A_i^{-1}\left(\begin{tabular}{cc} $1$ & $s_i a_{i,n}$\\ $0$ & $1$ \end{tabular} \right)A_i=E+s_ia_{i,n}B_i$$ where $B_i=A_i^{-1}\left(\begin{tabular}{rr} $0$ & $1$\\ $0$ & $0$ \end{tabular} \right)A_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, and $E$ is the identity matrix. To establish relative mixing, it is sufficient to check (\[eq\_rel\_mixing\]) in the case when $f_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, are characters of the form (\[eq\_xi\]). For $x_1,\ldots,x_{k+1}\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_{x_1}}(T_1^{a_{1,n}}\xi)\cdots \chi_{_{x_k}}(T_k^{a_{k,n}}\xi)\chi_{_{x_{k+1}}}(\xi)d\xi &=&\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_{(\t T_1^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots +\t T_k^{a_{k,n}}x_k+x_{k+1})}}(\xi)d\xi\\ &=& \begin{cases} 1 & \hbox{if}\quad \t T_1^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots+ \t T_k^{a_{k,n}}x_k+x_{k+1}=0,\\ 0 & \hbox{if}\quad \t T_1^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots+ \t T_k^{a_{k,n}}x_k+x_{k+1}\ne 0.\\ \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for every $x\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, $$P_i\chi_{_x}= \begin{cases} \chi_{_x} & \hbox{if}\quad B_ix=0,\\ 0 & \hbox{if}\quad B_ix\ne 0.\\ \end{cases}$$ Thus, (\[eq\_rel\_mixing\]) always holds for $f_i=\chi_{_{x_i}}$ provided that $B_ix_i=0$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$. It follows that the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are relatively jointly mixing if and only if for every $(x_1,\ldots,x_k) \in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^k$ such that for some $i=1,\ldots,k$, $B_ix_i\ne 0$ (equivalently, $T_ix_i\ne x_i$) the equality $$\label{eq_eq} \t T_1^{a_{1,n}}x_1+\cdots +\t T_k^{a_{k,n}}x_k+x_{k+1}=0$$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. By (\[eq\_unip\]), the last equality is equivalent to $$\sum_{i=1}^k s_ia_{i,n}B_ix_i +z=0$$ where $z=\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} x_i$. Note that the columns of the matrix $B_i$ are rational multiples of the vector $v_i$. Thus, $s_iB_ix_i=\alpha_iv_i$ for some $\alpha_i\in\mathbb{Q}$. Since $B_ix_i\ne 0$ for some $i$, $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\ne (0,\ldots,0)$. This shows that (\[eq\_eq\]) holds if and only if $$\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i a_{i,n} v_i+z=0$$ for some $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in \mathbb{Q}^k-\{(0,\ldots,0)\}$ and $z\in\mathbb{Z}$. Multiplying by a fixed integer, we get that $\alpha_i\in\mathbb{Z}$. This proves the proposition. We record here a convenient corollary of Proposition \[p\_relm\]. \[p\_um\] Let $T_i\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, be unipotent elements, and $a_{i,n}\in \mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, $n\ge 1$, such that $$a_{1,n}\to\infty\quad\hbox{and}\quad \frac{a_{i+1,n}}{a_{i,n}}\to\infty,\;\; i=1,\ldots,k,\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ Then the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are relatively jointly mixing. Suppose that the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are not relatively jointly mixing. Then by Proposition \[p\_relm\], (\[eq\_rem\]) holds for infinitely many $n$. Dividing (\[eq\_rem\]) by $a_{k,n}$ and taking the limit over a subsequence $n_s\to\infty$, we deduce that $\alpha_k=0$. Similarly, it follows that $\alpha_i=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$. This shows that the sequences $T_1^{a_{1,n}},\ldots,T_k^{a_{k,n}}$ are relatively jointly mixing. Let $T,S\in\hbox{\rm SL}(d,\mathbb{Z})$. It was observed by Boshernitzan that it follows from the fact that the set of common periodic points of $T$ and $S$ is dense in $\mathbb{T}^d$ that for every nonempty open subset $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{T}^d$, $$\mathcal{U}\cap T^n\mathcal{U}\cap S^n\mathcal{U}\ne \emptyset$$ for infinitely many $n$. A measurable analogue of this fact is far less trivial. The following conjecture seems plausible: \[c\_rec\] Let $T,S\in\hbox{\rm SL}(d,\mathbb{Z})$, and let $\mathcal{D}$ be a Borel subset of $\mathbb{T}^d$ of positive measure. Then $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\; \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})>0.$$ In fact, in all known to us examples, $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\; \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})\ge \mu(\mathcal{D})^3.$$ [Note that when $T$ and $S$ generate a (virtually) nilpotent group, Conjecture \[c\_rec\] follows from a general “nilpotent” multiple recurrence theorem proved in [@l] (see also Theorem E in [@bl4]). It was, however, proved in [@bl], that for any finitely generated solvable group of exponential growth $G$, there exist a measure preserving action $(T_g)_{g\in G}$ on a probability space $(X,\mathcal{B},\mu)$, elements $g_1, g_2\in G$ and a set $D\in\mathcal{B}$ with $\mu(D) >0$ such that for $T=T_{g_1}$ and $S=T_{g_2}$, one has $\mu(D\cap T^n D \cap S^n D)=0$ for all $n\ne 0$. Nevertheless, we believe that for our special action of $\hbox{SL}(d,\mathbb{Z})$ on $\mathbb{T}^d$, the Conjecture is true. ]{} We obtain below some partial results on the conjecture in the case of the $2$-dimensional torus. Note that when $T$ and $S$ are hyperbolic the conjecture follows from Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\]. In fact, in this case, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\; \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})= \begin{cases} \mu(\mathcal{D})^2 & \hbox{if}\quad T=S,\\ \mu(\mathcal{D})^3 & \hbox{if}\quad T\ne \pm S\\ \end{cases}$$ and when $T=-S$, the limit set of the sequence $\mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})$ consists of two numbers: $\mu(\mathcal{D})^2$, $\mu(\mathcal{D}\cap -\mathcal{D})\mu(\mathcal{D})$. In particular, this shows that $\liminf$ might be $0$ even when $\mu(\mathcal{D})>0$. We can also settle the case when $T$ and $S$ are unipotent and hyperbolic respectively. For this, we need a lemma: \[l\_rec\_help\] Let $T\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be unipotent, and $S\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ hyperbolic. Then the sequences $T^n$ and $S^n$, $n\ge 1$, are relatively jointly mixing. As in the proof of Proposition \[p\_relm\], it is sufficient to show that for every $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that either $Tx\ne x$ or $y\ne 0$, the equality $$\label{eq_con_mix} \t T^nx+\t S^n y+z=0$$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. We have $$\t T^n=E+nB$$ where $E$ is the identity matrix and $B\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{Z})$. Let $\lambda$ be the eigenvalue of $S$ such that $\|\lambda\|>1$. For some $P_+,P_-\in\hbox{\rm M}(2,\mathbb{R})$, $$\t S^n=\lambda^n P_+ +\lambda^{-n} P_-,\;\;\; P_+P_-=P_-P_+=0,\;\;\; P_\pm^2=P_\pm,\;\;\; P_++P_-=\hbox{id}.$$ Equality (\[eq\_con\_mix\]) is equivalent to $$\lambda^n P_+y +\lambda^{-n} P_-y +nBx+(x+z)=0.$$ Suppose that it holds for infinitely many $n$. Dividing by $\lambda^n$ and taking the limit as $n\to\infty$, we deduce that $P_+y=0$. Then $y$ is an eigenvector of $S$. If $y\ne 0$, then $y$ is a rational eigenvector of $S$, and $\lambda$ and $\lambda^{-1}$ are rational numbers that are algebraic integers. Hence, $\lambda=\pm 1$, which is a contradiction. This implies that $y=0$. Then it follows that $Bx=0$ (equivalently, $Tx=x$). This shows that (\[eq\_con\_mix\]) holds for finitely many $n$ only. Thus, the sequences $T^n$ and $S^n$, $n\ge 1$, are relatively jointly mixing. Lemma \[l\_rec\_help\] implies the following special case of Conjecture \[c\_rec\]. Let $T\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be unipotent, and $S\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ hyperbolic. Then for any measurable $\mathcal{D}\subseteq \mathbb{T}^2$, the limit of $\mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})$ as $n\to\infty$ exists, and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\; \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})\ge\mu(\mathcal{D})^3.$$ Moreover, the equality holds if and only if $\mu(\mathcal{D})=1\;\hbox{or}\;0$. Let $f$ be the characteristic function of the set $\mathcal{D}$. Denote by $P_T$ and $P_S$ the orthogonal projections on the the spaces of $T$- and $S$-invariant functions respectively. Since $S$ is ergodic, $P_S f=\mu(\mathcal{D})$. By Lemma \[l\_rec\_help\], $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\; \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D}) =\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f(P_Tf)(P_Sf)d\mu=\mu(\mathcal{D})\\|P_Tf\\|_2^2\ge\mu(\mathcal{D})^3.$$ In the case when $T$ and $S$ are unipotent, Conjecture \[c\_rec\] seems to be open in general. We prove a partial result for sets of special form. For a function $f\in L^\infty(\mathbb{T}^d)$, its Fourier coefficients are denoted by $$\hat f(x)=\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}f(\xi)\chi_{_{-x}}(\xi)d\xi,\quad x\in\mathbb{Z}^d.$$ Let $T,S\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be unipotent. 1. For any measurable $\mathcal{D}\subseteq\mathbb{T}^2$, the limit of $\mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})$ as $n\to\infty$ exists. 2. Suppose that $TS\ne ST$. Let $A\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be such that $A^{-1}TA$ is lower triangular unipotent. Then for every set of the form $\mathcal{D}=A(\mathcal{D}_1\times\mathcal{D}_2)$ where $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$ are measurable subsets of $\mathbb{T}^1$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mu(\mathcal{D}\cap T^n\mathcal{D}\cap S^n\mathcal{D})\ge\mu(\mathcal{D})^3.$$ Moreover, the equality holds if and only if $\mu(\mathcal{D})=1\;\hbox{or}\;0$. We prove (1) in the case when $T$ and $S$ do not commute. (When $T$ and $S$ commute, they are powers of the same transformation, and the proof goes along the same lines as the proof below.) Let $v$ and $w$ be primitive integer vectors such that $\t Tv=v$ and $\t S w=w$. We claim that for $f,g,h\in C^\infty(\mathbb{T}^2)$, $$\label{eq_recur} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f(\xi)g(T^n\xi)h(S^n\xi)d\xi\to \sum_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}} \hat f(-iv-jw)\hat g(iv)\hat h(jw)\quad\hbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$ It follows from a standard argument that it is sufficient to check (\[eq\_recur\]) when $f$, $g$, $h$ are characters of the form (\[eq\_xi\]). Let $f=\chi_{_x}$, $g=\chi_{_y}$, and $h=\chi_{_z}$ for some $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}^2$. First, suppose that $x=-iv-jw$, $y=iv$, $z=jw$ for some $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}^2$. Then $$\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f(\xi)g(T^n\xi)h(S^n\xi)d\xi =\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} \chi_{_{x+\t T^ny+\t S^nz}}(\xi)d\xi=1.$$ This implies (\[eq\_recur\]) in this case. Now we consider the case when $x$, $y$, $z$ are not of the above form. We need to show that the equality $x+\t T^ny+\t S^nz=0$ holds for finitely many $n$ only. Suppose that it holds for infinitely many $n$. Write $\t T =E+B$ and $\t S=E+C$ where $E$ is the identity matrix and $B,C\in\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $B^2=C^2=0$. Then $$x+\t T^ny+\t S^nz=(x+y+z)+n(By+Cz)=0.$$ holds for infinitely many $n$. This implies that $x+y+z=0$ and $By=-Cz$. Note that the columns of matrix $B$ are multiples of the vector $v$, and the columns of $C$ are multiples of $w$. If $By\ne 0$, $v$ is multiple of $w$, and it follows that in some basis of $\mathbb{R}^2$ both $T$ and $S$ are unipotent upper triangular. Then $TS=ST$, and this contradicts the initial assumption. Thus, $By=Cz=0$. Equivalently, $Ty=y$ and $Sz=z$. Hence, $x=-iv-jv$, $y=iv$, and $z=jw$ for some $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}$. This is a contradiction. We have proved (\[eq\_recur\]). Replacing $T$ by $A^{-1}TA$ and $S$ by $A^{-1}SA$, we reduce the problem to the case when $T$ is lower triangular and $\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_1\times\mathcal{D}_2$. Then $v=\t (1,0)$. Let $w=\t (a,b)$. Let $f$ be the characteristic function of the set $\mathcal{D}$, and $f_1$ and $f_2$ be characteristic functions of the sets $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$ respectively. Note that for $s,t\in\mathbb{Z}$, $\hat f(s,t)=\hat f_1(s)\hat f_2(t)$. To prove part (2), we need to show that $$\sum_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}} \hat f(-i-aj,-bj)\hat f(i,0)\hat f(aj,bj)\ge\mu(\mathcal{D})^3.$$ Using the Plancherel formula and the fact that $f_1^2=f_1$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}} \hat f(-i-aj,-bj)\hat f(i,0)\hat f(aj,bj)&=& \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \left(\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\hat f_1(-aj-i)\hat f_1(i)\right) \hat f_2(-bj)\hat f_2(0)\hat f(aj,bj)\\ &=&\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \hat{(f^2_1)}(-aj) \hat f_2(-bj)\mu(\mathcal{D}_2)\hat f(aj,bj)\\ &=&\mu(\mathcal{D}_2)\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \|\hat f_1(aj)\|^2 \|\hat f_2(bj)\|^2\\ &\ge&\mu(\mathcal{D}_2)\|\hat f_1(0)\|^2 \|\hat f_2(0)\|^2\ge \mu(\mathcal{D})^3.\end{aligned}$$ We are done. Next, we investigate mixing properties of subgroups of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$. \[p-np\] Let $H$ be a subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$. The action of $H$ on $\mathbb{T}^2$ is mixing if and only if $H$ contains no nontrivial unipotent elements. If the action of $H$ is mixing, then the action of every infinite subgroup of $H$ is mixing, and consequently, $H$ does not contain nontrivial unipotent elements. Conversely, suppose that the action of $H$ is not mixing. By Lemma \[l\_mix1\], there exists a sequence $h_n\in H$, $n\ge 1$, and $(x,y)\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$ such that $\t h_nx=-y$ for every $n\ge 1$ and $h_n\to\infty$. Then $\t h_1^{-1}\t h_n x=x$ for every $n\ge 1$. Thus, $h_nh_1^{-1}\in H$ is a nontrivial unipotent element for sufficiently large $n$. This proves the proposition. A subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is called [nonparabolic]{} if it contains no nontrivial unipotent elements. Nonparabolic subgroups are of interest from the point of view of ergodic theory because they are precisely the groups that act in a mixing fashion on the torus $\mathbb{T}^2$. It follows from the pigeonhole principle that every subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ of finite index contains a nontrivial unipotent element. First examples of nonparabolic subgroups were constructed by B. H. Neumann in [@neu] (see also [@mag]). Any Neumann subgroup has the property that powers of a single unipotent element form a complete system of representatives of the cosets of this group. In particular, Neumann subgroups are maximal nonparabolic subgroups. There are examples of maximal nonparabolic subgroups that are not Neumann (see [@t], [@bl1], [@bl2]). If $F$ is a free normal subgroup of finite index in $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ which is not equal to the commutant of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, then the commutant of $F$ is nonparabolic (see [@mas]). Although there are large subgroups in $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ (e.g. Neumann subgroup) whose actions on the torus $\mathbb{T}^2$ are mixing, the following proposition shows that for nonabelian subgroups the higher order of mixing is impossible. \[p\_no\_3\] A nonabelian subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ cannot be mixing of order $2$. Let $H$ be a nonabelian subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$. Suppose that $H$ is mixing of order $2$. Take $g,h\in H$ such that $gh\ne hg$. Since $H$ is mixing, $g$ and $h$ are hyperbolic. Note that if $g^2h= hg^2$, $g^2$ and $h$ can be both reduced to the diagonal form, and this would imply that $g$ and $h$ commute. Thus, $g^2h\ne hg^2$. Put $h_i=g^{-i}hg^{i}$, $i=1,2,3$. Comparing eigenvalues, we deduce that $h_i\ne -h_j$. Also, $h_i\ne h_j$ for $i\ne j$, since otherwise it would follow that $g$ and $h$ commute. Therefore, by Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\], the transformations $h_i$ and $h_j$ are jointly mixing for $i\ne j$. In particular, $h_i^{-n}h_j^n\to\infty$ and $h_i^n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. On the other hand, since $h_1$, $h_2$, $h_3$ have the same eigenvalues, it follows from Proposition \[eq\_mix\_main\] (and its proof) that for some $f_1,f_2,f_3\in L^\infty(\mathbb{T}^2)$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_1(h_1^n\xi)f_2(h_2^n\xi)f_3(h_3^n\xi)d\xi\neq \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_1(\xi)d\xi \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_2(\xi)d\xi\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_3(\xi)d\xi.$$ This implies that the sequences $h_1^{-n}h_2^n$ and $h_1^{-n}h_3^n$ are not jointly mixing, which, in its turn, contradicts the assumption that the group $H$ is mixing of order $2$. More generally, a similar argument allows one to show that the standard action on the torus $\mathbb{T}^d$ of a subgroup $H$ of $\hbox{\rm SL}(d,\Z)$ which is not virtually abelian can not be mixing of order $d$. Another approach to the proof of this fact can be found in [@bha] where it is utilized for derivation of isomorphism rigidity for the action of $H$. [It should be noted that in contrast with the nonabelean situation, any mixing $\mathbb{Z}^d$-action on $\mathbb{T}^d$ is mixing of all orders (see [@sch Corollary 27.7]). On the other hand, if an $\hbox{SL}(d,\Z)$-action is a restriction of an ergodic measure preserving $\hbox{SL}(d,\R)$-action, then by a theorem of S. Mozes (see [@moz]), it is mixing of all orders. ]{} We conclude by proving a result of Krengel-type [@k], which can be considered as a generalization of the fact that every ergodic automorphism of the torus has countable Lebesgue spectrum. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ which acts in mixing fashion on $\mathbb{T}^2$. Then for every $f\in L^2(\mathbb{T}^2)$ and every $\varepsilon >0$, there exist $f_0\in L^2(\mathbb{T}^2)$ and a subgroup $H_0$ of finite index in $H$ such that $$\label{eq_kre} \int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_0(h\xi)\bar f_0(\xi)d\xi =0$$ for every $h\in H_0$, $h\ne e$. First, we note that since $H$ is mixing, for every $(x,y)\in(\mathbb{Z}^2)^2-\{(0,0)\}$ there is at most one $h$ such that $\t hx=y$. Indeed, if $\t h_1 x =\t h_2 x$ for some $h_1,h_2\in H$, then $h_1h_2^{-1}\in H$ is a unipotent element. One can choose $$f_0=\sum_{i=1}^m a_i \chi_{_{x_i}}$$ with some $a_i\in \mathbb{C}$ and $x_i\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $\\|f-f_0\\|_2<\varepsilon$. We have $$\int_{\mathbb{T}^2} f_0(h\xi)\bar f_0(\xi)d\xi =\sum_{i,j=1}^m a_i\bar a_j \int_{\mathbb{T}^2}\chi_{_{\t hx_i -x_j}}(\xi)d\xi.$$ Let $h_{ij}\in H-\{e\}$ be the unique element such that $\t h_{ij} x_i=x_j$ (if such an element exists). Since $\hbox{\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is finitely approximable, the subgroup $H$ is finitely approximable too. There exists a subgroup $H_0$ of finite index in $H$ such that $h_{ij}\notin H_0$ for every $i,j=1,\ldots,m$. Then (\[eq\_kre\]) holds for every $h\in H_0$, $h\ne e$. This proves the proposition. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} ================= We would like to thank D. Berend, N. Hindman, and R. Pavlov for useful comments on the preliminary version of the paper. We also would like to thank K. Schmidt for bringing Bhattacharya’s paper [@bha] to our attention. [100]{} B. Begun, Weakly wandering vectors for abelian group actions. To appear in Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems. D. Berend, Joint ergodicity and mixing. J. d’Analyse Math 45 (1985), 255–284. D. Berend and V. Bergelson, Ergodic and mixing sequences of transformations. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 4 (1984), no. 3, 353–366. V. Bergelson, Weakly mixing PET. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 7 (1987), no. 3, 337–349. V. Bergelson, Ergodic Ramsey theory—an update. Ergodic theory of $\Z^d$-actions (Warwick, 1993–1994), editors: M. Pollicott and K. Schmidt, 1–61, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 228, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996. V. Bergelson, Minimal idempotents and ergodic Ramsey theory. Topics in dynamics and ergodic theory, editors: S. Bezuglyi and S. Kolyada, 8–39, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 310, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003. V. Bergelson and N. Hindman, Nonmetrizable topological dynamics and Ramsey theory. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 320 (1990), 293-320. V. Bergelson, I. Kornfeld, and B. Mityagin, Unitary $\Z^d$-actions with continuous spectrum. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 119 (1993), no. 4, 1127–1134. V. Bergelson, I. Kornfeld, and B. Mityagin, Weakly wandering vectors for unitary actions of commutative groups. J. Funct. Anal. 126 (1994), no. 2, 274–304. V. Bergelson, I. Kornfeld, A. Leibman, and B. Mityagin, A Krengel-type theorem for finitely-generated nilpotent groups. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 21 (2001), no. 5, 1359–1369. V. Bergelson and A. Leibman, Polynomial extensions of van der Waerden’s and Szemerédi’s theorems. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 3, 725–753. V. Bergelson and A. Leibman, A nilpotent Roth theorem. Invent. Math. 147 (2002), no. 2, 429–470. V. Bergelson and A. Leibman, Failure of Roth theorem for solvable groups of exponential growth. To appear in Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems. V. Bergelson and R. McCutcheon, Uniformity in the polynomial Szemerédi theorem. Ergodic theory of $\Z^d$-actions (Warwick, 1993–1994), editors: M. Pollicott and K. Schmidt, 273–296, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 228, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996. V. Bergelson and R. McCutcheon, An ergodic IP polynomial Szemerédi theorem. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 146 (2000), no. 695. V. Bergelson and J. Rosenblatt, Mixing actions of groups. Illinois J. Math. 32 (1988), no. 1, 65–80. V. Bergelson and D. Rudolph, Weakly mixing actions of $F^\infty$ have infinite subgroup actions which are Bernoulli. Dynamical systems (College Park, MD, 1986–87), editor: J. Alexander, 7–22, Lecture Notes in Math. 1342, Springer, Berlin, 1988. S. Bhattacharya, Higher order of mixing and rigidity of algebraic actions on compact abelian groups. To appear in Israel Journal of Mathematics. G. D. Birkhoff, Proof of the ergodic theorem. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 17 (1931), 656–660. J. L. Brenner and R. C. Lyndon, Nonparabolic subgroups of the modular group. J. Algebra 77 (1982), no. 2, 311–322. J. L. Brenner and R. C. Lyndon, Maximal nonparabolic subgroups of the modular group. Math. Ann. 263 (1983), no. 1, 1–11. H. Dye, On the ergodic mixing theorem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 118 (1965), 123–130. W. Eberlein, Abstract ergodic theorems and weak almost periodic functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1949), 217–240. R. Ellis, Distal transformation groups. Pacific J. Math. 8 (1958), 401–405. H. Furstenberg, Ergodic behavior of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemerédi on arithmetic progressions. J. d’Analyse Math. 31 (1977), 204–256. H. Furstenberg, Recurrence in ergodic theory and combinatorial number theory. Princeton University Press, 1981. H. Furstenberg and Y. Katznelson, An ergodic Szemerédi theorem for commuting transformations. J. d’Analyse Math. 34 (1978), 275–291. H. Furstenberg and Y. Katznelson, An ergodic Szemerédi theorem for IP-systems and combinatorial theory. J. d’Analyse Math. 45 (1985), 117–168. P. Halmos, Lectures on ergodic theory. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1960. P. R. Halmos and J. von Neumann, Operator Methods in Classical Mechanics. II, Ann. Math. (2) 43 (1942), 332-350. H. Helson, Harmonic analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1983. N. Hindman, Ultrafilters and combinatorial number theory. Number theory, Carbondale 1979 (Proc. Southern Illinois Conf., Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, Ill., 1979), pp. 119–184, Lecture Notes in Math. 751, Springer, Berlin, 1979. N. Hindman and D. Strauss, Algebra in the Stone-Čech compactification. Theory and applications. De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics 27. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1998. E. Hopf, Complete transitivity and the ergodic principle. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 18 (1932), 204–209. E. Hopf, Proof of Gibbs’ hypothesis on the tendency toward statistical equilibrium. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 18 (1932), 333–340. E. Hopf, Ergodentheorie. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 5, Springer, Berlin, 1937. A. del Junco, Vectors with orthogonal iterates along IP-sets in unitary group actions. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 22 (2002), no. 1, 227–243. A. del Junco, K. Reinhold, and B. Weiss, Partitions with independent iterates along IP-sets. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 19 (1999), no. 2, 447–473. A. Katok, Interval exchange transformations and some special flows are not mixing. Israel J. Math. 35 (1980), no. 4, 301–310. A. Katok and A. Stepin, Approximations in ergodic theory. Uspehi Mat. Nauk 22 (1967) 81–106; Russian Math. Surveys 22, 77–102. A. N. Kolmogorov, Ein vereinfacher Beweis des Birkhoff-Khintchineschen Ergodensatzes. Recueil Math. (Mat. Sborn.) 2(44) (1937), 367–368. U. Krengel, Weakly wandering vectors and weakly independent partitions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 164 (1972), 199–226. B.O. Koopman and J. von Neumann, Dynamical systems of continuous spectra. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 18 (1932), 255–263. A. Leibman, Multiple recurrence theorem for measure preserving actions of a nilpotent group. Geom. Funct. Anal. 8 (1998), no. 5, 853–931. G. Mackey, Ergodic transformation groups with a pure point spectrum. Illinois J. Math. 8 (1964), 593–600. W. Magnus, Noneuclidean tesselations and their groups. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 61. Academic Press, New York-London, 1974. A. W. Mason, Lattice subgroups of free congruence groups. Glasgow Math. J. 10 (1969), 106–115. C. Moore, Ergodicity of flows on homogeneous spaces. Amer. J. Math. 88 (1966), 154–178. S. Mozes, Mixing of all orders of Lie groups actions. Invent. Math. 107 (1992), no. 2, 235–241; Erratum: Invent. Math. 119 (1995), no. 2, 399. B. H. Neumann, Uber ein gruppentheoretisch-arithmetisches Problem. S.-B. Preus. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl. 7/10 (1933), 429–444. V. A. Rokhlin, On endomorphisms of compact commutative groups. (Russian) Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser. Mat. 13 (1949), 329–340. C. Ryll-Nardzewski, On fixed points of semigroups of endomorphisms of linear spaces, Proc. Fifth Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. and Probability (Berkeley, Calif., 1965/66), Vol. II: Contributions to Probability Theory, Part 1, 55–61. K. Schmidt, Dynamical systems of algebraic origin. Progress in Mathematics 128. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1995. C. Tretkoff, Nonparabolic subgroups of the modular group. Glasgow Math. J. 16 (1975), no. 2, 91–102. W. Veech, The metric theory of interval exchange transformations. I. Generic spectral properties. Amer. J. Math. 106 (1984), no. 6, 1331–1359. J. von Neumann, Proof of the quasiergodic hypothesis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 18 (1932), 70–82. J. von Neumann, Zur Operatorenmethode in der klassischen Mechanik. Ann. of Math. (2) 33 (1932), 587–642. R. Zimmer, Extensions of ergodic group actions. Illinois J. Math. 20 (1976), no. 3, 373–409. R. Zimmer, Ergodic actions with generalized discrete spectrum. Illinois J. Math. 20 (1976), no. 4, 555–588.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Alexander N. Linden[^1]' bibliography: - 'bgen.bib' title: 'A Classification of Spherically Symmetric Static Solutions of SU(2) Einstein Yang Mills Equations with Non-negative Cosmological Constant' --- [^1]: Zorn Visiting Assistant Professor, Indiana University	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - \| Ferruccio Colombini$\,^1\;$, Daniele Del Santo$\,^2\;$, Francesco Fanelli$\,^3\;$, Guy Métivier$\,^{4}$\ \ [Dipartimento di Matematica]{}\ \ \ [Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze]{}\ \ \ [Institut Camille Jordan, UMR 5208]{}\ \ \ [Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, UMR 5251]{}\ --- ### Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered} [The present paper concerns the well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for microlocally symmetrizable hyperbolic systems whose coefficients and symmetrizer are log-Lipschitz continuous, uniformly in time and space variables. For the global in space problem we establish energy estimates with finite loss of derivatives, which is linearly increasing in time. This implies well-posedness in $H^\infty$, if the coefficients enjoy enough smoothness in $x$. From this result, by standard arguments (i.e. extension and convexification) we deduce also local existence and uniqueness. A huge part of the analysis is devoted to give an appropriate sense to the Cauchy problem, which is not evident a priori in our setting, due to the very low regularity of coefficients and solutions.]{} #### 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: {#mathematics-subject-classification .unnumbered} [35L45 (primary); 35B45, 35B65 (secondary).]{} #### Keywords: {#keywords .unnumbered} [hyperbolic systems, microlocal symmetrizability, log-Lipschitz regularity, loss of derivatives, global and local Cauchy problem, well-posedness.]{} Introduction ============ In the present paper we study local and global questions related to the well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for $m\times m$ first order hyperbolic systems $$\label{intro_eq:L} Lu(t,x)\,:=\,A_0(t,x)\,\d_tu(t,x)\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(t,x)\,\d_ju(t,x)\,+\,B(t,x)\,u(t,x)$$ under low regularity assumptions on its coefficients. In [@Iv-Pet], Ivriĭ and Petkov proved that a necessary condition for the well-posedness in the energy space $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is the existence of a bounded microlocal symmetrizer $S(t,x,\xi)$ for $L$ (see Definition \[d:micro\_symm\] below). We remark that this is equivalent to the hypothesis of strong hyperbolicity of the operator (see [@M-2014] and the references therein). Nonetheless, this condition is far from being sufficient, even for ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty$ well-posedness: see counterexamples in [@Strang], [@M-2014] and [@C-M_2015]. On the other hand, in the simplest case when the first order coefficients $A_j$ are symmetric matrices, i.e. the system is symmetric in the sense of Friedrichs, if they are also Lipschitz continuous over $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$, energy estimates (and then well-posedness) in $L^2$ are quite easy to obtain. Notice that, in this instance, the symmetrizer is simply the identity matrix, and it is constant (and then smooth) in $(t,x,\xi)$. Keeping the $W^{1,\infty}([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ regularity for the coefficients of the principal part, the previous result was extended by Métivier in [@M-2008] to the case of microlocally symmetrizable systems, under the assumption that the symmetrizer $S$ is Lipschitz in $(t,x)$ and smooth with respect to $\xi$. More recently, in [@M-2014] Métivier also proved that, under a stronger $W^{2,\infty}([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ condition on the $A_j$’s, the existence of a Lipschitz continuous symmetrizer in all the variables $(t,x,\xi)$ is sufficient for proving energy estimates in $L^2$. Whether the additional regularity for the coefficients of $L$ is merely a technical requirement or rather a necessary hypothesis is not clear at present. Indeed, patological phenomena may be produced by the lack of suitable regularity of the coefficients. To explain this assertion, let us make a brief parallel with scalar strictly hyperbolic operators of second order $$\label{intro_eq:wave} Wu(t,x)\,:=\,\d_t^2u(t,x)\,-\,\sum_{j,k=1}^n\d_j\Bigl(a_{jk}(t,x)\,\d_ku(t,x)\Bigr)\,.$$ It is well-known that, if the coefficients $a_{jk}$ are Lipschitz continuous in $t$ and just bounded in $x$, then the Cauchy problem for $W$ is well-posed in the energy space $H^1\times L^2$. On the contrary, whenever the Lipschitz regularity in $t$ is not met, additional smoothness in $x$ is required, and the Cauchy problem is no more well-posed in the usual sense. Namely, the solution loses regularity in the evolution, and energy estimates are recovered in weaker spaces $H^s\times H^{s-1}$, for $\|s\|<1$, which deteriorates with the passing of time: actually, $s=s(t)$, with $s'(t)<0$. Therefore, this justifies the additional regularity in $x$, which is not just a technical requirement to make energy estimates work, but which is really needed to give sense to the Cauchy problem. Many are the relevant papers on this subject: see e.g. [@C-DG-S], [@C-L], [@C-M], [@Tar], [@C-DS]. We refer to [@C-DS-F-M_tl] and [@C-DS-F-M_wp] for an overview and recent results. In passing, we mention that this loss of smoothness produces relevant effects also at the level of the control of waves. In addition, we have to point out that similar phenomena were proved to occur also for transport equations with non-regular coefficients (see e.g. [@B-C_1994], [@D_2005]): we refer e.g. to Chapter 3 of [@B-C-D] for a review of previous results in this direction and for further references. There is an important feature to point out about the wave operator . The work of Tarama [@Tar] showed that Zygmund type conditions in time are well-adapted to this kind of analysis. These are smoothness assumptions which are made on the second variation of the function, i.e. on the symmetric difference $\|f(t+\tau)+f(t-\tau)-2f(t)\|$, rather than on its modulus of continuity; besides, they can be related with special Besov type regularities. It turns out that these conditions are weaker than the corresponding ones made on the first variation, namely on $\|f(t+\tau)-f(t)\|$: in particular, one can recover well-posedness (with no loss) for the pure Zygmund condition $$\|f(t+\tau)+f(t-\tau)-2f(t)\|\,\leq\,C\,\|\tau\|\,, \leqno(Z)$$ which is weaker than the Lipschitz one. In order to deal with this worse behaviour in hyperbolic Cauchy problems, one has to introduce a lower order corrector in the definition of the energy: this additional term is necessary to produce special algebraic cancellations in the estimates, erasing bad remainders arising in the time derivative of the energy. We refer to the above mentioned works [@C-DS], [@C-DS-F-M_tl], [@C-DS-F-M_wp] (where the coefficients depend also on $x$) for further progress in this direction. Let us come back to the operator $L$, defined in . In the present paper we aim at investigating the problem of its well-posedness looking at minimal regularity conditions in time and space variables for coefficients and symmtrizers: namely, we will consider the case of non-Lipschitz dependence on $(t,x)$, keeping however the smoothness of $S(t,x,\xi)$ with respect to $\xi$ (see the discussion above). Indeed, our analysis makes a broad use of paradifferential calculus, which requires smoothness of symbols in the dual variable. In a preliminary study (see [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys]), we focused on time-dependent coefficients: $A_j(t)$ and $B=0$ for simplicity. Inspired by [@Tar], it was natural to formulate Zygmund type hypotheses on them; on the other hand, in this context it is out of use to know a priori the existence of a microlocal symmetrizer $S(t,\xi)$ with the same regularity in time. As a matter of fact, analogoulsy to the case of the wave equation, the time derivative of the energy $E(t)\,\sim\,\bigl(Su,u\bigr)_{L^2}$ produces bad remainders, and one needs to introduce correctors to cancel them out: the challenge there was to build up a suitable microlocal symmetrizer, for which energy estimates work well. Hence, we supposed the system to be hyperbolic with constant multiplicities, which means that all the eigenvalues of the principal symbol are real, semi-simple and with constant multiplicities in $t$ and $\xi$; this condition implies in particular strong hyperbolicity. In the end, in [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys] we proved well-posedness in any $H^s$ for Zygmund type assumptions (even of integral type), while energy estimates with a finite time-increasing loss of derivatives for log-Zymgund type assumptions (in the right-hand side of $(Z)$ an extra logarithmic factor $\|\log\tau\|$ is added), which entail well-posedness just in $H^\infty$. We have to point out that the hypothesis of dependence of the $A_j$’s just on time was crucial in [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys], in order to construct a good symmetrizer, and it is far to be clear at present how to deal with the more general case of dependence also on $x$. As a first step in this direction, in the present paper we consider coefficients $A_j(t,x)$ with slightly better regularity conditions in $t$, and non-zero matrices $B(t,x)$: we will see that, now, the presence of $0$-th order term makes some differences in the analysis. More precisely, we assume $B$ to be $L^\infty\bigl([0,T];{\mathcal}{C}^{\gamma}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$, for some Hölder exponent $0<{\gamma}<1$, and the $A_j$’s to be bounded and uniformly log-Lipschitz continuous in their variables. \[d:LL\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^N$ be an open domain. A function $f\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ is said to be log-Lipschitz in $\Omega$, and we write $f\in LL(\Omega)$, if the quantity $$\|f\|_{LL}\,:=\,\sup_{y,z\in\Omega,\,\|y-z\|<1} \left(\frac{\left\|f(y)\,-\,f(z)\right\|}{\|y-z\|\,\log\bigl(1\,+\,1/\|y-z\|\bigr)}\right)\,<\,+\infty\,.$$ We define $\\|f\\|_{LL}\,:=\,\\|f\\|_{L^\infty}\,+\,\|f\|_{LL}$. The same regularity hypothesis is assumed in $(t,x)$ also for the microlocal symmetrizer (of course, it is taken smooth in $\xi$). Indeed, as we will see, corrector terms are no more needed in this case, and the energy can be defined in a classical way, in terms (roughly speaking) of the $L^2$ scalar product with respect to $S$. Then, the microlocal simmetrizability assumption will be still suitable for our purposes. For operator $L$, supplemented with these additional hypotheses, in Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] we establish energy estimates on the whole $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with time-increasing loss of derivatives, which are the exact couterpart of similar inequalities for the wave operator (see [@C-L], [@C-M]). These estimates, however, hold true in low regularity Sobolev spaces $H^s$, for $0<s<{\gamma}$, due to the weak smoothness of the coefficients in $x$. For the same reason, the result is just local in time: if the loss of derivatives is too high, $u$ ends up in very weak classes, for which the product with log-Lipschitz or Hölder functions is no more well-defined. Let us explain better this point. One has to remark (see also Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] and Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\] below) that multiplication by a log-Lipschitz function is a self-map of $H^s$ if and only if $\|s\|<1$, so that the first order part makes sense in $H^{s-1}$ if and only if $-1<s-1<0$. On the other hand, the $0$-th order term will be treated as a remainder, and so we need it to be in $H^s$: this is true for $\|s\|<{\gamma}$. Notice here that the argument is symmetric for the conservative counterpart $$L^u\,=\,-\,\d_tu\,-\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\bigl(A_j^\,u\bigr)\,+\,B^\,u\,,$$ and in fact, for $L^$ one gets a sort of “dual” version of the previous result, in $H^s$ classes for $-{\gamma}<s<0$ (but the loss is always increasing in time, of course). Our result strongly relies on paradifferential calculus in logarithmic Sobolev classes, and especially on a fine analysis of paradifferential operators associated to symbols which are log-Lipschitz (or Hölder) continuous in $x$, for which we develop also a symbolic calculus. This analysis allows us to approximate the principal part ${\mathcal}{A}$ of $L$ by its paradifferential operator $T_{{\mathcal}A}$, and to define an approximate symmetrizer for $T_{{\mathcal}A}$ by taking, roughly speaking, the paradifferential operator associated to the original symmetrizer $S$ (up to small modifications, required in order to deal with low frequencies). On the other hand, the time dependence comes into play as well, and the weak smoothness in $t$ causes some troubles in view of energy estimates. Then, following the approach initiated in [@C-DG-S] by Colombini, De Giorgi and Spagnolo for the scalar wave equation, we need to introduce a regularization in time, and to link the regularization parameter (say) ${\varepsilon}$ with the dual variable $\xi$. More precisely, given a simbol $a=a(t,x,\xi)$, in a first moment we smooth it out by convolution with a smoothing kernel: we define the family $a_{\varepsilon}=\rho_{\varepsilon}\,_t\,a$. Then, in view of closing energy estimates, we have to make the key choice ${\varepsilon}=1/\|\xi\|$: this means that the approximation is different, depending on the size of the frequencies we are looking at. Therefore, the previous paradifferential calculus construction has to be completely revisited and adapted to treat new symbols ${\widetilde}{a}(t,x,\xi)$ which are obtained by the family $\bigl(a_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ performing the choice ${\varepsilon}=\|\xi\|^{-1}$. Let us point out that, in our analysis, the log-Lipschitz continuity in $(t,x)$ of both* the first order coefficients and the symmetrizer is exploited in a fundamental way. Also, the counterexamples established in [@M-2014] and [@C-M_2015] imply somehow the sharpness of our result. In particular, in [@C-M_2015] Colombini and Métivier were able to exhibit explicit examples of $2\times2$ microlocally symmetrizable systems with smooth time-dependent coefficients, for which the following phenomena occur: if the symmetrizer is $\omega$-continuous for some modulus of continuity $\omega$ which is even slightly worse than Lipschitz, a loss of derivatives has to occur in the energy estimates (then ill-posedness in $L^2$); if $\omega$ is worse than log-Lipschitz, then the loss is in general infinite (which shows ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem in ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty$). This having been done, we turn our attention to local in space existence and uniqueness questions. Indeed, our regularity hypotheses are invariant under smooth change of variables, and thus they are suitable for local analysis. On the other hand, we will prove that also the microlocal symmetrizability assumption (reformulated in Definition \[d:full-symm\] in a coordinate independent way) is invariant under change of variables. So, in Theorems \[t:local\_e\] and \[t:local\_u\] we show respectively local existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Cauchy problem for our operator $L$ (written in a coordinate independent way, see formula below). These results are the analogue of what established in [@C-M] for wave operators $W$. In passing, we mention that local uniqueness will be derived from a result about propagation of zero across space-like manifolds, which also implies finite speed of propagation and a sharp description of the propagation of supports by standard arguments (see e.g. [@J-M-R_2005], [@Rauch_2005]). Of course, since we are in a low regularity framework, the sense of the local Cauchy problem is not clear a priori: therefore, the initial efforts (see Subection \[ss:sense\]) will be devoted to explain the setting, how one has to interpret the Cauchy problem under our assumptions and in which sense one can aim at solving it. Then, by a change of variables we will reconduct the analysis to operator $L$ written in the form above, and, by a classical convexification argument, we will be able to reduce the proof of the local statements to the global in space results, previously established. Before going on, let us give a brief overview of the paper. In the next section we collect our hypotheses, and we state our main results, first for the global Cauchy problem, and then for the local one. Section \[s:tools\] is devoted to Littlewood-Paley analysis of log-Lipschitz and Sobolev classes, and to developing paradifferential calculus associated to low regularity symbols. This analysis will be the key to the proof of the global statement, which will be presented in Section \[s:en-est\]. Finally, in Section \[s:local\] we discuss the local questions. Notations {#notations .unnumbered} --------- Before going on, let us introduce some notations. First of all, given two vectors $v$ and $w$ in ${\mathbb{C}}^m$, we will denote by $v\cdot w$ the usual hermitian product in ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ and by $\|v\|$ the usual norm of a vector in ${\mathbb{C}}^m$: $$v\,\cdot\,w\,=\,\sum_{j=1}^m v_j\,{\overline}{w_j}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad \|v\|^2\,=\,v\,\cdot\,v\,.$$ On the contrary, given a infinite-dimensional Banach space $X$, we will denote by $\\|\,\cdot\,\\|_{X}$ its norm and, if it’s Hilbert, by $(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)_{X}$ its scalar product. Tipically, for us $X=L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ or $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$. We will also set ${\mathcal}{M}_m({\mathbb{C}})$ the set of all $m\times m$ matrices whose components are complex numbers, and we will denote by $\|\,\cdot\,\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}$ its norm: $$\|A\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}\,:=\,\sup_{\|v\|=1}\|Av\|\,\equiv\,\sup_{\|v\|\leq1}\|Av\|\,\equiv\,\sup_{v\neq0}\frac{\|Av\|}{\|v\|}\,.$$ ### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} The first two authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM). Basic definitions and main results {#s:results} ================================== We state here our main results. Let us start by the global in space questions. The global Cauchy problem ------------------------- For $m\geq1$, let us consider the $m\times m$ linear first order system $$\label{def:L} Lu(t,x)\,=\,\d_tu(t,x)\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^nA_j(t,x)\,\d_ju(t,x)\,+\,B(t,x)\,u(t,x)$$ defined on a strip $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$, for some time $T>0$ and $n\geq1$. We suppose $u(t,x)\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$ and, for all $1\leq j\leq n$, the matrices $A_j(t,x)\in{\mathcal}{M}_m({\mathbb{C}})$ as well as $B(t,x)$. We define the principal symbol ${\mathcal}A$ associated to the operator $L$: for all $(t,x,\xi)\in[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $$\label{def:symbol} {\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)\,:=\,\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j\,A_j(t,x)\,.$$ Then, for all $(t,x,\xi)$ fixed, ${\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)$ is an $m\times m$ matrix which has complex-valued coefficients. We denote by $\bigl(\lambda_k(t,x,\xi)\bigr)_{1\leq k\leq m}\subset{\mathbb{C}}$ its eigenvalues at any point $(t,x,\xi)$. Analogously, we consider also its conservative counterpart, i.e. the operator ${\widetilde}{L}$ defined by $$\label{def:L} {\widetilde}{L}u(t,x)\,=\,\d_tu(t,x)\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\bigl(A_j(t,x)\,u(t,x)\bigr)\,+\,B(t,x)\,u(t,x)$$ and whose principal symbol is still ${\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)$, with a different quantization. Let us state now our working hypothesis. First of all, in the sequel we will always assume that our operator $L$ is hyperbolic, namely $\bigl(\lambda_k(t,x,\xi)\bigr)_{1\leq k\leq m}\subset{\mathbb{R}}$. As for the coefficients of $L$, we always suppose boundedness: we suppose that, for all $M\,\in\,\left\{A_1\ldots A_n,B\right\}$, $$\label{hyp:bound} \bigl\\|M\bigr\\|_{L^\infty([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathcal}{M}_m({\mathbb{C}}))}\,:=\,\sup_{(t,x)}\bigl\|M(t,x)\bigr\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}\,\leq\,K_0\,.$$ Concerning their regularity, let us start by focusing on first order coefficients: we assume that, for all $1\leq j\leq n$, the matrix-valued functions $A_j$ are log-Lipschitz* continuous ($LL$ in brief) in their variables: there exists a constant $K_1>0$ such that, for all $\tau>0$ and all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\{0\}$, one has $$\label{hyp:LL} \sup_{(t,x)}\bigl\|A_j(t+\tau,x+y)\,-\,A_j(t,x)\bigr\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}\,\leq\, K_1\,\bigl(\|\tau\|+\|y\|\bigr)\,\log\left(1\,+\,\frac{1}{\|\tau\|+\|y\|}\right)\,.$$ Notice that, since we are in finite dimension, this is equivalent to require the same condition on each component of $A_j$. Concerning the coefficient of the lower order term, we will assume ${\gamma}$-Hölder continuity in space, uniformly in time. More precisely, we suppose that there exist a ${\gamma}\in\,]0,1[\,$ and a constant $K_2>0$ such that, for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\{0\}$, one has $$\label{hyp:Holder} \sup_{(t,x)}\bigl\|B(t,x+y)\,-\,B(t,x)\bigr\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}\,\leq\,K_2\,\|y\|^{\gamma}\,.$$ Finally, we will require that the system is uniformly microlocally symmetrizable, in the sense of Métivier (see [@M-2008], Chapter 7). The word uniformly here means with respect to $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ (see also Section 4 of [@M-2014]). \[d:micro\_symm\] System is uniformly symmetrizable if there exists a $m\times m$ matrix $S(t,x,\xi)$, homogeneous of degree $0$ in $\xi$, such that: - $\xi\,\mapsto\,S(t,x,\xi)$ is ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty$ for $\xi\neq0$; - for any point $(t,x,\xi)$, the matrix $S(t,x,\xi)$ is self-adjoint; - there exist constants $0<\lambda\leq\Lambda$ such that $\lambda\,{{\rm Id}\,}\,\leq\,S(t,x,\xi)\,\leq\,\Lambda\,{{\rm Id}\,}$ for any $(t,x,\xi)$; - for any point $(t,x,\xi)$, the matrix $S(t,x,\xi)\,{\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)$ is self-adjoint. The matrix valued function $S$ is called a microlocal symmetrizer for system . \[ex:symm\] Obviously, symmetric systems are microlocally symmetrizable hyperbolic systems, whose symmetrizer is simply the identity matrix. \[ex:const\] Also hyperbolic systems with constant multiplicities (and in particular strictly hyperbolic systems, for which multiplicities are all equal to $1$) are microlocally symmetrizable. Indeed, a symmetrizer can be easily constructed (see e.g. [@M-2008]) in terms of the eigenvalues and projection operators onto the eigenspaces related to ${\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)$. In addition, standard perturbation theory for linear operators (see e.g. [@K], [@M-2014],[@Rauch]) entails that the eigenvalues and eigenprojectors inherit the same regularity in $(t,x)$ as the coefficients of $L$. In particular, this implies that, in general, one cannot expect to find a symmetrizer having more smoothness than the one of the coefficients of $L$ or ${\widetilde}{L}$. In what follows, we are going to consider the case when also the symmetrizer $S$ is log-Lipschitz continuous in $(t,x)$, in the sense that it verifies an inequality of the same type as at any $\xi\neq0$ fixed. Such a regularity hypothesis for $S$ will be exploited in a fundamental way in order to get our result. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the constants $K_0$ in and $K_1$ in are large enough, to control also the corresponding quantities computed for the symmetrizer $S$. Under the previous hypotheses, we can show an energy estimate with finite loss of derivatives for $L$ and ${\widetilde}{L}$. We point out that such a loss is linearly increasing in time, which implies that the solution becomes more and more irregular in the time evolution. The estimates are stated for smooth enoug $u$ at this level. However, as a consequence of a “weak $=$ strong” type result (see Theorem \[th:w-s\] below), they remain true for tempered distributions in a much broader class. \[th:en\_LL\] Let us consider the first-order system , and assume it to be microlocally symmetrizable, in the sense of Definition \[d:micro\_symm\]. Suppose moreover that the coefficients $\bigl(A_j\bigr)_{1\leq j\leq n}$ and the symmetrizer $S$ satisfy the boundedness and log-Lipschitz conditions -. Suppose also that the coefficient $B$ verifies hypotheses -, for some ${\gamma}\in\,]0,1[\,$. Then, for all $s\in\,]0,{\gamma}[\,$, there exist positive constants $C_1$, $C_2$ (depending just on $s$, $K_0$ and $K_1$), a $\beta>0$ (depending just on $K_1$) and a time $T_\in\,]0,T]$, with $\beta\,T_\,<\,s$, such that the estimate $$\label{est:u_LL} \sup_{t\in[0,T_]}\\|u(t)\\|_{H^{s-\beta t}}\,\leq\,C_1\,e^{C_2\,T}\,\left(\\|u(0)\\|_{H^s}\,+\,\int^{T_}_0 \bigl\\|Lu(\tau)\bigr\\|_{H^{s-\beta\tau}}\,d\tau\right)$$ holds true for any tempered distribution $u\,\in\,L^2\bigl([0,T];H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)\,\cap\,H^1\bigl([0,T];L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$. An analogous estimate holds true also for operator ${\widetilde}{L}$ defined in , but for any $s\,\in\,]-{\gamma},0[\,$ and under the condition $\beta\,T_\,<\,{\gamma}+s$. Some remarks on the previous statement are in order. \[r:no-lower\] - The technical limitation $\|s\|<{\gamma}$ is dictated by product continuity properties (see Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] below). The same can be said about the conditions on the time $T_$. - A careful but easy inspection of our proof reveals that, if $B\in L^\infty\bigl([0,T];LL({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$, then Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] holds true replacing ${\gamma}$ by $1$ (see also Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\]). On the other hand, having additional regularity for $B$ does not help to improve the result: in particular, this is the case when the operator is homogeneous of first order, i.e. if $B\equiv0$. - In the case of operator ${\widetilde}{L}$, the Hölder regularity of the $0$-th order term imposes an additional limitation on the lifespan $T_$. We notice that this is coherent with what is known for scalar wave equations (see e.g. [@C-DS-F-M_Birk]). From the previous theorem, we can deduce the existence and uniqueness of a local in time solution to the Cauchy problem associated to $L$ and ${\widetilde}{L}$. \[t:global\_e\] Let us consider the first-order system , and assume it to be microlocally symmetrizable, in the sense of Definition \[d:micro\_symm\]. Suppose moreover that the coefficients $\bigl(A_j\bigr)_{1\leq j\leq n}$ and the symmetrizer $S$ satisfy the boundedness and log-Lipschitz conditions -. Suppose also that the coefficient $B$ verifies hypotheses -, for some ${\gamma}\in\,]0,1[\,$. For $s\in\,]0,{\gamma}[\,$, let $\beta>0$ and $T_>0$ respectively the loss parameter and the existence time given by Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. Set $s_0\,:=\,s-\beta T_$. Then, for any fixed $u_0\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ and $f\in L^1\bigl([0,T];H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$, there exists a unique solution $u\,\in\,{\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,T_];H^{s_0}({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$ to the Cauchy problem $$\label{eq:Cauchy} \left\{\begin{array}{l} Lu\;=\;f \\[1ex] u_{\|t=0}\;=\;u_0\,, \end{array}\right.$$ which satisfies the energy inequality . In particular, for any $t\in[0,T_]$, one has $$u(t)\,\in\,H^{s-\beta t}({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\,,$$ and the map $t\,\mapsto\,u(t)$ is continuous between the respective functional spaces. An analogous statement still holds true for the conservative operator ${\widetilde}{L}$. \[r:Cauchy\] Let us denote by ${\mathcal}{C}_b^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ the space of ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ functions which are uniformly bounded with all their derivatives. Theorems \[th:en\_LL\] and \[t:global\_e\] immediately imply the following statement: if the coefficients of $L$ (respectively ${\widetilde}{L}$) and the symmetrizer $S$ are $L^\infty\bigl([0,T];{\mathcal}{C}^\infty_b({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$, with the first order coefficients and $S$ log-Lipschitz continuous in time, then the Cauchy problem for $L$ (respectively ${\widetilde}{L}$) is well-posed in the space $H^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$, with a finite loss of derivatives. Local in space results {#ss:local_th} ---------------------- We turn now our attention to the local in space problem. For simplicity of exposition, we will always consider smooth* bounded domains and manifolds. Hence, we fix a smooth open bounded domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{1+n}$, and we suppose that the coefficients $A_j=A_j(z)$ are log-Lipschitz in $\Omega$ (keep in mind Definition \[d:LL\]). We recall also that $H^s(\Omega)$ is defined (see Chapter 3 of [@T_1983], where the more general context of Besov spaces is treated) as $$\label{def:H^s} H^s(\Omega)\,:=\,\biggl\{u\in{\mathcal}{D}'(\Omega)\;\biggl\|\;\mbox{ there exists }\;{\widetilde}{u}\,\in\,H^s({\mathbb{R}}^{1+n}) \;\mbox{ such that }\;{\widetilde}{u}_{\|\Omega}\,\equiv\,u\biggr\}\,,$$ endowed with the norm $$\\|u\\|_{H^s(\Omega)}\,:=\,\inf\,\biggl\{\left\\|{\widetilde}{u}\right\\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^{1+n})}\;\biggl\|\quad{\widetilde}{u}\,\in\,H^s({\mathbb{R}}^{1+n})\quad \mbox{ and }\quad{\widetilde}{u}_{\|\Omega}\,\equiv\,u\biggr\}\,.$$ As for the boundary $\d\Omega$, partition of unity leads to a similar definition for $H^s(\d\Omega)$, by use of local charts and extension operator; the same can be said for smooth submanifolds $\varSigma$. Let us consider the operator $P$, defined in $\Omega$ by the formula $$\label{eq:def_P} P(z,\d_z)u\,:=\,\sum_{j=0}^nA_j(z)\d_{z_j}u\,+\,B(z)u\,,$$ where, for all $1\leq j\leq n$, the $A_j$’s and $B$ are real $m\times m$ matrices; we will specify later on their regularity. For the time being, let us introduce the principal symbol $P_1$ of $P$, identified by the formula $$P_1(z,{\zeta})\,=\,\sum_{j=0}^ni\,{\zeta}^j\,A_j(z)\,,$$ and recall some basic definitions (see Section 4 of [@M-2014]). At this level, the dependence of the coefficients on the variable $z\in\Omega$ is not really important, so let us omit it from the notations here. \[d:hyperbolic\] The operator $P$ is said to be hyperbolic in the direction $\nu\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1+d}$ if the following conditions are verified: - $\det\bigl(P_1(\nu)\bigr)\,\neq\,0$; - there exists a $\eta_0>0$ such that $\det\bigl(P_1(i\tau\nu+{\zeta})+B\bigr)\,\neq\,0$ for all ${\zeta}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1+d}$ and all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\|\tau\|>\eta_0$. The principal operator $P_1(\d_z)$ is strongly hyperbolic in the direction $\nu$ if for all matrix $B\in{\mathcal}{M}_m({\mathbb{R}})$, then $P_1+B$ is hyperbolic in the direction $\nu$. Let us recall that Proposition 4.2 of [@M-2014] gives a characterization of the strong hyperbolicity. We do not enter into the details here; however, we will come back to this notion in a while. Now, we are interested in considering the dependence on $z\in\Omega$: more precisely, for any $z\in\Omega$, we assign a direction $\nu(z)\in{\mathbb}{S}^d$ (where ${\mathbb}{S}^d$ is the unitary sphere in ${\mathbb{R}}^{1+d}$) in a smooth way. In what follows, we are going to assume that - $P_1(z,\cdot)$ is uniformly strongly hyperbolic in the direction $\nu(z)$, for all $z\in\Omega$. By Theorem 4.10 of [@M-2014], hypothesis (H-1) is equivalent to the following conditions: 1. one has the property $$\label{eq:det_pos} C_\Omega\,:=\,\inf_{z\in\Omega}\,\Bigl\|{\rm det}\,P_1\bigl(z,\nu(z)\bigr)\Bigr\|\,>\,0\,;$$ 2. $P_1$ admits a bounded family of full symmetrizers ${\mathbf}{S}(z,\cdot)$ which is uniformly positive in the direction $\nu(z)$. Hence, let us recall Definition 4.7 of [@M-2014] here below. \[d:full-symm\] A bounded family of full symmetrizers for $P_1(z,{\zeta})$ is a family of $m\times m$ matrices ${\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})$, homogeneous of degree $0$ in ${\zeta}\neq 0$, such that the following conditions are satisfied: - uniform boundedness: there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$ such that $\sup_{(z,{\zeta})}\|{\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})\|_{{\mathcal}{M}}\,\leq\,\Lambda$; - symmetrizability: for any $(z,{\zeta})$, the matrix ${\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})\,P_1(z,{\zeta})$ is self-adjoint. The symmetrizer ${\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})$ is positive in the direction $\nu\neq0$ if there exists a constant $\lambda>0$ such that, for all ${\zeta}\neq0$, one has $$v\,\in\,{\rm Ker}\,P_1(z,\zeta)\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad {{\rm Re}\,}\Bigl({\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})\,P_1\bigl(z,\nu\bigr)v\,\cdot\,v\Bigr)\,\geq\,\lambda\,\|v\|^2\,.$$ Uniform positivity means positivity of ${\mathbf}{S}(z,\cdot)$ in the direction $\nu(z)$ for all $z\in\Omega$, for a constant $\lambda$ independent of $z$. We are going to need also the following assumptions concerning the family of symmetrizers: - the map ${\zeta}\,\mapsto\,{\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})$ is ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty$ for ${\zeta}\neq0$ (smoothness in ${\zeta}$); - the map $z\,\mapsto\,{\mathbf}{S}(z,{\zeta})$ is uniformly $LL$ in $\Omega$ (log-Lipschitz regularity in $z$). As for the coefficients of the operator $P$, defined in , we suppose instead that: - the matrices $A_j$ have coefficients in the $LL(\Omega)$ class; - $B$ has coefficients in the Hölder space ${\mathcal}{C}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$. Let us now fix a smooth hypersurface $\varSigma\subset\Omega$. As in [@C-M], up to shrink $\Omega$, we can assume that $\varSigma$ is defined by the equation ${\varphi}=0$, for a smooth ${\varphi}$ such that $d{\varphi}\neq0$. Finally, we suppose that, for any $z\in\varSigma$, the vector $\nu(z)$ coincides with the normal to $\varSigma$ in $z$, i.e. $d{\varphi}(z)$. We introduce the notations $\Omega_\geq\,:=\,\Omega\,\cap\,\{{\varphi}\geq0\}$ and $\Omega_>\,:=\,\Omega\,\cap\,\{{\varphi}>0\}$. For $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that $u\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$ if, for any open $\Omega'\subset\Omega$, relatively compact in $\Omega$, the restriction of $u$ to $\Omega'\,\cap\,\{{\varphi}>0\}$ belongs to $H^s(\Omega_>)$. In a similar way, we say that $v\in H^s_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$ if $v\in H^s(\Omega_>)$ has compact support in $\Omega_\geq$. For a $z_0\in\varSigma$, we are interested in solving the Cauchy problem for $P$ in a neighborhood of $z_0$. We have the following local existence result. \[t:local\_e\] Let $1/2<{\gamma}<1$ and $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},{\gamma}[\,$. Let $P$ be the operator defined in , satisfying all hypotheses from *(H-1)* to *(H-5). Fix a neighborhood $\omega$ of $z_0$ in $\varSigma$. Then, there exist a $s_0\in\,]1-{\gamma},s[\,$ and a neighborhood $\Omega_0$ of $z_0$ in $\Omega$ such that, for any $u_0\in H^s(\omega)$ and any $f\in H^s(\Omega_0\cap\{{\varphi}>0\})$, there exists a solution $u\in H^{s_0}(\Omega_0\cap\{{\varphi}>0\})$ to the Cauchy problem $$\left\{\begin{array}{l} Pu\;=\;f \\[1ex] u_{\|\varSigma}\;=\;u_0\,. \end{array}\right. \leqno{(C\!P)}$$ \[r:sense\] Notice that, due to the low regularity of the coefficients, the meaning of $(C\!P)$ is not clear a priori: we will precise it in Subsection \[ss:sense\]. In particular, one step of the proof is devoted exactly to giving sense to the trace operator in a weak smoothness framework. For the problem $(C\!P)$ we have also local uniqueness* of a solution. From this statement, which establish propagation of zero across any space-like hypersurface, one can deduce also further local results, for instance about finite propagation speed and domain of dependence, by use of classical arguments (see e.g. [@J-M-R_2005] and [@Rauch_2005]). \[t:local\_u\] Let $1/2<{\gamma}<1$ and $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},{\gamma}[\,$. Let $P$ be the operator defined in , satisfying all hypotheses from *(H-1)* to *(H-5). If $u\in H^{s}(\Omega_>)$ satisfies $(C\!P)$ with $f=0$ and Cauchy datum $u_0=0$, then $u\equiv0$ on a neighborhood of $z_0$ in $\Omega_\geq$. In Section \[s:local\], after rigorously justify the good formulation of the Cauchy problem $(C\!P)$, we will show the invariance of our hypotheses with respect to smooth changes of variables. This fact will enable us to pass in $(t,x)$ coordinates: then, the proof of Theorems \[t:local\_e\] and \[t:local\_u\] will be deduced from the global in space results. Therefore, let us focus first on these latter properties. Tools from Littlewood-Paley theory {#s:tools} ================================== We collect here some notions and results which turn out to be useful in our proof. First, by use of the Littlewood-Paley decomposition, we describe some properties of Sobolev spaces and of log-Lipschitz functions. Then, we recall some notions of Paradifferential Calculus, focusing on operators whose symbol is in the log-Lipschitz class. Dyadic analysis of Sobolev and log-Lipschitz classes {#ss:L-P} ---------------------------------------------------- Let us first define the so called Littlewood-Paley decomposition* in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ (for any $N\geq1$), based on a non-homogeneous dyadic partition of unity with respect to the Fourier variable. We refer to [@B-C-D] (Chapter 2) and [@M-2008] (Chapters 4 and 5) for the details. So, fix a smooth radial function $\chi$ supported in the ball $B(0,2)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^N$, equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of $B(0,1)$ and such that $r\mapsto\chi(r\,e)$ is nonincreasing over ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ for all unitary vectors $e\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$. Set $\varphi\left(\xi\right)=\chi\left(\xi\right)-\chi\left(2\xi\right)$ and ${\varphi}_j(\xi):={\varphi}(2^{-j}\xi)$ for all $j\geq0$. The dyadic blocks $(\Delta_j)_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ are defined by[^1] $$\Delta_j:=0\ \hbox{ if }\ j\leq-1,\quad\Delta_{0}:=\chi(D)\quad\hbox{and}\quad \Delta_j:=\varphi(2^{-j}D)\ \text{ if }\ j\geq1.$$ We also introduce the following low frequency cut-off: $$S_ju\,:=\,\chi(2^{-j}D)\,u\,=\,\sum_{k\leq j}\Delta_{k}u\quad\text{for}\quad j\geq0.$$ By use of the previous operators, for any $u\in{\mathcal}{S}'$, we have the Littlewood-Paley decomposition of $u$: namely, the equality $u=\sum_{j}\Delta_ju$ holds true in ${\mathcal}{S}'$. Let us recall the fundamental Bernstein’s inequalities. \[l:bern\] Let $0<r<R$. A constant $C$ exists so that, for any nonnegative integer $k$, any couple $(p,q)$ in $[1,+\infty]^2$ with $p\leq q$ and any function $u\in L^p$, we have, for all $\lambda>0$, $$\displaylines{ {\rm supp}\, \widehat u \subset B(0,\lambda R)\quad \Longrightarrow\quad \\|\nabla^k u\\|_{L^q}\, \leq\, C^{k+1}\,\lambda^{k+N\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)}\,\\|u\\|_{L^p}\;;\cr {\rm supp}\, \widehat u \subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\,\|\, r\lambda\leq\|\xi\|\leq R\lambda\} \quad\Longrightarrow\quad C^{-k-1}\,\lambda^k\\|u\\|_{L^p}\, \leq\, \\|\nabla^k u\\|_{L^p}\, \leq\, C^{k+1} \, \lambda^k\\|u\\|_{L^p}\,. }$$ Let us now introduce the class of logarithmic Sobolev spaces, which naturally come into play in the study of hyperbolic operators with low regularity coefficients (see [@C-M], [@C-DS-F-M_tl] and [@C-DS-F-M_wp]). Let us set $\Pi(D)\,:=\,\log(2+\|D\|)$, i.e. its symbol is $\pi(\xi)\,:=\,\log(2+\|\xi\|)$. \[d:log-H\^s\] For all $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, we define the space $H^{s+\alpha\log}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\Pi^{-\alpha}H^s({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, i.e. $$f\,\in\,H^{s+\alpha\log}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\Pi^\alpha f\,\in\,H^s\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \pi^\alpha(\xi)\left(1+\|\xi\|^2\right)^{s/2}{\widehat}{f}(\xi)\,\in\,L^2\,.$$ Obviously, for $\alpha=0$ one recovers the classical Sobolev space $H^s$. We have the following dyadic characterization of these classes (see [@M-2008], Proposition 4.1.11), which generalizes the classical property for the $H^s$ scale. \[p:log-H\] Let $s$, $\alpha\,\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then $u\in{\mathcal}{S}'$ belongs to the space $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ if and only if: - for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\Delta_ku\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^N)$; - set $\,\delta_k\,:=\,2^{ks}\,(1+k)^\alpha\,\\|\Delta_ku\\|_{L^2}$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the sequence $\left(\delta_k\right)_k$ belongs to $\ell^2({\mathbb{N}})$. Moreover, $\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\sim\,\left\\|\left(\delta_k\right)_k\right\\|_{\ell^2}$. The previous proposition can be summarized by the equivalence $H^{s+\alpha\log}\,\equiv\,B^{s+\alpha\log}_{2,2}$, where, for any $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $1\leq p,r\leq+\infty$, the non-homogeneous logarithmic Besov space $B^{s+\alpha\log}_{p,r}$ is the subset of tempered distributions $u$ for which $$\label{eq:log-Besov} \\|u\\|_{B^{s+\alpha\log}_{p,r}}\,:=\, \left\\|\left(2^{js}\,(1+j)^{\alpha}\,\\|\Delta_ju\\|_{L^p}\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^r}\,<\,+\infty\,.$$ In addition, we point out that an analogous characterization holds true also for Hölder classes: namely, for any $\gamma\in\,]0,1[\,$ one has ${\mathcal}{C}^\gamma\,\equiv\,B^{\gamma}_{\infty,\infty}\,=\,B^{\gamma+0\log}_{\infty,\infty}$. We recall that the previous definition and properties do not depend on the choice of the cut-off functions used in a Littlewood-Paley decomposition: in the logarithmic framework, this comes from Lemma 3.5 of [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys], which we recall here. \[l:log-B\_ind\] Let ${\mathcal}{C}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a ring, $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $(p,r)\in[1,+\infty]^2$. Let $\left(u_j\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions such that $${\rm supp}\,{\widehat}{u}_j\,\subset\,2^j\,{\mathcal}{C}\qquad\quad\mbox{ and }\qquad\quad \left\\|\left(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\\|u_j\\|_{L^p}\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^r}\,<\,+\infty\,.$$ Then $u:=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}u_j$ belongs to $B^{s+\alpha\log}_{p,r}$ and $\\|u\\|_{B^{s+\alpha\log}_{p,r}}\,\leq\,C_{s,\alpha}\,\left\\|\left(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\, \\|u_j\\|_{L^p}\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^r}$. This fact will be used freely throughout the paper. Now we mention a couple of results which will be useful in the sequel. They are classical (see [@B-C-D], Chapter 2), and their extension to the logarithmic framework is proved in [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys]. \[l:log-S\_j\] Fix $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and let $u\in{\mathcal}{S}'$ given. - If the sequence $\bigl(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\\|S_ju\\|_{L^2}\bigr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ belongs to $\ell^2$, then $u\in H^{s+\alpha\log}$ and $$\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\;\leq\;C\,\left\\|\bigl(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\\|S_ju\\|_{L^2}\bigr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^2}\,,$$ for some constant $C>0$ depending only on $s$ and $\alpha$, but not on $u$. - Suppose $u\in H^{s+\alpha\log}$, with $s<0$. Then the sequence $\bigl(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\\|S_ju\\|_{L^2}\bigr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\,\in\,\ell^2$, and $$\left\\|\bigl(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\\|S_ju\\|_{L^2}\bigr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^2}\;\leq\; {\widetilde}{C}\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,,$$ for some constant ${\widetilde}{C}>0$ depending only on $s$ and $\alpha$. . Observe that, in general, the second property fails in the endpoint case $s=0$. Indeed, for $s=0$ one can only infer, for any $\alpha\leq0$, $$\left\\|\biggl((1+j)^\alpha\,\\|S_ju\\|_{L^2}\biggr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^\infty}\;\leq\;{\widetilde}{C}\,\\|u\\|_{B^{0+\alpha\log}_{2,1}}\,.$$ The second result we want to mention ia a sort of “dual” version of the previous lemma. \[l:log-ball\] Let ${\mathcal}{B}$ be a ball of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and take $s>0$ and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $\left(u_j\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions such that $${\rm supp}\,{\widehat}{u}_j\,\subset\,2^j{\mathcal}{B}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad \bigl(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\left\\|u_j\right\\|_{L^2}\bigr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\,\in\,\ell^2\,.$$ Then the function $\,u\,:=\,\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}u_j\,$ belongs to the space $H^{s+\alpha\log}$, and there exists a constant $C$, depending only on $s$ and $\alpha$, such that $$\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\left\\|\left(2^{js}\,(1+j)^\alpha\,\left\\|u_j\right\\|_{L^2}\right)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^2}\,.$$ Once again, the previous statement is not true in the endpoint case $s=0$: then, one can just infer, for any $\alpha\geq0$, $$\\|u\\|_{B^{0+\alpha\log}_{2,\infty}}\,\leq\,C\,\left\\|\biggl((1+j)^\alpha\,\left\\|u_j\right\\|_{L^p}\biggr)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\right\\|_{\ell^1}\,.$$ We now turn our attention to the study of the class of log-Lipschitz functions. We have given the general definition in Definition \[d:LL\]; now, we restrict to the case $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^N$, for some $N\geq1$. Let us recall some properties which can be deduced by use of dyadic decomposition (see [@C-L] and [@C-M] for the proof), and which are true in any dimension $N\geq1$. \[p:dyadic-LL\] There exists a positive constant $C$ such that, for all $a\in LL({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and all integers $k\geq0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\Delta_k a\right\\|_{L^\infty} & \leq & C\,(k+1)\,2^{-k}\,\\|a\\|_{LL} \\ \left\\|a\,-\,S_k a\right\\|_{L^\infty} & \leq & C\,(k+1)\,2^{-k}\,\\|a\\|_{LL} \\ \left\\|S_k a\right\\|_{\rm Lip}\,:=\,\left\\|S_k a\right\\|_{L^\infty}\,+\,\left\\|\nabla S_k a\right\\|_{L^\infty} & \leq & C\,(k+1)\,\\|a\\|_{LL}\,. $$ \[r:LL\_char\] By Proposition 3.3 of [@C-L], the last property is a characterization of the space $LL$. We conclude this part by showing continuity propertis of multiplication of Sobolev distributions by Hölder-type functions. \[p:Hol-Sob\] Let $b\in B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, where ${\gamma}>0$ and ${\varrho}\in{\mathbb{R}}$, or ${\gamma}=0$ and ${\varrho}>1$. Then the multiplication operator $\;u\,\mapsto\,b\,u\;$ is a continuous self-map of $H^{s+\alpha\log}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ if: - $\|s\|<{\gamma}$, no matter the value of $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$; - $s={\gamma}$ and $\alpha<{\varrho}-1/2$, or $s=-{\gamma}$ and $\alpha>1/2-{\varrho}$. We use Bony’s paraproduct decomposition (see [@Bony], [@B-C-D] and [@M-2008]) to write $$b\,u\,=\,T_bu\,+\,T_ub\,+\,R(b,u)\,=\,T_bu\,+\,T'_ub\,,$$ where the previous operators are defined by the formulas $$\label{eq:paraprod} T_bu\,=\,\sum_jS_{j-3}b\,\Delta_ju\,,\qquad R(b,u)\,=\,\sum_j\sum_{\|j-k\|\leq3}\Delta_jb\,\Delta_ku\,\qquad T'_ua\,=\,\sum_jS_{j+3}u\,\Delta_jb\,.$$ We remark that the conditions on ${\gamma}$ and ${\varrho}$ imply the chain of embeddings $B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}\,\hookrightarrow\,B^{0}_{\infty,1}\,\hookrightarrow\,L^\infty$. Then, by classical properties of paraproduct, we immediately have that $T_bu\,\in\,H^{s+\alpha\log}$, with the estimate $\\|T_bu\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\\|b\\|_{L^\infty}\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}$. Let us now focus on the case $s>0$ (and then ${\gamma}>0$), and let us consider the operator $T'_ub$. For any $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, using Bernstein inequalities and definition , we deduce $$\left\\|S_{j+3}u\,\Delta_jb\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,\left\\|S_{j+3}u\right\\|_{L^2}\,\left\\|\Delta_jb\right\\|_{L^\infty}\,\leq\, C\,2^{-j{\gamma}}\,(j+1)^{-{\varrho}}\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|b\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,.$$ Since the term $S_{j+3}u\,\Delta_jb$ is supported in dyadic balls $2^j{\mathcal}{B}$, we conclude by use of Lemma \[l:log-ball\]. We point out that, for $s={\gamma}$, the condition $\alpha<{\varrho}-1/2$ is needed to have the right-hand side of the previous inequality in $\ell^2$. For $s\leq0$ (and then ${\gamma}$ can be taken even $0$), instead, we employ the finer decomposition in $T_ub+R(b,u)$. First of all, by Lemma \[l:log-S\_j\] and again, we have the estimate $$\left\\|S_{j-3}u\,\Delta_jb\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,\left\\|S_{j-3}u\right\\|_{L^2}\,\left\\|\Delta_jb\right\\|_{L^\infty}\,\leq\, C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|b\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+\delta\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,2^{-j({\gamma}+s)}\,(1+j)^{-(\alpha+{\varrho})}\,\zeta_j\,,$$ for some $\bigl(\zeta_j\bigr)_j\,\in\,\ell^2$ of unitary norm. Observe that, for $s=0$, we have no more the presence of $\bigl(\zeta_j\bigr)_j$, but the right-hand side still belongs to $\ell^2$, thanks to our hypotheses on ${\gamma}$, $\alpha$ and $\delta$. Since the generic term $S_{j-3}u\,\Delta_jb$ is supported in dyadic rings $2^j{\mathcal}{C}$, from Lemma \[l:log-B\_ind\] we infer $\\|T_ub\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|b\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}$. For the remainder term, we use again Lemma \[l:log-B\_ind\]: focusing just on the “diagonal” term $R_0(b,u)\,=\,\sum_j\Delta_jb\,\Delta_ju$ (the other ones being similar), we have to bound, for any $\nu\geq0$, the quantity $2^{s\nu}\,(1+\nu)^\alpha\,\left\\|\Delta_\nu R_0(b,u)\right\\|_{L^2}$. By use of Proposition \[p:log-H\] we have $$\left\\|\Delta_\nu R_0(b,u)\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,\sum_{j\geq\nu-3}\left\\|\Delta_jb\,\Delta_ju\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\, C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|b\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,\sum_{j\geq\nu-3}2^{-({\gamma}+s)j}\,(1+j)^{-(\alpha+{\varrho})}\,\zeta_j\,, $$ where the sequence $\bigl(\zeta_j\bigr)_j$ is as above. Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get $$\begin{aligned} 2^{s\nu}\,(1+\nu)^\alpha\,\left\\|\Delta_\nu R_0(b,u)\right\\|_{L^2} & \leq & C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\, \\|b\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,\times \\ & & \qquad \times\,2^{s\nu}\,(1+\nu)^\alpha\,\left(\sum_{j\geq\nu-3}2^{-2({\gamma}+s)j}\, (1+j)^{-2({\varrho}+\alpha)}\right)^{\!\!1/2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and this completes the proof of the case $s\leq0$, and therefore of the proposition. We point out that, by Proposition \[p:dyadic-LL\], one has $LL\,\hookrightarrow\,B^{1-\log}_{\infty,\infty}$. Hence, from the previous statement, we immediately infer continuity properties of multiplication by log-Lipschitz functions, which generalize Proposition 3.5 of [@C-L] to the framework of logarithmic Sobolev spaces. \[c:LL-H\^s\] Let $a\in LL({\mathbb{R}}^N)$. Then the multiplication operator $\;u\,\mapsto\,a\,u\;$ is a continuous map of $H^{s+\alpha\log}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ into itself if: - $\|s\|<1$, no matter the value of $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$; - $s=1$ and $\alpha<-3/2$, or $s=-1$ and $\alpha>3/2$. Paradifferential Calculus in the log-Lipschitz class {#ss:paradiff} ---------------------------------------------------- In our study, we need to resort to tools from Paradifferential Calculus, as introduced by J.-M. Bony in the celebrated paper [@Bony]. We refer to [@B-C-D] (Chapter 2) for a complete treatement, and to papers [@M-1986]-[@M-Z] for a construction depending on parameters. Here, we follow the approach of [@M-2008] (see Chapters 4 and 5). The first part of this section is devoted to recall basic properties: we adapt the classical construction to consider symbols having log-Lipschitz smoothness with respect to the space variable, and we define general paradifferential operators associated to them, for which we develop also a symbolic calculus. In the final part, we consider the case of time-dependent symbols, which are log-Lipschitz in $t$: at this point, time cannot be considered as a parameter anymore, and we need to establish some properties for paradifferential operators whose symbols belong to this class. ### Symbols having log-Lipschitz regularity {#sss:LL} Fix a cut-off function $\psi\in{\mathcal}{C}^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^N\times{\mathbb{R}}^N)$ which verifies the following properties: - there exist $0<{\varepsilon}_1<{\varepsilon}_2<1$ such that $$\psi(\eta,\xi)\,=\,\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} 1 & \mbox{for} & \|\eta\|\leq{\varepsilon}_1\left(1+\|\xi\|\right) \\ [1ex] 0 & \mbox{for} & \|\eta\|\geq{\varepsilon}_2\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)\,; \end{array} \right.$$ - for all $(\beta,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{N}}^N\times{\mathbb{N}}^N$, there exists a constant $C_{\beta,\alpha}>0$ such that $$\left\|\d^\beta_\eta\d^\alpha_\xi\psi(\eta,\xi)\right\|\,\leq\,C_{\beta,\alpha}\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{-\|\alpha\|-\|\beta\|}\,.$$ For instance, it is easy to verify (see Ex. 5.1.5 [@M-2008]) that $$\psi(\eta,\xi)\,\equiv\,\psi_{-3}(\eta,\xi)\,:=\,\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\chi_{k-3}(\eta)\,{\varphi}_k(\xi)\,,$$ where $\chi$ and ${\varphi}$ are the localization (in phase space) functions associated to a Littlewood-Paley decomposition, satisfies the previous requirements. Define now $G^\psi$ as the inverse Fourier transform of $\psi$ with respect to the variable $\eta$: $$G^\psi(x,\xi)\,:=\,\left({\mathcal}{F}^{-1}_\eta\psi\right)(x,\xi)\,.$$ We have the following result (see Lemma 5.1.7 of [@M-2008]). \[l:G\] For all $(\beta,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{N}}^N\times{\mathbb{N}}^N$, there exist constants $C_{\beta,\alpha}>0$ such that: $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\d^\beta_x\d^\alpha_\xi G^\psi(\cdot,\xi)\right\\|_{L^1({\mathbb{R}}^N_x)} & \leq & C_{\beta,\alpha}\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{-\|\alpha\|+\|\beta\|} \\ \left\\|\|\cdot\|\,\log\left(1+\frac{1}{\|\cdot\|}\right)\,\d^\beta_x\d^\alpha_\xi G^\psi(\cdot,\xi)\right\\|_{L^1({\mathbb{R}}^N_x)} & \leq & C_{\beta,\alpha}\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{-\|\alpha\|+\|\beta\|-1}\,\log(2+\|\xi\|)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Let us now take a symbol $a=a(x,\xi)$: thanks to $G^\psi$, we can smooth it out in the space variable, and then define the paradifferential operator associated to $a$ as the pseudodifferential operator related to this smooth function. First of all, let us specify the class of symbols we are interested in. \[d:symbols\] Let $X\subset L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ a Banach space and fix $(m,\delta)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. - We denote by $\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$ the space of functions $a(x,\xi)$ which are locally bounded over ${\mathbb{R}}^N\times{\mathbb{R}}^N$, of class ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty$ with respect to $\xi$ and which satisfy the following property: for all $\alpha\in{\mathbb{N}}^N$ and all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$, the map $x\,\mapsto\,\d^\alpha_\xi a(x,\xi)$ belongs to $X$, and, for some $C_\alpha>0$, $$\left\\|\d^\alpha_\xi a(\,\cdot\,,\xi)\right\\|_{X}\;\leq\;C_\alpha\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m-\|\alpha\|}\,\log^\delta(2+\|\xi\|)\,.$$ - $\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$ is the space of symbols $\sigma\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$ which satisfy the following spectral condition: there exists a $0<\epsilon<1$ such that, for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$, the spectrum of the function $x\,\mapsto\,\sigma(x,\xi)$ is contained in the ball $\left\{\|\eta\|\,\leq\,\epsilon\,(1+\|\xi\|)\right\}$. In a quite natural way, we can equip $\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X$ with the family of seminorms $$\label{eq:L-inf_sem} \\|a\\|^{(m,\delta)}_{(X,k)}\;:=\;\sup_{\|\alpha\|\leq k}\,\sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^N_\xi} \left((1+\|\xi\|)^{-m+\|\alpha\|}\,\log^{-\delta}(2+\|\xi\|)\,\left\\|\d^\alpha_\xi a(\,\cdot\,,\xi)\right\\|_{X}\right)\,.$$ Tipically, $X=L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ or $X=LL({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ for us. In the former case, for convenience we will use the notations $\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_\infty$, $\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_\infty$ and $\\|\,\cdot\,\\|^{(m,\delta)}_{(\infty,k)}$. In the final part of the present section (see the end of Paragraph \[sss:operators\]), for the sake of generality we will consider also the case $X=B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ (recall for its definition). In the particular case $X=LL$, we explicitly notice the following fact: for $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$, there exists $K>0$ such that, for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ and all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\!\setminus\!\{0\}$, one has $$\label{eq:LL_sem} \sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^N_x}\left\|a(x+y,\xi)\,-\,a(x,\xi)\right\|\,\leq\,K\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\, \log^{\delta}(2+\|\xi\|)\,\|y\|\,\log\!\left(1+\frac{1}{\|y\|}\right)\,.$$ Hence we can we set $\|a\|_{LL}\,=\,\|a\|^{(m,\delta)}_{(LL,0)}$ to be the smallest constant $K$ such that the previous inequality holds true. In a quite natural way, we can also define the $LL$ seminorms $\|a\|^{(m,\delta)}_{(LL,k)}$. When $X=B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, instead, we set $\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}\,:=\,\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$. Moreover, introducing a Littlewood-Paley decomposition $\bigl(\Delta_\nu\bigr)_{\nu\geq0}$ in the $x$-variable (not in $\xi$), we have $$\label{eq:B_sem} \sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^N_x}\left\|\Delta_\nu a(\,\cdot\,,\xi)\right\|\,\leq\,K\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\, \log^{\delta}(2+\|\xi\|)\;2^{-{\gamma}\nu}\,(1+\nu)^{-{\varrho}}\,,$$ for a constant $K>0$, for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ and all $\nu\geq0$. Once again, in a natural way we can introduce the seminorms $\\|a\\|^{(m,\delta)}_{({\gamma}+{\varrho}\log,k)}$. Finally, we explicitly point out that, by spectral localization and Paley-Wiener Theorem, a symbol $\sigma\in\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$ is smooth also in the $x$ variable. Now let us consider a symbol $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$: we can associate to it a the classical symbol according to the formula $$\label{eq:classical-symb} \sigma^\psi_a(x,\xi)\,:=\,\left(\,\psi(D_x,\xi)\,a\,\right)(x,\xi)\,=\,\left(G^\psi(\cdot,\xi)\,_x\,a(\cdot,\xi)\right)(x)\,.$$ The following proposition holds true. \[p:par-op\] Let $(m,\delta)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. - For $X\subset L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ a Banach space, the smoothing operator ${\mathbb}{S}:\,a(x,\xi)\,\mapsto\,\sigma_a(x,\xi)$ maps continuously $\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$ into $\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}$. - For $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$, then the difference symbol $a\,-\,\sigma_a$ belongs to $\Gamma^{(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log}_\infty$. - In particular, if $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are two admissible cut-off functions, then the difference of the two smoothed symbols, $\sigma^{\psi_1}_a\,-\,\sigma^{\psi_2}_a$, belongs to $\Sigma^{(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log}_{\infty}$. The first property is classical. The second one immediately follows from the log-Lipschitz continuity assumption and Lemma \[l:G\]. The last statement is a straightforward consequence of the previous ones. We conclude this part by noting that, at this level, the time variable can be treated as a parameter in the construction. In particular, the previous properties still hold true for symbols in $L^\infty\bigl([0,T];\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$. ### Operators, symbolic calculus {#sss:operators} As announced above, we can use the previous construction to associate to any symbol $a(x,\xi)$, which is non-regular in $x$, an operator: this will be the pseudodifferential operator associated to the smooth symbol $\sigma^\psi_a$. Let us formalize the discussion: for $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{\infty}$, we define the paradifferential operator associated to $a$ via the formula $$T^\psi_a\,:=\,\sigma^\psi_a(x,D_x)\,:\quad u\;\longmapsto\;T^\psi_au(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N_\xi}e^{ix\cdot\xi}\, \sigma^\psi_a(x,\xi)\,{\widehat}{u}(\xi)\,d\xi\,.$$ \[r:p-prod\] Notice that, if $f=f(\xi)$ is a Fourier multiplier, then $T_f\,\equiv\,f(D_x)$ (see e.g. [@M-2008]). Let us also point out that if $a=a(x)\in L^\infty$ and if we take the cut-off function $\psi_{-3}$, then $T^\psi_a$ is actually the classical paraproduct operator, defined first in [@Bony]. Let us recall some basic definitions and properties in Paradifferential Calculus. The corresponding proofs in the logarithmic setting are analogous to the classical case, and they are not detailed here. \[d:op\_order\] We say that an operator $P$ is of order $\,m+\delta\log\,$ if, for every $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $P$ maps $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ into $H^{(s-m)+(\alpha-\delta)\log}$ continuously. With slight modifications to the proof of Proposition 2.9 of [@M-Z], stated for the classical Sobolev class, we get the next fundamental result. \[l:action\] For all $\sigma\in\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{\infty}$, the corresponding operator $\sigma(\,\cdot\,,D_x)$ is of order $\,m+\delta\log$. The following result is an immediate consequence of the previous lemma and Proposition \[p:par-op\]. \[t:action\] Given a symbol $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{\infty}$, for any admissible cut-off function $\psi$, the operator $T^\psi_a$ is of order $m+\delta\log$. Notice that, in Lemma \[l:action\] and Theorem \[t:action\], the $LL$ hypothesis is not necessary: these results hold true if the symbol is even just $L^\infty$ with respect to $x$. On the contrary, we are going to exploit the additional regularity in space in the next result. It states that the whole construction does not depends on the cut-off function $\psi$. \[p:act-psi\] If $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are two admissible cut-off functions and $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$, then the difference $\,T^{\psi_1}_a\,-\,T^{\psi_2}_a\,$ is of order $(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log$. Therefore, changing the cut-off function $\psi$ doesn’t change the paradifferential operator associated to $a$, up to lower order terms. So, in what follows we fix the cut-off function $\psi=\psi_{-3}$ (defined in Paragraph \[sss:LL\]) and we will miss out the dependence of $\sigma_a$ and $T_a$ on it. We want now to develop symbolic calculus in the $LL$ class. A preliminary result is in order: it can be viewed as a generalization of Proposition \[p:dyadic-LL\]. \[l:ll-symb\] Let $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$, and denote by $\sigma_a$ the classical symbol associated to it via formula . Then the following estimates hold true: $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\d^\alpha_\xi\sigma_{a}\right\| & \leq & C_\alpha\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{m-\|\alpha\|}\,\log^\delta\left(2+\|\xi\|\right) \\ \left\|\d^\beta_x\d^\alpha_\xi\sigma_{a}\right\| & \leq & C_{\beta,\alpha}\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{m-\|\alpha\|+\|\beta\|-1}\, \log^{\delta+1}\left(2+\|\xi\|\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The constants $C_\alpha$ just depend on the quantities $\\|a\\|^{(m,\delta)}_{\infty,k}$ defined in , where $\|\alpha\|\leq k$.\ The constants $C_{\beta,\alpha}$, instead, depend only on the quantities $\\|a\\|^{(m,\delta)}_{LL,k}$, where again $\|\alpha\|\leq k$. The proof of the previous result is somehow classical, as it follows the same lines of Lemma 3.16 in [@C-DS-F-M_tl] and Lemma 3.15 in [@C-DS-F-M_wp]. Therefore we omit it. From Lemma \[l:ll-symb\] we immediately deduce the following properties. \[t:symb\_calc\] - Let us take two symbols $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$ and $b\in\Gamma^{n+{\varrho}\log}_{LL}$ and denote by $T_a$, $T_b$ the respective associated paradifferential operators. Then one has $$ T_a\,\circ\,T_b\,\,=\,\,T_{a\,b}\,\,+\,\,R_\circ\,.$$ The principal part $T_{a\,b}$ is of order $(m+n)+(\delta+{\varrho})\log$.\ The remainder operator $R_\circ$ has order $(m+n-1)+(\delta+{\varrho}+1)\log$. - Let $a\in\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}$. The adjoint operator (over $L^2$) of $T_a$ is given by the formula $$ \left(T_a\right)^\,\,=\,\,T_{{\overline}{a}}\,\,+\,\,R_\,.$$ The order of $T_{{\overline}{a}}$ is still $m+\delta\log$.\ The remander operator $R_$ has order $(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log$. The last statement of this paragraph is a fundamental paralinearization result, in the general instance $X\,=\,B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, which will allow us to treat both the first and lower order terms of operator $L$ in energy estimates. In order to give sense to all terms, we have to restrict to differential operators, and then operator $T_a$ reduces to the classical paraproduct operator (keep in mind also Remark \[r:p-prod\]). \[t:paralin\] Let $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $\eta\in{\mathbb{N}}^N$ of lenght $\|\eta\|= m$. Take a pair $({\gamma},{\varrho})\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that ${\gamma}\geq0$, and consider a function $a\in B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, introduced in . Define the difference operator ${\mathcal}{D}:\,u\,\longmapsto\,a\,\d_x^\eta u\,-\,T_a\d_x^\eta u\,=\,a\,\d_x^\eta u\,-\,T_{a\,\xi^\eta}u$. - If $s>m$, then ${\mathcal}D$ maps continuously $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ into $H^{{\gamma}+({\varrho}-h)\log}$, for any $h>1/2$. - If $s=m$ and $\alpha\geq0$, the previous statement remains true. - For any $s\in\,]m-{\gamma},m[\,$ (and then ${\gamma}>0$) and any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$, ${\mathcal}D$ maps continuously $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ into $H^{\sigma+h\log}$, where $\sigma=s-m+{\gamma}$ and $h=\alpha-\delta+{\varrho}$. The norms of the operators just depend on the quantity $\\|a\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}$. We start by noticing that, according to , ${\mathcal}{D}(u)$ can be rewritten as $${\mathcal}{D}(u)\,=\,\sum_{\nu\geq0}\d_x^\eta\left(S_{\nu+3}u\right)\,\Delta_\nu a\,=\,T'_{\d_x^\eta u}a\,=\,T_{\d_x^\eta u}a\,+\,R(\d_x^\eta u,a)\,.$$ First of all, we focus on the case of high regularity, i.e. $s>m$, or $s=m$ and $\alpha\geq0$. This in particular implies that $\d^\eta_xu\in L^2$, with $\\|\d^\eta_xu\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}$. Therefore, we can estimate $$\left\\|S_{\nu-3}\d^\eta_xu\,\Delta_\nu a\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,C\,\left\\|S_{\nu-3}\d^\eta_xu\right\\|_{L^2}\,\left\\|\Delta_\nu a\right\\|_{L^\infty} \,\leq\,C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|a\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,2^{-{\gamma}\nu}\,(1+\nu)^{-{\varrho}}\,.$$ Thanks to Lemma \[l:log-B\_ind\], we immediately deduce that $T_{\d^\eta_xu}a\,\in\,H^{{\gamma}+({\varrho}-h)\log}$ for all $h>1/2$. As for $R$, once again we can focus just on the diagonal terms $R_0(\d^\eta_xu,a)\,=\,\sum_\nu\d^\eta_x\Delta_\nu u\,\Delta_\nu a$. For any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let us estimate $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\Delta_kR_0(\d^\eta_xu,a)\right\\|_{L^2} & \leq & C\,\sum_{\nu\geq k-3}\left\\|\Delta_\nu\d^\eta_xu\right\\|_{L^2}\, \left\\|\Delta_\nu a\right\\|_{L^\infty} \\ & \leq & C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|a\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,\sum_{\nu\geq k-3}2^{\nu(m-s-{\gamma})}\, (1+\nu)^{-\alpha-{\varrho}}\,\zeta_\nu \\ & \leq & C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\\|a\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,\left(\sum_{\nu\geq k-3}2^{2\nu(m-s-{\gamma})}\, (1+\nu)^{-2(\alpha+{\varrho})}\right)^{1/2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where, as usual, $\left\\|\zeta_\nu\right\\|_{\ell^2}=1$. Therefore, by Lemma \[l:log-B\_ind\] again, the remainder term $R(\d^\eta_xu,a)\,\in\,H^{(s-m+{\gamma})+(\alpha+{\varrho}-h)\log}$ for all $h>1/2$, which is in particular included in $H^{{\gamma}+({\varrho}-h)\log}$. When $s=m$, the same speech holds true for any $\alpha\geq0$. Now let us turn our attention to the case $m-{\gamma}<s<m$ (and then ${\gamma}>0$): for this, we consider directly the operator $T'_{\d^\eta_xu}a$. Since $s-m<0$, we can apply Lemma \[l:log-S\_j\] and estimate $$\left\\|S_{\nu+3}\d^\eta_xu\,\Delta_\nu a\right\\|_{L^2}\,\leq\,C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,2^{\nu(m-s)}\,(1+\nu)^{-\alpha}\,\zeta_\nu\, \\|a\\|_{B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}}\,2^{-\nu{\gamma}}\,(1+\nu)^{-{\varrho}}\,,$$ where the sequence $\bigl(\zeta_\nu\bigr)_\nu\in\ell^2$ is as above. Thanks to this inequality and the fact that $s-m+{\gamma}>0$ by hypothesis, Lemma \[l:log-ball\] implies that $T'_{\d^\eta_xu}a$ belongs to $H^{(s-m+{\gamma})+(\alpha+{\varrho})\log}$. The proof of the theorem is now completed. We notice the following fact: if $a\in W^{1,\infty}$ is Lipschitz, it is well-known that $au-T_au\,\in\,H^1$ for any $u\in L^2$ (see e.g. Theorem 5.2.8 of [@M-2008]). On the contrary, if we applied our result with $m=s=\alpha={\varrho}=0$ and ${\gamma}=1$, we would get just $au-T_au\,\in\,H^{1-(1/2+\delta)\log}$ for any $\delta>0$. Motivated by this consideration, let us make a remark. \[r:paralin\] Attaining the limit case $h=0$ in points (i), (ii), and $s=m-{\gamma}$ in point (iii), would require further technical extensions of the theory, in the same spirit of Paragraph 5.2.4 of [@M-2008], to functions $a$ in logarithmic Hölder classes $B^{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, where ${\varrho}\neq0$. However, these adaptations go beyond the scopes of the present paper, and we decided not to address these issues here in order to keep the presentation as coincise as possible. Indeed, due to product properties (see Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\]) and loss of derivatives in the energy estimates, we will always be far away from these endpoint cases, and the previous statement turns to be enough for our scopes. Before going further, let us remark that, at this level, time can be treated once again as a parameter in the construction: for a symbol $a=a(t,x,\xi)\in L^\infty\bigl([0,T];\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{\infty}\bigr)$ and $u\in{\mathcal}{S}'([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d)$, we set $$\left(T_au\right)(t,\,\cdot\,)\,:=\,T_{a(t,\,\cdot\,,\xi)}u(t,\,\cdot\,)\,.$$ As a consequence, all the properties stated above still hold true for the time-dependent operator, at any time $t\in[0,T]$ fixed. Indeed, only regularity in space is used at this level. ### The case of symbols which are log-Lipschitz in time {#sss:LL-t} Now, we get closer to our hypotheses, and we introduce a new class of symbols, by imposing additional regularity in the time variable. \[d:symbol\_t\] Let $Y\,\subset\,L^\infty([0,T])$ a Banach space. For $(m,\delta)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, we define ${Y}_T\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$ as the class of symbols $a(t,x,\xi)\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl([0,T];\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$ such that, for almost every $(x,\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\times{\mathbb{R}}^N$, the map $\;t\,\mapsto\,a(t,x,\xi)\;$ belongs to $Y$. Analogously, we define the class $Y_T\bigl(\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$ if, moreover, the spectral condition (in $x$) of Definition \[d:symbols\] is verified for almost every $(t,\xi)\in[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^N$. We omit the subscript $T$ whenever $T=+\infty$. For us $Y_T$ will be always $L^\infty([0,T])$ or $LL([0,T])$. In particular, when $Y=LL$, the previous definition implies that there exists a $C_0>0$ for which, for all $(x,\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\times{\mathbb{R}}^N$ and all $0<\tau\leq T/2$, one has $$\left\|a(t+\tau,x,\xi)\,-\,a(t,x,\xi)\right\|\,\leq\,C_0\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\,\log^{\delta}(2+\|\xi\|)\,\tau\,\log\!\left(1+\frac{1}{\tau}\right)\,.$$ As before, for such a symbol $a$ we can then define the seminorm $\|a\|_{LL_t}$. Of course, higher order seminorms (related to derivatives in $\xi$) can be defined, but they will not be used in our study, so that we prefer to limit the presentation to this case. \[r:LL\] We remark that the $LL$ continuity of the symbol, separately with respect to time and space variables, is enough to our scopes. This will be evident from our computations. In order to perform energy estimates, for a symbol $a$ as above we need to introduce a regularization in time. So, take an even function $\rho\in{\mathcal}{C}^\infty_0({\mathbb}{R})$, $0\leq\rho\leq1$, whose support is contained in the interval $[-1,1]$ and such that $\int\rho(t)dt=1$, and define the mollifier kernel $$\rho_{\varepsilon}(t)\,:=\,\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\,\,\rho\!\left(\frac{t}{{\varepsilon}}\right)\qquad\qquad\forall\,{\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]\,.$$ Let us fix a symbol $a\in LL_T\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$; if $T<+\infty$, we extend this symbol out of $[0,T]$ (for instance, by taking the constant values at the extremities of the interval), in such a way to get a new symbol (which we will still denote by $a$) in the class $LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$. Now, we smooth $a$ out setting, for all ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$, $$\label{eq:a^e} a_{\varepsilon}(t,x,\xi)\,:=\,\bigl(\rho_{\varepsilon}\,_t\,a(\,\cdot\,,x,\xi)\bigr)(t)\,=\,\int_{{\mathbb}{R}_s}\rho_{{\varepsilon}}(t-s)\,a(s,x,\xi)\,ds\,.$$ Then, we have the following estimates (see e.g. [@C-DG-S], [@C-L]). \[l:LL-reg\] Let $a\in LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$. Then $\bigl(a_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ is a bounded family in the same space. In particular, Proposition \[p:par-op\] still holds true for $a_{\varepsilon}$, uniformly in ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$. In addition, there exist constants $C>0$ such that, for all ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$ and for all $(t,x,\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^N\times{\mathbb{R}}^N$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \left\|a_{\varepsilon}(t,x,\xi)-a(t,x,\xi)\right\| & \leq & C\,\|a\|_{LL_t}\,\,{\varepsilon}\,\log\left(1+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)\, (1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\,\log^{\delta}(2+\|\xi\|) \\ \left\|\d_ta_{\varepsilon}(t,x,\xi)\right\| & \leq & C\,\|a\|_{LL_t}\,\log\!\left(1+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\,\log^{\delta}(2+\|\xi\|)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the course of the proof, it will be fundamental to link the approximation parameter ${\varepsilon}$ with the dual variable, following the original idea of [@C-DG-S] (see also [@C-DS-F-M_tl], [@C-DS-F-M_wp], [@C-DS-F-M_Birk], [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys], [@C-L], [@C-M], [@Tar]). More precisely, in [@C-DG-S] the authors took ${\varepsilon}\,=\,1/\|\xi\|$: here, we make an analogous choice, but replacing $\|\xi\|$ by ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,:=\,\left(1+\|\xi\|^2\right)^{1/2}$ (we need the new symbol to be defined for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$). \[p:Y-tilde\] For $a\in Y_T\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$, where $Y\subset L^\infty([0,T])$ is a Banach space, we define the new function $${\widetilde}{a}(t,x,\xi)\,:=\,a_{1/{\langle}\xi{\rangle}}(t,x,\xi)\,.$$ Then ${\widetilde}{a}$ is still a symbol in the class $Y_T\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$, which is actually smooth in time. Proposition 3.22 of [@C-DS-F-M_Z-sys] proves that the convolution acts as an operator of order $0+0\log$ in the time variable. We are going to show that this is true also with respect to $\xi$. First of all, we notice that it is enough to consider the case $a\in L^\infty_T\bigl(\Gamma^{0+0\log}_\infty\bigr)$: regularity in time comes from Lemma \[l:LL-reg\], while the $x$ variable does not play any role at this level. For $\alpha=0$, the estimate of Definition \[d:symbols\] is immediate. Hence, let us consider the case $\|\alpha\|=1$: by definitions we have $$\begin{aligned} & & \hspace{-0.5cm} \d^\alpha_\xi{\widetilde}{a}(t,x,\xi)\,=\,\d^\alpha_\xi{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\int\rho\bigl((t-s){\langle}\xi{\rangle}\bigr)\,a(s,x,\xi)\,ds\,+ \\ & & \qquad\quad+\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,\d^\alpha_\xi{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\int\rho'\bigl((t-s){\langle}\xi{\rangle}\bigr)\,(t-s)\,a(s,x,\xi)\,ds\,+\, {\langle}\xi{\rangle}\int\rho\bigl((t-s){\langle}\xi{\rangle}\bigr)\,\d^\alpha_\xi a(s,x,\xi)\,ds\,.\end{aligned}$$ The estimates for the first and last term are straightforward: thanks to the uniform bounds $$\left\|\d^\alpha_\xi a(t,x,\xi)\right\|\,\leq\,C_\alpha\,\left(1+\|\xi\|\right)^{-\|\alpha\|}\,,$$ (recall that we are taking $a\in L^\infty_T\bigl(\Gamma^{0+0\log}_\infty\bigr)$ only), we have to control $$\int\rho\bigl(t\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\bigr)\,dt\,\leq\,C\,/\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,,$$ where we used the change of variable $\tau\,=\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,t$ and fact that $\int\rho\,\equiv\,1$. For the second term, we argue as above: by Young inequality, we are reconducted to consider the $L^1$ norm of the function $\left\|\rho'\bigl({\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,t\bigr)\right\|\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,\|t\|$. Performing the same change of variable as before, we get $${\langle}\xi{\rangle}\int\left\|\rho'\bigl(t\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\bigr)\right\|\,\|t\|\,dt\,\leq\,C\,/\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,,$$ and this concludes the proof of the proposition. Let us now focus on the case $Y=LL$. Up to extend the symbols out of $[0,T]$ as explained above, without loss of generality we can focus just on the case $T=+\infty$. \[p:LL-tilde\] Let $a\in LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$. Then the following properties hold true. - One has $\;a-{\widetilde}{a}\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log}_X\bigr)\;$ and $\;\d_t{\widetilde}{a}\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{m+(\delta+1)\log}_X\bigr)$. - The smooothed (in $x$) symbol $\sigma_{{\widetilde}{a}}$, defined by formula , belongs to $LL\bigl(\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$, and one has the “commutation” formula ${\widetilde}{\sigma_a}\,=\,\sigma_{{\widetilde}{a}}$. So, we adopt the notation ${\widetilde}{\sigma}_a$ for it. - The smoothing operator (in time and space) ${\widetilde}{{\mathbb}{S}}:\,a(t,x,\xi)\,\mapsto\,{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a(t,x,\xi)$ maps continuously $LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$ into $LL\bigl(\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$. - The symbol ${\widetilde}{\sigma}_a$ still satisfies the estimates of Lemma \[l:ll-symb\], uniformly in $t$. In addition, one has $\sigma_a-{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl(\Sigma^{(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log}_X\bigr)$ and $\sigma_{\d_t{\widetilde}{a}}\,=\,\d_t{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl(\Sigma^{m+(\delta+1)\log}_X\bigr)$, with the estimates, for some constants $C$ just depending on $\|a\|_{LL_t}$, $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\sigma_a(t,x,\xi)-{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a(t,x,\xi)\right\| & \leq & C\, (1+\|\xi\|)^{m-1}\,\log^{\delta+1}(2+\|\xi\|) \\ \left\|\d_t{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a(t,x,\xi)\right\| & \leq & C\,(1+\|\xi\|)^{m}\,\log^{\delta+1}(2+\|\xi\|)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and analogous formula for the higher order derivatives in $\xi$. Assertion (i)* comes from estimates in Lemma \[l:LL-reg\], while point (ii) is a direct consequence of formula and definition of ${\widetilde}{a}$ (the integrals of the convolutions in time and space commute between themselves). Next, we notice that ${\widetilde}{{\mathbb}{S}}$ is a composition of the self-map $a\,\mapsto\,{\widetilde}{a}$ of $LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$ with the map ${\mathbb}{S}:{\widetilde}{a}\,\mapsto\,{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a$ which goes from the previous space into $LL\bigl(\Sigma^{m+\delta\log}_{X}\bigr)$: sentence (iii) follows. Let us focus on assertion (iv): it basically relies on point (i) of the present proposition, and in particular on the fact that the convolution acts as an operator of order $0$. Then, the first statement is immediate, the second one is implied by the linearity of operator ${\mathbb}{S}$ together with Lemma \[l:LL-reg\]. The formula for the time derivative derives directly from the definitions. Finally, for the estimates one has to use Lemma \[l:LL-reg\] again. Now, given a symbol $a\in Y\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_X\bigr)$, we define the paradifferential operator $$\label{eq:T-tilde} {\widetilde}{T}_a\,:=\,T_{{\widetilde}{a}}\,=\,{\widetilde}{\sigma}_a(\,\cdot\,,D_x)\,.$$ Notice that properties (ii), (iii) of Proposition \[p:LL-tilde\] still hold true even if we replace $LL$ by a generic $Y$, and in particular when $Y=L^\infty$. Therefore, fixing $X=LL({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, from Theorem \[t:symb\_calc\] we immediately get the following result. \[t:symb\_tilde\] - If $a\in L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}\bigr)$, then the operator ${\widetilde}{T}_a$ is of order $m+\delta\log$. - For $a\in L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}\bigr)$ and $b\in L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{n+{\varrho}\log}_{LL}\bigr)$, one has ${\widetilde}{T}_a\circ{\widetilde}{T}_b\,=\,T_{{\widetilde}{a}\,{\widetilde}{b}}\,+\,{\widetilde}{R}_\circ$, where ${\widetilde}{R}_\circ$ is of order $(m+n-1)+(\delta+{\varrho}+1)\log$. - For $a\in L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{LL}\bigr)$, denote by ${\widetilde}{T}^_a$ the adjoint of ${\widetilde}{T}_a$ over $L^2$. Then ${\widetilde}{T}^_a\,=\,{\widetilde}{T}_{{\overline}{a}}\,+\,{\widetilde}{R}_$, where ${\widetilde}{R}_$ is of order $(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log$. \[r:comp\] Thanks to point (iv) of Proposition \[p:LL-tilde\], in point (ii) above we can substitute $T_{{\widetilde}{a}\,{\widetilde}{b}}$ by ${\widetilde}{T}_{a\,b}$, up to another remainder which is still of order $(m+n-1)+(\delta+{\varrho}+1)$. But this would require regularity in time, that we do not want to use at this level. In the same way, we can see that also the analogous of Theorem \[t:paralin\] holds true for the operator ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal}D}\,:=a\,-\,{\widetilde}{T}_a$, whenever $a\in L^\infty\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{{\gamma}+{\varrho}\log}\bigr)$. Finally, we take $Y=LL$ and $X=L^\infty$ and we exploit regularity in time. Still by use of Proposition \[p:LL-tilde\], we get the following statement. \[t:symb\_time\] Let $a\in LL\bigl(\Gamma^{m+\delta\log}_{\infty}\bigr)$. Then the next properties are true: - the operator $T_a\,-\,{\widetilde}{T}_a$ is a remainder of order $(m-1)+(\delta+1)\log$; - one has $\bigl[\d_t,{\widetilde}{T}_a\bigr]\,=\,T_{\d_t{\widetilde}{a}}$, and this is an operator of order $m+(\delta+1)\log$. Well-posedness on the whole ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ {#s:en-est} ============================================ Thanks to the tools developed in the previous section, we are now able to prove Theorem \[th:en\_LL\], i.e. energy estimates for the global in space problem. The first part of the present section is devoted to this. In the estimates, we will keep track of the dependence of the different constants on the log-Lipschitz seminorms of the coefficients of the operator and of the symmetrizer. In the final part (see Subsection \[ss:global\_e\]), we will show how to derive Theorem \[t:global\_e\] from the bounds of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. The energy {#ss:energy} ---------- Let us start by defining the energy associated to our operator $L$. Roughly speaking, denoting by $S$ a microlocal symmetrizer for ${\mathcal}{A}$, the leading idea is that the paradifferential operator $T_S$ is an approximated symmetrizer for $iT_{{\mathcal}A}$, which represents the principal part of the operator $L$. However, some “corrections” are needed. Indeed, on the one hand we need to smooth out the coefficients with respect to time in order to be able to perform energy estimates. On the other hand, $S$ is homogeneous of degree $0$ in $\xi$, and in particular it can be singular in $\xi=0$: therefore, we have to cut off the low frequencies, borrowing somehow an idea from paradifferential calculus with parameters (see e.g. [@M-1986], [@M-Z]). So, let us proceed in the following way. First of all, given a symmetrizer $S(t,x,\xi)$ for our system, we smooth it out with respect to the time variable, according to the formula . Notice that the approximated symmetrizer $S_{\varepsilon}$ still satisfies $$0\,<\,\lambda\,{{\rm Id}\,}\,\leq\,S_{\varepsilon}(t,x,\xi)\,\leq\,\Lambda\,{{\rm Id}\,}$$ for any ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$ and all $(t,x,\xi)\in[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n_x\times\left({\mathbb{R}}^n_\xi\setminus\{0\}\right)$. In particular, the matrix symbol $S_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}$ is well-defined. Furthermore, let us immediately set (accordingly with the original choice of [@C-DG-S]) $${\varepsilon}\,=\,1/\|\xi\|\qquad\qquad \forall\;\|\xi\|\,\geq\,1\,.$$ Notice that, since $\|\xi\|\,\geq\,1$, it makes no special difference to take $\|\xi\|$ or ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}$. Hence, in what follows we will adopt the notations introduced in Paragraph \[sss:LL-t\]. Finally, let $\theta\,\in\,{\mathcal}{C}^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that $0\leq\theta\leq1$, $\theta\equiv1$ in the ball $B(0,1)$ and $\theta\equiv0$ for $\|\xi\|\geq2$. For any $\mu>0$, we set $\theta_\mu(\xi)\,:=\,\theta(\mu^{-1}\xi)$, and we denote $${\widetilde}{\Sigma}(t,x,\xi)\,:=\,{\widetilde}{S}^{1/2}(t,x,\xi)\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(\xi)\bigr)\,.$$ For all $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ fixed, we then define the quantities $$E_{s,\alpha}[u]\,:=\,\left\\|{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right\\|^2_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,+\,\left\\|\theta_\mu(D_x)u\right\\|^2_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,,$$ where ${\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}$ is the paradifferential operator associated to the just defined matrix symbol ${\widetilde}{\Sigma}$, according to the construction explained in Subsection \[ss:paradiff\] (see in particular Paragraph \[sss:LL-t\]). We now establish positivity estimates: we show that this property does not depend on the considered Sobolev norm. \[l:energy\] - There exists a $C_0>0$ (just depending on the constant $K_0$ appearing in condition for $S$) such that, for any $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and any $u\in{\mathcal}{S}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $$E_{s,\alpha}[u]\,\leq\,C_0\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,.$$ - There exists $\mu_0\geq2$ such that, for all $\mu\geq\mu_0$, the following property holds true: there exists a $C_\mu>0$ for which, for all smooth $u\in{\mathcal}{S}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $$\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C_\mu\,E_{s,\alpha}[u]\,.$$ The constant $C_\mu$ depends just on $\mu$, on $K_0$ and on $K_1$ (recall conditions and for $S$); in particular, it is independent of $(s,\alpha)$. The first property is immediate, once noticing that ${\widetilde}{\Sigma}$ is an operator of order $0+0\log$, in the sense of Definition \[d:op\_order\]. So, let us focus on the second inequality: according to the decomposition $$u\,=\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\,+\,\theta_\mu(D_x)\,u\,,$$ it is enough to prove it for the high frequency component $\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u$. First of all, let us define $\psi_\mu(\xi)\,:=\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(\xi)\bigr)\,\bigl(1-\theta(\xi)\bigr)$: by the properties of the support of $\theta$, we easily infer that, for any $\mu\geq2$, one has $\psi_\mu\,\equiv\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu\bigr)$. Therefore, denoting $${\widetilde}{\Xi}(t,x,\xi)\,:=\,{\widetilde}{S}^{-1/2}(t,x,\xi)\,\bigl(1-\theta(\xi)\bigr)\,,$$ we deduce the equality ${\widetilde}{\Xi}\;{\widetilde}{\Sigma}\,=\,{{\rm Id}\,}\,\psi_\mu\,=\,{{\rm Id}\,}\,(1-\theta_\mu)$, which in turn gives, by symbolic calculus (recall Theorem \[t:symb\_tilde\]), $$\label{eq:pos_high} \bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\,=\,T_{{\widetilde}{\Xi}\,{\widetilde}{\Sigma}}u\,=\,T_{{\widetilde}{\Xi}}\,T_{{\widetilde}{\Sigma}}u\,+\, {\widetilde}{R} u\,,$$ where the remainder ${\widetilde}R$ is given, at the principal order, by $\d_\xi{\widetilde}{\Xi}\,\d_x{\widetilde}{\Sigma}$. Using again the function $\psi_\mu$ defined above and introducing the matrix ${\widetilde}{S}'\,=\,{\widetilde}{S}^{1/2}\,\bigl(1-\theta\bigr)$, it is easy to see that $${\widetilde}{R}\,u\,=\,{\widetilde}{R}'\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\,,\qquad\qquad\mbox{ with }\qquad {\widetilde}{R}'\,\sim\,\d_\xi{\widetilde}{\Xi}\,\d_x{\widetilde}{S}'\,.$$ Let us come back to : since ${\widetilde}{\Xi}$ is of order $0+0\log$ and ${\widetilde}{R}'$ is of order $-1+\log$, we obtain $$\left\\|\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C_1\left\\|{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,+\, C_2\left\\|\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\right\\|_{H^{(s-1)+(\alpha+1)\log}}\,,$$ for some $C_1$ (depending on $\|{\widetilde}S\|^{(0,0)}_{L^\infty,0}$) and $C_2$ (depending also on $\|{\widetilde}S\|^{(0,0)}_{LL,0}$) large enough. Now, by spectral properties and Proposition \[p:log-H\], we have $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\right\\|^2_{H^{(s-1)+(\alpha+1)\log}} & \leq & \sum_{k\geq K_\mu}2^{2(s-1)k}\,(1+k)^{2(\alpha+1)}\,\left\\|\Delta_k\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\right\\|^2_{L^2} \\ & \leq & 2^{-2K_\mu}\,(1+K_\mu)^2\,\left\\|\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(D_x)\bigr)\,u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_\mu\,\sim\,\log_2\mu$. Therefore, if $\mu$ is large enough, such that $C_2\,2^{-K_\mu}\,(1+K_\mu)\,\leq\,1/2$, we can abosorbe this term in the left-hand side of the previous inequality. This complete the proof of the statement (ii), and so also of the lemma. Now, let $s\in\,]0,1[\,$ be fixed. For $\beta>0$, to be chosen in the course of the proof, we set $$\label{eq:s} s(t)\,=\,s\,-\,\beta\,t\,; $$ we then define the energies $$\begin{aligned} E(t) & := & E_{s(t),0}[u(t)]\;=\;\left\\|{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u(t)\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)}}\,+\,\left\\|\theta_\mu(D_x)u(t)\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}^2 \label{eq:E} \\ E_{\log}(t) & := & E_{s(t),1/2}[u(t)]\;=\;\left\\|{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u(t)\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,+\, \left\\|\theta_\mu(D_x)u(t)\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}} \label{eq:E_log}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is fixed large enough, so that Lemma \[l:energy\] holds true. In particular, we have $$E(t)\,\sim\,\left\\|u(t)\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)}}\qquad\qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad\qquad E_{\log}(t)\,\sim\,\left\\|u(t)\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,.$$ \[r:energy\] Let us point out that the “true” energy associated to our operator is $E$. The second energy $E_{\log}$ is introduced because of a logarithmic loss of derivatives in the estimates for $E$, due to the log-Lipschitz regularity of the coefficients and of the symmetrizer. We conclude this part with an approximation result: we make a paralinearization of our operator. In this way, we create remainders, which nonetheless are regular enough. \[l:L->T\] Let $L$ be the operator defined by , and ${\widetilde}{L}$ be given by . Then $$\label{eq:paralin} Lu\,=\,\d_tu\,+\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}{A}}u\,+\,T_Bu\,+\,{\mathcal}{R}_Lu\,,$$ where ${\mathcal}{R}_L$ maps continuously $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ into $H^{s+(\alpha-1)\log}$ for all $0<s<{\gamma}$ and all $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Analogously, we can write ${\widetilde}{L}u\,=\,\d_tu\,+\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}{A}}u\,+\,T_Bu\,+\,{\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}{L}}u$, where ${\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}L}$ is continuous from $H^{s+\alpha\log}$ to $H^{s+(\alpha-1)\log}$ for all $-{\gamma}<s<0$ and all $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. The operator norms of both ${\mathcal}{R}_L$ and ${\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}L}$ depend only on the constants $K_0$, $K_1$ and $K_2$ appearing in conditions --. Let us focus on operator $L$ first: decomposition is easily obtained, if we set ${\mathcal}{R}_L\,=\,{\mathcal}{R}_A+{\mathcal}{R}_B$, where we have defined $${\mathcal}{R}_A\,u\,:=\,\sum_{j=1}^n\left(A_j-T_{A_j}\right)\d_ju\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad {\mathcal}{R}_B\,u\,:=\,\left(B-T_B\right)u\,.$$ We observe that ${\mathcal}{R}_A(t,x,\xi)\,=\,\sum_j\bigl(A_j(t,x)-T_{A_j}(t,x)\bigr)\,\xi_j$ is a symbol in the class $L^\infty_T\bigl(\Gamma^{1+0\log}_{LL}\bigr)$: since $LL\hookrightarrow B^{1-\log}_{\infty,\infty}$, Theorem \[t:paralin\], point (iii), gives us $$\left\\|{\mathcal}{R}_A\,u\right\\|_{H^{s+(\alpha-1)\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sup_{1\leq j\leq n}\\|A_j(t,\,\cdot\,)\\|_{LL}\right)\, \left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}$$ for any $0<s<1$ and any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. In particular, this is true for $0<s<{\gamma}$. On the other hand, ${\mathcal}{R}_B(t,x,\xi)$ belongs to $L^\infty_T\bigl(\Gamma^{0+0\log}_{{\gamma}+0\log}\bigr)$ (actually, it does not even depend on $\xi$). Then, point (i) of Theorem \[t:paralin\] (with e.g. the particular choice $\sigma=s<{\gamma}$) implies $$\left\\|{\mathcal}{R}_B\,u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\\|B(t,\,\cdot\,)\\|_{{\mathcal}{C}^{\gamma}}\right)\, \left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,.$$ This inequality completes the proof of the statement for ${\mathcal}{R}_L$. Let us now deal with ${\widetilde}{L}$: we start by observing that $$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde}{L}u & = & \d_tu\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\Bigl(\bigl(A_j\,-\,T_{A_j}\bigr)\,u\Bigr)\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\left(T_{A_j}u\right)\,+\, T_Bu\,+\,{\mathcal}{R}_Bu \\ & = & \d_tu\,+\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}{A}}u\,+\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\Bigl(\bigl(A_j\,-\,T_{A_j}\bigr)\,u\Bigr)\,+\, \sum_{j=1}^n\left[\d_j,T_{A_j}\right]u\,+\,T_Bu\,+\,{\mathcal}{R}_Bu\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we just set ${\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}{L}}\,:=\,\sum_{j=1}^n\d_j\Bigl(\bigl(A_j\,-\,T_{A_j}\bigr)\,u\Bigr)\,+\, \sum_{j=1}^n\left[\d_j,T_{A_j}\right]u\,+\,{\mathcal}{R}_Bu$. Let us consider each of its terms one by one. ${\mathcal}{R}_B$ is defined as before: this time, we apply item (iii) of Theorem \[t:paralin\] and we get, for any $-{\gamma}<s<0$ and any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $$\left\\|{\mathcal}{R}_B\,u\right\\|_{H^{(s+{\gamma})+\alpha\log}}\,\leq\,C\,\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\\|B(t,\,\cdot\,)\\|_{{\mathcal}{C}^{\gamma}}\right)\, \left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,.$$ As for the commutator term, we notice that $\left[\d_j,T_{A_j}\right]\,=\,\d_j\sigma_{A_j}(t,x,D_x)$, where $\sigma_{A_j}(t,x,\xi)$ is the classical symbol associated to $A_j$ via formula . Therefore, by Lemma \[l:ll-symb\] we deduce that $\left[\d_j,T_{A_j}\right]$ is an operator of order $0+\log$, and then, for any $(s,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $$\left\\|\left[\d_j,T_{A_j}\right]u\right\\|_{H^{s+(\alpha-1)\log}}\,\leq\,C\, \left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sup_{1\leq j\leq n}\\|A_j(t,\,\cdot\,)\\|_{LL}\right)\,\left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\,.$$ Finally, for any $j$, the operator $A_j-T_{A_j}$ belongs to the class $L^\infty_T\bigl(\Gamma^{0+0\log}_{LL}\bigr)$: then again, point (iii) of Theorem \[t:paralin\] gives us $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\d_j\Bigl(\bigl(A_j\,-\,T_{A_j}\bigr)\,u\Bigr)\right\\|_{H^{s+(\alpha-1)\log}} & \leq & C\, \left\\|\bigl(A_j\,-\,T_{A_j}\bigr)\,u\right\\|_{H^{(1+s)+(\alpha-1)\log}} \\ & \leq & C\,\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\sup_{1\leq j\leq n}\\|A_j(t,\,\cdot\,)\\|_{LL}\right)\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s+\alpha\log}}\end{aligned}$$ for any $-1<s<0$, and in particular for $-{\gamma}<s<0$. This completes the proof of the assertion for ${\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}L}$, and then also of the lemma. Energy estimates: proof of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] {#ss:estimates} ------------------------------------------------ We are now ready to compute and estimate the time derivative of the energy. In a first moment, we aim at proving bounds for the paralinearized operator $$T_Lu\,:=\,\d_tu\,+\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}{A}}u\,+\,T_Bu\,.$$ Notice that $T_Lu\,=\,Lu\,-\,{\mathcal}{R}_Lu$ and also $T_Lu\,=\,{\widetilde}{L}u\,-\,{\mathcal}{R}_{{\widetilde}L}u$. In what follows, we will generically denote by $C_{LL}$ a multiplicative constant which depends on the $LL$ norms of the coefficients of ${\mathcal}{A}(t,x,\xi)$ and of the symmetrizer $S(t,x,\xi)$, i.e. quantities $K_0$ and $K_1$ in -, but not on $s$ neither on $u$. On the other hand, we will use the generic symbol $C$ if the constant just depend on $K_0$, i.e. the $L^\infty$ bounds of the coefficients and of the symmetrizer, and on $K_2$ in , i.e. the Hölder norms of $B$. Finally, we will use the notation $C_p$ to denote a constant which depends on the $\mu$ fixed for having the positivity estimates of Lemma \[l:energy\]. \[l:est-T\_L\] Let $\bigl(A_j\bigr)_{1\leq j\leq n}$ and $B$ be as in the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. For any $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and any $\beta>0$, define $s(t)$ by formula . Then, for any smooth $u\in{\mathcal}{S}\bigl([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt}E(t) & \leq & C_1\,E(t)\,+\, \left(C_2\,-\,C_3\,\beta\right)\,E_{\log}(t)\,+ \\ & & \;+\,\left\\|\theta_\mu(D) T_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,\bigl(E(t)\bigr)^{1/2}\,+\, 2\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_Lu\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $C_1$ just depends on the $\mu$ fixed in the positivity estimates and on $K_0$; $C_2$ still depends on $\mu$ and $K_0$, and also on $K_1$; finally, $C_3$ depends only on $K_0$. We start by noticing that, for any $v\in{\mathcal}{S}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we have $$\frac{d}{dt}\left\\|v\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)}}\,=\,s'(t)\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\log\!\left(1+\|\xi\|^2\right)\,\left(1+\|\xi\|^2\right)^{s(t)}\, \left\|{\widehat}{v}(\xi)\right\|^2\,d\xi\;\sim\;s'(t)\,\left\\|v\right\\|^2_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,.$$ For notation convenience, we set $\Lambda(D)\,:=\,(1-\Delta)^{1/2}$, i.e. $\Lambda(\xi)\,=\,{\langle}\xi{\rangle}\,=\,\left(1+\|\xi\|^2\right)^{1/2}$. Recalling definition of the energy $E$, we get: $$\begin{aligned} & & \hspace{-0.5cm} \frac{d}{dt}E(t)\,=\,s'(t)\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\log\!\left(\Lambda^2(D)\right)\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\,+ \\ & & \quad +\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,T_{\d_t{\widetilde}{\Sigma}}u\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\,+\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\d_tu\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\,+ \\ & & \quad +\,s'(t)\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\log\!\left(\Lambda^2(D)\right)\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2}\,+ \\ & & \quad +\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)\d_tu\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2}\;=\;F_1\,+\,F_2\,+\,F_3\,+\,F_4\,+\,F_5\,.\end{aligned}$$ First of all, let us consider the terms with $s'(t)$: keeping in mind definitions and , it is easy to see that, for some constant just depending on the $C_0$ appearing in Lemma \[l:energy\], $$\label{est:s'} F_1+F_4\,\leq\,-\,C\,\beta\,E_{\log}(t)\,.$$ On the other hand, Theorem \[t:symb\_time\] implies $$\label{est:F_2} \left\|F_2\right\|\,\leq\,\left\\|T_{\d_t{\widetilde}{\Sigma}}u\right\\|_{H^{s(t)-(1/2)\log}} \left\\|{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right\\|_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,\leq\,C_{LL}\\|u\\|_{H^{s+(1/2)\log}}\,E^{1/2}_{\log}\,\leq\, C_{LL}\,C_p\,E_{\log}\,.$$ For both $F_3$ and $F_5$, we have to use the equation for $T_Lu$. We start by dealing with the low frequencies term: $$\begin{aligned} F_5 & = & 2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)\d_tu\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2} \\ & = & 2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)\left(T_Lu\,-\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}A}u\,-\,T_Bu\right)\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ First of all, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality immediately implies $$\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)\,T_Lu\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,\leq\,\left\\|\theta_\mu(D) T_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,. $$ As for the term with $T_{{\mathcal}A}$, we remark that, by spectral localization properties, one has $$\theta_\mu(D)\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,=\,\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{k=0}^{k_\mu}S_{k-3}\bigl(A_j(t,x)\bigr)\,\Delta_k\d_ju\,,$$ for some $k_\mu\,\sim\,\log_2\mu$. Hence, Bernstein inequalities immediately imply $$\left\|2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,\theta_\mu(D)u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,\leq\,C\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,\leq\,C\,C_p\,E(t)\,,$$ for a suitable constant $C$ depending just on the $L^\infty$ norms of the $A_j$’s. Exactly in the same way, we get an analogous estimate for the $T_B$ term. In the end, putting these inequalities together, we deduce the control $$\label{est:F_5} \left\|F_5\right\|\,\leq\,C\,C_p\,E(t)\,+\,\left\\|\theta_\mu(D) T_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,\bigl(E(t)\bigr)^{1/2}\,+\, C_p\,C_{LL}\,E_{\log}(t)\,.$$ Let us consider now the term $F_3$, which we rewrite as $$F_3\,=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\left(T_Lu\,-\,i\,T_{{\mathcal}A}u\,-\,T_Bu\right)\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\,.$$ We leave the $T_L$ term on one side: it will contribute to the last item appearing in our statement. In addition, the term with $T_B$ is easy to control: since ${\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}$ and $T_B$ are operators of order $0$, we get $$\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}T_Bu\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,\leq\,C\,\left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,\leq\,C\,C_p\,E(t)\,. $$ So, we have to focus just on the last term, $${\widetilde}{F}_3\,:=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,,\, \Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\,:$$ we are going to make a systematic use of symbolic calculus, taking advantage of the properties established in Theorems \[t:symb\_calc\] and \[t:symb\_tilde\]. First of all, passing to the adjoints, we have the equality $${\widetilde}{F}_3\,=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left({\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,,\,u\right)_{L^2}\,+\, 2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(R_1\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,,\,u\right)_{L^2}\,,$$ where $R_1$ is of order $-1+\log$. On the other hand, by Remark \[r:p-prod\] we have ${\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D)\,=\,\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,+\,R_2$, where the operator $R_2$ is a remainder of order $2s(t)-1+\log$. Therefore, collecting the $R_1$ and $R_2$ terms into only one remainder $R(u,u)$, which can be estimated as $$\label{est:remainder} \left\|R(u,u)\right\|\,\leq\,C_{LL}\,\\|u\\|_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,E^{1/2}_{\log}\,\leq\,C_p\,C_{LL}\,E_{\log}(t)\,,$$ we can write $${\widetilde}{F}_3\,=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D){\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}T_{i{\mathcal}A}u,u\right)_{L^2}+R(u,u)\,=\, 2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{2s(t)}(D)T_{{\widetilde}{\Sigma}^2}T_{i{\mathcal}A}u,u\right)_{L^2}+R(u,u)\,.$$ Notice that, in the second step, we have included into $R(u,u)$ another rest, depending on a remainder $R_3$ which can be still bounded as in . Now, we use the fact that, by definition, ${\widetilde}{\Sigma}^2\,=\,{\widetilde}{S}\,\bigl(1-\theta_\mu(\xi)\bigr)^2$. Since, by Theorem \[t:symb\_time\], the difference operator $S-{\widetilde}{S}$ contributes to the estimates as another remainder, in the sense of inequality , we arrive at the identity $${\widetilde}{F}_3\,=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,T_{S\,(1-\theta_\mu)^2}\,T_{i{\mathcal}A}u\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,u\right)_{L^2}\,+\,R(u,u)\,.$$ Finally, by symbolic calculus again, up to adding another remainder $R_4$ of order $0+\log$ (recall that ${\mathcal}{A}$ is of order $1$), we get $${\widetilde}{F}_3\,=\,2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,T_{i\,S\,{\mathcal}{A}\,(1-\theta_\mu)^2}u\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,u\right)_{L^2}\,+\,R(u,u)\,.$$ At this point, we remark that ${{\rm Re}\,}\bigl(i\,S\,{\mathcal}{A}\bigr)\,=\,0$, since $S$ is a microlocal symmetrizer for ${\mathcal}{A}$: then, keeping in mind that ${{\rm Re}\,}P\,=\,\bigl(P+P^\bigr)/2$, by symbolic calculus we deduce that $$2\,{{\rm Re}\,}\left(T_{i\,S\,{\mathcal}{A}\,(1-\theta_\mu)^2}\right)\,=\,R_5\,,$$ where also $R_5$ is an operator of order $0+\log$. In the end, putting all these informations together, we find the estimate $$\left\|{\widetilde}{F}_3\right\|\,\leq\,C_{LL}\,C_p\,E_{\log}(t)\,,$$ which in turn gives us $$\label{est:F_3} \left\|F_3\right\|\,\leq\,C\,C_p\,E(t)\,+\,C_p\,C_{LL}\,E_{\log}(t)\,+\, 2\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_Lu\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,.$$ Therefore, collecting inequalities , , and completes the proof of the energy estimates for the paralinearized operator $T_L$. \[r:s\_values\] No restriction on $s$ is needed at this level: its limitations derive just from product rules (see Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\]) and from the analysis of remainders (see Lemma \[l:L->T\] above). We complete now the proof of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] in the case of operator $L$. Operator ${\widetilde}{L}$ will be matter of Remark \[r:adj\] below. It remains us to deal with the term $T_L$ in the estimates provided by Lemma \[l:est-T\_L\]. Recall that $T_Lu\,=\,Lu\,-\,{\mathcal}{R}_Lu$. For the low frequencies term, it is an easy matter to see that $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|\theta_\mu(D) T_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}} & \leq & \left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,+\, C_p\,\left\\|{\mathcal}{R}_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)-(1/2)\log}} \\ & \leq & \left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,+\,C_p\,\left(C_{LL}+C\right)\, \left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_p$ is, as usual, a constant which depends on the positivity estimates. The presence of the constant $C$ in the last step is due to lower order terms, i.e. ${\mathcal}{R}_B$. Applying once more positivity estimates, we finally arrive to the bound $$\label{est:low-freq} \left\\|\theta_\mu(D) T_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,\leq\,\left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,+\,C_p\,\left(C_{LL}+C\right)\,E_{\log}(t)\,.$$ We remark here that, up to let $C_p$ depend also on $s$, the previous inequality holds true for any $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$: we have no need yet for using the condition $0<s<{\gamma}$. As for the high frequencies term, since ${\widetilde}{T}_\Sigma$ is an operator of order $0$, we have the control $$\begin{aligned} & & \hspace{-0.2cm} 2\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_Lu\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,\leq\, C\,\left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,+\,C\,\left\\|{\mathcal}{R}_Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)-(1/2)\log}}\,E_{\log}^{1/2} \\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \leq\,C\,\left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,+\,C\left(C_{LL}+C\right)\left\\|u\right\\|_{H^{s(t)+(1/2)\log}}\,E_{\log}^{1/2}\,, $$ where we have used also Lemma \[l:L->T\], and hence the restriction on $s$. Therefore, by positivity estimates again we deduce $$\label{est:high-freq} 2\left\|{{\rm Re}\,}\!\left(\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}\,T_Lu\,,\,\Lambda^{s(t)}(D)\,{\widetilde}{T}_{\Sigma}u\right)_{L^2}\right\|\,\leq\, C\,\left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,E^{1/2}\,+\,C_p\left(C_{LL}+C\right)\,E_{\log}(t)\,.$$ Now, putting and into the inequality given by Lemma \[l:est-T\_L\], we find $$\frac{d}{dt}E(t)\,\leq\,C_1\,E(t)\,+\,C_3\,\left\\|Lu\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,\bigl(E(t)\bigr)^{1/2}\,+\,\bigl(C_4-\beta\bigr)\,E_{\log}(t)\,,$$ where $C_1$ is the constant given by Lemma \[l:est-T\_L\], $C_3>0$ depends on $K_0$ and $K_1$, but just via positivity estimates, and $C_4$ depends on $K_0$, $K_1$ and $K_2$ not only via Lemma \[l:energy\], but also via Lemma \[l:L->T\]. Now, we chose $\beta>C_{4}$: then, setting $e(t)\,:=\,\bigl(E(t)\bigr)^{1/2}$, an application of Gronwall inequality leads us to the estimate $$e(t)\,\leq\,M\,e^{Qt}\left(e(0)\,+\,\int^t_0\left\\|Lu(\tau)\right\\|_{H^{s(\tau)}}\,d\tau\right)\,,$$ for two positive constants $M$ and $Q$ large enough. This completes the proof of the energy estimate stated in Theorem \[th:en\_LL\], for operator $L$. \[r:adj\] For operator ${\widetilde}{L}$ one can argue in a completely analogous way. The only difference is the presence of the remainder operator ${{\mathcal}R}_{{\widetilde}L}$ instead of ${\mathcal}{R}_L$, as stated in Lemma \[l:L->T\]. However, since the order of the two operators is the same, it is easy to see that the estimates do not change. \[r:precise-est\] As already remarked in [@C-M], we point out that, in fact, our proof gives a more accurate energy estimate: namely, $$\begin{aligned} & & \hspace{-1cm} \sup_{t\in[0,T_]}\\|u(t)\\|_{H^{s-\beta t}}\,+\,\left(\int^{T_}_0\\|u(\tau)\\|^2_{H^{s-\beta\tau+(1/2)\log}}\,d\tau\right)^{1/2}\,\leq \label{est:precise-LL} \\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \leq\,C_1\,e^{C_2\,T}\,\left(\\|u(0)\\|_{H^s}\,+\,\int^{T_}_0 \bigl\\|Lu(\tau)\bigr\\|_{H^{s-\beta\tau}}\,d\tau\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for tempered distributions $u$ as in the statement of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. Moreover, if the last term is $L^2$ in time, one can replace it by $\int_0^{T_}\bigl\\|Lu(\tau)\bigr\\|^2_{H^{s-\beta\tau-(1/2)\log}}\,d\tau$. \[r:t-LL\] A careful inspection of our proof reveals that we just used the property $A_j\,\in\,L^\infty\bigl([0,T];LL({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathcal}{M}_m)\bigr)$, namely only $LL$ regularity in $x$ is exploited for the $A_j$’s. On the contrary, for the symmetrizer $S$ one needs log-Lipschitz continuity both* in time and space variables. Nonetheless, in general regularity of the symmetrizer is dictated by the regularity of the coefficients (keep in mind the discussion in Example \[ex:const\]). Furthermore, hypothesis is invariant by change of coordinates, and then suitable for local analysis. This is why we required it. Existence and uniqueness of solutions {#ss:global_e} ------------------------------------- In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[t:global\_e\], namely the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the global Cauchy problem . For this, we will exploit in a fundamental way the energy estimates of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. We will focus on the case of operator $L$, defined in . The same arguments hand over ${\widetilde}{L}$, see its definition in , rather directly. ### Regularity results, uniqueness {#sss:global_reg} As done in [@C-M] (see Definition 2.5 of that paper), for $(\sigma,\alpha)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\beta>0$ fixed, let us define the following spaces: - ${\mathcal}{C}_{\sigma+\alpha\log,\beta}(T)$ is the set of functions $v$ on $[0,T]$, with values in the space of tempered distributions, which verify the property $$u\in{\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,t];H^{\sigma-\beta t+\alpha\log}\bigr)$$ for all $t\in[0,T]$; - ${\mathcal}{H}_{\sigma+\alpha\log,\beta}(T)$ is the set of functions $w$ on $[0,T]$, with values in the space of tempered distributions, such that $$\Lambda^{\sigma-\beta t}(D)\,\Pi^{\alpha}(D)\,w(t)\;\in\;L^2\bigl([0,T];L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)\,,$$ where we used the notations $\Lambda(D)\,=\,(1-\Delta)^{1/2}$ and $\Pi(D)\,=\,\log(2+\|D\|)$, introduced in the previous paragraphs; - ${\mathcal}{L}_{\sigma+\alpha\log,\beta}(T)$ is the set of functions $z$ on $[0,T]$, with values in the space of tempered distributions, with the property $$\Lambda^{\sigma-\beta t}(D)\,\Pi^{\alpha}(D)\,z(t)\;\in\;L^1\bigl([0,T];L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)\,.$$ All these spaces are endowed with the natural norms induced by the conditions here above. To begin with, we deal with weak solutions to the Cauchy problem . More precisely, fix ${\gamma}\in\,]0,1[\,$ and $s\in\,]0,{\gamma}[\,$ as in the statement of Theorem \[t:global\_e\], and take the positive constants $\beta$ and $T_$ given by Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. For $u_0\in H^s$ and $f\in{\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, we are going to consider $$u\,\in\,{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$$ such that the equation $Lu=f$ is satisfied, together with the initial condition $u_{\|t=0}=u_0$, in the sense of distributions. We remark that, for such $u$, the product $A_j(t,x)\,\d_ju$ is well-defined and belongs to the space ${\mathcal}{H}_{s-1,\beta}(T_)$ for all $j$ (recall Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\]), and $B(t,x)u$ belongs to ${\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ (see Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\]). Hence, the equation $Lu=f$ makes sense in ${\mathcal}{D}'\bigl(\,]0,T_[\,\times{\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m\bigr)$. Let us show now that it makes sense also to impose the initial condition $u_{\|t=0}=u_0$. \[p:reg\_global\] Let ${\gamma}$ and $s$ be as above. Let $u\in{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ verify the equation $Lu=f$ in ${\mathcal}{D}'$ for some $f\in{\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$. Then one has $u\in{\mathcal}{C}_{s-(1/2),\beta}(T_)$. In particular, the trace $u_{\|t=0}$ is well-defined in $H^{s-1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and the initial condition in makes sense. The proof is somehow classical. Let us define $v(t)\,:=\,u\,-\,\int^t_0f(\tau)d\tau$. Then, by hypotheses it easily follows that $\int^t_0f\,\in\,{\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, and hence $v\,\in\,{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$. On the other hand, from the arguments exposed before, we deduce that $\d_tv\,=\,\sum_{j}A_j\d_ju\,+\,Bu$ belongs to the space ${\mathcal}{H}_{s-1,\beta}$. Then, an easy interpolation implies that $v\in{\mathcal}{C}_{s-(1/2),\beta}$, and therefore so does $u$. As a result of this lemma and the previous considerations, we have clarified the sense to give to the Cauchy problem . Next, let us state a “weak $=$ strong” type result. Namely, we show that any weak solution $u$ is in fact the limit of a suitable sequence of smooth approximate solutions, in the norm given by the left-hand side of inequality . In particular, this fact implies that $u$ enjoys additional smoothness and it satisfies the energy estimates stated in Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. \[th:w-s\] Fix ${\gamma}\,\in\,]0,1[\,$ and $0<s<{\gamma}$. Let $\beta>0$ and $T_$ be the “loss parameter” and the existence time given by Theorem \[th:en\_LL\], together with the constants $C_1$ and $C_2$.\ Let $u_0\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$, $f\in{\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ and $u\in{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ be the corresponding weak solution to the Cauchy problem . Then one has $u\,\in\,{\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, and $u$ satisfies the energy inequality . For ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$, let us introduce the smoothing operators $J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,:=\,(1-{\varepsilon}\Delta)^{-1/2}$, which are Fourier multipliers associated to the symbols $J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)\,=\,\left(1+{\varepsilon}\|\xi\|^2\right)^{-1/2}$. Recall that they are operators of order $-1$, they are uniformly bounded from $H^\sigma$ to $H^{\sigma+1}$ for any $\sigma\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and one has the strong convergence $J_{\varepsilon}(D)w\,{\longrightarrow}\,w$ in $H^\sigma$, for ${\varepsilon}{\rightarrow}0$. For any ${\varepsilon}>0$, we set $u_{\varepsilon}\,:=\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)u$. Then, from the previous properties we deduce that the family $\bigl(u_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ is uniformly bounded in ${\mathcal}{H}_{s+1,\beta}(T_)\,{\hookrightarrow}\,L^2\bigl([0,T_];H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$. Moreover, we have that $u_{\varepsilon}\,{\longrightarrow}\,u$ in ${\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ for ${\varepsilon}{\rightarrow}0$. In addition, if we apply operator $J_{\varepsilon}(D)$ to the equation $Lu=f$, we deduce that the $u_{\varepsilon}$’s solve the equation $Lu_{\varepsilon}\,=\,f_{\varepsilon}+g_{\varepsilon}$, with $f_{\varepsilon}=J_{\varepsilon}(D)f$ and $$\label{def:g_eps} g_{\varepsilon}\,:=\,\sum_{j=1}^n\bigl[A_j(t,x),J_{\varepsilon}(D)\bigr]\d_ju\,+\,\bigl[B(t,x),J_{\varepsilon}(D)\bigr]u\,.$$ By Lemma 4.6 of [@C-M], it is easy to infer that $f_{\varepsilon}\,{\longrightarrow}\,f$ in ${\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ and $g_{\varepsilon}\,{\longrightarrow}\,0$ in ${\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, in the limit for ${\varepsilon}{\rightarrow}0$. From this fact, Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] and Remark \[r:precise-est\] together, we deduce the energy estimates $$\begin{aligned} & & \hspace{-0.7cm} \sup_{t\in[0,T_]}\\|u_{\varepsilon}(t)\\|_{H^{s-\beta t}}\,+\,\left(\int^{T_}_0\\|u_{\varepsilon}(\tau)\\|^2_{H^{s-\beta\tau+(1/2)\log}}\,d\tau\right)^{1/2}\,\leq \\ & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \leq\,C_1\,e^{C_2\,T}\,\left(\\|u_{\varepsilon}(0)\\|_{H^s}\,+\,\int^T_0\left(\bigl\\|f_{\varepsilon}\bigr\\|_{H^{s-\beta\tau}}\,+\,\bigl\\|g_{\varepsilon}\bigr\\|_{H^{s-\beta\tau}}\right)\,d\tau\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ By linearity of the equations, similar estimates are satisfied also by the difference $\delta u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}\,:=\,u_{\varepsilon}-u_\eta$, for all (say) $0<\eta<{\varepsilon}\leq1$, up to replace, in the right-hand side, $u_{\varepsilon}(0)$, $f_{\varepsilon}$ and $g_{\varepsilon}$ respectively by $\delta u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}(0)\,=\,u_{\varepsilon}(0)-u_\eta(0)$, $\delta f_{{\varepsilon},\eta}=f_{\varepsilon}-f_\eta$ and $\delta g_{{\varepsilon},\eta}=g_{\varepsilon}-g_\eta$. Since $\delta u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}(0){\longrightarrow}0$ in $H^s$, and so do $\delta f_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$ and $\delta g_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$ respectively in ${\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ and in ${\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, we gather that $\bigl(u_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ is a Cauchy sequence in ${\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)$. Therefore, the limit $u\in{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ also belongs to ${\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, and it verifies the energy estimate . The previous theorem immediately implies uniqueness of weak solutions. \[c:w\_uniq\] Let ${\gamma}$ and $s$ be fixed as in the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:w-s\]. Let $u\in{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ be a weak solution to the Cauchy problem , with initial datum $u_0=0$ and external force $f\equiv0$. Then $u\,\equiv\,0$. ### Existence of weak solutions {#sss:weak} In order to complete the proof of Theorem \[t:global\_e\], it remains us to prove existence of weak solutions. \[p:w\_existence\] Fix ${\gamma}\,\in\,]0,1[\,$ and $0<s<{\gamma}$. Let $\beta>0$ and $T_$ be the “loss parameter” and the existence time given by Theorem \[th:en\_LL\]. Then, for all $u_0\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ and $f\in{\mathcal}{L}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, there exists a weak solution $u\in{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$ to the Cauchy problem . For ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$, let us introduce the smoothing operators $J_{\varepsilon}(D)$, of order $-1$, as done in the previous proof. Denoting $A(t,x,D)\,=\,\sum_jA_j(t,x)\d_j$, for any ${\varepsilon}$ let us consider the linear system of $m$ ODEs $$\d_tu_{\varepsilon}\,=\,-\,A(t,x,D)\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,u_{\varepsilon}\,-\,B(t,x)\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,u_{\varepsilon}\,+\,f\,,$$ with initial datum $(u_{\varepsilon})_{\|t=0}\,=\,u_0$. For all ${\varepsilon}$ fixed and all $t$, it is easy to see that the operators $A(t,x,D)J_{\varepsilon}(D)$ and $B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(D)$ are bounded in $L^2$. Moreover, by our hypotheses we have $s>s-\beta T_>0$, so that we can solve the previous system in ${\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,T_];L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$ by use of the Cauchy-Lipschitz Theorem, and find a solution $u_{\varepsilon}$. On the other hand, the hypothesis over $f$ implies that, for any $t_0\in[0,T_]$ fixed, $f\in L^1\bigl([0,t_0]; H^{s-\beta t_0}\bigr)$. Furthermore, by product rules (see Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] and Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\]), the operators $A(t,x,D)J_{\varepsilon}(D)$ and $B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(D)$ are self-maps of $H^{s-\beta t_0}$ into itself. Therefore, by Cauchy-Lipschitz Theorem again and uniqueness part, we infer that $u\in{\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)\,{\hookrightarrow}\,{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$. Notice however that this is not enough to get uniform bounds on the family $(u_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon}$, since we do not know if we have enough regularity in order to absorbe, in energy estimates, the remainders which require an additional $(1/2)\log$-regularity (see the computations in Subsection \[ss:estimates\] above). Hence, we are going to argue in a slightly different way. Let us define $w_{\varepsilon}\,:=\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)u_{\varepsilon}$: by the previous argument, $w_{\varepsilon}$ is in $L^2\bigl([0,T_];H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$ for all ${\varepsilon}\in\,]0,1]$. Moreover, it satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \d_tw_{\varepsilon}& = & -\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,A(t,x,D)\,w_{\varepsilon}\,-\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,B(t,x)\,w_{\varepsilon}\,+\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,f \\ & = & -\,A(t,x,D)J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,w_{\varepsilon}\,-\,B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(D)\,w_{\varepsilon}\,+\,f_{\varepsilon}\,+\,h_{\varepsilon}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\varepsilon}\,=\,J_{\varepsilon}(D)f$ as before, and $h_{\varepsilon}$ is defined by the analogue of formula , but replacing $u$ by $w_{\varepsilon}$ itself. Notice that Lemma 4.6 of [@C-M] implies the inequality $$\left\\|h_{\varepsilon}\right\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,\leq\,C\,\\|w_{\varepsilon}\\|_{H^{s(t)}}\,,$$ where $s(t)\,=\,s-\beta t$ as above. Let us also remark that $(w_{\varepsilon})_{\|t=0}\,=\,\Lambda_{\varepsilon}(D)u_0$. Then, we can apply energy estimates of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] to $w_{\varepsilon}$. Indeed, $J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)$ being a scalar multiplier, $S(t,x,\xi)$ is still a microlocal symmetrizer for $A(t,x,\xi)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)$. Moreover, Lemma \[l:L->T\] gives uniform bounds for the remainder operators $A(t,x,\xi)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)-T_{A(t,x,\xi)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}$ and $B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)-T_{B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}$ in suitable functional spaces. Finally, Lemma \[l:est-T\_L\] provides with uniform bounds for the operators $\d_t+T_{iA(t,x,\xi)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}+T_{B(t,x)J_{\varepsilon}(\xi)}$, since the symbols are uniformly bounded respectively in the classes $\Gamma^{1+0\log}_{LL}$ and $\Gamma^{0+0\log}_{{\gamma}+0\log}$. So we find that $\bigl(w_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ is a bounded family in ${\mathcal}{C}_{s,\beta}(T_)\,{\hookrightarrow}\,{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, and consequently, up to extraction of a subsequence, it weakly converges to some $u$ in this space. On the other hand, by the equation for $w_{\varepsilon}$ (recall also product rules of Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] and Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\]), we easily deduce that $\bigl(\d_tw_{\varepsilon}\bigr)_{\varepsilon}$ is bounded in ${\mathcal}{C}_{s-1,\beta}(T_)$, and hence the convergence holds true also in the weak-$$ topology of $H^1\bigl([0,T_];H^{s-\beta T_-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)\,{\hookrightarrow}\,{\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,T_];H^{s-\beta T_-1}\bigr)$. In particular, this implies that $(w_{\varepsilon})_{\|t=0}\,{\longrightarrow}\,u_{\|t=0}$ in the distributional sense. Thanks to these properties, it is easy to pass to the limit in the weak formulation of the equations, obtaining thus that $u$ solves the system $Lu=f$ in a weak sense, with initial datum $u_0$. Finally, by uniform bounds we get $u\,\in\,{\mathcal}{H}_{s,\beta}(T_)$, and this fact completes the proof of the existence of a weak solution. The local Cauchy problem {#s:local} ======================== We prove here local in space existence and uniqueness of solutions. First of all, let us show that it makes sense to consider the Cauchy problem for operator $P$ on $\varSigma$: this is not clear a priori, due to the low regularity framework. Here below we will use the notations introduced in Subsection \[ss:local\_th\]. In particular, recall that we have set $\Omega_\geq:=\Omega\,\cap\,\{{\varphi}\geq0\}$ and $\Omega_>:=\Omega\,\cap\,\{{\varphi}>0\}$, where $\{{\varphi}=0\}$ is a parametrization of the hypersurface $\varSigma$ in $\Omega$. Recall that we have supposed that hypotheses from (H-1) to (H-5) (stated in Subsection \[ss:local\_th\]) hold true. In particular, $P$ has log-Lipschitz first order coefficients and a ${\gamma}$-Hölder continuous $0$-th order coefficient, and it admits a family of full symmetrizers, which are smooth in the dual variable and log-Lipschitz in the $z$ variable. Giving sense to the local Cauchy problem {#ss:sense} ---------------------------------------- We start by noticing that, for smooth $u$ and $v$, with ${\rm supp}\,v$ compact in $\Omega_\geq$, we can write the next identity only formally, due to the low regularity of the coefficients: $$\bigl(Pu\,,\,v\bigr)_{L^2(\Omega_>)}\,-\,\bigl(u\,,\,P^v\bigr)_{L^2(\Omega_>)}\,=\, \bigl(D_\varSigma u\,,\,N_{\nu,P_1} v\bigr)_{L^2(\varSigma)}\,,$$ where $P^(z,{\zeta})v\,=\,-\sum_j\d_{z_j}\!\left(A_j^v\right)\,+\,B^v$ is the adjoint operator of $P$, and we have defined $$D_\varSigma u\,:=\,u_{\|\varSigma}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad N_{\nu,P_1}v\,:=\,\sum_{j=0}^n\nu^j\,D_\varSigma\!\left(A_j^v\right)\,.$$ As above, $\nu$ is the normal to the hypersurface $\varSigma$, which determines the integration form on $\varSigma$. Of course, the map $z\,\mapsto\,\nu(z)\neq0$ is smooth on $\varSigma$. In our framework the previous Green formula does not hold true a priori, due to the low regularity of the coefficients. The first step of the proof to Theorem \[t:local\_e\] is to justify it for smooth enough functions. To begin with, let us study the regularity of the terms entering in the definition of $Pu$ and $P^u$: we have the following lemma. \[l:reg\_P\] - For $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},1+{\gamma}[\,$ and $u\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$, all the terms entering in the definition of $Pu$ are well-defined in $H^{s-1}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$. - For $\sigma\in\,]1-{\gamma},1[\,$ and $v\in H^\sigma_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$, all the terms entering in the definition of $P^v$ are well-defined in $H^{\sigma-1}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$. - For $s>1/2$ and $u\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$, the trace $D_\varSigma u$ is well-defined in $H^{s-1/2}_{loc}(\Sigma\cap\Omega)$. - For $\sigma\in\,]1/2,1[\,$ and $v\in H^{\sigma}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$, the normal trace $N_{\nu,P_1}v$ is well-defined in $H^{s-1/2}_{loc}(\varSigma\cap\Omega)$. We repeatedly use product rules stated in Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] and Corollary \[c:LL-H\^s\] above. In a first time, let us focus on $P$: for all $s\in\,]0,2[\,$, $P_1(z,\d_z)u$ belongs to $H^{s-1}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$. Now, by the embedding $H^s\hookrightarrow H^{s-1}$, if $\|s-1\|<{\gamma}$ we have that $Bu\in H^{s-1}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$. This completes the proof of point (i). Concerning $P^$, the argument is analogous: the principal part of $P^u$ belongs to $H^{\sigma-1}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$ whenever $\sigma\in\,]0,1[\,$. The $B^u$ term can be treated exactly as before. Also (ii) is proved. Points (iii) and (iv) are straightforward. Following the discussion in [@C-M], we remark that ${\mathcal}{C}^\infty_0(\Omega_>)$ is a dense subset of $H^\sigma(\Omega_>)$ for $\|\sigma\|<1/2$, and that, when $\sigma\in[0,1/2[\,$ and $u\in H^\sigma(\Omega_>)$, the pairing $\bigl(u\,,\,v\bigr)_{L^2(\Omega_>)}$ for $v\in L^2$ extends to the duality $H^\sigma\times H^{-\sigma}$. From this and Lemma \[l:reg\_P\], we deduce the next statement, which tells us that Green formula makes sense for regular enough distributions. \[l:duality\] Let us fix $1/2<{\gamma}<1$, and take $s\in\,]1/2,{\gamma}[\,$. For any $u\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$ and $v\in H^s_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$, one has the equality $$\label{eq:by-parts} \bigl(Pu\,,\,v\bigr)_{H^{-\sigma}\times H^\sigma}\,-\,\bigl(u\,,\,P^v\bigr)_{H^{\sigma}\times H^{-\sigma}}\,=\, \bigl(D_\varSigma u\,,\,N_{\nu,P_1} v\bigr)_{L^2(\varSigma)}\,,$$ where $\sigma\,=\,1-s\,\in\;]1-{\gamma},1/2[$ (and in particular $0\leq\sigma<1/2$). Since $s>1/2$, we have $H^s\hookrightarrow H^{1-s}$. On the other hand, $s$ belongs in particular to $\,]1-{\gamma},1[\,$, and then Lemma \[l:reg\_P\] applies. To complete the proof, it is enough to remark that (see Lemma 1.3 of [@C-M]) the Green’s formula $$\bigl(\d_ju\,,\,v\bigr)_{H^{-\sigma}\times H^\sigma}\,=\,-\,\bigl(u\,,\,\d_jv\bigr)_{H^{\sigma}\times H^{-\sigma}}\,+\, \bigl(\nu^j\,D_\varSigma u\,,\,D_\varSigma v\bigr)_{L^2(\varSigma)}\,,$$ holds true for any $u\in H^{1-\sigma}_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$ and $v\in H^{1-\sigma}_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$, whenever $\sigma\in[0,1/2[\,$. As the final step, we want to justify Green formula for distributions which are in the domain of our operator. This is guaranteed by the next statement, which is the analogue to Proposition 1.4 of [@C-M]. Thanks to this result, considering the Cauchy problem $(C\!P)$ under the hypotheses of Theorem \[t:local\_e\] makes sense. \[p:extension\] Let us define the set ${\mathcal}{D}(P;H^s)\,:=\,\left\{u\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)\,\bigl\|\,Pu\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)\right\}$. There exists a unique extension of the operator $D_\varSigma$ to the set ${\mathcal}{D}(P)\,:=\,\bigcup_{s>1-{\gamma}}{\mathcal}{D}(P;H^s)$, which acts continuously from ${\mathcal}{D}(P;H^s)$ into $H^{s-1/2}_{loc}(\varSigma\cap\Omega)$ for all $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},{\gamma}[\,$. The same property holds true for the operator $N_{\nu,P_1}$. Furthermore, for all $s_0\in\,]1-{\gamma},1/2[\,$ such that $s_0\leq s$, for all $v\in H^{1-s_0}_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$, one has the Green formula $$\bigl(Pu\,,\,v\bigr)_{L^2}\,-\,\bigl(u\,,\,P^v\bigr)_{H^{s_0}\times H^{-s_0}}\,=\, \bigl(D_\varSigma u\,,\,N_{\nu,P_1} v\bigr)_{H^{s-1/2}\times H^{1/2-s}}\,.$$ This proposition will be proved in the next subsection, and it will be derived by results on the global Cauchy problem. Then, in order to give sense to the Cauchy problem, the microlocally symmetrizability and hyperbolicity hypotheses are fundamental. Let us notice here that, thanks to definitions, the properties for $D_\varSigma$ easily pass also on $N_{\nu,P_1}$. We observe also that all the terms entering in the last formula have sense. Indeed, $1/2<1-s_0<{\gamma}$ and hence, by Lemma \[l:reg\_P\], we get $P^v\in H^{-s_0}_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$, so that the pairing with $u$ makes sense (recall that $s_0\leq s$). Moreover one has $N_{\nu,P_1}v\in H^{1/2-s_0}_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)\hookrightarrow H^{1/2-s}_{comp}(\Omega_\geq)$, and so also the last term in the equality is fine. Invariance by change of variables, and regularity results {#ss:change} --------------------------------------------------------- First of all, let us show here that our working hypotheses are invariant under smooth change of coordinates. Indeed, let $z=\psi(y)$, for some $\psi$ smooth, and denote ${\widetilde}{f}(y)=f\circ\psi(y)$: derivatives change according to the rule $\nabla_{z}u\,\circ\,\psi\,=\,^t\!\left(\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\right)\circ\psi\,\cdot\,\nabla_{y}{\widetilde}{u}$, namely $$\left(\d_{z_j}u^k\right)\circ\psi\,=\,\sum_{h=1}^m\d_{z_j}\!\left(\psi^{-1}\right)^h\circ\psi\;\d_{y_h}{\widetilde}{u}^k\,,$$ as well as covectors in the cotangent space, i.e. ${\widetilde}{{\zeta}}(y)\,=\,\left(\,^t\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\cdot {\zeta}\right)\circ\psi(y)$. As a consequence, if we write the $i$-th component of our system $Pu=f$, that is to say $$f^i\,=\,\sum_{j=0}^n\sum_{k=1}^mA_{j,ik}(z)\,\d_{z_j}u^k(z)\,+\,\sum_{k=1}^m B_{ik}(z)\,u^k(z)\,,$$ from the previous rules we obtain the expression in $y$ coordinates: $${\widetilde}{f}^i\,=\,\sum_{h=0}^n\sum_{k=1}^m M_{h,ik}(y)\,\d_{y_j}{\widetilde}{u}^k(y)\,+\,\sum_{k=1}^m {\widetilde}{B}_{ik}(y)\,{\widetilde}{u}^k(y)\,,$$ where easy computations lead to the formula $$M_{h,ik}(y)\,=\,\sum_{j=0}^n{\widetilde}{A}_{j,ik}(y)\,\d_{z_j}\!\left(\psi^{-1}\right)^h\bigl(\psi(y)\bigr)\,.$$ Namely, we have proved that ${\widetilde}{Pu}\,=\,{\widetilde}{P}{\widetilde}{u}$, where we have defined the operator $${\widetilde}{P}v\,=\,\sum_{h=0}^nM_h\,\d_{y_h}v\,+\,{\widetilde}{B}v\,.$$ Notice that ${\widetilde}{P}$ has the same form as $P$, and the same regularity of its first and $0$-th order coefficients. In addition, by Theorem 4.11 of [@M-2014] we deduce that it is still microlocally symmetrizable in the sense of Definition \[d:full-symm\]. We can check this property also by direct computations: as a matter of fact, in a very natural way, let us define $${\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}(y,{\widetilde}{{\zeta}})\,:=\,{\mathbf}{S}\bigl(\psi(y)\,,\,\left(\,^t\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\cdot{\zeta}\right)\circ\psi\bigr)$$ Of course, all the properties of ${\mathbf}{S}$ hand over to ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}$; the only thing we have to check is that ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}{\widetilde}{P}_1$ is self-adjoint, where we denote by ${\widetilde}{P}_1$ the principal part of ${\widetilde}{P}$. But this imediately follows from the definitions and the transformation rules: $$\begin{aligned} \left({\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}{\widetilde}{P}_1\right)(y,{\widetilde}{\zeta}) & = & {\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}(y,{\widetilde}{\zeta})\sum_{h=0}^n{\widetilde}{{\zeta}}^h\,M_h\;=\; {\widetilde}{{\mathbf}{S}}(y,{\widetilde}{\zeta})\sum_{h=0}^n\sum_{j=0}^n{\widetilde}{A}_j\,\d_{z_j}\!\left(\psi^{-1}\right)^h\,{\widetilde}{{\zeta}}^h \\ & = & {\mathbf}{S}\bigl(\chi(y),\left(\,^t\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\cdot{\zeta}\right)\circ\psi(y)\bigr)\, \sum_{j=0}^nA_j\bigl(\psi(y)\bigr)\,\left(\,^t\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\cdot{\zeta}\right)\circ\psi(y) \\ & = & \left({\mathbf}{S}P_1\right)\bigl(\chi(y),\left(\,^t\nabla_z\psi^{-1}\cdot{\zeta}\right)\bigr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, as done in [@C-M] (see Section 5), the Green formula can be transported by $\psi$. As a byproduct of this discussion, we get that our statements, and in particular Proposition \[p:extension\], are invariant by smooth change of variables. Hence, we can reconduct the proof of Proposition \[p:extension\] in the system of coordinates $z=(t,x)\in\,]-t_0,t_0[\,\times\omega$ and $\zeta=(\tau,\xi)$. In particular we will assume that $\varSigma\,=\,\{t=0\}$, whose unit normal is $dt$, and that $z_0=0$. Moreover, by Proposition 4.12 of [@M-2014], up to shrink our domain we can suppose that the full symmetrizer is positive in the direction $dt$ at any point $(t,x)$; by assumption , we can also assume that $A_0(t,x)$ is invertible for any $(t,x)$. In the end, we can recast our operator in the form $Lu\,=\,\d_tu\,+\,\sum_jA_j(t,x)\,\d_ju\,+\,B(t,x)u$, with existence of a microlocal symmetrizer (in the sense of Definition \[d:micro\_symm\]) $S(t,x,\xi)\,=\,{\mathbf}{S}(t,x,1,\xi)$. This having been established, we present a regularity result analogous to Proposition \[p:reg\_global\], which will be needed in the proof of Proposition \[p:extension\]. \[l:regularity\] Let ${\gamma}$ and $s$ as in the hypotheses of Theorem \[t:local\_e\]. Let $u\in H^s\bigl(\,]0,t_0[\,\times\omega\bigr)$ such that $Lu\in L^1\bigl([0,t_0];H^s(\omega)\bigr)$. Then one has $u\in{\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,t_0];H^{s-1/2}(\omega)\bigr)$. In particular, the trace $u_{\|t=0}$ is well-defined in $H^{s-1/2}(\omega)$, and the initial condition in $(C\!P)$ makes sense. The proof goes along the lines of Lemma 2.2 of [@C-M], so let us just sketch it. First of all, we restrict our attention to the case $[0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$, the other one being obtained working with restrictions. In addition, we make use of the spaces ${\mathcal}H^{s,\sigma}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$ of Hörmander (see e.g. Appendix B of [@Horm]). So, by hypothesis $u\in H^s\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)\,=\,{\mathcal}H^{s,0}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)\,\hookrightarrow\,{\mathcal}H^{0,s}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$. From this, we deduce that $L_1u\,=\,\sum_jA_j\,\d_ju\,\in\,{\mathcal}H^{0,s-1}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$. On the other hand, the same is true also for the term $Bu$, since, by assumption, $\|s-1\|<{\gamma}$ (recall also Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\]). Next, we notice that the hypothesis $Lu\in L^1\bigl([0,t_0];H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$ implies that $v(t)\,:=\,\int^t_0Lu(\tau)\,d\tau$ belongs to ${\mathcal}C\bigl([0,t_0];H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)\,\hookrightarrow\,{\mathcal}H^{0,s}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$. From the previous properties, we get that $w:=u-v\,\in\,{\mathcal}H^{0,s}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, while its time derivative $\d_tw\in{\mathcal}H^{0,s-1}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, because $\d_tw\,=\,\sum_jA_j\,\d_ju\,+\,Bu$. Therefore, by properties of the Hörmander spaces we get $w\in{\mathcal}H^{1,s-1}\bigl([0,t_0]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)\,\hookrightarrow\,{\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,t_0];H^{s-1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$ (see Theorem B.2.7 of [@Horm]). As a conclusion, also $u=w+v$ belongs to ${\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,t_0];H^{s-1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$. We are now ready to prove Proposition \[p:extension\]. We focus on uniqueness first. Notice that classical Green formula forces the definition of $D_\Sigma$ to coincide with the usual trace operator for smooth functions. Let us argue by contradiction and suppose that there exist two extensions $D^1_\Sigma$ and $D^2_\Sigma$, and a tempered distribution $u\,\in\,{\mathcal}{D}(P)\,=\,\bigcup_{s>1-{\gamma}}{\mathcal}{D}(P;H^s)$ such that $D^1_\Sigma u\,=\,u^1_0$ and $D^2_\Sigma u\,=\,u^2_0$, with $u^1_0\neq u^2_0$. In the light of Lemma \[l:duality\], we can suppose that $u\in{\mathcal}{D}(P;H^s)$, with $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},1/2]$. Let us set $Pu=f\in H^s_{loc}(\Omega_\geq)$ and $\delta:=\left\\|u^1_0-u^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}>0$. Fix now ${\varepsilon}>0$. By density of smooth functions, we can chose smooth $g$, $v^1_0$ and $v^2_0$ such that $$\left\\|f-g\right\\|_{H^s(\Omega_\geq)}\,+\,\left\\|u^1_0-v^1_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}(\Sigma\cap\Omega)}\,+\,\left\\|u^2_0-v^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}(\Sigma\cap\Omega)}\,\leq\,{\varepsilon}\,.$$ Thanks to the previous discussion, we can work in local coordinates $(t,x)$, and hence suppose the following facts: first, that $\varSigma=\{t=0\}$, and moreover that, in these coordinates, $P$ takes the form of $L$ as defined in . Therefore, we can apply Theorem \[t:global\_e\] to the initial data $v^1_0$ and $v^2_0$ and external force $g$: we find two solutions $v^1$ and $v^2$ respectively, which belong to the space ${\mathcal}{C}\bigl([0,T_];H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n;{\mathbb{R}}^m)\bigr)$ and which solves the problems, for $i=1\,,\,2$, $$Lv^i\,=\,g\;,\qquad v^i_{\|t=0}\,=\,v^i_0\,.$$ Notice that, in particular, we get $v^i\in{\mathcal}{H}^{0,s}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, and then (by the equation) $\d_tv^i\in{\mathcal}{H}^{0,s-1}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, which implies $v^i\in{\mathcal}{H}^{1,s-1}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$ (see also the proof of Lemma \[l:regularity\] here above). Since $s-1<0$, from this property it is easy to deduce that $v^i\in{\mathcal}{H}^{s,0}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$. Remark that, up to shrink $\Omega_\geq$ (i.e. take a smaller existence time $T_$), we can also suppose that $v^i\in{\mathcal}{H}^{\sigma,0}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, with $\sigma>1/2$. Furthermore, by linearity of $L$ and Theorem \[t:global\_e\] we infer the estimates $$\left\\|u-v^i\right\\|_{H^s}\,\leq\,C({\varepsilon})\qquad\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad\qquad \left\\|v^1-v^2\right\\|_{H^s}\,\leq\,2\,C({\varepsilon})\,.$$ But each $v^i$ is smooth, i.e. it belongs ${\mathcal}{H}^{\sigma,0}\bigl([0,T_]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$ with $\sigma>1/2$, so that $D^1_\Sigma v^i\equiv D^2_\Sigma v^i=v^i_0$ for all $i=1\,,\,2$. Hence, by continuity of the trace operator on smooth functions we deduce $$\left\\|v^1_0-v^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}\,\leq\,\left\\|v^1_0-v^2_0\right\\|_{H^{\sigma-1/2}}\,\leq\,C'({\varepsilon})\,.$$ At this point, we write $$\delta\,=\,\left\\|u^1_0-u^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}\,\leq\,\left\\|u^1_0-v^1_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}+\left\\|v^1_0-v^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}+\left\\|v^2_0-u^2_0\right\\|_{H^{s-1/2}}\,\leq\, 2{\varepsilon}+C'({\varepsilon})\,:$$ taking a ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough gives the contradiction, completing in this way the proof of the uniqueness part. Let us consider the problem of existence of the trace operator onto $\varSigma$. Once again, we work in local coordinates $z=(t,x)$, with $z_0=0$ and $\varSigma=\{t=0\}$, and the conormal given by $\nu(t,x)\,=\,\mu(x)\,dt$, for a suitable positive function $\mu$. By Lemma \[l:regularity\], we can define the trace $u_{\|t=0}$ as a distribution in $H^{s-1/2}(\varSigma)$: then, it is enough to check that, in this coordinates, Green formula in Proposition \[p:extension\] makes sense with $D_\varSigma u\,=\,u_{\|t=0}$. But from now on the arguments are analogous to the discussion in Section 5 of [@C-M]: so we omit them. The proposition is now completely proved. Proof of local existence and uniqueness {#ss:proof_local} --------------------------------------- Now, we can turn our attention to the statements about existence and uniqueness of solutions to the local Cauchy problem. Let us start with the proof of Theorem \[t:local\_e\]: it is analogous to the one of [@C-M] for wave operators, so let us just sketch it. Up to a change of variables, we can suppose, as usual, that $z_0=0$, $\varSigma=\{t=0\}$, with normal $dt$, and that the operator $P$, in these coordinates, assumes the form of $L\,=\,\d_t\,+\,\sum_jA_j\,\d_j\,+\,B$. Consider a smooth function $\Phi:{\mathbb{R}}^{1+n}_y\longrightarrow\Omega$ such that $\Phi(y)=y$ for all $y\in\Omega_1\subset\Omega$, and $\Phi(y)=z_0$ if $\|y\|$ is large enough. Such a function can be built by taking $\Omega_1$ to be a ball centered in $z_0$ and working along radial directions emanating from $z_0$, for instance. Changing the coefficients of $L$ according to the rule $f^\sharp(y)\,:=\,f\bigl(\Phi(y)\bigr)$, we are led to consider a new operator $L^\sharp$, such that $L^\sharp\equiv L$ on $\Omega_1$, having coefficients with the same regularity as $L$ and admitting a full symmetrizer ${\mathbf}{S}^\sharp(y,{\zeta})\,=\,{\mathbf}{S}\bigl(\Phi(y),{\zeta}\bigr)$ which is positive in the directions $\nu\bigl(\Phi(y)\bigr)$. Fix now a $s\in\,]1-{\gamma},{\gamma}[\,$, and take another $s_1\in\,]1-{\gamma},s[$. Let us apply Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] to operator $L^\sharp$: this provides us with a loss parameter $\beta$ and with an existence time $T\,=\,(s-s_1)/\beta$. Define then $\Omega_0\,:=\,\Omega_1\cap\{\|t\|<T\}$ and $\omega\,:=\,\Omega_0\cap\{t=0\}$. Let us take an initial datum $u_0\in H^s(\omega)$: by definition , it can be seen as the restriction to $\omega$ of a $u_0^\sharp\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. In the same way, $f\in H^s(\Omega_0\cap\{t>0\})$ is the restriction of a $f^\sharp\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^{1+n}\cap\{t>0\})$, and in particular $f^\sharp\in L^2\bigl(]0,T[\,;H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$. Then, by use of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\] we solve the Cauchy problem $$L^\sharp u^\sharp\,=\,f^\sharp\;,\qquad u^\sharp_{\|t=0}\,=\,u_0^\sharp\,:$$ we find a solution $u^\sharp$ on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ which, in particular, belongs to $L^2\bigl([0,T];H^{s_1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$. But from this fact together with Proposition \[p:Hol-Sob\] and by use of the equation, we deduce that $\d_tu^\sharp\in L^2\bigl(]0,T[\,;H^{s_1-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\bigr)$, which finally implies that $u^\sharp\in{\mathcal}H^{1,s_1-1}\bigl([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)\,\hookrightarrow\,H^{s_1}\bigl([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\bigr)$, the inclusion following from the fact that $s_1-1<0$. Therefore, by restriction we infer the existence of a solution $u$ to $(C\!P)$ in $\Omega_0$. This having been proved, we turn our attention to the question of local uniqueness. We start by establishing a result about propagation of zero across the surface $\{t=0\}$. \[l:0-prop\] Let $s>1-{\gamma}$ and $\Omega=\,]-t_0,t_0[\,\times\omega$ for some $t_0>0$ and $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ neighborhood of $0$. Suppose that $u\in H^s(\Omega\cap\{t>0\})$ fulfills $$\label{eq:0-Cauchy} Lu\,=\,0\;,\qquad u_{\|t=0}\,=\,0\,.$$ Denote by $u_e$ the extension of $u$ by $0$ on $\{t<0\}$. Then, there exists a neighborhood $\Omega_1\subset\Omega$ of $0$ such that $u_e\in H^s(\Omega_1)$ and $Lu_e\,=\,0$ on $\Omega_1$. Since $u\in H^s(\Omega\cap\{t>0\})$, we have in particular that $u\in L^2\bigl([0,t_0];H^s_{loc}(\omega)\bigr)$, and therefore $u_e$ belongs to $L^2\bigl([-t_0,t_0];H^s_{loc}(\omega)\bigr)$. On the other hand, $\d_tu\in L^2\bigl([0,t_0];H^{s-1}_{loc}(\omega)\bigr)$, with $u_{\|t=0}\,=\,0$. Hence, the (weak) derivative $\d_tu_e$ is the extension of $\d_tu$ by $0$ for negative times (test it on functions of the form $\d_t{\varphi}$). This implies $\d_tu_e\in L^2\bigl([-t_0,t_0];H^{s-1}_{loc}(\omega)\bigr)$, and therefore $u_e\in H^s_{loc}\bigl(\,]-t_0,t_0[\,\times\omega\bigr)$ (using the same arguments as in the previous proof). Finally, veryfing that $Lu_e=0$ is an easy matter. Indeed, testing the equations on smooth ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal}{D}\bigl(\,]-t_0,t_0[\,\times\,\omega\bigr)$, the integral in time reduces on intervals of the form $\,]0,t_1[\,$, because $u_e$ vanishes for $t<0$. But for $t>0$, $u_e\equiv u$, and $u$ is a weak solution of $Lu=0$ with $u_{\|t=0}=0$: this entails that also the integral over $\,]0,t_1[\,$ is equal to $0$. From the previous result, we can deduce the local uniqueness of solutions, by mean of classical convexification arguments. Once again, we can fix local coordinates for which $\Omega=\,]-t_0,t_0[\,\times\omega$ and $\varSigma=\{t=0\}$. Suppose that $u\in H^s\bigl(\Omega\cap\{t>0\}\bigr)$ satisfies . Denoting by $u_e$ its extension by $0$, priveded by Lemma \[l:0-prop\], we know that $u_e$ is a $H^s$ distribution on (say) $\,]-t_1,t_1[\,\times\omega_1$, for a suitably small $\omega_1\subset\omega$, and in the same neighborhood $Lu_e=0$. We consider the change of variables $\psi:\,(t,x)\,\mapsto\,\left(\,{\widetilde}{t},{\widetilde}{x}\,\right)$ such that $${\widetilde}{t}\,:=\,t\,+\,\|x\|^2\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad {\widetilde}{x}\,:=\,x\,.$$ Notice that this map sends $\{t<0\}$ into $\left\{\,{\widetilde}{t}<\|{\widetilde}{x}\|^2\,\right\}$. Let us define ${\widetilde}{u}\,=\,u_e\circ\psi$ and ${\widetilde}{L}$ the operator obtained by $L$ under the transformation $\psi$. Therefore, we have that ${\widetilde}u$ is defined in ${\widetilde}{t}<{\widetilde}{t}_1$, for a suitable ${\widetilde}{t}_1>0$, and ${\widetilde}u\equiv 0$ in $\left\{\,{\widetilde}{t}<\|{\widetilde}{x}\|^2\,\right\}$. Furthermore, up to take a smaller ${\widetilde}{t}_1$, we can suppose that ${\widetilde}{L}$ is defined on a neighborhood ${\widetilde}\Omega$ of the origin which contains the closed lens ${\overline}{{\Theta}}\,:=\,\left\{\|{\widetilde}{x}\|^2\leq{\widetilde}{t}\leq{\widetilde}{t}_1\right\}$, and that ${\widetilde}{L}{\widetilde}{u}\,\equiv\,0$ on ${\widetilde}{\Omega}$. Now, we repeat the construction explained in the proof of Theorem \[t:local\_e\] above. Namely, we extend the coefficients of ${\widetilde}{L}$ and we obtain an operator $L^\sharp$, defined on the whole ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, which preserves the regularity of the coefficients and the microlocal symmetrizability assumption, and which coincides with ${\widetilde}{L}$ on a smaller neighborhood of ${\overline}{{\Theta}}$. We also extend ${\widetilde}{u}$ to $u^\sharp$. Then, on the set $\,]-\infty,{\widetilde}{t}_1[\,\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ we get $$L^\sharp u^\sharp\,=\,0\;,\qquad u^\sharp\in H^s\;,\qquad u^\sharp_{\|\left\{\,{\widetilde}{t}<\|{\widetilde}{x}\|^2\,\right\}}\,=\,0\,.$$ In particular, $u^\sharp_{\|{\widetilde}{t}=-\delta}\,=\,0$ for $\delta>0$ arbitrarly small. Therefore energy estimates of Theorem \[th:en\_LL\], applied to $L^\sharp$ and the initial time $-\delta$ (for $\delta$ small enough), guarantee that $u^\sharp\equiv0$ untill a time ${\widetilde}{T}_0$. In particular, this is true for ${\widetilde}{u}$, and coming back to coordinates $(t,x)$ implies that $u\equiv0$ in a neighborhood of the origin. [xxx]{} H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin: [Équations de transport relatives à des champs de vecteurs non-lipschitziens et mécanique des fluides]{}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., [127]{} (1994), n. 2, 159-181. H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, R. Danchin: “Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations”. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences), [343]{}, Springer, Heidelberg (2011). J.-M. Bony: [Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularités pour les équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires]{}. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), [14]{} (1981), 209-246. F. Colombini, E. De Giorgi, S. Spagnolo: [Sur les équations hyperboliques avec des coefficients qui ne dépendent que du temps]{}. Ann. Scuola Normale Sup. Pisa Cl. Scienze (4), [6]{} (1979), no. 3, 511-559. F. Colombini, D. Del Santo: [A note on hyperbolic operators with log-Zygmund coefficients]{}, J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo [16]{} (2009), no. 1, 95-111. F. Colombini, D. Del Santo, F. Fanelli, G. Métivier: [Time-dependent loss of derivatives for hyperbolic operators with non-regular coefficients]{}. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, [38]{} (2013), n. 10, 1791-1817. F. Colombini, D. Del Santo, F. Fanelli, G. Métivier: [A well-posedness result for hyperbolic operators with Zygmund coefficients]{}. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), [100]{} (2013), n. 4, 455-475. F. Colombini, D. Del Santo, F. Fanelli, G. Métivier: [A note on complete hyperbolic operators with log-Zygmund coefficients]{}. In “Fourier Analysis”, Trends Math., Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham (2014), 47-72. F. Colombini, D. Del Santo, F. Fanelli, G. Métivier: [The well-posedness issue in Sobolev spaces for hyperbolic systems with Zygmund-type coefficients]{}. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, [41]{} (2015), n. 11, 2082-2121. F. Colombini, N. Lerner: [Hyperbolic operators with non-Lipschitz coefficients]{}. Duke Math. J., [77]{} (1995), 657-698. F. Colombini, G. Métivier: [The Cauchy problem for wave equations with non-Lipschitz coefficients; application to continuation of solutions of some nonlinear wave equations]{}. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) [41]{} (2008), n. 2, 177-220. F. Colombini, G. Métivier: [Couterexamples to the well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for hyperbolic systems]{}. Anal. PDE, [8]{} (2015), n. 2, 499-511. R. Danchin: [Estimates in Besov spaces for transport and transport-diffusion equations with almost Lipschitz coefficients]{}, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, [21]{} (2005), n. 3, 863-888. L. Hörmander: “The analysis of linear partial differential operators III”. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences), [274]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994). J.-L. Joly, G. Métivier, J. Rauch: [Hyperbolic domains of determinacy and Hamilton-Jacobi equations]{}. J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ., [2]{} (2005), n. 3, 713-744. T. Kato: “Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators”. Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1995). V. J. Ivriĭ, V. M. Petkov: [Necessary conditions for the correctness of the Cauchy problem for non-strictly hyperbolic equations]{}. Uspehi Math. Nauk, [29]{} (1974), n. 5(179), 3-70. English translation: Russian Math. Surveys, [29]{} (1974), n. 5, 1-70. G. Métivier: [Interactions de deux chocs pour un système de deux lois de conservation, en dimension deux d’espace]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., [296]{} (1986), 431-479. G. Métivier: “Para-differential calculus and applications to the Cauchy problem for nonlinear systems”. Centro di Ricerca Matematica “Ennio De Giorgi” (CRM) Series, [5]{}, Edizioni della Normale, Pisa (2008). G. Métivier: [$L^2$ well-posed Cauchy problems and symmetrizability of first order systems]{}. J. Éc. Polytech. Math., [1]{} (2014), 39-70. G. Métivier, K. Zumbrun: [“Large viscous boundary layers for noncharacteristic nonlinear hyperbolic problems”]{}. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., [175]{} (2005). J. Rauch: [Precise finite speed with bare hands]{}. Methods Appl. Anal., [12]{} (2005), n. 3, 267-277. J. Rauch: “Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations and Geometric Optics”. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, [133]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2012). G. Strang: [Necessary and insufficient conditions for well-posed Cauchy problems]{}. J. Differential Equations, [2]{} (1966), 107-114. S. Tarama: [Energy estimate for wave equations with coefficients in some Besov type class]{}. Electron. J. Differential Equations (2007), Paper No. 85, 12 pp. (electronic). H. Triebel: “Theory of function spaces”. Monographs in Mathematics, [78]{}, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (1983). [^1]: Throughout we agree that $f(D)$ stands for the pseudo-differential operator $u\mapsto{\mathcal}{F}^{-1}\bigl(f(\xi)\,{\mathcal}{F}u(\xi)\bigr)$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- title: Parsec scale polarization properties of the TeV blazar Markarian 421 --- Introduction ============ Mrk421 is a nearby ($z=0.03$) and bright TeV blazar, for this reason it is a very good candidate for investigating and probing the physical mechanisms occurring in the innermost regions of relativistic jets. In general, in these objects the emission is dominated by nonthermal radiation produced by relativistic electrons within the jet, interacting with the magnetic field. Their spectral energy distribution (SED) consists of a low-frequency hump, which represents the synchrotron emission of relativistic electrons within the jet, and a high-frequency hump, that in general is assumed to represent high energy emission produced by inverse Compton (IC) scattering. Usually, in these objects, the high-energy IC component is considered as synchrotron-self-Compton emission [SSC, see @Abdo2011], produced from the interaction of the synchrotron photons with the same electrons that produced them. In particular, the synchrotron hump in the SED of Mrk421, and of most TeV blazars [@Piner2013], peaks at soft X-rays, and it is classified as a high-synchrotron-peaked (HSP) blazar [@Abdo2011]. The analysis of the polarized emission of these objects allow us to obtain information on the magnetic field topology and the emission mechanisms. We present Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) data obtained at 15, 24, and 43GHz in total and polarized intensity. We determined important and useful physical parameters such as the absolute orientation of the electric vector position angle (EVPA), the degree of polarization and the Rotation Measure (RM). The complete polarization analysis, together with a study of the radio/$\gamma$-ray connection, is presented in [@Lico2014]. We note that at the redshift of the source, 1 mas corresponds to 0.59 pc and that all angles presented in this work are measured from north through east. Observations details and data reduction ======================================= We observed the target once per month during 2011 with the VLBA at 15, 24, and 43GHz, both in total and polarized intensity. The details about the observations at 15 and 24GHz are presented in [@Lico2012], and at 43GHz in [@Blasi2013]. We expanded our 43GHz dataset with 11 additional epochs provided by the VLBA-BU-BLAZAR program[^1]. The fringe-fitting, the detection of cross-polarized fringes and the calibration were made by means of the software package Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS), while the cleaned and final images were produced with the software package DIFMAP. We adopted the method proposed by [@Leppanen1995] to determine the EVPA absolute orientation, based on the instrumental polarization parameters (D-terms). For the instrumental polarization calibration we used the calibrator J1310+3220, which is strong (flux density $> 1$ Jy), structureless and has negligible polarization on large scales. ![ [Images of Mrk421 at 15GHz during the first observing epoch (left image), at 24GHz during the second observing epoch (central image), and at 43GHz during the third observing epoch (right image). The contour levels are drawn at $(-1, 1, 2, 4...) \times$ the lowest contour (it is at 1.0 mJy/beam for 15 and 24GHz and at 0.65 mJy/beam for the 43GHz) and increase by factors of 2. In the bottom left corner of each image there is the restoring beam, that is 1.05 mas $\times$ 0.66 mas at 15GHz, 0.67 mas $\times$ 0.40 mas at 24GHz, and 0.33 mas $\times$ 0.19 mas at 43GHz. Colors represent the linearly polarized intensity and the white bars the absolute EVPA orientation.]{} []{data-label="maps"}](j1104ua.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![ [Images of Mrk421 at 15GHz during the first observing epoch (left image), at 24GHz during the second observing epoch (central image), and at 43GHz during the third observing epoch (right image). The contour levels are drawn at $(-1, 1, 2, 4...) \times$ the lowest contour (it is at 1.0 mJy/beam for 15 and 24GHz and at 0.65 mJy/beam for the 43GHz) and increase by factors of 2. In the bottom left corner of each image there is the restoring beam, that is 1.05 mas $\times$ 0.66 mas at 15GHz, 0.67 mas $\times$ 0.40 mas at 24GHz, and 0.33 mas $\times$ 0.19 mas at 43GHz. Colors represent the linearly polarized intensity and the white bars the absolute EVPA orientation.]{} []{data-label="maps"}](j1104kb.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![ [Images of Mrk421 at 15GHz during the first observing epoch (left image), at 24GHz during the second observing epoch (central image), and at 43GHz during the third observing epoch (right image). The contour levels are drawn at $(-1, 1, 2, 4...) \times$ the lowest contour (it is at 1.0 mJy/beam for 15 and 24GHz and at 0.65 mJy/beam for the 43GHz) and increase by factors of 2. In the bottom left corner of each image there is the restoring beam, that is 1.05 mas $\times$ 0.66 mas at 15GHz, 0.67 mas $\times$ 0.40 mas at 24GHz, and 0.33 mas $\times$ 0.19 mas at 43GHz. Colors represent the linearly polarized intensity and the white bars the absolute EVPA orientation.]{} []{data-label="maps"}](j1104qd.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}\ Results ======= Images and morphology --------------------- A sample of three polarization images of Mrk421, produced with DIFMAP and IDL[^2], for each observing frequency, is shown in Fig. \[maps\]. All the images are restored with natural weighting to obtain an improved sensitivity for the extended jet emission. In the images the white bars represent the EVPA absolute orientation, the contours the total intensity and the overlaid color maps the linearly polarized intensity. From the total intensity images at all three frequencies, it clearly emerges a collimated and well-defined one-sided jet structure, that extends for $\sim4.5$ mas (2.7 pc) from a compact nuclear region; the position angle (PA) is about $-35^\circ$ (in agreement with [@Giroletti2004]). At 15 and 24GHz we detect the linearly polarized emission within a region extending for $\sim1$ mas from the core region, and this allows us to distinguish between core and jet emission. In the outer part of the jet the polarized emission is too faint to be detected.\ At 43GHz, because of sensitivity limitations, only the polarized emission from the core region is detected. In particular, in some epochs we clearly detect a limb brightening structure in the polarized emission in the inner part of the jet. It is clearly revealed in the 4th observing epoch (April 2011), as it is shown in the right image of Fig. \[maps\]. During this epoch the polarization emission peak in the core region is $\sim8$ mJy/beam, while in the region where the limbs are detected it is $\sim2.3$ mJy/beam. ![image](Core_15GHz.ps){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![image](Core_43GHz.ps){width="0.45\columnwidth"}\ Radio light curves and evolution of polarization angle ------------------------------------------------------ In the following we will present some fundamental physical parameters both for the core (Fig. \[plots\_core\]) and the jet (Fig. \[plots\_jet\]) region. In Fig. \[plots\_core\] we show two frames, representing 15 (left frame) and 43GHz (right frame) data. Each frame has four panels in which we report (from top to bottom) the time evolution of the total and polarized flux density, the polarization percentage, and the EVPAs. For the jet region we report the evolution of the same parameters in Fig. \[plots\_jet\] at 15GHz (left frame) and 24GHz (right frame); at 43GHz no polarized emission is detected from the jet. All of the values represented in these images are reported in [@Lico2014]. We start by describing the results for the core region (Fig. \[plots\_core\]). In the total intensity light curves, for all the three frequencies, we clearly observe a peak around MJD $\sim$55617, followed by a decrease until MJD 55770 and a further slight increase occurring in the last observing period. We observe a significantly variable (with a difference between the highest and the lowest value $>3\sigma$) linearly polarized emission both at 15 and 24GHz, but the highest variation is observed at 43GHz, where we observe a $12.5$ mJy/beam peak during MJD $\sim$55649. The mean value of the polarization fraction is $\sim1\%$; it is higher at 43GHz, with a mean value of $\sim2\%$, and it reaches a peak of $\sim4\%$ during the third observing epoch. The polarization angle varies in the range $110^\circ$-$150^\circ$ for most of the year. In some epochs at 15GHz, it shows a variation of $\sim90^\circ$, without any clear connection with the polarized flux density or the EVPA trend both at 24 and 43GHz. In the jet region the situation is very different (Fig. \[plots\_jet\]). The polarized emission extends for $\sim1$ mas from the core and it is revealed only at 15 and 24GHz. In the total intensity light curves we do not observe any significant variation while the polarized flux density is more variable, with a peak during the fourth observing epoch. The fractional polarization is $\sim16\%$. The increasing polarization percentage with the distance from the core is observed in many blazars and it seems to be a common feature [@Lister2001]. The EVPAs show a stable behavior around a value of $60^\circ$, this means that they are roughly perpendicular with respect the jet position angle ($\sim-35^{\circ}$). ![image](JET_15GHz.ps){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![image](JET_24GHz.ps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\ Faraday rotation analysis ------------------------- When a polarized wave propagates through a magnetized plasma, because of the Faraday rotation effect, the observed polarization angle ($\chi_\mathrm{obs}$) is rotated with respect to the intrinsic value ($\chi_\mathrm{int}$), following the relationship $\chi_\mathrm{obs}=\chi_\mathrm{int} + RM\times \lambda^2$, where $\lambda^2$ is the observing wavelength squared and RM is the rotation measure (a quantity related to the electron density $n_e$ and the component of the magnetic field parallel to the line of sight $\textbf{B}_{\parallel}$). By performing linear fits of EVPAs versus $\lambda^2$ for the core region, where EVPA values at all the three observing frequencies are available, we obtained the RM and $\chi_\mathrm{int}$ values. By addressing the two observed flips in the EVPAs at 15GHz (in July and September 2011) to optically thin-thick transitions, we performed the RM fits by rotating them by $90^\circ$. In Fig. \[rm\] we show the time evolution of RM (upper panel) and of the intrinsic EVPA values (lower panel). The RM values span from $(-3640 \pm 930)$ to $(+1940\pm750)$ radm$^{-2}$. We note that we can not provide an accurate interpretation of the RM trend because often the uncertainties are very large and many RM values are consistent with 0 within $1\sigma$ or $2\sigma$. The intrinsic polarization angle trend reflects the stable behavior of the 43GHz EVPAs, with a mean value of $\sim150^\circ$, i.e. approximately parallel to the jet axis, and it shows some residual variability ($F_{var}$ is $0.10 \pm 0.04$). Discussion and conclusion ========================= In this section we summarize and discuss the polarization properties found for the source, trying to draw a physical scenario to explain them. First, we discuss the EVPA trend observed in different regions of the source. In the jet region, we found a stable trend during the entire 2011 for the EVPAs with a mean value of $\sim60^\circ$, i.e. approximately perpendicular to the jet axis. This means that that the magnetic field is parallel to the inner jet position angle; this is unusual in BL Lac objects (see also [@Piner2005]). To explain this configuration we can invoke either a helical magnetic field which has a pitch angle that is smaller than $45^\circ$ [@Wardle2013] or velocity shear across the jet. In the core region the EVPA trend is more complex and it is different from what we observe in the outer jet. At 43GHz the EVPAs are approximately parallel to the jet axis with values varying in the range $\sim100^\circ$-$150^\circ$; a similar trend is obtained for the intrinsic polarization angle (lower panel in Fig. \[rm\]). This EVPA configuration, if we assume this emission region to be optically thin at 43GHz, indicates that the magnetic field is approximately perpendicular to the jet axis. This is in agreement with the presence of a transverse shock. At 15GHz, we clearly observe two $90^\circ$ flips of the core EVPAs (from parallel to orthogonal to the jet axis) in July and September. This behavior is the clear signature of an optically thin/thick transition. A possible physical scenario to explain the observed variability at longer wavelengths, might be an association with variable Faraday rotation and opacity effects. The RM variability might be related both to a change in the sign of $\textbf{B}_{\parallel}$ and/or changes in the electron density. Another possibility, that should be taken into account, is the change of the projected path length. ![ [Upper panel: time evolution of the RM values for the core region, obtained by using 15, 24, and 43GHz data. Lower panel: time evolution of the polarization angle intrinsic values, obtained from the $\lambda^2$ fits.]{} []{data-label="rm"}](RM.ps "fig:"){width="0.55\columnwidth"}\ To explain the residual variability ($F_{var}$ is $0.10 \pm 0.04$) in the intrinsic EVPAs, we invoke the presence of a blend of cross-polarized and variable subcomponents within the beam region; the global polarization properties are determined by their relative contributions which vary as a function of time. This scenario reconciles both the low degree of polarization of the core region (subcomponents with different EVPAs cause significant cancellation) and the residual variations in the intrinsic EVPA values (considering that they are integrated across the VLBI core region). The presence of the cross-polarized subcomponents, as suggested from the stable EVPA trend at 43GHz, can be explained with the following physical scenario: the magnetic field in the core region might be orthogonal to the jet axis, but most part of the emission is optically thick at 15GHz, and this gives rise to EVPAs that are orthogonal to the jet axis in the optically thick region and parallel in the optically thin region. [99]{} Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello,M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 131, \[arXiv:1106.1348\] Blasi, M. G., Lico, R., Giroletti, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A75, \[arXiv:1310.4973\] Giroletti, M., Giovannini,G., Taylor, G. B., & Falomo, R. 2004, ApJ, 613, 752, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0406255\] Lepp[ä]{}nen, K. J., Zensus, J. A., & Diamond, P. J. 1995, AJ, 110, 2479 Lico, R., Giroletti, M., Orienti, M., et al. 2012, A&A,545, A117, \[arXiv:1208.5853\] Lico, R., Giroletti, M., Orienti, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, AA54, \[arXiv:1410.0884\] Lister, M. L. 2001, ApJ, 562, 208, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0107594\] Piner, B. G., & Edwards, P. G. 2005, ApJ, 622, 168, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0412383\] Piner, B. G., & Edwards, P. G. 2013, EPJWC, 61, 04021, \[arXiv:1309.2327\] Wardle, J. F. C. 2013, EPJWC, 61, 6001 [^1]: <http://www.bu.edu/blazars/VLBAproject.html> [^2]: <http://www.exelisvis.com/ProductsServices/IDL.aspx>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Unit tests are an important artifact that supports the software development process in several ways. For example, when a test fails, its name can provide the first step towards understanding the purpose of the test. Unfortunately, unit tests often lack descriptive names. In this paper, we propose a new, pattern-based approach that can help developers improve the quality of test names of JUnit tests by making them more descriptive. It does this by detecting non-descriptive test names and in some cases, providing additional information about how the name can be improved. Our approach was assessed using an empirical evaluation on 34352 JUnit tests. The results of the evaluation show that the approach is feasible, accurate, and useful at discriminating descriptive and non-descriptive names with a 95% true-positive rate.' address: \| Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences\ University of Delaware\ Newark, DE, USA author: - Jianwei Wu - James Clause bibliography: - 'paper.bib' title: 'A Pattern-based Approach to Detect and Improve Non-descriptive Test Names' --- Software Testing,Software Quality,Documentation Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Unit tests are an important artifact that supports the software development process in several ways. In addition to helping developers ensure the quality of their software by checking for failures [@daka2014survey], they can also serve as an important source of documentation not only for human developers but also for automated software engineering tools (e.g., recent work on fault localization by @li2019deepfl uses test name information [@li2019deepfl]). For example, when a test fails, its name can provide the first step towards understanding the purpose of the test and ultimately fixing the cause of the observed failure. Similarly, a test’s name can help developers decide whether a test should be left alone, modified, or removed in response to changes in the application under test and whether the test should be included in a regression test suite. In this work, we believe that test names are “good” if they are descriptive (i.e., they accurately summarize both the scenario and the expected outcome of the test [@trenk14]) and “bad” if they are not descriptive. This is because descriptive names: make it easier to tell if some functionality is not being tested—if a behavior is not mentioned in the name of a test, then the behavior is not being tested help prevent tests that are too large or contain unrelated assertions—if a test cannot be summarized, it likely should be split into multiple tests serve as documentation for the class under test—a class’s supported functionality can be identified by reading the names of its tests [@zhang2015automatically]. Unfortunately, unit tests often lack descriptive names. For example, an exploratory study by @zhang2015automatically found that only of the test names they considered were complete (i.e., fully described the body of test) while were missing some information and contained no useful information (e.g., tests named “test”) [@zhang2015automatically]. Poor test names can be due to developers writing non-descriptive or incomplete names. They can also occur due to incomplete code modifications. For example, a developer may modify a test’s body but fail to make the corresponding changes to the test’s name. Regardless of the cause, non-descriptive test names complicate comprehension tasks and increase the costs and difficulty of software development. Because non-descriptive names negatively impact software development, there have been several attempts to address this issue. One approach has been to automatically generate names based on implementations (e.g., [@arcuri2014automated; @zhang2015automatically; @daka2017generating]). For example, @zhang2015automatically and @daka2017generating use static and dynamic analysis, respectively, to extract important expressions from a test’s body and natural language processing techniques to transform such expression into test names [@zhang2015automatically; @daka2017generating]. While automatically generating names from bodies eliminates the possibility of mismatches between names and bodies the generated names do not always meet with developer approval (e.g., they may not fit with existing naming conventions). Another approach is to help developers improve their existing names by suggesting improvements. For example, @host2009debugging proposed an approach for Java methods and variables which uses a set of naming rules and related semantics [@host2009debugging], @li2019deepfl provided a learning-based approach to locate software faults using test name information [@li2019deepfl], and @allamanis2015suggesting and @pradel2018deepbugs use a model-based and a learning-based approach, respectively, to directly suggest better names or find name-based bugs to facilitate improvements [@allamanis2015suggesting; @pradel2018deepbugs]. In this paper, we propose a new, pattern-based approach that can: detect non-descriptive test names by finding mismatches between the name and body of a given JUnit test provide descriptive information that consists of the main motive of test, the property to be tested in the test, and the prerequisite needed in the test or the object to be tested (see \[sec:test\_patterns\] for details) to facilitate the improvement of non-descriptive test names . Unlike existing approaches that suggesting improvements, which were designed to handle general methods, our approach is specific to JUnit tests. The narrower scope of the work allows it to take advantage of the highly repetitive structures that exist in both test names and bodies of JUnit tests (see \[sec:test\_patterns\]). From a high-level point of view, the approach uses a set of predefined patterns to extract descriptive information from both a test’s name and body. This information is then compared to find non-descriptive names (i.e., cases where the name does not accurately summarize the body). When a mismatch is found, the information used by the approach can help developers address the mismatch and improve the quality of the test name. To assess the pattern-based approach, we implemented it as an IntelliJ IDE plugin. The plugin was then used to carry out an empirical evaluation of the quality of more than tests from Java projects. Overall, the results of our evaluation are promising and show that the pattern-based approach is feasible, accurate, and effective. In particular, this work makes the following contributions: A novel, pattern-based approach can detect non-descriptive test names of JUnit tests and provide descriptive information about the unit tests to help developers improve existing unit tests. A prototype implementation of the approach as an IntelliJ IDE plugin. An empirical evaluation on Java projects that shows: the patterns are general and cover a majority of test names and bodies the patterns can accurately extract descriptive information from both test names and bodies the approach can accurately classify test names as either descriptive or non-descriptive . Test Patterns {#sec:test_patterns} ============= [0.9]{} [0.9]{} We choose a pattern-based approach because unit tests often have similar structures that can be used to identify the purpose of a test from both its name and body. More specifically, patterns can be used to extract: the action which is the focus of the test (i.e., what the test is testing) the predicate which are the properties that will be checked by the test the scenario which are the conditions under which the action is being performed or the predicate is evaluated . As examples of the common structures shared by unit test bodies, consider the code examples shown in \[fig:example-patterns\]. shows a unit test whose body consists of a `try-catch` statement. The goal of this type of test is to perform the action under an optional scenario and then to check whether the action was successful or not. In the test corpus used for pattern generation in \[tab:test-corpus\], we found more than tests () shared this structure. Because of the regular structure of this type of test, it is possible to automatically extract its purpose in the form of its action, scenario, and predicate. More specifically, the action is the `method invocation` that occurs before the “fail” statement in the `try` part of the `try-catch` statement and the scenario is the object on which the action is performed. In \[PatternExample\_tc\], the action of the test is “execute” and the scenario of the test is “action”, the object being tested. For another example, presents a unit test whose body contains only a single assertion. The goal of this type of test is to compare the result of an action under a required scenario to an expected predicate. Again, this type of test is common: about tests in the corpus mentioned above () share this structure. For this type of test, the action and the predicate can be found by looking at the actual (second) and expected (first) arguments to the assertion statement, respectively, and the scenario will again be the object on which the action is invoked. Therefore, in \[PatternExample\_allA\], the action of the test is “entries”, the predicate is “getSampleElements”, and the scenario is “multimap”. Common patterns among test names can also be seen in the examples in \[fig:example-patterns\]. shows an example where the test name (ignoring the leading “test”) consists of a leading verb separated from the following noun by an underscore. In our corpus, roughly () test names shared this structure. For this structure, the action of the test name is the leading verb and the scenario is the following noun (i.e., in this example, the action is “Execute” and the scenario is “Action”). Similarly, \[PatternExample\_allA\] that presents a test name that consists of a single word. In our corpus, about () unit tests had one-word test names. In this case, the action of the test name is simply the single word contained in the name (i.e., “Entries” is the action for this example). In the remainder of this section, we explain the process we used to identify common test name and test body patterns and present a list of the patterns that we used to detect non-descriptive names (see \[sec:approach\]). Test Corpus ----------- [ l l S\[table-format=5\] ]{} Project & Commit Hash & \# Tests\ Google Guava [@guava] & 473f8d2 & 14020\ JFreeChart [@JFreeChart] & d03e68a & 2176\ JaCoCo [@jacoco] & f0102f0 & 1323\ Weka [@weka] & d72b95e & 436\ Barbecue [@barbecue] & 44a8632 & 154\ & 18109\ \[tab:test-corpus\] To identify common patterns among unit test names and bodies we considered a set of tests comprised of the test suites from the Java projects shown in \[tab:test-corpus\]. These projects are influential open-source projects taken from either Github [@github] or SourceForge [@sourceforge]. Each project either has thousands of stars on Github (e.g., Google Guava) or has been downloaded more than times per week on SourceForge (e.g., Weka). Each project focuses on a different domain: “Guava” is a general-purpose collection of utility classes, “JFreeChart” is a 2D chart library designed for Java applications, “JaCoCo” is a Java code coverage library often used in testing, “Weka” is a machine learning toolkit, and “Barbecue” is used for creating barcodes. Moreover, they are written by different authors so their test suites are likely to have tests written in different ways. Due to these criteria, the patterns we identify from these projects are likely to be general, rather than specific to any one test suite from a project or author. Test Body Patterns {#sec:body-patterns} ------------------ Name -------------------------------------------- If Else Loop Try Catch Try Catch (Restricted) Try Catch (Generalized) All Assertion (Single) All Assertion (Multiple) Normal (Restricted) Normal (Generalized) No Assertion No Assertion (Generalized) No Assertion (Specialized for sole method) No Assertion (Single declaration) No Assertion (Single method invocation) No Assertion (Single new object) No Assertion (Multiple method invocations) No Assertion (Multiple declarations) : Test Body Patterns \[tab:body-patterns\] [0.9]{} To identify common body patterns, we used a semi-automated process based on applying frequent pattern mining to the statements contained in test bodies. We chose to operate at the statement-level for two major reasons: statements are the basic syntactic component of tests and standard unit tests are composed of statements [@JUnitCook] while the entire test serves a purpose, individual statements encapsulate sub-steps towards achieving the overall goal [@lakhotia1993understanding] such as the action, scenario, and predicate . The first step in the process was to eliminate inconsequential differences (e.g., literals, variable names, etc.) by abstracting each statement to a number that encodes its type. For example, declaration statements are assigned the number , `method invocation` statements are assigned the number , etc. While more nuanced abstraction approaches are possible (e.g., def-use-based or graph-based), we found that this approach worked satisfactorily in practice. We also added special symbols to explicitly encode the start and end of each test. These markers are used later to filter out mined patterns that do not span entire tests. The second step in the process was to apply the ClaSP frequent pattern mining algorithm [@gomariz2013clasp] to the abstracted statements. ClaSP is a novel algorithm that utilized vertical database strategy and heuristic to mine frequent closed patterns. We chose to use ClaSP because it can efficiently mine the complete set of frequent, closed patterns from its input [@fournier2017survey]. This means that ClaSP ensures that each mined pattern has the highest frequency among its super-patterns (i.e., closed, similar to a class and its super-classes), and that long patterns, which are relevant for our purposes, can be mined efficiently. To avoid confusion, we will refer to the output of ClaSP as “proto-patterns” as they serve as the basis for constructing our test body patterns. As the output of this step, we generated proto-patterns. The final step in the process was to manually examine the proto-patterns to generate test body patterns. This step is necessary because the proto-patterns contain duplicates, spurious entries (i.e., patterns that do not occur in the original tests), and patterns that do not span an entire test. Additionally, since the proto-patterns may contain different setups of where the action, predicate, and scenario should be extracted, we wanted patterns that are both general and that allow for accurately extracting the action, predicate, and scenario. In \[ClaSP\_examples\], the pattern mining process is clearly illustrated by a real-world example that is extracted during the process of pattern mining. The example is composed of three parts: abstracting each statement to a number using ClaSP to mine frequent patterns from the abstracted statements manually examining the proto-patterns to generate test body patterns . First, we utilized an automated script to convert statements to numbers to prepare the corpus for pattern mining, and each type of statement to number pair is also stored for reference (e.g., `methodCall` to ). Second, after the mining results of ClaSP is completely generated, we collected all generated sequences (e.g., ) as the proto-patterns and use the statement-number pair from the first step to reconstruct those patterns (e.g., $start\{ \star try\{ \star catch\{ \star \}catch \star \}try \star \}end \star \}$). Last, we performed a manual examination of the proto-patterns to generate test body patterns. From the last two lines (i.e., each of them is a reconstructed pattern with its number of matches) in \[ClaSP\_examples\], although both of them are mined patterns and the first one even has more matches (i.e., ), we only selected the second one as one kind of representation of the Try Catch (Restricted) body pattern shown in \[tc\_one\] since the first one is a spurious entry. Because the number of proto-patterns is large, we used various grouping strategies to merge similar proto-patterns. In particular, we found that grouping by control-flow statements was effective as such statements often define the high-level structures of test bodies. Another useful approach was to group the proto-patterns by common prefixes in order to identify statement types that were often repeated. The resulting groups of proto-patterns were further examined to eliminate ones that did not include both the special start and end of test markers and ones that did not allow for identifying the action, scenario, and predicate. Finally, the remaining proto-patterns were manually translated in to the test body patterns shown in \[tab:body-patterns\]. For these selected proto-patterns, we manually examined each of them and extracted the action, predicate, and scenario from each pattern by reviewing matched test bodies from those considered projects in \[tab:test-corpus\]. In the remainder of this section each of these patterns will be described in more detail. [0.6]{} The motive behind `If Else` body pattern is to capture a type of test body that uses an if-else condition to fulfill its task by testing a particular `method invocation` under a given object in the if part, and use the `assertions` in the else part for its evaluation. As shown in , the extracted action from this pattern is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the first `method invocation` in the `if` part of the `if-else` statement. Then the extracted scenario under test will be the only “object” that is declared before the `if-else` statement as “$\langle scenario \rangle$”, and the `method invocation` positioned as the “actual” of the first `assertion` in the `else` part will be the “$\langle predicate \rangle$”. [0.65]{} The motive of Loop body pattern is to include any test body that is trying to repetitively test a `method invocation` under a specific “object”, and use its contained `assertion` to evaluate the outcomes. The action in is the first `method invocation` inside the `loop` as “$\langle action \rangle$”, the predicate of the test is the `method invocation` - “$\langle predicate \rangle$” positioned as “actual” part of the `assertion`, and the scenario of the test is the “object” used for the `loop` condition as “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. In addition, the while `loop` is used here as an example, other types of `loop` are also supported. [0.65]{} The motive of creating Try Catch body pattern is to capture many test bodies that are trying to perform a `method invocation` under a required object and then to check whether the `method invocation` was successful or not. Accordingly, the action of the body in is the `method` that was invoked as “$\langle action \rangle$”. And the object used to invoke the `method` or the leading object declared outside the try-catch statement - “$\langle scenario \rangle$” will be the scenario of the test. The `assertion` in the body is optional, so there might be no predicate of the test. If there is an `assertion`, then the predicate of the test is the `method invocation` - “$\langle predicate \rangle$” positioned in the “actual” part of the `assertion`. [0.8]{} The motive of Try Catch (Restricted) body pattern is to include a type of test body that is trying to perform a `method invocation` (i.e., action) under an optional object (i.e., scenario) and then to check if the `method invocation` was successfully performed. Accordingly, the action of the body in is the method that was invoked as “$\langle action \rangle$”, and the object used to invoke the `method` - “$\langle scenario \rangle$” will be the scenario of the test but it is optional for this pattern. The `assertion` is also optional, so there might be no predicate of the test. If there is an `assertion`, then the predicate of the test is the `method invocation` - “$\langle predicate \rangle$” positioned in the “actual” part of the `assertion`. As we mentioned in , that unit test is a standard match to the “Try Catch (Restricted)”. [0.65]{} This pattern - Try Catch (Generalized) body pattern is a more general form of the previous two types of `try-catch` statement-based body patterns. Similarly, the motive of creating this pattern is to capture any test that is trying to perform a `method invocation` under a required object and to check if the `method invocation` was successful. The action and the scenario of the body are in the same places as mentioned in the previous two patterns - “$\langle action \rangle$” and “$\langle scenario \rangle$” in . Other statements might appear before the “$\langle scenario \rangle.\langle action \rangle$”, but they are considered as “setup” for the action and scenario. The `assertion` for this pattern is still optional, but it could appear in the catch part or outside the `try-catch` statement. If there is an `assertion`, then the predicate of the test is the `method invocation` - “$\langle predicate \rangle$” positioned in the “actual” part of the `assertion`. [0.7]{} A test body matched by the All Assertion (Single) body pattern compares the result of an action under a required scenario to an expected predicate. In All Assertion (Single), the single `assertion` contained in the test body is trying to compare different results, so the action is the `method invocation` placed in the “actual” position of the `assertion`. The predicate of the test is the `method invocation` placed in the “expected” position of the `assertion`, and the scenario will be the “object” that invokes the action. Therefore, in \[AllA\_single\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$”, the predicate is “$\langle predicate \rangle$” that is required for its comparison and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”, which is also required to invoke the “$\langle action \rangle$”. Like in , the unit test is a standard match to the All Assertion (Single). [0.8]{} The All Assertion(Multiple) body pattern serves as a more general form of the All Assertion (Single) pattern. The motive and the locations of action, predicate, and scenario are the same as the All Assertion (Single) pattern. There are two differences: the test contains more than one `assertion` as long as they are testing the same action, predicate, or scenario. there is a new type of `nested method invocation` in the `assertion` . In \[AllA\_mutiple\], the action, predicate, and scenario for the first kind of `assertion` are the same as the `assertion` in All Assertion (Single). For the second kind of `assertion`, the action of the body will be the outer `method invocation` as “$\langle action \rangle$” that is invoked by the scenario of the body as “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. The inner `method invocation` - “$\langle predicate \rangle$” is the predicate of the body, and it serves as a further step of performing the main action. [0.675]{} The motive of Normal (Restricted) body pattern is to capture a type of test body that tries to perform an action under a specific scenario as its “setup” and evaluate it with a required predicate. The action often appears in the initialization part of the leading `declaration`, but it can also be in the “actual” part of the only `assertion`. The scenario is optional (i.e., none of the first two statements is `method invocation`), but it could be the first `method` being invoked before the final `assertion` or the `object` initialized in the leading `declaration`. The predicate is the `method` name (e.g., “assertEquals”, “assertNotNull”, etc.) extracted from the `assertion`. In \[NP\_2/3\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$”, the predicate is “$\langle predicate \rangle$”, and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. [0.675]{} The motive of Normal (Generalized) body pattern is also to capture a type of test body that tries to perform an action under a specific scenario as its “setup” and evaluate it with a required predicate. This pattern is an extended version of Normal (Restricted), so it shares the similar extraction of the action and predicate. One major difference between this pattern and the previous one is that this pattern allows more statements to be included in the body, and another difference is that this pattern only considers the `method invocation` as the scenario since multiple objects can be declared in the test body. In \[NP\_any\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$”, the predicate is “$\langle predicate \rangle$”, and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. [0.7]{} From a structural perspective, the No Assertion body pattern differs from other patterns due to its lack of any `assertion`, which is inspired by one of the test stereotypes mentioned in a recent work [@li2018aiding]. Nonetheless, we greatly extended this type of test body as the following patterns. The motive of No Assertion pattern is intended to perform an action under a required scenario, but there is often no primary predicate due to the lack of `assertion`. However, this pattern requires at least three lines of code for its information extraction, and it attempts to extract the predicate of the test. The primary position of the action is in the initialization part of the leading `declaration`, and it can be as the first `method` being invoked after the `declaration`. The scenario is the object that invokes the first `method invocation` (i.e., the action) and is declared in the leading `declaration`. The predicate is the secondary `method invocation` being invoked after the first `method invocation`. In \[NoAstP\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$”, the predicate is “$\langle predicate \rangle$”, and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. [0.7]{} The motive of No Assertion (Generalized) body pattern is also intended to perform an action under a required scenario, but there is often no primary predicate due to the lack of `assertion`. Because the required lines of code decrease to two lines, this pattern is capable of capturing more test bodies. The action changes to the first `method` being invoked after the leading `declaration`. The scenario is the `object` in the leading `declaration`. In \[NoAstP\_any\], the action of is “$\langle action \rangle$” and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. [0.45]{} [0.6]{} [0.7]{} The No Assertion (Specialized for sole method) body pattern is a distinctive kind of no assertion-based pattern. The specialization of this pattern is that it only captures a test body with only one `method invocation` across all its statements, which could be an independent `method invocation` or an argument from any statement in the body. In \[NoAstP\_one\], the motive of this pattern is to perform the sole action (i.e., the `method invocation`) under a required scenario, so the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” and the scenario of the body is “$\langle scenario \rangle$”. Creating No Assertion (Single declaration) body pattern is to include a special kind of no assertion body pattern that can capture any test body with a sole declaration. The motive of this pattern is testing an “object” that is initialized by a required `method` to check if the “object” can be successfully initialized. In \[NoAstP\_SD\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the `method` being invoked, and the scenario of the body is “$\langle scenario \rangle$” as the object being tested. Creating No Assertion (Single method invocation) body pattern is to include a special kind of no assertion body pattern that can capture any test body with a sole `method invocation`. The motive of this pattern is performing an action that is under a required argument (i.e., predicate) to check if the action can be successfully performed. In \[NoAstP\_MC\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the `method` being invoked, and the predicate of the body is the “$\langle predicate \rangle$” as the inner argument of the `method invocation`. [0.75]{} The No Assertion (Single new object) body pattern is also a special kind of no assertion body pattern that can capture any test body with a sole new object initialization. The motive of this pattern is initializing a `new object` that is chained to two required `methods` to check if the `new object` can be successfully initialized. In \[NoAstP\_new\], the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the last `method` being invoked, the predicate is the “$\langle predicate \rangle$” as the first `method` being invoked, and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$” as the new object being initialized. [0.7]{} [0.45]{} The No Assertion (Multiple declarations) body pattern is to create an extension of the No Assertion (Single declaration) pattern, and it allows more than one line of code in any captured test body. In \[NoAstP\_m\_dec\], the motive and information extraction are the same as the “single method” version: the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the `method` being invoked, and the scenario is “$\langle scenario \rangle$” as the object being tested. Also, the scenario in this pattern needs to be the most frequently evaluated object in the test body, and the action is served as a required argument of that object. The No Assertion (Multiple method invocations) body pattern is to create an extension of the No Assertion (Single method invocation) pattern, and it allows more than one line of code in any captured test body. The motive and the information extraction are the same as the “single method” version: the action of the body is “$\langle action \rangle$” as the `method` being invoked, and the predicate is the “$\langle predicate \rangle$” as the inner argument of the `method invocation`, which is also shown in \[NoAstP\_m\_MC\]. [0.65]{} [0.65]{} [0.65]{} Also, the action in this pattern needs to be the most frequently invoked `method` in the test body, and the predicate is associated with the action as its inner argument. Name ------------------------------------ Verb With Multiple Nouns Phrase Divided Duel Verb Phrase Is And Past Participle Phrase Try Catch Duel Verb Phrase Noun Phrase Single Entity Verb Phrase Without Prepended Test Verb Phrase With Prepended Test Regex Match : Test Name Patterns. \[tab:name-patterns\] Test Name Patterns {#sec:name-patterns} ------------------ Because test names are easier to compare since they are shorter than test body we were able to use a fully manual process for identifying commonalities among test names. We found that test names typically fall into two main categories: names that have a common structural format and names that have a common grammatical structure. For the first category, regular expressions can be used directly on the test names to identify relevant pieces of information. For the second category, additional information such as the part of speech of each word in the test name is needed. To obtain this information we used an approach recommended by @olney16tagging: convert each test name to a sentence by using a purpose-built identifier splitter and prepending the result with the word “I” apply the Stanford Tagger [@StanfordTagger] [@olney16tagging]. The resulting name patterns are shown in \[tab:name-patterns\] and each is described with more details in the remainder of the section. Verb With Multiple Nouns Phrase : This name pattern aims to match a test name that is composed of a prefix of “test” and a verb phrase with multiple nouns. In \[fig:name\_vmn\], the first word after the leading “test” should be tagged as “verb” that is the action of the name, and the following three “nouns” are combined as the scenario of the name. Divided Duel Verb Phrase : [0.65]{} [0.65]{} The motive of this name pattern is to match a type of test names that has a leading “test” followed by a “verb-noun-verb-noun” structure. In \[fig:divided-dual-verb\], the first word tagged as “verb” is the action of the name, and the second word tagged as “noun” is the scenario of the name that is same as the fourth word. The third word should be tagged as “verb” that is the scenario of the name. Is And Past Participle Phrase : This name pattern is intended to match any test name that has a “verb-verb” structure, and the second “verb” should be in its past participle form. In \[fig:IsAndPast\], the first “verb” is the action of the name, and the second “verb” is the predicate of the name. If there is a following “noun” after the second “verb”, it will be the scenario of the name. However, there were not enough pattern matches to support the scenario, so it is currently not included in this name pattern. Try Catch (Name) : The “Try Catch” name pattern is designed for test names, and this name pattern belongs to the regular expression-based name patterns. shows a more representative sub-pattern of this pattern than other sub-patterns. In the figure, the action of the name is placed before the divider - “Throws”, and the predicate of the name is placed after the divider. Moreover, this name pattern is often related to a `try-catch` condition that will be tested in the test. Duel Verb Phrase : [0.65]{} This name pattern aims to match a type of test names that has a “verb-verb-noun” structure. In \[fig:dual-verb\], the action of the name is the first word tagged as “verb”, the predicate is the second word also tagged as “verb”, and the scenario is the third word tagged as “noun”. [0.65]{} [0.65]{} [0.65]{} Noun Phrase : This name pattern is set to match any test name that only has one word tagged as a “noun”. As shown in \[fig:noun-phrase\], the only “noun” is the scenario of the name, and there is often no action or predicate in the name. Single Entity : The “Single Entity” name pattern also belongs to the regular expression-based name patterns, and a representative sub-pattern is shown in \[fig:single-entity\]. After the leading “test”, the combination of all following words is the action of the name. Nonetheless, the action of the name needs to fulfill a special requirement that requires the action to be matched to one of the “method under test” [@zhang2016towards]. A “method under test” is a `method` that is being tested in the test or the test class. When the action of the name is matched to a “method under test” (i.e., identical names), it will be counted as a pattern match to this name pattern. Verb Phrase Without Prepended Test : This name pattern aims to match any test name that is a “verb phrase” without a prepended word - “test”. The “verb phrase” consists of a leading “verb” with a following “noun”, and there is a secondary “verb” (i.e., optional) that comes after the “noun”. In \[fig:verb-without-test\], the action of the name is the leading “verb”, the predicate of the name is the secondary “verb”, and the scenario of the name is the “noun” between the action and the predicate. Verb Phrase With Prepended Test : This name pattern aims to match any test name that is a “verb phrase” with a prepended word - “test”. The “verb phrase” also consists of a leading “verb” with a following “noun”, and there is a secondary “verb” (i.e., optional) that comes after the “noun”. In \[fig:verb-with-test\], the action of the name is the leading “verb”, the predicate of the name is the secondary “verb”, and the scenario of the name is the “noun” between the action and the predicate. [0.675]{} ![image](overview_of_approach.pdf) Regex Match : This name pattern is a collection of regular expression-based sub-patterns. For example, three of the most representative sub-patterns are shown in \[fig:regex-match\]. The first two sub-patterns show a special condition that need to perform the predicate under the defined scenario or execute the action after the scenario is performed. The last sub-pattern is to execute the predicate while the right scenario is successfully performed, and a pattern match in practice is shown in \[PatternExample\_detectedPoorName\_code\]. A Pattern-based Approach to Detect Non-descriptive Test Names {#sec:approach} ============================================================= presents a high-level overview of our pattern-based approach for detecting non-descriptive test names. As the figure shows, the approach takes as input a unit test comprised of its name and body. It then assesses the descriptiveness of the test’s name using two phases. The first phase, pattern-based analysis, uses the test patterns described in \[sec:test\_patterns\] to extract descriptive information from both the test name and the test body. The second phase, information comparison, compares the descriptive information extracted from the name and body against each other. This information comparison process allows for not only detecting non-descriptive test names (i.e., mismatches between the information), but also in some cases indicating to developers how the name could be improved. The remainder of this section describes the two steps of the approach in more detail. Phase 1: Pattern-based Analysis {#sec:Pattern-based-Analysis} ------------------------------- [0.9]{} \ Single Entity Verb Phrase With Prepended Test ----------- ---------------- --------------------------------- action GetSSLProtocol Get predicate — — scenario — SSL \ Normal (Restricted) Normal (Generalized) ----------- --------------------- ---------------------- action getSSLProtocol getSSLProtocol predicate assertNotNull assertNotNull scenario protocol — The first phase of the approach is relatively straightforward as it consists mainly of applying the patterns described in \[sec:name-patterns,sec:body-patterns\] to the provided test name and body. If a pattern matches against a name or body, the values it extracts as the action, predicate, and scenario are passed as input to the second stage. If none of the name patterns match or none of the body patterns match, empty values are passed instead. Generally, if a name or body meets all requirements of a name/body pattern, the name or body is counted as a match to that name/body pattern. In \[sec:test\_patterns\], the requirements of matching each test pattern is stated in a pattern-by-pattern style. For an example of how to match the name pattern, the “Noun Phrase” name pattern can be matched to a test name that is only composed of a leading “test” and an ending noun (i.e., requirements are fulfilled, and the name is considered to be a match to the “Noun Phrase” name pattern), and the ending noun is extracted from the name as the scenario of the name. For an example of how to match the body pattern, the “All Assertion (Single)” body pattern can be matched to a test body that only contains a single and complete JUnit `assertion` (i.e., requirements are fulfilled, and the body is considered to be a match to the “All Assertion (Single)” body pattern). The `expected` part of the `assertion` is extracted from the body as the predicate of the body, and the `actual` part of the `assertion` should be a complete `method invocation` that contains an `object` and a `method call`. The `object` in the `method invocation` is extracted as the scenario of the body, and the `method call` is extracted as the action of the body. After a match is found, the matched name/body pattern can extract the components from the name/body by using the corresponding positions of the action, predicate, and scenario. Similar to the two examples of matching a pattern to a test name or body that we already mentioned, the extraction process is also straightforward. For the same example of the “Noun Phrase” name pattern, the approach can automatically parse the test name with part-of-speech tags and stores every word in the name with its original order and part-of-speech tag. Then the approach first rules out irrelevant test names (e.g., test names that contain more than two words) and then extracts the first and only noun in the name to be the scenario of the name For the same example of the “All Assertion (Single)” body pattern, the approach is also able to automatically parse code from the statement-level and identifies different types of statements. Therefore, the approach first rules out any test body with more than one statement or contains any kind of statement other than JUnit `assertion`, and it then parse the JUnit `assertion` to extract the `expected` part and the `actual` part. After all parts of the `assertion` are gathered, the approach extracts the `expected` part (i.e., which is often a `method invocation`) as the predicate of the body, the `object` in the `actual` part as the scenario of the body, and the `method call` in the `actual` part as the action of the body. When every component is successfully extracted from both the test name and body, the approach will determine if the name is descriptive or non-description and generate a report for the associated test as shown \[sec:InformationComparison\]. The main complexity in this phase arises from the fact that more than one pattern may match a name or body. For example, \[fig:approach-0\] shows a unit test that can be matched by more than one pattern. More specifically, the test’s body can be matched by both the restricted and generalized versions of the “Normal” pattern and the test’s name can be matched by both the “Single Entity” and “Verb Phrase With Prepended Test” patterns. While more than one pattern may match the same name or body, there is often one pattern that is preferred either because it is more accurate at extracting information or it can extract more information. For example, the difference in information extracted by matching patterns can be seen in \[fig:approach-1,fig:approach-2\]. Each of these figures, the rows show the values extracted as the action, predicate, and scenario for the patterns shown in the corresponding columns. A dash (—) indicates an empty value that occurs when a pattern did not extract a value for the corresponding type of information. is an example of when one pattern may be more accurate at extracting information. In this case, the “Single Entity” pattern correctly extracts “GetSSLProtocol” as the action and does not extract a value for the predicate or scenario while the “Verb Phrase With Prepended Test” pattern incorrectly identifies the action and scenario (i.e., “Get” is tagged as “verb” for the action and “SSL” is tagged as “noun” for the scenario). is an example of when one pattern may extract more information. In this case, both the “Normal (Restricted)” and “Normal (Generalized)” patterns correctly identify the action as “getSslProtocol” and the predicate as “assertNotNull” but only the “Normal (Restricted)” pattern identifies the scenario as “protocol”. Because of this difference in performance, it is important to order the patterns to produce the best results. The ordering of both name and body patterns in our approach is based on our understanding of the patterns, the intuition that more specific patterns should be tried before more general patterns, and the results of applying them to the applications shown in \[tab:test-corpus\] as a pilot study. In this pilot study, we tested ten different arrangements of the patterns and selected the one that produced the most accurate ordering. More details about this evaluation process can be find in \[sec:evaluation:feasibility,sec:evaluation:accuracy\]. The resulting orders for the name patterns and body patterns are shown in \[tab:name-patterns,tab:rq1-body\], respectively. Phase 2: Information Comparison {#sec:InformationComparison} ------------------------------- The goal of the information comparison phase is to detect non-descriptive test names. Our approach fulfills this goal by comparing the information extracted from the test name and body. The result of this comparison is that a test name is either: Descriptive Non-descriptive Unknown . More specifically, each piece of information extracted from a test’s name is compared with its corresponding piece of information extracted from the test’s body (i.e., action~name~ with action~body~, predicate~name~ with predicate~body~, and scenario~name~ with scenario~body~). If the action, predicate, and scenario extracted from the name are all empty and/or the action, predicate, and scenario extracted from the body are all empty, the name is characterized as Unknown. In this case, it is impossible to determine the quality of the name because an insufficient amount of information was extracted from the name or body. [0.9]{} \ [0.9]{} Name Body ----------- -------------- ---------------- action GetGraphNode getGraphNode() predicate — assertEquals() scenario — — [0.8]{} \ [0.9]{} Name Body ----------- ---------------- ----------- action — extract() predicate ThrowException — scenario TokenIsAbsent response If there is sufficient information to compare, the approach checks each existing piece of information from the name against the corresponding information from the body. If all of the existing pieces of information match, then the name is considered descriptive. Also, if all of the existing pieces from the name is a valid subset of the pieces from the body, the name is still considered descriptive. shows an example of a test name that is classified as descriptive. The top of the figure shows the test under consideration and the bottom presents a table showing the information extracted by the first phase of the approach. The rows of the table show the values extracted by the pattern type shown in the corresponding column (i.e., the name pattern identified “GetGraphNode” as the action and the body pattern identified “getGraphNode()” as the action). In this example, the name is considered descriptive because all of the non-empty information types match their counterpart (i.e., “GetGraphNode” matches “getGraphNode()”). If, when comparing the name information against the body information, at least one of the existing pieces of information does not match, then the name is considered non-descriptive. It means that a subset of the following conditions happens for that name: action~name~ does not match action~body~ predicate~name~ does not match predicate~body~ scenario~name~ does not match scenario~body~ . shows an example of name that is classified as non-descriptive. Again, the top of the figure shows the test under consideration and the bottom presents a table showing the information extracted by the first phase of the approach. In this example, the name is considered non-descriptive because none of the non-empty information types match their counterpart (i.e., “TokenIsAbsent” fails to match “response”). If the outcome is either descriptive or non-descriptive, the approach can sometimes provide additional information to developers to help them improve the test name. For both descriptive and non-descriptive names, if a value provided by the name pattern is empty but the corresponding information provided by the body is not empty, the name can likely be improved by the addition of the body information. For example, \[PatternExample\_detected4\] shows a test name that is descriptive but can also be improved. In this example, the name accurately reflects that the action of the test is “GetGraphNode” but it is missing information about the predicate that can be found in the body. Adding information that the predicate is “assertEquals” to the name would improve its descriptiveness. For only non-descriptive names, the approach can suggest modification in two cases. First, if a value provided by the name pattern exists but the corresponding value provided by the body pattern does not exist, the approach suggests that the name information from the name be removed as it is not supported by the body. Second, if the corresponding values provided by the name and body patterns both exist but do not match, the approach can suggest that the information from the name be replaced by the information from the body. For example, \[PatternExample\_detectedPoorName\] shows a non-descriptive test name, which the approach can provide the following suggestions for improvement: First, the predicate part of the name, “ThrowException”, should be removed and second, the scenario identified by the name, “TokenIsAbsent”, should also be replaced with the scenario from the body, “response”. Note that, because the action from the name is empty, the action identified by the body, “extract”, should be added to the name, as described above. The challenging part of this phase is determining whether the corresponding pieces of information match. Because the information extracted from the name is text while the information extracted from the body are code elements (i.e., `methods`, `objects`, etc.) they can not be directly compared. To address the challenge, the approach automatically converts the name of any `method`, `object`, `new instance`, or `assertion method` to a string. For example, the “Normal (Restricted)” body patterns can extract the name of the `assertion method` in \[fig:approach-0\], and it is converted to a string that is shown as “assertNotNull” in \[fig:approach-2\]. Once both the information from the name and the information from the body have been converted to strings, they are also converted to lower case. The two strings are equal, or if one is strictly contained in the other (i.e., one of them may contain additional information), they are considered to match. Otherwise, they are unmatched. After we sorted out the process of determining a match, the pattern-based approach can automatically classify each test name in a project as a descriptive name or a non-descriptive name. In the first step, the approach gathers all unit tests from the test suite of a selected project by using an automated project analyzer and finds pattern matches for their test names and bodies. In the second step, the approach then uses the test patterns to extract the action, predicate, and scenario from the name and body of each test and generate a report for each name, which is the same as the reports shown in \[NewExamplesForRQ3\]. In the last step, the approach automatically aggregates all generated reports for all extracted tests in a comprehensive report for the project, which contains all the detected descriptive and non-descriptive test names. To provide a more intuitive presentation of the approach, an implementation of the pattern-based approach is provided as an IDE plugin [@prototype]. Empirical Evaluation {#sec:evaluation} ==================== The overall goal of the evaluation is to determine if our approach can classify descriptive and non-descriptive test names. However, because the approach’s success for this task depends on the underlying patterns, we also evaluate several aspects of their performance. More specifically, we considered the following three research questions: RQ1—Feasibility. : How many test names and bodies are matched by the patterns used by the approach? RQ2—Accuracy. : How accurate are the patterns at extracting the action, scenario, and predicate from test names and bodies? RQ3—Effectiveness. : Can our pattern-based approach correctly classify descriptive and non-descriptive test names? To investigate these questions, we implemented our approach as an IntelliJ IDEA Plugin [@IntelliJPlugin]. We chose to use IntelliJ IDEA because it is a full-featured IDE that can import projects which use a wide variety of build systems (e.g., Maven and Gradle). This gives us more flexibility in choosing applications when building our set of experimental subjects. It also has support for automatically identifying test suites, which are the input to the approach. Finally, it has a robust parsing API that we can use to implement the body patterns. Currently developers can use the plugin by selecting a menu item that analyzes all tests in the current project. In future work, the plugin could easily be extended to support other interaction mechanisms. For example, checking only the names of test in a specific class or the names of individually selected tests. To generate the experimental data for investigating our research questions, we instrumented the plugin to record the information necessary for answering each research question. We then manually ran the plugin on each of the experimental subjects. For each run, the plugin automatically imports the project that is going to be evaluated. After the importing finishes, the plugin will attempt to match every test pattern on each unit test that is contained in that imported project. Finally, the plugin outputs a report for all unit tests that are evaluated in the process. In total, we collected all information comparison reports for each of the ten Java projects we used in the evaluation. The machine we used for all experiments was a MacBook Pro ( Intel i5 processor; 16 GB RAM) running macOS High Sierra and Java version 9.0.1. Adding up the time for executing the plugin on each project, the total amount of time is roughly five hours for tests. Even though the implementation is unoptimized, the execution time is such that it is feasible to include the approach as part of an off-line build process (e.g., overnight). The remainder of this section describes our experimental subjects, research questions, and experimental results in more detail. Experimental Subjects {#sec:evaluation:subjects} --------------------- [ l l S\[table-format=5\] ]{} & &\ Xodus & 8d82ef7 & 940\ mytcuml & 0786c55 & 21532\ wheels & 15696da & 811\ EventBus & 2e7c046 & 124\ Picasso & 5c05678 & 336\ Jenkins & 6c1d61a & 2245\ ScribeJava & fce41f9 & 109\ mockito & 2204944 & 2112\ Guice & 6f1c6cc & 1322\ fastjson & 4c7935c & 4821\ & 34352\ \[tab:subjects\] As the subjects for the evaluation, we selected a set of unit tests comprised of the test suites from the Java projects shown in \[tab:subjects\]. In the table, the first column, Project, shows the name of each project; the second column, Commit, shows commit hash of the version of the project that was evaluated; and the last column, \# Tests, shows the number of unit tests contained in each project’s test suite. We chose these projects for several reasons. First, they are distinct from the applications and test suites we used to develop the patterns (see \[sec:test\_patterns\]). Clearly, the patterns should perform well on the tests that they were derived from. Having separate test suites allows for a more representative evaluation of the first two research questions. Second, the applications they test are diverse since they cover a wide variety of application domains. For example, “Xodus” is a transactional database, “mytcuml” is a UML tool, “wheels” is a testing framework, and “EventBus” is a publish/subscribe pattern-based library that can simplify Android and Java code. In addition, they were written by different developers and at different times. This means that the test suites are not limited to a particular set of authors or patterns and are more likely to be representative than any test from a single project or style. Finally, in aggregate, they have a sufficient number of tests to allow for a thorough evaluation of the approach. RQ1: Feasibility {#sec:evaluation:feasibility} ---------------- [ l S\[table-format=5\] S\[table-format=3.2\] ]{} & &\ Verb With Multiple Nouns Phrase & 0 & 0.00\ Divided Duel Verb Phrase & 0 & 0.00\ Is And Past Participle Phrase & 0 & 0.00\ Try Catch & 204 & 0.59\ Duel Verb Phrase & 331 & 0.96\ Noun Phrase & 1555 & 4.53\ Single Entity & 4794 & 13.96\ Verb Phrase Without Prepended Test & 2578 & 7.50\ Verb Phrase With Prepended Test & 9007 & 26.22\ Regex Match & 15883 & 46.24\ Overall & 34352 & 100.00\ \[tab:rq1-name\] [ l S\[table-format=5\] S\[table-format=3.2\] ]{} & &\ If Else & 17 & 0.05\ Loop & 533 & 1.55\ All Assertion & 1801 & 5.24\ No Assertion & 3602 & 10.49\ Try Catch & 5075 & 14.77\ Normal (Restricted) & 1634 & 4.76\ Normal (Generalized) & 13840 & 40.29\ Overall & 26502 & 77.15\ \[tab:rq1-body\] The purpose of the first research question is to evaluate the feasibility of our pattern-based approach. The primary way in which we judge feasibility is to determine the percentage of test names and bodies that are matched by one of the patterns used by the approach. In some sense, this is the “coverage” of the patterns. If the coverage of the patterns is low, the usefulness of the approach will also be low as the approach will only be able to provide feedback for a small number of tests. Conversely, if the coverage of the patterns is high, the approach is potentially more useful as it can provide feedback for more tests. However, there is a potential trade-off between the coverage of the patterns and their accuracy (see \[sec:evaluation:accuracy\]) in that increasing coverage may result in lower accuracy. As such, the sweet-spot for the approach is achieving enough coverage to enable providing feedback for most tests, but not compromising the accuracy of the extracted information. show the experimental data for this research question. In each table, the first column, Name/Body Pattern, shows the name of each pattern; the final two columns, \# Matches and %, show the number of times the pattern matched against a test both as a count and a percentage, respectively; and the final row shows an overall summary of the results. For example, the fourth row of \[tab:rq1-name\] shows that “Try Catch” matched test names (i.e., of the considered test names). Similarly, the first row of \[tab:rq1-body\] shows that “If Else” matched of the considered test bodies (i.e., of the considered test bodies). Note that, to simplify the tables and the discussion, most variations of a pattern are grouped into a single row. For example, in \[tab:rq1-body\], “All Assertion” includes both the “Single” and the “Multiple” versions presented in \[tab:body-patterns\]. As the final row in each table shows, the overall match rate for both name and body patterns is high. In aggregate, the name patterns matched test names (i.e., ), and the body patterns matched test bodies (i.e., ). While there are a few patterns that had low or zero match rates (e.g., “Divided Duel Verb Phrase”), the cost of keeping such patterns is low as their execution times are low and they may be more prevalent in other project types. The data also demonstrate that the ordering of the patterns is effective. More general patterns (i.e., ones have shown lower in the tables) have higher match rates than more specific patterns (ones shown higher in the tables). Overall, we believe that these results suggest that the approach is feasible. Based on the performance of several related approaches [@host2009debugging; @host2008java; @zhong2013detecting; @singer2008exploiting; @allamanis2014learning], we believe that the coverage of the patterns is high enough to enable the approach to provide feedback for a majority of tests. RQ2: Accuracy {#sec:evaluation:accuracy} ------------- [max width=]{} [ l S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] ]{} & & &\ (lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} (lr)[6-7]{} & & & & & &\ Verb With Multiple Nouns Phrase & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{}\ Divided Duel Verb Phrase & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{}\ Is And Past Participle Phrase & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{} & [—]{}\ Try Catch & 89 & 11 & 96 & 4 & 89 & 11\ Duel Verb Phrase & 96 & 4 & 88 & 12 & 84 & 16\ Noun Phrase & 100 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100 & 0\ Single Entity & 97 & 3 & 97 & 3 & 89 & 11\ Verb Phrase With Prepended Test & 87 & 13 & 74 & 26 & 95 & 5\ Verb Phrase Without Prepended Test & 100 & 0 & 75 & 25 & 75 & 25\ Regex Match & 84 & 16 & 84 & 16 & 72 & 28\ Overall & 92 & 8 & 87 & 13 & 89 & 11\ \[tab:rq2\_name\] [ l S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] ]{} & & &\ (lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} (lr)[6-7]{} & & & & & &\ If Else & 91 & 9 & 36 & 64 & 100 & 0\ Loop & 89 & 11 & 86 & 14 & 94 & 6\ All Assertion & 100 & 0 & 89 & 11 & 100 & 0\ No Assertion & 96 & 4 & 74 & 26 & 100 & 0\ Try Catch & 100 & 0 & 94 & 6 & 91 & 9\ Normal (Restricted) & 100 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100 & 0\ Normal (Generalized) & 82 & 18 & 100 & 0 & 96 & 4\ Overall & 94 & 6 & 88 & 12 & 97 & 3\ \[tab:rq2\_body\] The goal of the second research question is to investigate whether the patterns can accurately extract information from test names and bodies. Because assessing the accuracy of the extracted information must be done manually (i.e., inspect each test case with the information manually and check if it can correctly describe the action/predicate/scenario of the name or body by our researchers), it is infeasible to consider all tests that were matched by a pattern. Therefore, we chose a subset of information extracted from matched tests to classify. For each name pattern and each body pattern, we randomly selected up to tests matched by that pattern from each project. If no test was matched by that pattern in a project, we skipped the project and moved on to the next one. In total, tests were selected for the name patterns and tests were selected for the body patterns. For each test in the selected subset, each author manually examined the information extracted by the matching name and body patterns independently. If the extracted information matched the human’s judgment it was considered a true positive (TP) and if the extracted information did not match the human’s judgment it was considered a false positive (FP). Disagreements among the raters were discussed until a resolution was reached. In total, comparisons were made by each rater (i.e., ( tests for name patterns + tests for body patterns) \* comparisons, the action, predicate, and scenario for each test). show the experimental data for this research question. shows the accuracy of the name patterns and \[tab:rq2\_body\] shows the accuracy of the body patterns. In each table, the first column is the name of each pattern, and the following three pairs of columns show the TP and FP rates for the information extracted as the action, predicate, and scenario by each pattern. The final row shows the overall rates for all patterns. For example, the fourth row of \[tab:rq2\_name\] shows the accuracy results for the “Try Catch” name pattern: the TP rate for the action is , the TP rate for the predicate is , and the TP rate for the scenario is . Note that in \[tab:rq2\_name\] a dash (—) indicates the cases where a manual assessment was impossible because the patterns did not match any tests. The data shown in \[tab:rq2\_name\] and \[tab:rq2\_body\], indicates that the overall accuracy of both the name patterns and body patterns is high. For name patterns, the overall true positive rates range from for the scenario to for the action and for the body patterns the overall true positive rates range from for the predicate to for the scenario. Even in the worst cases (e.g., identifying the scenario with the Regex Match name pattern), the true positive rate is above . As such, we believe that both types of patterns are effective at accurately identifying the action, predicate, and scenario from tests. RQ3: Effectiveness ------------------ [ l S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] S\[table-format=3.1\] ]{} & &\ (lr)[3-4]{} & & &\ Xodus & 29 & 97 & 3\ mytcuml & 105 & 96 & 4\ wheels & 11 & 91 & 9\ EventBus & 10 & 90 & 10\ Picasso & 14 & 93 & 7\ Jenkins & 20 & 90 & 10\ ScribeJava & 3 & 100 & 0\ mockito & 11 & 82 & 18\ Guice & 16 & 94 & 6\ fastjson & 46 & 98 & 2\ Overall & 265 & 95 & 5\ \[tab:rq3\] The goal of the third research question is to determine if the pattern-based approach can correctly classify descriptive and non-descriptive test names. Like for RQ2, assessing the output of the approach is a manual process that can not be applied to every output. Therefore, we again selected a representative subset to consider. In this case, because we are interested in the performance across all tests, we chose to consider a total of tests (i.e., of the tests matched by both a name and body pattern). The tests were selected from among each project proportionally to the number of tests in the project’s test suite (e.g., tests were taken from “mytcuml”, test were taken from “fastjson”, etc.). For each test in the selected subset, each author again manually examined the output of the approach independently. If the output of the approach matched the human’s judgment it was considered a true positive (TP) and if the output did not match the human’s judgment it was considered a false positive (FP). Disagreements among the raters were discussed until a resolution was reached. The results of the classification are shown in \[tab:rq3\]. In \[tab:rq3\], the first column presents each project’s name, the second column shows the number of tests for each project, and the final two columns show the rates for each classification, respectively. For example, the first row shows there are reports that were selected for project “Xodus”, and () of them correctly classify the test name as either descriptive or non-descriptive. The last row shows that the overall TP rate of all reports is (i.e., true positives), and the FP rate is just (i.e., false positives). Owing to the high effectiveness of our pattern-based approach, of the true positives are definitively correct. And the definition of correctness here is to be a suitable test name for its related test body. For instance, the test case in \[fig:descriptive-examples\] is considered to be a true positive since the report can correctly classify its name as a descriptive test name. Additionally, more examples of true positives can be found in the public repository [@prototype]. Because the true positive rate is high with nearly perfect correctness rate, we can conclude that the pattern-based approach is effective at classifying names as either descriptive or non-descriptive. [0.75]{} \ [0.75]{} In addition, we further investigate the two examples in \[NewExamplesForRQ3\] that are selected from the tests from those open-source Java projects. In \[NewExamplesForRQ3\], each example is the output that is produced by our pattern-based approach. The action, predicate, and scenario on the left side of the equations are extracted from the test body, and the action, predicate, and scenario on the right side are extracted from the test name. For the unit test in \[NewExamples3-1\], the test name `returnFoo2` is correctly classified as a non-descriptive test name. Also, some suggestions are provided by our approach for the example in \[NewExamples3-1\]: the action of the name (i.e., `return`) should be removed from the name the predicate and scenario of the name should be replaced by the predicate and scenario of the body (i.e., `equals` and `thenReturn`) . For the unit test in \[NewExamples3-2\], the test name `shouldNotThrowSmartNullPointerOnObjectMethods` is incorrectly classified as a non-descriptive test name. Because of the difference in length between the short name and long body, the test patterns failed to correctly extract the action, predicate, and scenario from the name and body, and this example is also considered as a false positive. Related Work ============ In this paper, we propose a pattern-based approach that involves different fields of research, so the purpose of this section is to review the most closely related works that come from each field. Detecting Mismatches/Improving Names ------------------------------------ There are some existing works that attempt to identify name/implementation mismatches. ’s work is the most similar to our approach as it attempts to identify several types of naming bugs in general Java methods [@host2009debugging]. Their approach relies on a manually generated rule book that is extracted from the implicit convention between names and implementations in Java programming, which can be utilized to detect name bugs and provide some suggestions for constructing more suitable names. In their previous works, @host2008java already showed that there is a mutual dependency between method names and their associated implementations [@host2008java]. Therefore, their approach considered the mismatch between the name and the implementation of its associated method and used the mismatch to fix name bugs, which are both similar to the analytical process and goal of our pattern-based approach. There are two major differences between their work and ours. First, our approach primarily focuses on the test names rather than general method names that often follow a different naming convention. For example, their approach treated the data type of the value in the `return` statement as an essential attribute in their rule book. However, normally for the unit tests, they compared different values using the `assertions` rather than any `return` statement, so the information in those `assertions` will be a crucial part of their test names. Second, instead of using a manually generated rule book, we built our approach based on the test patterns, and those test patterns were mined from a large test corpus by a semi-automatic process. @zhong2013detecting provided a novel approach for detecting API documentation errors, and those errors are essentially the mismatches between the API documentation and the actual programs [@zhong2013detecting]. To address the importance of words in Java programming, @singer2008exploiting showed that words in class names are closely related to class properties that can be described in micro patterns [@singer2008exploiting]. @allamanis2014learning mentioned that developers should follow a consistent naming convention, and they proposed a novel framework that can suggest identifier names accurately [@allamanis2014learning]. All of their works comprehensively showed it is feasible to find poorly structured (i.e., non-descriptive) names by using the mismatch or pattern between the name and the program, and we can also improve those names by using providing accurate suggestions. Nonetheless, each of their techniques is often limited to a certain aspect in the problem of detecting and improving non-descriptive names, so none of them can be directly applied to improving non-descriptive names in unit tests. @pradel2018deepbugs recently proposed a framework for the detection of naming bugs [@pradel2018deepbugs]. Regardless of their effort to introduce a new approach that can detect name-based bugs by using their machine learning method, we still can not apply their approach to the unit tests without further modifications. Because some unit tests are expected to produce certain exceptions or failures when using them, so testers might intentionally design poorly named identifiers in those tests. Consequently, lots of false-positives could be generated without a complete retrofit to extend their proposed framework to unit tests. For instance, Junit 4 requires every test name to have a leading “test” [@JUnit4], so some of existing techniques might consider the leading “test” as the action, predicate, or scenario of the name. Automated Generation of Test Names ---------------------------------- In contrast to the techniques mentioned above that attempt to improve names, there are several approaches that attempt to automatically generate names. Some of these techniques use natural language-based program analysis (NLPA). For example, @zhang2016towards proposed their approach that can generate descriptive names from existing test bodies by using natural-language program analysis and text generation [@zhang2016towards]. However, their approach left an important question unanswered that is testers need to decide which one of the three possible test names should be used for their unit tests by themselves, and it is possible that none of the three generated names follow the common naming convention. Other techniques utilized Java bytecode, method-call sequences, API-level coverage goals, and `logbilinear` context models [@fraser2011evosuite; @thummalapenta2009mseqgen; @daka2017generating; @allamanis2015suggesting]. Even with their automated generation process, their generated test names are not human-readable that can cause misunderstanding for testers who want to further modify those generated test names or bodies. Although some techniques can generate descriptive names, those techniques required testers to perform a full test execution with certain coverage goals or building a context model, which are often error-prone in practice (i.e., those coverage goals or models might be too specific to apply for certain projects). General Program Analysis/Automated Testing and Debugging -------------------------------------------------------- Many researchers proposed their program analysis or automated testing techniques that can help us have a better understanding of the embedded features in unit tests. @moreno2012jstereocode proposed Java method and class stereotypes, and they took a closer look at the statement level analysis of Java code [@moreno2012jstereocode], and @ghafari2015automatically tried to extract the focal method under test [@ghafari2015automatically]. To be more focused on unit testing, @li2018aiding constructed a series of tags for distinguish unit test cases [@li2018aiding]. A group of researchers also conducted a series of works related to tagging methods or classes with stereotypes [@dragan2006reverse; @dragan2010automatic; @dragan2011emergent], but their works might also not be applicable for unit tests. From a general perspective of testing, other researchers tried to devise methods that can perform fully automated testing by the targeted event sequence or the environmental dependencies [@jensen2013automated; @arcuri2014automated]. All of their works performed well under their specific problems in program analysis or automated testing. However, while their works focus more on extracting features from code or automating the testing process rather than the unit tests themselves, we can still use them to improve our pattern-based approach. Furthermore, @li2019deepfl proposed a learning-based approach for fault localization and automated debugging with high performance [@li2019deepfl], but the goal of their work is primarily to locate software faults for debugging rather than the naming of unit tests. Regardless of the performance of their proposed tool, the goal of their work is primarily to locate software faults for debugging rather than the naming of unit testing, and the experimental subjects they used is a standard benchmark database of detecting bugs rather than the unit tests from real-world Java projects. Natural Language Program Analysis --------------------------------- There are lots of existing works that try to analyze programs from a natural language-based perspective. @pollock2007introducing and @shepherd2007using introduced NLPA by illustrating how to apply NLPA in practice and also giving some insights about aspect mining [@pollock2007introducing; @shepherd2007using; @pollock2009natural]. Their studies showed natural language clues from developers’ naming style can be used for improving the effectiveness of software tools. @abebe2010natural proposed a natural language-based method to parse the identifier names of program elements for extracting concepts from them [@abebe2010natural]. Furthermore, some researchers attempted to split identifiers [@enslen2009mining; @butler2011improving; @guerrouj2013tidier; @hill2014empirical], and others managed to expand abbreviations [@hill2008amap; @madani2010recognizing; @corazza2012linsen]. Even though their works are not alternatives to our approach, we can still use their implemented tools to improve the accuracy of the test patterns. Prototype Implementation and Threats to Validity {#sec:implementation&threats} ================================================ The prototype implementation is publicly available [@prototype]. All meta results from the pilot study and the pattern mining process, all the instances of non-descriptive test names from the 10 experimental subjects in \[tab:subjects\], and the metadata of the evaluation are also uploaded in the repository. In addition, we are sharing data for the quantitative analysis that was performed in the evaluation [@evaluation_data]. Two threats to validity do exist for our test name/body patterns: some body patterns contain a type of statement that can be cryptically constructed some name patterns do not currently have a match . For the first part, although it is rare to have cryptically constructed statements in a test body, we mitigated it by supporting those cryptically constructed statements within their corresponding patterns. For example, we provided support for the conditional expression in the `If Else` body pattern to handle the cryptically constructed if else statement (e.g., `expression1?expression2:expression3;`). For the second part, we will further conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation on at least Java projects in order to discover potential matches for those name patterns as part of our planned future work. Conclusions and Future Work =========================== Taking every test pattern into consideration, our selected test patterns can extract sufficient information from any unit test with matched name/body patterns. With the help of the output generated by our approach, developers can easily find non-descriptive test names from a given test corpus and improve those non-descriptive names by referring to the descriptive information. Furthermore, we also implemented our approach as an IntelliJ IDE plugin. In the empirical evaluation, the experimental results produced by our implemented approach are encouraging, which show our approach not only can accurately extract descriptive information from unit tests but also can correctly classify descriptive and non-descriptive test names. For our planned future work, one possible direction is constructing an advanced version of the information comparison to improve the pattern-based approach by using more sophisticated comparing criteria. The next step should be looking into the false-positives in the evaluation to see if we can further improve existing test patterns. For example, we can further improve some name patterns by using even more accurate POS tagging or extend certain body patterns to handle different coding styles. The last step of this direction is to conduct another large-scale evaluation with at least Java projects from Github as experimental subjects. To expand the scope of test patterns, an empirical study will be performed on other unit testing frameworks like `csUnit` and `PyUnit`, which are designed for `C#` and `Python`. Using the outcome of the large-scale study, we can determine if it is possible to mine and extract similar patterns from other types of unit tests and whether it might also be feasible to use mined patterns to extend the pattern-based approach to testing framework and programming languages. Acknowledgments =============== This work is supported in part by National Science Foundation GrantNo. 1527093.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this paper, we report the phenomena of global and partial phase synchronizations in linear arrays of unidirectionally coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems. In particular, in a linear array with open end boundary conditions, global phase synchronization (GPS) is achieved by a sequential synchronization of local oscillators in the array as a function of the coupling strength (a second order transition). Several phase synchronized clusters are also formed during the transition to GPS at intermediate values of the coupling strength, as a prelude to full scale synchronization. On the other hand, in a linear array with closed end boundary conditions (ring topology), partial phase synchronization (PPS) is achieved by forming different groups of phase synchronized clusters above some threshold value of the coupling strength (a first order transition) where they continue to be in a stable PPS state. We confirm the occurrence of both global and partial phase synchronizations in two different piecewise linear time-delay systems using various qualitative and quantitative measures in three different framework, namely, using explicit phase, recurrence quantification analysis and the framework of localized sets.' address: - \| $^1$Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, School of Physics, Bharathidasan University,\ Tiruchirapalli - 620 024, India\ $^{}[email protected] - '$^2$Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany' - '$^3$Institute of Physics, Humboldt University, 12489 Berlin, Germany' - '$^4$Institute for Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, United Kingdom' author: - 'R. Suresh$^{1}$, D. V. Senthilkumar$^{2}$, M. Lakshmanan$^{1,}$[^1], and J. Kurths$^{2,3,4}$' title: 'GLOBAL AND PARTIAL PHASE SYNCHRONIZATIONS IN ARRAYS OF PIECEWISE LINEAR TIME-DELAY SYSTEMS' --- \[sec:level1\]Introduction ========================== Chaotic phase synchronization (CPS) associated with a locking of the phases of coupled chaotic systems corresponds to the case where the amplitudes are still uncorrelated. CPS has been investigated in ensembles of globally coupled arrays [@pikovsky01; @boccaletti02; @ivanchenko04; @takamatsu00; @pikovsky96; @kiss02; @zhou02; @osipov97; @zhan00; @kozyreff00; @otsuka06], networks of oscillators [@boccaletti06; @arenas08; @batista07; @ren07; @yu09], laser systems [@kozyreff00; @otsuka06], cardiorespiratory systems [@schafer09; @stefanovska00; @bartsch07], ecology [@blasius99; @sismondo90; @amritkar06], climatology [@rybski06; @yamasaki09; @maraun05], etc. CPS is well studied and understood in low dimensional systems; however, there exist a very little indepth studies in higher dimensional systems such as time-delay systems, which are essentially infinite-dimensional and exhibit highly non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractors with complex topological structures. So estimating the phase explicitly to identify phase synchronization in such systems is quite difficult. Recently, the occurrence of phase synchronization in time-delay systems has been reported [@senthilkumar06; @senthilkumar08]. However, these investigations are carried out so far only in a system of two coupled time-delay systems. Very recently, the occurrence of global phase synchronization in a linear array of Mackey-Glass time-delay systems in the chaotic regime has been reported in Suresh [[et al.,]{}]{} \[2010\] for open end boundary conditions. It has been shown that global phase synchronization occurs via a sequential type synchronization as the coupling strength increases. To verify the generic nature of the results of Suresh [[et al.,]{}]{} \[2010\], we consider in this paper two different piecewise linear time-delay systems with complex topological structures and investigate the occurrence of global phase synchronization along with the underlying mechanism for open end boundary conditions. In addition we consider the case of closed end boundary conditions (ring topology) and identify the occurrence of partial phase synchronization via cluster formation. Specifically, in the first part of this paper, we investigate the generic nature of the phenomenon of global phase synchronization in an linear array, with free ends, of unidirectionally coupled (i) piecewise linear and (ii) threshold nonlinear time-delay systems in hyperchaotic regimes. In the second part, we report the phenomena of partial phase synchronizations in the array of above two systems but with closed end boundary conditions. At first, we use the nonlinear transformation introduced in Senthilkumar [[et al.,]{}]{} \[2006, 2008\] to estimate the phase of all the systems in the array and to identify the existence of phase synchronization. Further, we confirm the existence of global phase synchronization (GPS) and partial phase synchronization (PPS) from the original non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractors using two independent approaches, namely recurrence quantification analysis [@romano05; @marwan07] and the concept of localized sets [@pereira07]. In addition, we point out that the onset of GPS in the linear array with open end boundary conditions takes place in the form of a sequential synchronization (second order transition): For lower values of coupling strength the phases of nearby systems get already entrained with the drive system in contrast to the far away systems, while the other non-synchronized systems display clusters of phase synchronized states among themselves before they become synchronized with the large cluster in the sequence as the strength of coupling increases to form the GPS. On the other hand, if we consider an array with closed end boundary conditions (ring topology), partial phase synchronization occurs with the formation of different groups of phase synchronized clusters. The oscillators in the array self-organize to form groups of phase synchronized clusters where each cluster is in perfect phase synchrony as a function of the coupling strength. Such a clustering is considered to be particularly significant in biological systems [@kaneko90; @sherman94; @strogatz93], in electro-chemical oscillators [@kiss02], etc. Recently, cluster synchronization in an array of three chaotic lasers without delay was reported [@terry99] as well. In our case, as the coupling strength increases, every individual system starts to drive the nearest system and the systems with small differences in their phases organize themselves to form small groups of clusters leaving the other oscillators with large phase differences to evolve independently. Further increase in the coupling strength results in an increase in the sizes of the clusters due to the locking of the phases of the nearby oscillators of the clusters for appropriate values of the coupling strength and finally ending up with large groups of clusters resulting in PPS (first order transition). The paper is organized as follows: In Secs. \[sec:level2\] and \[sec:level3\], we will describe briefly the coupling configuration and the occurrence of global phase synchronization in an array of two different piecewise linear time-delay systems with open end boundary conditions. In Secs. \[sec:level4\] and \[sec:level5\] we consider the linear array of two piecewise linear time-delay systems with closed end boundary conditions (ring topology) and discuss the occurrence of partial phase synchronization and finally we summarize our results in Sec. \[sec:level6\]. ![\[fig1\] Attractors of the piecewise linear system. (a) non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractor of the drive system (\[eq\_1\]a). (b) Transformed attractor of the drive system. (c-f) Transformed attractors of some of the uniformly selected response systems ($i = 10,20,30,50$) in the new state space ($x_i(t+\tau),z_i(t+\tau)$).](piece_phase_att){width="0.5\columnwidth"} \[measures\]Estimates of phase ============================== Identifying Chaotic phase synchronization is a nontrivial problem in time-delay systems exhibiting complicated hyperchaotic attractors. For this purpose one requires appropriate measures. In this section, we describe briefly the various measures which we used from three different frameworks in this paper to estimate the phase of time-delay systems thereby facilitating the characterization of phase synchronization between the coupled time-delay systems. Transformation of the original non-phase-coherent attractor ----------------------------------------------------------- Time-delay systems usually exhibit a highly complicated non-phase-coherent chaotic/hyperchaotic attractor with their flows having more than a single center of rotation. Such an attractor does not yield a monotonically increasing phase on estimating it using the conventional techniques [@senthilkumar06; @senthilkumar08]. For this purpose, we have introduced a nonlinear transformation to recast the original non-phase-coherent attractor into a smeared limit cycle-like attractor with a single center of rotation. Our transformation is obtained by defining a new state variable [@senthilkumar06; @senthilkumar08], $$z(t+\tau) = x(t)x(t+\hat{\tau})/x(t+\tau), \label{eq_2}$$ where $\hat{\tau}$ is the optimal value of time-delay to be chosen in order to avoid any additional center of rotation. Then, the projected trajectory in the transformed state space ($x(t+\tau),z(t+\tau)$) will resemble that of a smeared limit cycle-like attractor. Such an approach facilitates the estimation of phase from the conventional techniques. \[rqa\]Recurrence quantification analysis ----------------------------------------- Several measures of complexity quantifying the small scale structures in recurrence plots have been proposed and the corresponding description is known as recurrence quantification analysis (RQA) [@marwan07]. In addition to the other advantages of the RQA such as its application to short experimental data, nonstationary and noisy data, we find that it can also be applied directly to highly complicated non-phase-coherent attractors of the time-delay systems in characterizing the synchronization transitions, in particular phase synchronization (PS) transitions. Among the available recurrence quantification measures, we use the Correlation of Probability of Recurrence (CPR) and the generalized autocorrelation function $P(t)$, which are estimated from the original non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractors, to confirm the existence of GPS in the array of coupled time-delay systems, both qualitatively and quantitatively. A criterion to quantify phase synchronization between two systems is the Correlation of Probability of Recurrence (CPR) defined as $$\begin{aligned} CPR=\langle \bar{P_1}(t)\bar{P_2}(t)\rangle/\sigma_1\sigma_2, \label{cpr}\end{aligned}$$ where $P(t)$ is the recurrence-based generalized autocorrelation function defined as $$P(t)=\frac{1}{N-t} \sum_{i=1}^{N-t} \Theta(\epsilon-\|\|X_i-X_{i+t}\|\| ),$$ where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside function, $X_i$ is the $i^{th}$ data point of the system $X$, $\epsilon$ is a predefined threshold, $\|\| . \|\|$ is the Euclidean norm, and $N$ is the number of data points, $\bar{P}_{1,2}$ means that the mean value has been subtracted and $\sigma_{1,2}$ are the standard deviations of $P_1(t)$ and $P_2(t)$, respectively. Looking at the coincidence of the positions of the maxima of $P(t)$ of the coupled systems, one can qualitatively identify PS [@romano05; @marwan07]. If both systems are in CPS, the probability of recurrence is maximal at the same time $t$ and CPR $\approx 1.0$. If they are not in CPS, the maxima do not occur simultaneously and hence one can expect a drift in both probabilities of recurrences resulting in low values of CPR. \[ls\] The concept of localized sets ------------------------------------ Another measure that we have employed is the framework of localized sets [@pereira07]. The concept of localized sets opens up the possibility of an easy and an efficient way to detect CPS especially in complicated non-phase-coherent attractors of time-delay systems. The main ingredient of this technique is to define an event in one of the systems and then observe the other during the event, which defines a set $D$. Depending upon the property of this set $D$, one can state whether PS exists or not. The set is spread over the entire attractor for asynchronous systems, whereas it is localized on the attractor if the coupled systems are mutually phase-locked or in phase synchronous state. We use the above three different frameworks to confirm the existence of GPS in an array of piecewise linear time-delay systems in the following. \[sec:level2\]GPS in a Linear Array of Time-delay Systems with piecewise linearity ================================================================================== Recently, we have reported the dynamical organization of an array of Mackey-Glass time-delay systems in chaotic regime to form global phase synchronization (GPS) via sequential synchronization [@suresh10], as mentioned in the introduction. In this section, we intend to examine the generic nature of the results in Ref. [@suresh10], by investigating the emergence of GPS in an array of a particular type of piecewise linear time-delay systems from the local sequential synchronization as the coupling strength is increased from zero to that of the hyperchaotic regimes. It is worth to emphasize that the hyperchaotic attractors of the piecewise linear time-delay systems are characterized by much more complex topological properties than the chaotic attractor of the Mackey-Glass time-delay system studied in [@suresh10] and so is of considerable significance in estimating the onset of GPS through sequential synchronization. \[sec:level2a\]Linear array of piecewise linear time-delay systems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, we consider an array of unidirectionally coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems with open end boundary conditions and with parameter mismatches. Linear stability and bifurcation analysis of this system has been well studied in Ref. [@lakshmanan10; @dvsijbc2005]. Many kind of synchronizations and their transitions have been reported in the coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems [@senthilkumar05; @senthilkumar07; @lakshmanan10]. The array of unidirectionally coupled piecewise linear first-order delay differential equations is represented as $$\begin{aligned} \dot{x}_1(t)&=&-\beta x_1(t)+ \alpha_{1} f(x_{1}(t-\tau)), \\ \dot{x}_i(t)&=&-\beta x_i(t)+ \alpha_{i} f(x_{i}(t-\tau))+ \varepsilon(x_{i-1}(t)-x_{i}(t)), \quad i = 2, 3,\cdots, N,\end{aligned}$$ \[eq\_1\] where $\alpha, \beta$ are the system parameters, $\tau$ is the time-delay and $\varepsilon$ is the coupling strength. We use the open end boundary conditions $x_{0}=x_{1}$ and $x_{N}=x_{N-1}$. The nonlinear function $f(x)$ is chosen to be a piecewise linear function defined as $$\begin{aligned} f(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 0, & x \leq -4/3 \\ -1.5x-2,& -4/3 < x \leq -0.8 \\ x,& -0.8 < x \leq 0.8 \\ -1.5x+2,& -0.8 < x \leq 4/3 \\ 0, & x > 4/3. \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ ![\[fig1b\] Plot of the first ten maximal Lyapunov exponents $\lambda_{max}$ of the piecewise linear time-delay system (\[eq\_1\]a) for the parameter values $\beta=1.0$, $\alpha_{1}=1.2, \tau \in(3,25)$.](piece_wise_lya){width="0.7\columnwidth"} The system parameters are fixed as follows: $\beta = 1.0$, $\alpha_1=1.2$, $\tau = 15.0$. The values of the nonlinear parameter $\alpha_i$ of the response systems in the array are chosen randomly in the range $\alpha_{i} \in (1.19,1.23)$, so that all the subsystems are effectively nonidentical due to the parameter mismatch. The original non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractor of the drive in the $(x(t),x(t-\tau))$ state space is illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The corresponding transformed attractor, effected using the transformation (\[eq\_2\]), in the new state space ($x(t+\tau),z(t+\tau)$) is depicted in Fig. \[fig1\] (b), which now looks like a smeared limit cycle-like attractor with a single center of rotation. The optimal value of the $\hat{\tau}$ in (\[eq\_2\]) for the above piecewise linear time-delay systems is found to be 1.6 [@senthilkumar06]. The same transformation has also been performed for the non-phase-coherent chaotic attractor of the Mackey-Glass time-delay system with an appropriate $\hat{\tau}$ in Ref. [@suresh10]. The hyperchaotic nature of the attractor in Figs. \[fig1\] for the above parameter values is confirmed from three positive Lyapunov exponents at $\tau = 15.0$ in the spectrum of ten maximal Lyapunov exponents of (\[eq\_1\]a) as a function of the time-delay parameter $\tau \in (3, 25)$ in Fig. \[fig1b\]. ![image](piece_phase_diff){width="1.0\columnwidth"} \[sec:level2b\]Identification of GPS from the transformed attractor of the piecewise linear time-delay system ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To confirm the existence of GPS in the array of piecewise linear time-delay systems, we have fixed size of the array as $N=50$. The transformed smeared limit cycle-like attractors with a single center of rotation of some of the uniformly selected subsystems ($i$ = 10, 20, 30, 50) in the linear array are shown in Figs. \[fig1\] (c-f). We have used the conventional Poincaré section technique [@pikovsky01; @boccaletti02] to estimate the instantaneous phases of all the oscillators after the transformation of the attractors, which now yields monotonically increasing phase. Open circles in Figs. \[fig1\](b-f) indicate the Poincaré section. ![\[fig2a\] The evolution of the average phase difference \[$\eta(t)$\] for different values of the coupling strength $\varepsilon$.](piece_avg_phase_diff){width="0.6\columnwidth"} In the absence of coupling ($\varepsilon = 0.0$) between the piecewise linear time-delay systems in the array, the individual subsystems evolve independently in an asynchronous fashion which is indeed confirmed from the monotonous increase in the phase differences, $\Delta\phi_{i} = \phi_{1}-\phi_{i}$, between the drive and the uniformly selected response systems ($i = 10,20,30,50$) indicated by asterisk symbols in Figs. \[fig2\]. Phase slips (marked by filled squares and triangles) in Figs. \[fig2\] for intermediate coupling strengths indicate that the coupled systems are in their transition to phase synchronization with the drive. For suitable values of $\varepsilon$, the response systems in the array are entrained to the drive one sequentially, indicated by filled circles, as seen in Figs. \[fig2\]. To be more precise, it is clear from this figure that, the $10$th oscillator is synchronized first at $\varepsilon = 0.45$, while the other systems away from it are still in their transition to phase synchronization. Further increase in $\varepsilon$ to $\varepsilon=0.55$ results in synchronization of the $20$th oscillator with the drive leaving the remaining far away oscillators from it in their transition state. The $30$th and $50$th oscillators are entrained to the drive at $\varepsilon = 0.62$ and $0.79$, respectively, illustrating the existence of GPS through the sequential synchronization of the subsystems locally in the array. ![\[fig3\] (a) Time averaged phase $\langle \phi_i \rangle$ given by (\[eq3a\]) and (b) time averaged frequency $\langle \Omega_i \rangle$ given by (\[eq3a1\]) of all the systems in the array (\[eq\_1\]) with open end boundary conditions plotted as a function of the system index $i$ for different values of the coupling strength $\varepsilon$.](piece_avg_phase_freq){width="0.7\columnwidth"} The existence of GPS is also confirmed by the average phase difference, $\eta(t)$, defined as $$\eta(t) = \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{j=2}^{N} (\phi_{1}-\phi_{j}). \label{eq_3}$$ A global measure to characterize the existence of GPS is the average phase difference ($\eta(t)$), which is shown in Fig. \[fig2a\] for different values of $\varepsilon$. The monotonous increase in $\eta(t)$ for $\varepsilon=0.0$, correspond to the independent evolution of all the subsystems in the array. Phases of the nearby oscillators are mutually locked sequentially as $\varepsilon$ is gradually increased, which is indicated by the low degrees of $\eta(t)$ for $\varepsilon=0.56$ and $0.77$ in Fig. \[fig2a\]. Finally, $\eta(t)\approx 0$ at $\varepsilon=0.79$ corroborating the existence of GPS in the array. ![\[fig5\] Oscillator index vs oscillator index snap shots indicating the sequential phase synchronization and the dynamical organization of cluster states for different values of coupling strength. The different shapes (colors) indicate that the corresponding nodes are phase synchronized. (a) non-phase synchronized case for $\varepsilon$ = 0.0 (b) First fourteen oscillators in Eq. (\[eq\_1\]b) are phase synchronized with the drive system for $\varepsilon$ = 0.45. (c), (d) and (e) Sequential phase synchronization and the formation of small cluster states for $\varepsilon$ = 0.51, 0.58 and 0.62, respectively, and (f) global phase synchronization for $\varepsilon$ = 0.8.](piece_node_node_50){width="0.8\columnwidth"} The nature of dynamical organization of local oscillators to form GPS can be better understood by examining the time average phase and the time average frequency as a function of the oscillator index for different values of the coupling strength. For this purpose, we define the time averaged phase ($\langle \phi_i \rangle$) as $$\big\langle \phi_{i}(t)\big\rangle=\Big\langle2\pi k+2\pi \frac{t^{i}-t^{i}_{k}}{t^{i}_{k+1}-t^{i}_{k}}\Big\rangle_{t},~(t^{i}_{k}<t^{i}<t^{i}_{k+1}), \label{eq3a}$$ and the time averaged frequency as ($\langle \Omega_i \rangle$) $$\big\langle \Omega_{i}(t)\big\rangle = \lim_{T \to \infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} \dot\phi_{i}(t) dt, \label{eq3a1}$$ where $t_{k}$ is the time of the $k^{th}$ crossing of the flow with the Poincaré section of the $i^{th}$ attractor and $\langle...\rangle_{t}$ denotes time average. Figures \[fig3\](a) and \[fig3\](b) depict the average phase and the average frequency, respectively, for different $\varepsilon$ as a function of the oscillator index $i$. The random distribution of $\big\langle \phi_{i}(t)\big\rangle$ (Fig. \[fig3\](a)(i)) and $\big\langle \Omega_{i}(t)\big\rangle$ (Fig. \[fig3\](b)(i)) for $\varepsilon=0.0$ corresponds to the large difference in the initial frequency of the uncoupled oscillators due to the nonlinear parameter mismatch. The scenario of sequential phase synchronization to reach GPS can also be clearly visualized using the snap shots of the oscillators in the index vs index plot as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. The diagonal line in Fig. \[fig5\](a) for $\varepsilon=0.0$ clearly shows the asynchronous evolution of all the oscillators in the array. The phase locking of the first $14$ oscillators with the drive, forming the main cluster, for $\varepsilon=0.45$ is shown in Figs. \[fig3\](a)(ii) and \[fig3\](b)(ii), while some of the other oscillators (oscillators with indices $22-24$, $35-36$ and $41-45$) away from it form phase synchronized clusters among themselves. The main cluster and other small clusters of phase synchronized oscillators are much more clearly visualized in Fig. \[fig5\](b) for the same coupling strength, in which oscillators with same frequency are assigned the same shape and color. The average phase and the average frequency for $\varepsilon=0.58$ depicted in Figs. \[fig3\](a)(iii) and Fig. \[fig3\](b)(iii) indicate that the first $26$ oscillators are synchronized with the drive with a few other small synchronized clusters away from it. Similarly, the first $35$ oscillators are synchronized with the drive for $\varepsilon=0.62$ (see Figs. \[fig3\](a)(iv) and Fig. \[fig3\](b)(iv)) along with other small clusters. Thus, it is clear that an increase in the coupling strength results in desynchronization of some of the existing clusters and formation of new clusters away from the main cluster. At the same time, nearby desynchronized oscillators from the main cluster becomes synchronized sequentially with it thereby increasing its size, contributing to the basic mechanism of formation of GPS via sequential synchronization of local oscillators as explained in detail in Ref. [@suresh10]. Finally for $\varepsilon=0.8$, all the oscillators become phase locked to attain GPS as depicted in Figs. \[fig3\](a)(v) and \[fig3\](b)(v), which remains stable for further larger values of the coupling strength. For the above values of $\varepsilon$, the main cluster and other small clusters are also clearly seen in the index vs index plot in Figs. \[fig5\]. Further, we have also plotted the average phase ($\langle \phi_i \rangle$) and the average frequency ($\langle \Omega_i \rangle$) of all the $N$ oscillators as a function of $\varepsilon$ in Figs. \[fig6\] to get a global picture of the above dynamics. Broad distribution of $\langle \phi_i \rangle$ and $\langle \Omega_i \rangle$ for small $\varepsilon$ correspond to asynchronous states while for $\varepsilon\ge 0.75$ both the average phase and average frequency converge to a single value indicating the existence of GPS. However, for the intermediate values of $\varepsilon$, the main cluster and other small clusters are hardly visible in Figs. \[fig6\]. Nevertheless, these clusters are clearly seen in Figs. \[fig3\] and \[fig5\], where the snapshots of the dynamical organization of all the $N$ oscillators in the array are depicted for specific values of the coupling strength. ![\[fig6\] (a) Time averaged phase ($\langle \phi_i \rangle$) and (b) Time averaged frequency ($\langle \Omega_i \rangle$), $i = 1,2,\cdots, 50$ as a function of the coupling strength $\varepsilon \in (0,1.0)$. Here for each value of $\varepsilon$ we have plotted the average phase/frequency of all the $N$ = 50 oscillators which is shown by the filled circles.](piece_avg_phase_freq_eps){width="0.6\columnwidth"} The frequency difference ($\Delta \Omega_{1,i}=\Omega_1-\Omega_i$) and the frequency ratio ($\Omega_i/\Omega_1$) for the oscillators with the index $i=10,20,30,40$ and $50$ along with their average (represented by black filled circles) of all the $(N-1)$ response oscillators as a function of the $\varepsilon$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig8\](a) and Fig. \[fig8\](b), respectively. It is also clearly seen from these figures that the nearby oscillators are synchronized sequentially as $\varepsilon$ is increased, that is, $i=10$ is synchronized first and then $i=20$, and so on as $\varepsilon$ is increased. Finally, all the $N=50$ oscillators in the array are phase synchronized for $\varepsilon\ge 0.75$ attributing to the emergence of GPS via local sequential synchronization. The well-known Kuramoto order parameter [@moreno04] can also be used for quantifying the global phase synchronization in the array, which is defined as $$R~e^{i\psi} = \Big\langle\Big\|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N} e^{i\phi_{j}(t)}\Big\|\Big\rangle_t. \label{eq_kop}$$ Here $\phi_{j}(t)$ represents the instantaneous phase of the $j^{th}$ system, $\psi(t)$ is the average phase and $\langle...\rangle_t$ denotes a time average. When all the systems are in a phase synchronized state, the value of $R\approx 1.0$. Figure \[fig10\] shows that $R$ decreases at first for small increase in $\varepsilon$ as observed in Figs. \[fig8\](a) and \[fig8\](b) accounting for the increased randomness in the phases of the coupled systems as seen in the average phase and the average frequency of all the oscillators in Figs. \[fig6\]. Further increase in $\varepsilon$ results in a gradual increase in the value of $R$, reaching $R\approx 1.0$ for $\varepsilon>0.75$ confirming the existence of GPS in the array of coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems. ![\[fig8\] (a) The frequency difference ($\Delta \Omega_{1,i}, \quad i=10,20,30,40$ and $50$) and (b) the frequency ratio ($\Omega_i/\Omega_1, \quad i=10,20,30,40$ and $50$) of uniformly selected systems are plotted as a function of the coupling strength $\varepsilon \in (0,1.0)$. Each line corresponds to the difference/ratio between the response system and the drive system. The black filled circles indicate the average frequency difference/ratio of all the ($N-1$) response systems from the drive system.](piece_phase_freq_diff_ratio){width="0.6\columnwidth"} It is also to be noted that the phenomenon remains qualitatively the same even when the total number of oscillators in the array is increased. We also wish to emphasize that the results remain qualitatively unaltered even for different sets of random values for the nonlinear parameters, $\alpha_i$, confirming the robustness of our results. \[sec:level2c\]Confirmation of GPS from the original untransformed non-phase-coherent attractor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, we use two different approaches, namely recurrence quantification analysis [@romano05; @marwan07] and the concept of localized sets [@pereira07] without estimating the phase explicitly to prove the existence of GPS from the original nonphase coherent hyperchaotic attractors. ### \[sec:level2d\]Recurrence quantification for GPS Now, we use the recurrence quantification measures discussed in Sec. \[rqa\] in characterizing the existence of GPS via sequential synchronization. Figure \[fig11\] depicts the generalized autocorrelation function of the drive $P_1(t)$ and that of some of the response systems $P_{10}(t)$, $P_{30}(t)$, and $P_{50}(t)$ for different $\varepsilon$. For $\varepsilon=0.0$, none of the maxima of $P_i(t)$ coincide in Fig. \[fig11\](a) indicating asynchronous state. $P_i(t)$ for $i=1,10,30$ and $50$ are plotted in Figs. \[fig11\](b) and \[fig11\](c) for $\varepsilon=0.45$ and $\varepsilon=0.8$, respectively. In Fig. \[fig11\](b), the maxima of $P_1(t)$ and $P_{10}(t)$ are in perfect agreement (see Fig. \[fig11\](b)(i)) confirming the existence of phase synchronization ![\[fig10\] Plot of the phase order parameter ($R$) as a function of the coupling strength indicating global phase synchronization in the array of ($N$ = 50) coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems (\[eq\_1\]).](piece_op){width="0.7\columnwidth"} between the oscillators with the index $i=1$ and $i=10$, which is in agreement with the results of the earlier section. On the other hand, some of the maxima of $P_1(t)$ and $P_{30}(t)$ in Fig. \[fig11\](b)(ii) are in agreement attributing to the transition to CPS among them and none of the maxima of $P_1(t)$ and $P_{50}(t)$ in Fig. \[fig11\](b)(ii) are in agreement corresponding to independent evolution, which confirms the sequential synchronization. All the maxima of $P_i(t)$ are in complete agreement in Fig. \[fig11\](c) confirming the existence of GPS. Also, the formation of clusters by the other asynchronous oscillators in the array can be confirmed by plotting their respective generalized autocorrelation functions, which will show that all their maxima are in good agreement with each other, whereas there exists a drift between them and the maxima of the sequentially synchronized cluster as discussed in Ref. [@suresh10]. ![image](piece_phase_gaf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} The global scenario of the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization can also confirmed using the index CPR in analogy with the nature of the Kuramoto order parameter $R$, the average frequency difference and the average frequency ratio. The index CPR of the response systems $i=10, 20, 30, 50$ with that of the drive is shown in Fig. \[fig12\] as a function of $\varepsilon$. It is clear that the nearby oscillators to the drive are synchronized first as the coupling strength is gradually increased contributing to the local sequential synchronization. The results are exactly similar to that observed from the average frequency difference and the average frequency ratio in Figs. \[fig8\] indicating the phenomenon of GPS via sequential phase synchronization. ![\[fig12\] Plots of the index CPR as a function of the coupling strength $\varepsilon$. Different lines correspond to the CPR of different ($i=10,20,30$ and $50$) response systems with the drive system. The filled circles correspond to the mean value of the CPR of all the ($N-1$) piecewise linear systems in the array.](piece_cpr_50){width="0.7\columnwidth"} ![image](piece_phase_ls){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ### \[sec:level2e\]GPS using the concept of localized sets Next, we use the framework of localized sets described in Sec. \[ls\] to demonstrate the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization. We defined the event as a Poincaré section chosen at $x(t-\tau)=0.8$ and $x(t)<0.8$ on the attractor. The sets (indicated as filled circles) obtained by observing the drive system ($i = 1$) whenever the defined event occurs in the response system $i = 10$ along with the drive attractor are depicted in the first row in Fig. \[fig13\]. Similarly, the sets obtained by observing the response systems ($i = 10, 30$ and $50$) whenever the event occurs in the drive system are depicted along with the corresponding response attractors in the other subsequent rows. The sets spread over the entire attractors in Figs. \[fig13\](a-d) for $\varepsilon = 0.0$ confirm the asynchronous evolution of the subsystems in the array. The sets localized in a large area of the attractors in Figs. \[fig13\](e-f) for $\varepsilon = 0.4$ indicate the transition to CPS among the corresponding oscillators, whereas the other oscillators away from it still evolve independently as indicated by the spread of the sets over their attractors (see Figs. \[fig13\](g-h)). The more localized sets in Figs. \[fig13\](i-j) for $\varepsilon = 0.52$ indicate that the respective oscillators are in complete phase synchrony while the other systems away from it are in asynchronization with it as confirmed by the spread of the sets in Figs. \[fig13\](k-l). For $\varepsilon = 0.65$, the sets are bounded to smaller regions of the attractors in Figs. \[fig13\](m-o) attributing to the existence of CPS between the drive and subsystems $10$ and $30$. The other subsystem with index $i=50$ is in its transition state as indicated by the localized set but in a large region of the attractor as seen in Fig. \[fig13\](p). Thus it is clear from these figures that the oscillators away from the drive system are synchronized sequentially as the coupling strength is increased gradually. Finally, for $\varepsilon = 0.8$, the sets are localized to a narrow region on the attractors (Figs. \[fig13\](q-t)) of all the subsystems thereby confirming the existence of GPS. ![\[fig13a\] The first six maximal Lyapunov exponents $\lambda_{max}$ of the threshold piecewise linear time-delay system (Eq. (\[eq\_3pl\])) for the parameter values $\alpha=1.2, \beta=1.0, \tau \in(1,10)$ in the absence of the coupling $\varepsilon$.](threshold_lya){width="0.7\columnwidth"} \[sec:level3\]Global Phase Synchronization in an Array of Piecewise Linear Systems with Threshold Nonlinear Function ==================================================================================================================== In this section, we demonstrate the existence of the GPS in another piecewise linear time-delay system with a threshold nonlinear function. This system has been studied recently for its hyperchaotic nature even for small values of time-delay \[see for details, Lakshmanan & Senthilkumar, 2010\] and has also been experimentally realized using analog electronic circuits [@srinivasan11]. Very recently, the chaotic phase synchronization has been experimentally confirmed in this piecewise linear time-delay system along with numerical simulation [@dvs10] and various types of synchronization transitions have been demonstrated both experimentally and numerically in this system [@srinivasan11]. In this paper, we consider a linear array of piecewise linear systems as in Eq. (\[eq\_1\]) and the nonlinear function $f(x)$ is now chosen to be a piecewise linear function with a threshold nonlinearity, $$\label{eq_3pl} f(x)=AF^{}-Bx.$$ Here $$\begin{aligned} F^{}= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} -x^{},& -x < x^{} \\ x,& -x \leq x \leq x^{} \\ x^{},& x > x^{} \\ \end{array} \right. \label{eq_4}\end{aligned}$$ where $x^{}$ is a controllable threshold value and $A$ and $B$ are positive parameters. This function $f(x)$ employs a threshold controller for flexibility. It effectively implements a piecewise linear function. The control of this piecewise linear function facilitates controlling the shape of the attractors. Even for a small delay value, this system exhibits hyperchaos and can produce multi-scroll chaotic attractors by just introducing more threshold values. In our analysis, we chose $x^{}$ = 0.7, $A$ = 5.2, $B$ = 3.5, $\alpha_{1}$ = 1.2, $\beta$ = 1.0, $\tau$ = 6.0 and the nonlinear parameters $\alpha_{i}$, of the response systems in the array are chosen randomly in the range $\alpha_{i} \in (1.18, 1.24)$. Note that for this set of parameter values a single uncoupled system exhibits a highly complicated hyperchaotic attractor with three positive Lyapunov exponents. The first six largest Lyapunov exponents of the uncoupled system are shown in Fig. \[fig13a\] as a function of time-delay $\tau \in (1,10)$. We have not yet succeeded in generalizing the nonlinear transformation (Eq. (\[eq\_2\])) to capture the phase of the non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractor of the above systems due to the multiscroll attractor. However, we find that the recurrence-based indices serve as excellent quantifiers in identifying the transition from non-synchronized to phase synchronized state both quantitatively and qualitatively. We have also characterized the occurrence of GPS using the concept of localized sets. \[sec:level3b\]GPS using recurrence analysis -------------------------------------------- We have calculated the CPR and the generalized autocorrelation function $P(t)$ to confirm the existence of the GPS in the array. The generalized autocorrelation function of the drive $P_1(t)$ and that of some response systems ($i=10,30$, and $50$), $P_{10}(t)$, $P_{30}(t)$, and $P_{50}(t)$, are depicted in Fig. \[fig13b\] for different values of the coupling strength. In the absence of coupling ($\varepsilon=0.0$), all the systems evolve independently and hence the maxima of their respective generalized autocorrelation functions do not occur simultaneously as shown in Fig. \[fig13b\](a). On increasing the coupling strength, the oscillators with a lower value of index in the array become synchronized first resulting in sequential phase synchronization and this can also be identified from the generalized autocorrelation functions of the response systems in the array. For instance, $P_{10}(t)$, $P_{30}(t)$, and $P_{50}(t)$ are shown along with $P_{1}(t)$ in Fig. \[fig13b\](b) for $\varepsilon=0.8$. It is clear from this figure that the maxima of the drive $P_{1}(t)$ and those of the response $P_{10}(t)$ are in complete agreement with each other \[Fig. \[fig13b\](b)(i)\] indicating the existence of PS between them. On the other hand, only some of the maxima of the response system $P_{30}(t)$ are in coincidence with those of the drive \[Fig. \[fig13b\](b)(ii)\] illustrating that the response system $i=30$ is in transition to PS, whereas the maxima of the response system $P_{50}(t)$ do not coincide with those of the drive \[Fig. \[fig13b\](b)(iii)\] indicating that the response system $i=50$ is in an asynchronous state for the same value of $\varepsilon$. For $\varepsilon=1.2$, almost all of the positions of the peaks of the generalized autocorrelation functions $P_{1}(t)$, $P_{10}(t)$, $P_{30}(t)$, and $P_{50}(t)$ are in agreement with each other as illustrated in Fig. \[fig13b\](c) confirming the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization. It is also to be noted that the magnitudes of the peaks of all the oscillators have generally different values and these differences in the heights of the peaks indicate that there is no correlation in the amplitudes of the coupled systems. ![image](threshold_gaf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![\[fig13c\] Snap shots of the node vs node diagrams indicating the sequential phase synchronization and the organization of cluster states for different values of coupling strength for system (\[eq\_1\]) with the threshold nonlinearity (\[eq\_3pl\]). (a) non-phase synchronized case for $\varepsilon$ = 0.0 (b) First four oscillators are phase synchronized with the drive system for $\varepsilon$ = 0.65. (c), (d) and (e) Sequential phase synchronization and the formation of small cluster states for $\varepsilon$ = 0.7, 0.94 and 1.13, respectively, and (f) global phase synchronization for $\varepsilon$ = 1.25.](threshold_uni_node_node){width="0.8\columnwidth"} The dynamical organization of GPS via sequential synchronization and the clustering can be visualized clearly by plotting some snap shots of the oscillators in the index vs index plots as shown in Fig. \[fig13c\]. The oscillators that evolve with identical phase are assigned with identical shapes (colors). The diagonal line in Fig. \[fig13c\](a) for $\varepsilon=0.0$ correspond to the oscillator index $i=j$ and the oscillators evolve independently. Figure \[fig13c\](b) indicates that the first four oscillators in the array are synchronized with the drive for $\varepsilon=0.65$ along with the five small separate clusters. In Fig. \[fig13c\](c) for $\varepsilon=0.7$ the first six oscillators form a synchronized cluster along with eight other small clusters. Similar small clusters are shown in Fig. \[fig13c\](d) and (e) for $\varepsilon=0.94$ and $\varepsilon=1.13$, respectively, in addition to the single large cluster formed by sequential phase synchronization. Finally GPS of all the systems in the array is illustrated in Fig. \[fig13c\](f) for $\varepsilon=1.25$. The existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization is also quantified using the index CPR (\[cpr\]) of the response systems with the drive as shown in Fig. \[fig14\]. The different lines correspond to the index of the oscillators ($i$ = 10, 20, 30, 50) in the array. It is evident from the figure that the oscillators with increasing index attain the value of unity in a sequence as a function of the coupling strength and finally for $\varepsilon>1.15$ the CPR of all the response systems with the drive reaches unity confirming that all the coupled oscillators are in GPS. The mean value of CPR of all the response systems in the array, shown as filled circles, also confirms the existence of GPS for $\varepsilon>1.15$. ![\[fig14\] The index CPR as a function of the coupling strength $\varepsilon$. Different lines correspond to the CPR of different ($i=10,20,30,$ and $50$) response systems with the drive system. The filled circles correspond to the mean value of the CPR of all the ($N-1$) piecewise linear systems in the array.](threshold_cpr_50){width="0.7\columnwidth"} ![image](threshold_ls){width="1.0\columnwidth"} \[sec:level3c\]GPS using the concept of localized sets ------------------------------------------------------ We have also confirmed the existence of GPS in the linear array of threshold piecewise linear time-delay systems (Eq. (\[eq\_3pl\])) by using this concept of localized sets as in the previous case. Now, we will demonstrate the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization in some randomly selected response systems ($i$ = 1, 10, 30, 50). The set obtained by sampling the time series of one of the systems whenever a maximum occurs in the other system is plotted along with the attractors of the same systems. The set, indicated as filled circles, obtained by observing the drive system ($i = 1$) whenever the maxima occurs in the response system ($i = 10$) is shown in Fig. \[fig15\](a) and that obtained by observing the response systems $i = 10,30,50$ whenever the maxima occurs in the drive system are shown in Figs. \[fig15\](b-d) for the value of coupling strength $\varepsilon$ = 0.0. As the sets are spread over the attractors, all the systems evolve independently and there is no CPS in the absence of coupling between them. Further when we increase the coupling strength to $\varepsilon$ = 0.7, the oscillator ($i$ = 10) is partially synchronized with the drive as the sets are almost localized but the sets in the oscillators $i$ = 30 and 50 are spread over the attractor which means that they are not yet phase synchronized with the drive system. This is shown in Figs. \[fig15\](e-h). Again increasing the coupling strength to $\varepsilon$ = 0.85, the sets are further bounded to a small region over the attractors which shows that the oscillator $i$ = 10 is synchronized with the drive, but the oscillator $i$ = 30 is partially synchronized where the sets are almost localized and $i$ = 50 is not yet phase synchronized with the drive as represented by the spread of the sets over the attractor in Figs. \[fig15\](i-l). Further, the Figs. \[fig15\](m-p) and Figs. \[fig15\](q-t) indicate the situation for $\varepsilon$ = 1.0 and $\varepsilon$ = 1.2, respectively, where all the oscillators are now phase synchronized with the drive as the sets are localized over the attractor confirming the existence of GPS in an array via sequential phase synchronization as the coupling strength is increased. It is to be noted that the sets are not yet completely localized in Figs. \[fig15\]p for $\varepsilon = 1.0$, whereas it is localized for $\varepsilon = 1.2$ (Figs. \[fig15\]l). ![image](ring_piece_cpr.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ![image](ring_piece_node_node_50.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} \[sec:level4\]Partial Phase Synchronization (PPS) in a Linear Array of Piecewise Linear Time-delay Systems with Ring Topology ============================================================================================================================= So far we considered the dynamics of coupled arrays of time-delay systems with open end boundary conditions. Now, we wish to demonstrate the existence of a partial phase synchronization (PPS) in an array of time-delay systems with a ring topology. In this coupling configuration, all the systems are not fully synchronized, instead they split into several subgroups to form different phase synchronized clusters. The phenomenon may also be called cluster synchronization. Here the systems within each cluster maintain perfect phase synchronization. This kind of PPS mostly occurs in neural networks [@danzl08], chemical oscillations [@kiss02] and El-Ni$\tilde{n}$o systems [@karl11], and has been studied in coupled chaotic systems [@bjorn06] as well. Also the transition from nonsynchronization to phase synchronization via PPS has been studied in two-dimensional coupled map lattices [@zhuang02]. The dynamical equation of a linear array of coupled time-delay systems with closed end boundary conditions is given as $$\dot{x}_i(t)=-\beta x_i(t)+ \alpha_{i} f(x_{i}(t-\tau))+ \varepsilon(x_{i-1}(t)-x_{i}(t)), \label{eq_5}$$ where $i=1,2,\cdots,N$, with the following periodic boundary conditions: $x_{0}=x_{N}$ and $x_{N+1}=x_{N}$. The function $f(x)$, and the system parameters have been chosen as in Sec. \[sec:level2a\]. In this type of coupling configuration the signal of the $N$th system is fed into the first system and so there is no specific drive system and that each system sends its signal to the nearby system in a unidirectional way. In the absence of the coupling, there is no synchronization among the systems. If we increase the coupling, the systems with the same phase/frequency form a small group of clusters. If we increase the coupling above a threshold value ($\varepsilon_{thr}$), PPS occurs with a relatively large group of phase clusters. For even larger values, one finds that the PPS state collapses. ![image](ring_piece_cpr_50){width="0.5\columnwidth"} The nonlinear transformation used in Sec. \[sec:level2\] is no longer valid to transform the non-phase-coherent attractor into a phase-coherent attractor due to the new boundary condition. However, we have already found that the recurrence-based indices serve as excellent quantifiers in identifying phase synchronization in non-phase-coherent attractors both qualitatively and quantitatively. Further, we also characterized the occurrence of the cluster formation using the concept of localized sets. We will use these quantifications in the following. ![image](ring_piece_ls){width="1.0\columnwidth"} We have calculated the CPR of each of the $(N-1)$ systems in the array by taking $i=1$ as the reference system (but we also confirmed that the dynamics does not change even if we take any other system in the array as a reference system). In Fig. \[fig16\] we have plotted the CPR of every system in the array as a function of the system index ($i$) for different values of coupling strength. In the absence of the coupling ($\varepsilon=0.0$), the systems in (\[eq\_5\]) evolve independently as indicated by the random distribution of CPR in Fig. \[fig16\](a). Increasing the coupling strength to $\varepsilon=2.22$ results in synchronous evolution of a few of the oscillators, leading to groups of small clusters (which are having the same CPR values) as seen in Fig. \[fig16\](b). However there is no single global synchronized state in the present network in contrast to the sequentially synchronized single cluster as discussed in Sec. \[sec:level2\]. Above a threshold value ($\varepsilon_{thr} > 3.0$), we can observe the occurrence of a PPS in the array with large groups of phase synchronized cluster. Figs. \[fig16\](c-f) indicate the occurrence of the PPS with separate groups of phase synchronized clusters for $\varepsilon=3.08$, $3.14$, $3.72$ and $4.0$, respectively. If we increase the coupling strength for even larger values, PPS continues to exist until $\varepsilon$ increases to very large values ($\varepsilon>50$) where it collapses. For very large values of the coupling strength the clusters lose their stability resulting in a desynchronized array. ![image](ring_threshold_cpr.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ![image](ring_threshold_node_node.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"} The formation of the phase synchronized clusters can also be clearly illustrated and visualized by using the snap shots of the oscillators in the index vs index plot as shown in Fig. \[fig17\]. In this figure the systems with identical phase (having the difference in their CPR value less than $0.001$) are assigned with identical shapes (colors). The diagonal line in Fig. \[fig17\](a) for $\varepsilon=0.0$ correspond to the oscillator index $i=j$ and the oscillators evolve independently. Fig. \[fig17\](b) displays the occurrence of small groups of phase synchronized clusters in distant nodes ($i=2$ and $50$) for $\varepsilon=2.22$. If the coupling is increased further the nodes with the same frequency form groups of clusters with each cluster having different phases resulting in PPS. In contrast, in Fig. \[fig5\] due to the open end boundary conditions, the nearest subsystems to the drive start to synchronize with it along with the formation of small groups of clusters. Further increase in the coupling strength results in the decomposition of the small clusters which then synchronize with the main cluster. Consequently GPS results in the array with open end boundary conditions. Figs. \[fig17\](c-f) show the occurrence of PPS in the network with the formation of large phase clusters for $\varepsilon=3.08, 3.14$, $3.72$ and $4.0$ respectively. The mechanism for the formation of partial phase synchronization can be explained as follows: In the absence of the coupling the individual systems oscillate independently with different phases due to the mismatches in the nonlinear parameters $\alpha_{i}$. Upon increasing the coupling strength, due to the ring configuration, every individual oscillator starts to drive the nearest oscillator and the oscillators with small differences in their phases/frequencies in the array synchronize themselves to form small groups of clusters leaving the other oscillators with large phase differences to evolve independently. Further increase in the coupling strength results in an increase in the sizes of the clusters due to the locking of the phases of the nearby oscillators to the cluster for appropriate $\varepsilon$ and finally ending up with a large cluster near the center of the ring for large $\varepsilon$. However there exists other small clusters in the ring contributing to PPS and hence there is no GPS in such an array. As we have seen earlier in Sec. \[sec:level2\], in GPS, as long as the coupling increases, the nearest subsystems of the drive start to synchronize with it and the remaining asynchronous systems with the closest frequencies form small groups of phase clusters. Further increase in the coupling results in the formation of a single large cluster with the drive due to the decomposition of the small clusters with different frequencies and thereby resulting in GPS. But in the ring configuration, if the coupling increases further (above the threshold value) the distant nodes with same phase/frequency form groups of clusters with each cluster having its own phase resulting in PPS. The synchronization transition to PPS is quantified using the value of CPR as a function of the coupling strength. In Fig. \[fig18\] the different lines correspond to the CPR of the randomly selected systems in the network ($i=10,20,30,40$ and $50$). The filled circles correspond to the mean value of the CPR of all the ($N-1$) piecewise linear systems. It is evident from this figure that only very few systems get phase synchronized to form small clusters and globally there is no phase synchronization when the coupling is below the threshold value ($\varepsilon_{thr}<3.0$) which is indicated by the mean value of CPR near to zero. Once the coupling strength crosses the threshold value ($\varepsilon\approx3.0$), there is a sudden jump to CPR $\approx 0.8$ which is an indication of the occurrence of PPS. It is evident from this figure that the system $i=50$ is already synchronized with the drive reference system $x_{1}(t)$ as it is one of the nearest neighbors, which is also clearly seen in Figs. \[fig16\] and \[fig17\]. One may note the interesting fact that this transition is of first order (sharp) type, while in the case of open end boundary condition (see Sec. \[sec:level2\]) it is smooth and of second order type. The reason for this kind of transition is as follows: In open end boundary conditions, the subsystems are sequentially synchronized with the drive, so the GPS increases gradually in the array as a function of the coupling strength. Hence the transition is continuous (second order). But in a ring topology all the systems attain PPS suddenly at a particular value of the coupling strength due to the mutual sharing of the signals which leads to the discontinuous (first order) transition. ![image](ring_threshold_phase_cpr){width="0.5\columnwidth"} Next we calculate the localized sets by defining the event among the systems within the cluster and observing the other systems that are in the same cluster. In this case the obtained sets of the systems within the cluster are localized on the attractor, while the sets of the systems outside the cluster gets spread over the entire attractor. For illustration, in Fig. \[fig19\](a) the attractor of the system $i=30$ is plotted along with the sets of the randomly selected systems $i=17,18,19,22$ and $31$ (which are represented by different shapes and colors) where the sets are spread over the attractor which corresponds to the unsynchronized state for $\varepsilon=0.0$. Fig. \[fig19\](b) corresponds to $\varepsilon=3.72$ for the sets of the systems $17,28,31,$ and $37$ which are all within the cluster. The figure shows that the sets of the corresponding systems are localized on the attractor in the same place implying that these systems form a clustered state. On the other hand, for the same value of the coupling, we have plotted the sets of the systems outside the cluster ($i=18,19,22$ and $27$). This shows that the sets are spread over the entire attractor indicating that the corresponding systems are not in phase synchronization (Fig. \[fig19\](c)). \[sec:level5\]Partial Phase Synchronization in an Array of Piecewise Linear Systems with Threshold Nonlinearity =============================================================================================================== In this section, we demonstrate the existence of the PPS in the second piecewise linear time-delay system with a threshold nonlinear function (\[eq\_3pl\]). The form of the piecewise function $f(x)$ in Eq. (\[eq\_5\]) and the system parameters are set to be the same as in Sec. \[sec:level4\]. In Fig. \[fig20\], the CPR is shown as a function of the system index ($i$) for different values of the coupling strength. For $\varepsilon=0.0$, in Fig. \[fig20\](a), there is no correlation in the values of CPR of the systems attributing to the desynchronization state. Figures \[fig20\](b) and \[fig20\](c) correspond to the coupling strength $\varepsilon=6.12,$ and $6.80$, respectively, which display the occurrence of small phase synchronized clusters. If we increase the coupling strength $\varepsilon>10.0$ one can observe the occurrence of PPS in the array with large groups of phase synchronized clusters. Figures \[fig20\](d-f) indicate the occurrence of the PPS with separate groups of phase synchronized clusters for $\varepsilon=10.4, 11.05$ and $11.8$, respectively. The dynamical organization of the cluster formation is clearly visualized in Fig. \[fig21\], node vs node plot, for various values of the coupling strength. The different shapes (colors) correspond to the nodes which are in the different phase synchronized clusters. In Fig. \[fig21\](a) the diagonal line shows the oscillator index $i=j$ evolving independently for $\varepsilon=0.0$. Figures \[fig21\](b) and \[fig21\](c) display the occurrence of several small phase synchronized clusters for $\varepsilon=6.12$ and $6.80$, respectively. If the coupling is increased further, the nodes with the same frequency form groups of clusters with each cluster having different phases resulting in PPS as shown in Fig. \[fig21\](d-f) for the values of $\varepsilon=10.4, 11.05$ and $11.8$, respectively. ![image](ring_threshold_ls){width="1.0\columnwidth"} The transition from nonsynchronization to partial phase synchronization is quantified by plotting the CPR as a function of the coupling strength. In Fig. \[fig22\] the different lines correspond to CPR of the randomly selected systems ($i=10,20,30,40$ and $50$) and the filled circles represent the mean value of the CPR of ($N-1$) systems. It is evident from this figure that there is no synchronization (CPR$<0.2$) below $\varepsilon<10.0$. There is a sudden jump (a first order transition) in the value of CPR (to $\approx 0.85$) for $\varepsilon \approx 10.0$ indicating the onset of PPS in the array along with the formation of a large group of phase synchronized clusters. The occurrence of these phase synchronized clusters in the array of threshold piecewise linear time-delay systems is also demonstrated using the concept of localized sets. In Fig. \[fig23\], we have plotted the attractor of the system $i=20$ along with the sets of some randomly selected systems in the array. Each shapes (colors) correspond to the sets of different subsystems. Figure. \[fig23\](a) is plotted for $\varepsilon=0.0$ and the sets of the systems $i=10,15,18,24$ and $40$ spread over the entire attractor indicating the asynchronized state. For $\varepsilon=11.05$, the sets of the systems ($i=15,16,18$ and $26$) inside the large cluster are localized on the attractor as shown in Fig. \[fig23\](b) illustrating that the respective systems are in a phase synchronized state. On the other hand, for the same value of the coupling strength, we have plotted the sets of the systems outside the cluster ($i=10,13,24$ and $40$), which are spread over the attractor $i=20$ indicating that these subsystems are not in a phase synchronized state (see Fig. \[fig23\](c)). \[sec:level6\]Summary and Conclusion ==================================== We have demonstrated the existence of global and partial phase synchronizations in an array of unidirectionally coupled nonidentical piecewise linear time-delay systems with two different boundary conditions. Coupled with our earlier work on Mackey-Glass system [@suresh10], our studies clearly establish the generic nature of the underlying phenomena. In particular, in a linear array with open end boundary conditions, we have demonstrated the emergence of GPS via sequential synchronization. We have shown that in addition to the main phase synchronized cluster centered at the drive, the remaining asynchronous systems from the main cluster organize themselves to form different clusters for low values of the coupling strength. Further increase in the coupling strength leads to the formation of a single large cluster resulting in GPS by a decomposition of the other clusters. The synchronization transition is of second order type. We have confirmed the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization by estimating the phase difference, the average frequency and the average phase as a function of the oscillator index and the coupling strength from the transformed attractors. Furthermore, we have also confirmed the existence of GPS from the original non-phase-coherent attractors of the coupled piecewise linear time-delay systems using appropriate recurrence quantification measures and the concept of localized sets without explicitly estimating the phase. We have also confirmed the existence of GPS via sequential phase synchronization in a second piecewise linear system with threshold nonlinear function. The existence of a partial phase synchronization (PPS) is demonstrated in an array with closed end boundary conditions (ring topology) and the synchronization transition is of first order type. PPS is corroborated using recurrence analysis and the concept of localized sets using the original non-phase-coherent hyperchaotic attractor of the piecewise linear time-delay systems. Further, the mechanism for the formation of both GPS and PPS are elaborated. We have also confirmed the existence of PPS in an array of Mackey-Glass time-delay systems with closed end boundary conditions; however the results are not given here as they are similar in nature to the above systems. This study can also be extended to two-dimensional lattices of coupled time-delay systems with and without delay coupling and in networks of time-delay systems with indirect global dynamic environment coupling, as well as networks with complex topology. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The work of R.S. and M.L. has been supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India sponsored IRHPA research project. M.L. has also been supported by a DST Ramanna project and a DAE Raja Ramanna Fellowship. D.V.S. and J.K. acknowledge the support from EU under project No. 240763 PHOCUS(FP7-ICT-2009-C). [9]{} Amritkar, R. E. & Rangarajan, G. \[2006\] “Spatially synchronous extinction of species under external forcing," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [96]{}, 258102 \[4\]. Arenas, A., Daz-Guilera, A., Kurths, J., Moreno, Y. & Zhou, C. \[2008\] “Synchronization in complex networks," [[Phys. Rep.]{}]{} [469]{}, 93-153. Bartsch, R., Kantelhardt, J. W., Penzel, T. & Havlin, S. \[2007\] “Experimental evidence for phase synchronization transitions in the human cardiorespiratory system," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [98]{}, 054102 \[4\]. Batista, C. A. S., Batista, A. M., dePontes, J. A. C., Viana, R. L. & Lopes, S. R. \[2007\] “Chaotic phase synchronization in scale-free networks of bursting neurons," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [76]{}, 016218 \[10\]. Schelter, B., Winterhalder, M., Dahlhaus, R., Kurths, J. & Timmer, J., \[2006\] “Partial phase synchronization for multivariate synchronizing systems," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [96]{}, 208103 \[4\]. Blasius, B., Huppert, A. & Stone, L. \[1999\] “Complex dynamics and phase synchronization in spatially extended ecological systems," [[Nature (London)]{}]{} [399]{}, 354-359. Boccaletti, S., Kurths, J., Osipov, G., Valladares, D. L. & Zhou, C. S. \[2002\] “The synchronization of chaotic systems," [[Phys. Rep.]{}]{} [366]{}, 1-101. Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M. & Hwang, D. U. \[2006\] “Complex networks: structure and dynamics," [[Phys. Rep.]{}]{} [424]{}, 175-308. Danzl, P., Hansen, R., Bonnet, G. & Moehlis, J., \[2008\] “Partial phase synchronization of neural populations due to random Poisson imputs," [[J Comput Neurosci]{}]{} [25]{}, 141-157. Ivanchenko, M. V., Osipov, G. V., Shalfeev, V. D. & Kurths, J. \[2004\] “Phase synchronization in ensembles of bursting oscillators," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [93]{}, 134101 \[4\]. Kaneko, K. \[1990\] “Clustering, coding, switching, hierarchical ordering, and control in a network of chaotic elements," [[Physica D]{}]{} [41]{}, 137-172. Kiss, I. Z., Zhai, Y. & Hudson. J. L. \[2002\] “Collective dynamics of chaotic chemical oscillators and the law of large numbers," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [88]{}, 238301 \[4\]. Kozyreff, G., Vladimirov, A. G. & Mandal. P. \[2000\] “Global coupling with time-delay in an array of semiconductor lasers," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [85]{}, 3809-3812. Lakshmanan, M. & Senthilkumar, D. V. \[2010\] [Dynamics of Nonlinear Time-Delay Systems]{} (Springer, Berlin). Maraun, D. & Kurths, J. \[2005\] “Epochs of phase coherence between El Ni$\tilde{n}$o/southern oscillation and Indian monsoon," [[Geophys. Res. Lett.]{}]{} [32]{}, L15709 \[5\]. Marwan, N., Romano, M. C., Thiel, M. & Kurths, J, \[2005\] “Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems," [[Phys. Rep.]{}]{} [438]{}, 237-329. Moreno, Y. & Pacheco, A. F. \[2004\] “Synchronization of Kuramoto oscillators in scale-free networks," [[Europhys. Lett.]{}]{} [68]{}, 603-609. Osipov, G. V., Pikovsky, A. S., Rosenblum, M. G. & Kurths, J. \[1997\] “Phase synchronization effects in a lattice of nonidentical R$\ddot{o}$ssler oscillators," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [55]{}, 2353-2361. Osipov, G. V., Zhou, C. & Kurths, J. \[2007\] “[Synchronization in Oscillatory Networks]{} (Springer, Berlin). Otsuka, K., Miyasaka, Y., Narita, T., Chu, S. C., Lin, C. C. & Ko, J. Y. \[2006\] “Composite lattice pattern formation in a wide-aperture thin-slice solid-state laser with imperfect reflective ends," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [97]{}, 213901 \[4\]. Pereira, T., Baptista, M. S. & Kurths, J. \[2007\] “General framework for phase synchronization through localized sets," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [75]{}, 026216 \[12\]. Pikovsky, A. S., Rosenblum, M. G. & Kurths, J. \[1996\] “Synchronization in a population of globally coupled chaotic oscillators," [[Europhys. Lett.]{}]{} [34]{}, 165-170. Pikovsky, A. S., Rosenblum, M. G. & Kurths, J. \[2001\] [Synchronization - A Unified Approach to Nonlinear Science]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England). Ren, Q., Zhao, J. \[2007\] “Adaptive coupling and enhanced synchronization in coupled phase oscillators," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [76]{}, 016207 \[6\]. Romano, M. C., Thiel, M., Kurths, J., Kiss, I. Z. & Hudson, J. L. \[2005\] “Detection of synchronization for non-phase-coherent and non-stationary data," [[Europhys. Lett.]{}]{} [71]{}, 466-472. Rybski, D., Havlin, S. & Bunde, A. \[2006\] “Phase synchronization in temperature and precipitation records," [[Physica A]{}]{} [320]{}, 601-610. Sch$\ddot{a}$fer, C., Rosenblum, M. G., Kurths, J. & Abel, H-H. \[1998\] “Heartbeat synchronized with ventilation," [[Nature (London)]{}]{} [392]{}, 239-240. Senthilkumar, D. V. & Lakshmanan., M. \[2005\] “Bifurcation and Chaos in Time Delayed Piecewise Linear Dynamical Systems," [[Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos]{}]{} [15]{}, 2895-2912. Senthilkumar, D. V. & Lakshmanan., M. \[2005\] “Transition from anticiparoty to lag synchronization via complete synchronization in time-delay systems," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [71]{}, 016211 \[10\]. Senthilkumar, D. V., Lakshmanan, M. & Kurths, J. \[2006\] “Phase synchronization in time-delay systems," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [74]{}, 035205(R)\[4\]. Senthilkumar, D. V. & Lakshmanan., M. \[2007\] “Intermittency transition to generalized synchronization in coupled time-delay systems," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [76]{}, 066210 \[13\]. Senthilkumar, D. V., Lakshmanan, M. & Kurths, J. \[2008\] “Transition from phase to generalized synchronization in time-delay systems," [[Chaos]{}]{} [18]{}, 023118 \[12\]. Senthilkumar, D. V., Srinivasan, K., Murali, K., Lakshmanan, M. & Kurths, J., \[2010\] “Experimental confirmation of chaotic phase synchronization in coupled time-delayed electronic circuits," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [82]{}, 065201(R)\[4\]. Sherman, A. \[1994\] “Antiphase, asymmetric and aperiodic oscillations in excitable cells-I coupled bursters," [[Bull. Math. Biol.]{}]{} [56]{}, 811-835. Sismondo, E. \[1990\] “Synchronous, alternating, and phase-locked stridulation by a tropical katydid," [[Science]{}]{} [249]{}, 55-58. Srinivasan, K., Senthilkumar, D. V., Murali, K., Lakshmanan, M. & Kurths, J., \[2011\] “Synchronization transitions in coupled time-delay electronic circuits with a threshold nonlinearity," [[Chaos]{}]{} [21]{}, 023119 \[11\]. Stefanovska, A., Haken, H., McClintock, P. V. E., Hozic, M., Bajrovic, F. & Ribaric, S. \[2000\] “Reversable transitions between synchronization states of the cardiorespiratory system," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [85]{}, 4831-4834. Stein, K., Timmermann, A. & Schneider, N., \[2011\] “Phase synchronization of the El Nino-southern oscillations with the annual cycle," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [107]{}, 128501 \[4\]. Strogatz, S. H. Stewart, I. \[1993\] “Coupled oscillators and biological synchronization," [[Sci. Am.]{}]{} [269]{}, 102-109. Suresh, R., Senthilkumar, D. V., Lakshmanan, M., Kurths, J. \[2010\] “Global phase synchronization in an array of time-delay systems," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [82]{}, 016215 \[10\]. Takamatsu, A., Fujii, T. & Endo, I. \[2000\] “Time-delay effect in a living coupled oscillator system with the plasmodium of physarum ploycephalum," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [85]{}, 2026-2029. Terry, J. R., Thornburg, K. S., DeShazer, Jr. D. J., VanWiggeren, G. D., Zhu, S., Ashwin, P. & Roy, R. \[1999\] “Synchronization of chaos in an array of three lasers," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [59]{}, 4036-4043. Yamasaki, K., Gozolchiani, A. & Havlin, S. \[2009\] “Climate networks around the globe are significantely affected by El ni$\tilde{n}$o," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [100]{}, 228501 \[4\]. Yu, X., Ren, Q., Hou, J. & Zhao, J. \[2009\] “The chaotic phase synchronization in adaptively coupled-delayed complex networks," [[Phys. Lett. A]{}]{} [373]{}, 1276-1282. Zhan, M., Zheng, Z. G., Hu, G. & Xi-hong Peng \[2000\] “Nonlocal chaotic phase synchronization," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [62]{}, 3552-3557. Zhou, C., Kurths, J., Kiss, I. Z. & Hudson, J. L. \[2002\] “Noise enhanced phase synchronization of chaotic oscillators," [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}]{} [89]{}, 014101 \[4\]. Zhuang, G., Wang, J., Shi, Y. & Wang, W., \[2002\] “Phase synchronization and its cluster feature in tow dimensional coupled map lattices," [[Phys. Rev. E]{}]{} [66]{}, 046201 \[5\]. [^1]: Author for correspondence	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| The purpose of this paper is to study the canonical totally real foliations of CR–submanifolds in a locally conformal Kähler manifold.\ [2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:]{} 53C15.\ [Keywords:]{} locally conformal Kähler structure, ruled submanifold, CR–submanifold, distribution, foliation. author: - Gabriel Eduard Vîlcu title: 'Ruled CR–submanifolds of locally conformal Kähler manifolds' --- Introduction ============ The concept of CR–submanifold, first introduced in Kähler geometry by A. Bejancu [@BEJ], was later considered and studied in locally conformal Kähler ambient by many authors (see e.g. [@BAR; @BM; @CF; @DR; @DR3; @DS; @MATS; @MUN; @ORN; @PAP; @SG]). Such a submanifold comes naturally equipped with some canonical foliations, which were first investigated by B.Y. Chen and P. Piccinni [@CP] (see also Chapter 12 from the monograph [@DO]). One of these foliations, denoted by $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ and called the totally real foliation, is given by the totally real distribution involved in the definition of the CR–submanifold, proven to be always completely integrable by D.E. Blair and B.Y. Chen [@BLCH]. On the other hand, A. Bejancu and H.R. Farran [@BJCF Chapter 5] investigated the relationship between the geometry of the totally real foliation on a CR–submanifold of a Kähler manifold and the geometry of the CR–submanifold itself, stressing on the links between the foliation and the complex structure on the embedding manifold (see also the monograph [@BDD] for an excellent survey concerning foliations in CR geometry). Moreover, they also used the theory of ruled submanifolds (see [@ROV] for a detailed survey on the topic) to characterize some classes of CR–submanifolds in Kähler manifolds. At the end of the chapter, the authors have proposed, as an interesting and useful research, the extension of this study to CR–submanifolds of manifolds endowed with various geometric structures. This was done recently for quaternionic and paraquaternionic Kähler ambient [@IIV; @IMAV; @VIL]. In this paper, following the same techniques, we study the CR–submanifolds in a locally conformal Kähler manifold. In particular, we obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for a CR–submanifold of a locally conformal Kähler manifold to be ruled with respect to the totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$. In the last part of the paper characterizations are provided for this foliation to become Riemannian, i.e. with bundle–like metric. Preliminaries ============= Let $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ be an almost Hermitian manifold of dimension $2n$, where $J$ denotes the almost complex structure and $\overline{g}$ the Hermitian metric. Then $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is called a locally conformal Kähler (briefly l.c.K.) manifold if for each point $p$ of $\overline{M}$ there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ and a positive function $f_U$ on $U$ so that the local metric $$\overline{g}_U = {\rm exp }(-f_U)\overline{g}_{\|U}$$ is Kählerian (see [@L; @V]). If $U = \overline{M}$, then the manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is said to be a globally conformal Kähler (briefly g.c.K.) manifold. Equivalently (see [@DO]), $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is l.c.K. if and only if there exists a closed 1–form $\omega$, globally defined on $\overline{M}$, such that $$d\Omega=\omega\wedge\Omega,$$ where $\Omega$ is the Kähler 2–form associated with $(J,\overline{g})$, i.e. $$\Omega(X,Y)=\overline{g}(X,JY),$$ for $X,Y\in\Gamma(T\overline{M})$. The 1–form $\omega$ is called the Lee form and its metrically equivalent vector field $B=\omega^\sharp$, where $\sharp$ means the rising of the indices with respect to $\overline{g}$, namely $$\overline{g}(X,B)=\omega(X),$$ for all $X\in\Gamma(T\overline{M})$, is called Lee vector field. It is known that $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is globally conformal Kähler (respectively Kähler) if the Lee-form $\omega$ is exact (respectively $\omega=0$). It is also known that Levi–Civita connections $D^U$ of the local metrics $\overline{g}_U$ glue up to a globally defined torsion free linear connection $D$ on $\overline{M}$, called the Weyl connection of the l.c.K. manifold $\overline{M}$, given by $$D_XY=\overline{\nabla}_XY-\frac{1}{2}\left[\omega(X)Y+\omega(Y)X-\overline{g}(X,Y)B\right]$$ for any $X,Y\in\Gamma(T\overline{M})$, where $\overline{\nabla}$ is the Levi–Civita connection of $\overline{g}$. Moreover, Weyl connection $D$ satisfies $D\overline{g}=\omega\otimes\overline{g}$ and $DJ=0$. As a consequence, considering the anti–Lee form $\theta=\omega\circ J$ and the anti–Lee vector field $A=-JB$, one can obtain a third equivalent definition in terms of the Levi–Civita connection $\overline{\nabla}$ of the metric $\overline{g}$ (see [@DO]). Namely, $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is l.c.K. if and only if the following equation is satisfied for any $X,Y\in\Gamma(T\overline{M})$: $$\label{LC} (\overline{\nabla}_XJ)Y=\frac{1}{2}\left[\theta(Y)X-\omega(Y)JX-\overline{g}(X,Y)A-\Omega(X,Y)B\right].$$ A submanifold $M$ of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is called a CR–submanifold if there exists a differentiable distribution $D:p\rightarrow D_p\subset T_pM$ on $M$ satisfying the following conditions: 1. $D$ is holomorphic, i.e. $JD_p$=$D_p$, for each $p\in M$; 2. the complementary orthogonal distribution $D^{\perp}: p\rightarrow D_p^{\perp}\subset T_pM$ is totally real, i.e. $JD_p^{\perp}\subset T_p^{\perp}M$ for each $p\in M$. If ${\rm dim } D_p^\perp=0$ (resp. ${\rm dim } D_p=0$), then the CR–submanifold is said to be a holomorphic (resp. a totally real) submanifold. A CR–submanifold is called a proper CR–submanifold if it is neither holomorphic nor totally real. Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. By the definition of a CR–submanifold we have the orthogonal decomposition $$TM=D\oplus D^\perp.$$ Also, the normal bundle has the orthogonal decomposition $$TM^\perp=JD^\perp\oplus\mu,$$ where $\mu$ is the subbundle of the normal bundle $TM^\perp$ which is the orthogonal complement of $JD^\perp$. Corresponding to the last decomposition, any normal vector field $N$ can be written as $N=N_{JD^\perp}+N_{\mu}$, where $N_{JD^\perp}$ (resp. $N_\mu$) is the $JD^\perp$– (resp. $\mu$–) component of $N$. It is easy to see that the subbundle $\mu$ is invariant under the action of $J$. We note that if $\mu={0}$, then the CR-submanifold is said to be an anti–holomorphic submanifold or a generic submanifold. If we denote by $\nabla$ the Levi–Civita connection on $(M,g)$, where $g$ is the induced Riemannian metric by $\overline{g}$ on $M$, then the Gauss and Weingarten formulas are given by: $$\label{G} \overline{\nabla}_XY=\nabla_XY+h(X,Y),\ \forall X,Y \in \Gamma(TM)$$ and $$\label{W} \overline{\nabla}_XN=-a_NX+\nabla_{X}^{\perp}N,\ \forall X\in \Gamma(TM),\ \forall N\in \Gamma(TM^\perp)$$ where $h$ is the second fundamental form of $M$, $\nabla^\perp$ is the connection on the normal bundle and $a_N$ is the shape operator of $M$ with respect to $N$. It is well–known that $h$ is a symmetric $F(M)$–bilinear form and $a_N$ is a self–adjoint operator, related by: $$\label{GW} g(a_NX,Y)=\overline{g}(h(X,Y),N)$$ for all $ X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$ and $N\in \Gamma(TM^\perp)$. We say (see [@BJCF]) that the distribution $D$ (resp. $D^\perp$) is $a_N$–invariant, if $a_NX\in\Gamma(D)$ (resp. $a_NZ\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$) for any $X\in \Gamma(D)$ (resp. $Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$). A CR–submanifold $M$ of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is called: 1. $D$-geodesic if $h(X,Y)=0$, $\forall X,Y\in\Gamma(D)$. 2. $D^\perp$-geodesic if $h(X,Y)=0$, $\forall X,Y\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$. 3. mixed geodesic if $h(X,Y)=0$, $\forall X\in\Gamma(D), Y\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$. We recall now the following result which we shall need in the sequel. \[T1\] Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. Then: 1. The totally real distribution $D^\perp$ is integrable [@BLCH]. 2. The holomorphic distribution $D$ is integrable if and only if $$\overline{g}(h(X,JY),JZ)=\overline{g}(h(JX,Y),JZ)-\Omega(X,Y)\theta(Z)$$ for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(D)$ and $Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$ [@BD]. Totally real foliation of a CR–submanifold in a locally conformal Kähler manifold ================================================================================= Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. From Theorem \[T1\] we have that the distribution $D^\perp$ is always integrable and gives rise to a foliation of $M$ by totally-real submanifolds of $\overline{M}$. So any CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold comes naturally equipped with a foliation denoted by $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ and called the totally real foliation. We note that if the holomorphic distribution $D$ is also integrable, then $M$ carries a foliation by holomorphic submanifolds of $\overline{M}$, called the Levi foliation (see [@BD; @DN]). We recall that if each leaf of a foliation $\mathfrak{F}$ on $M$ is a totally geodesic submanifold of $M$, then we say that $\mathfrak{F}$ is a totally geodesic foliation. Next we state some characterizations of totally geodesic totally real foliations on CR–submanifolds. \[T2\] The canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ on a CR–submanifold $M$ of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ is a totally geodesic foliation if and only if $$\label{rel} \theta(Y)JX=2h_{JD^\perp}(X,Y),\ \forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ Y\in\Gamma(D).$$ For $X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$ and $Y\in\Gamma(D)$, using (\[LC\])–(\[GW\]), we derive: $$\begin{aligned} \overline{g}(J\nabla_XZ,Y)&=&-\overline{g}(\nabla_XZ,JY)\nonumber\\ &=&-\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_XZ-h(X,Z),JY)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(-(\overline{\nabla}_XJ)Z+\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,Y)\nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(Z)X-\omega(Z)JX-g(X,Z)A-\Omega(X,Y)B-2\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,Y)\nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(g(X,Z)JB-2\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,Y)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}g(X,Z)\overline{g}(B,JY)+\overline{g}(-a_{JZ}X+\nabla_X^{\perp}JZ,Y)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}g(X,Z)\omega(JY)-\overline{g}(h(X,Y),JZ)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(Y)JX,JZ)-\overline{g}(h(X,Y),JZ).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain $$\label{2.1} \overline{g}(J\nabla_XZ,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(Y)JX-2h_{JD^\perp}(X,Y),JZ),\ \forall X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ Y\in\Gamma(D).$$ If we suppose now $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is a totally geodesic foliation, then $\nabla_XZ\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, for all $X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, and from (\[2.1\]) we deduce: $$\overline{g}(\theta(Y)JX-2h_{JD^\perp}(X,Y),JZ)=0,\ \forall Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$$ and the implication follows. Conversely, if we suppose $\theta(Y)JX=2h_{JD^\perp}(X,Y)$, for all $X\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, $Y\in\Gamma(D)$, then from (\[2.1\]) we derive: $$\overline{g}(J\nabla_XZ,Y)=0$$ and we conclude $\nabla_XZ\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$. Thus $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is a totally geodesic foliation. An alternative proof of the above Proposition can be obtained using [@BD Lemma 1, p. 343]. \[T3\] Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ such that the Lee vector field $B$ is normal to $M$. Then the next assertions are equivalent: 1. The canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ on $M$ is totally geodesic. 2. $h(X,Y)\in\Gamma(\mu)$, $\forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, $Y\in\Gamma(D)$. 3. The totally real distribution $D^\perp$ is $a_N$–invariant for any $N\in\Gamma(JD^\perp)$. 4. The holomorphic distribution $D$ is $a_N$–invariant for any $N\in\Gamma(JD^\perp)$. Since $B$ is normal to $M$, we deduce $$\theta(Y)=\omega(JY)=\overline{g}(JY,B)=0$$ for any $Y\in\Gamma(D)$. Therefore, from the above Proposition we obtain (i) $\Leftrightarrow$ (ii). The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) follows easily from (\[GW\]), while the equivalence of (iii) and (iv) holds because $a_N$ is a self–adjoint operator. We note that Theorem \[T3\] extends Theorem 4.1 in [@BJCF p. 247] from the case of an ambient Kählerian manifold to the case of an ambient 1.c.K. manifold. \[C4\] Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ such that the Lee vector field $B$ is normal to $M$. Then: 1. If $M$ is mixed geodesic, then the totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ on $M$ is totally geodesic. 2. If $M$ is an anti–holomorphic submanifold, then $M$ is mixed geodesic if and only if the totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is totally geodesic. The proof is clear from Theorem \[T3\]. We note that the Corollary \[C4\](i.) has been also obtained using a different proof by Dragomir [@DR] (see also [@DO Theorem 12.6, p. 168]). On the other hand, Corollary \[C4\](ii.) gives us an interesting geometric characterization of mixed geodesic anti–holomorphic submanifolds in a l.c.K. manifold normal to the Lee vector field. Thus, $M$ is mixed geodesic if and only if any geodesic of a leaf of $D^\perp$ is a geodesic of $M$. On another hand, according to Corollary \[C4\](i.), if $M$ is totally geodesic, then $M$ is mixed geodesic and any geodesic of a leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is a geodesic of $M$ which in turn is a geodesic of $\overline{M}$. Therefore any leaf of $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is totally geodesic immersed in $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. It is important to note that this property is also true in Kähler ambient (see [@BJCF Corollary 4.4, p. 148]). A submanifold $M$ of a Riemannian manifold $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$ is said to be a ruled submanifold if it admits a foliation whose leaves are totally geodesic immersed in $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$. A CR–submanifold which is a ruled submanifold with respect to the canonical foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ is called a totally real ruled CR–submanifold. We are able now to state the following characterization of totally real ruled CR–submanifolds in l.c.K. manifolds. \[T4\] Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. Then the next assertions are equivalent: 1. $M$ is a totally real ruled CR–submanifold. 2. $M$ is $D^\perp$-geodesic and the anti–Lee form $\theta$ and the second fundamental form $h$ of the submanifold are related by (\[rel\]). 3. The second fundamental form $h$, the anti–Lee form $\theta$ and the anti–Lee vector field $A$ are related by (\[rel\]) and satisfy: $$\label{e7} h(X,Z)\in\Gamma(\mu),\ \forall X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$$ and $$\label{e8} \left(\nabla_X^\perp JZ\right)_\mu=-\frac{1}{2}g(X,Z)A_\mu,\ \forall X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp),$$ where the index $\mu$ denotes the $\mu$–component of the vector field. i\. $\Leftrightarrow$ ii. For any $X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\nabla}_XZ&=&\nabla_XZ+h(X,Z)\nonumber\\ &=&\nabla_X^{D^\perp}Z+h^{D^\perp}(X,Z)+h(X,Z)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and thus we conclude that the leafs of $D^\perp$ are totally geodesic immersed in $\overline{M}$ if and only if $h^{D^\perp}=0$ and $M$ is $D^\perp$-geodesic. The equivalence follows now easily from Proposition \[T2\].\ i. $\Leftrightarrow$ iii. For $X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, and $U\in\Gamma(D)$ we obtain similarly as in the proof of Proposition \[T2\]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{e9} \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_XZ,U)&=&\overline{g}(J\overline{\nabla}_XZ,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(-(\overline{\nabla}_XJ)Z+\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(JU)JX-2h_{JD^\perp}(X,JU),JZ). \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $X,Z,W\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, then taking account of (\[G\]) we deduce: $$\begin{aligned} \label{e10} \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_XZ,JW)&=&\overline{g}(\nabla_XZ+h(X,Z),JW)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(h(X,Z),JW). \end{aligned}$$ If we consider now $X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$ and $N\in\Gamma(\mu)$, then making use of (\[LC\]) and (\[W\]) we derive: $$\begin{aligned} \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_XZ,N)&=&\overline{g}(J\overline{\nabla}_XZ,JN)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(-(\overline{\nabla}_XJ)Z+\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,JN)\nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}((\theta(Z)X-\omega(Z)JX-g(X,Z)A-\Omega(X,Z)B)-2\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,JN)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(g(X,Z)A+2\overline{\nabla}_XJZ,JN)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(g(X,Z)A+2\nabla_X^{\perp}JZ,JN)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and thus we obtain: $$\label{e11} \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_XZ,N)=\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(g(X,Z)A_\mu+2\left(\nabla^\perp_X JZ\right)_\mu,JN).$$ Finally, $M$ is a totally real ruled CR–submanifold of $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ if and only if $\overline{\nabla}_X Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$, $\forall X,Z\in\Gamma(D^\perp)$ and by using (\[e9\]), (\[e10\]) and (\[e11\]) we deduce the equivalence. \[c8\] If $M$ is a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ such that $B\in\Gamma(JD^\perp)$, then the next assertions are equivalent: 1. $M$ is a totally real ruled CR–submanifold. 2. $M$ is $D^\perp$-geodesic and the second fundamental form satisfies $$h(X,Y)\in\Gamma(\mu),\ \forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ Y\in\Gamma(D).$$ 3. The subbundle $JD^\perp$ is $D^\perp$-parallel, i.e: $$\nabla_X^\perp JZ\in\Gamma(JD^\perp),\ \forall X,Z\in \Gamma(D^\perp)$$ and the second fundamental form satisfies $$h(X,Y)\in\Gamma(\mu),\ \forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ Y\in\Gamma(TM).$$ 4. The shape operator satisfies $$a_{JZ}X=0,\ \forall X,Z\in \Gamma(D^\perp)$$ and $$a_N X\in\Gamma(D),\ \forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ N\in\Gamma(\mu).$$ The equivalence of (i.), (ii.) and (iii.) is clear from the above theorem, since for any $Y\in\Gamma(D)$ we have $$\theta(Y)=g(JY,B)=0.$$ The equivalence of (ii) and (iii.) follows from (\[GW\]). \[c9\] Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$ such that Lee vector field $B$ is normal to $M$. If $M$ is totally geodesic, then $M$ is a totally real ruled CR–submanifold. The assertion is clear from Theorem \[T4\]. Foliations with bundle–like metric on CR–submanifolds of locally conformal Kähler manifolds =========================================================================================== Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold and $\mathfrak{F}$ a foliation on $M$. The metric $g$ is said to be bundle–like for the foliation $\mathfrak{F}$ if the induced metric on the transversal distribution $\mathcal{D}^\perp$ is parallel with respect to the intrinsic connection on $\mathcal{D}^\perp$. This is true if and only if the Levi–Civita connection $\nabla$ of $(M,g)$ satisfies (see [@BJCF]): $$\label{bl} g(\nabla_{Q^\perp Y}QX,Q^\perp Z)+g(\nabla_{Q^\perp Z}QX,Q^\perp Y)=0,\ \forall X,Y,Z\in\Gamma(TM),$$ where $Q^\perp$ (resp. $Q$) is the projection morphism of $TM$ on $\mathcal{D}^\perp$ (resp $D$). If for a given foliation $\mathfrak{F}$ there exists a Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ which is bundle-like for $\mathfrak{F}$, then we say that $\mathfrak{F}$ is a Riemannian foliation on $(M,g)$. In what follows we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the induced metric on a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold to be bundle–like for the totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$. \[T5\] If $M$ is a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$, then the next assertions are equivalent: 1. The induced metric $g$ on $M$ is bundle–like for the canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$. 2. The second fundamental form $h$ of the submanifold and anti–Lee vector field $A$ satisfy: $$g(U,V)A+h(U,JV)+h(V,JU)\in\Gamma(TM)\oplus\Gamma(\mu),$$ for any $U,V\in\Gamma(D)$. From (\[bl\]) we deduce that $g$ is bundle-like for the canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ if and only if: $$\label{e13} g(\nabla_U X,V)+g(\nabla_V X,U)=0,\ \forall X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ U,V\in\Gamma(D).$$ On the other hand, using (\[LC\])-(\[GW\]), we obtain for any $X\in\Gamma(D^\perp),\ U,V\in\Gamma(D)$: $$\begin{aligned} g(\nabla_U X,V)&+&g(\nabla_V X,U)=\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_U X-h(U,X),V)+ \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_V X-h(V,X),U)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_U X,V)+ \overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_V X,U)\nonumber\\ &=&\overline{g}(-(\overline{\nabla}_U J)X+\overline{\nabla}_U JX,JV)+\overline{g}(-(\overline{\nabla}_V J)X+\overline{\nabla}_V JX,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(X)U-\omega(X)JU-g(U,X)A-\Omega(U,X)B -2\overline{\nabla}_U JX,JV)\nonumber\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(X)V-\omega(X)JV-g(V,X)A-\Omega(V,X)B -2\overline{\nabla}_V JX,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(X)U-\omega(X)JU -2\overline{\nabla}_U JX,JV)\nonumber\\ &&-\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}(\theta(X)V-\omega(X)JV -2\overline{\nabla}_V JX,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&\omega(X)g(U,V)+\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_U JX,JV)+\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_V JX,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&\omega(X)g(U,V)-g(A_{JX}U,JV)-g(A_{JX}V,JU)\nonumber\\ &=&\omega(X)g(U,V)-\overline{g}(h(U,JV),JX)-\overline{g}(h(V,JU),JX).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and taking into account that $B=\omega^\sharp$ and $A=-JB$ we derive: $$\label{e14} g(\nabla_U X,V)+g(\nabla_V X,U)=-\overline{g}(g(U,V)A+h(U,JV)+h(V,JU),JX).$$ The proof is now complete from (\[e13\]) and (\[e14\]). Let $M$ be a CR–submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$. 1. If $B\in\Gamma(D)\oplus\Gamma(TM^\perp)$, then the induced metric $g$ on $M$ is bundle–like for the canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ if and only if $$h(U,JV)+h(V,JU)\in\Gamma(\mu),\ \forall U,V\in\Gamma(D).$$ 2. If $B$ has a non–vanishing component in $\Gamma(D^\perp)$, then the induced metric $g$ on $M$ is not bundle–like for the canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$. The proof follows from Theorem \[T5\]. If $M$ is an anti-holomorphic submanifold of a l.c.K. manifold $(\overline{M},J,\overline{g})$, normal to the Lee field of $\overline{M}$, then the induced metric $g$ on $M$ is bundle–like for the canonical totally real foliation $\mathfrak{F}^\perp$ if and only if $$h(U,JV)+h(V,JU)=0,\ \forall U,V\in\Gamma(D).$$ The assertion is clear from the above Corollary. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported by CNCS-–UEFISCDI, project number PN–II–ID–PCE–2011–3–0118. [99]{} E. Barletta, CR submanifolds of maximal CR dimension in a complex Hopf manifold, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 22 (2002), No. 2, 99-–118. E. Barletta, S. Dragomir, K.L. Duggal, Foliations in Cauchy-Riemann geometry, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 140, American Mathematical Society, 2007. A. Bejancu, [CR submanifolds of a Kaehler manifold]{}. I, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 69 (1978), 135–142. A. Bejancu, H.R. Farran, [Foliations and geometric structures]{}, Mathematics and Its Applications, Springer, 2006. D.E. Blair, B.Y. Chen, On CR submanifolds of Hermitian manifolds, Israel J. Math. 34 (1979), 353–-369. D.E. Blair, S. Dragomir, CR products in locally conformal Kähler manifolds, Kyushu J. Math. 56 (2002), No. 2, 337–362. V. Bonanzinga, K. Matsumoto, Warped product CR–submanifolds in locally conformal Kaehler manifolds, Period. Math. Hungar. 48 (2004), No. 1–2, 207–221. J.L. Cabrerizo, M. Fernandez Andres, CR–submanifolds of a locally conformal Kähler manifold, Differential geometry (Santiago de Compostela, 1984), Res. Notes in Math. 131 (1985), Pitman, Boston, MA, 17–32. B.Y. Chen, P. Piccinni, The canonical foliations of a locally conformal Kähler manifold, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 141 (1985), 289–305. S. Dragomir, Cauchy–Riemann submanifolds of locally conformal Kaehler manifolds. I–II, Geom. Dedicata 28 (1988), No. 2, 181–197; Sem. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena XXXVII (1989), 1–-11. S. Dragomir, R. Grimaldi, Cauchy–Riemann submanifolds of locally conformal Kaehler manifolds. III, Serdica 17 (1991), No. 1, 3–-14. S. Dragomir, S. Nishikawa, Foliated CR manifolds, J. Math. Soc. Japan 56 (2004), No. 4, 1031–1068. S. Dragomir, L. Ornea, Locally conformal Kähler geometry, Progress in Math. 155, Birkhäuser, Boston, Basel, 1998. K.L. Duggal, R. Sharma, Totally umbilical CR–submanifolds of locally conformal Kaehler manifolds, Math. Chronicle 16 (1987), 79–83. S. Ianuş, A.M. Ionescu, G.E. Vîlcu, [Foliations on quaternion CR-submanifolds]{}, Houston J. Math. 34 (2008), No. 3, 739–751. S. Ianuş, S. Marchiafava, G.E. Vîlcu, Paraquaternionic CR-submanifolds of paraquaternionic Kähler manifolds and semi-Riemannian submersions, Cent. Eur. J. Math. 8 (2010), No. 4, 735–753. P. Libermann, Sur les structures presque complexes et autres structures infinitésimales régulières, Bull. Soc. Math. France 83 (1955), 195–224. K. Matsumoto, [On CR-submanifolds of locally conformal Kaehler manifold]{}. I-II, J. Korean Math. Soc. 21(1) (1984), 49–61; Tensor, N.S., 45 (1987), 144–150. M. Munteanu, Doubly warped product CR–submanifolds in locally conformal Kähler manifolds, Monatsh. Math. 150 (2007), No. 4, 333–342. L. Ornea, On CR submanifolds of locally conformal Kaehler manifolds, Demonstratio Math. 19 (1986), No. 4, 863–869. N. Papaghiuc, Some remarks on CR-submanifolds of a locally conformal Kaehler manifold with parallel Lee form, Publ. Math. Debrecen 43 (1993), No. 3–4, 337–341. V. Rovenskii, Foliations on Riemannian manifolds and submanifolds, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1998. B. Şahin, R. Güneş, CR–submanifolds of a locally conformal Kaehler manifold and almost contact structure, Math. J. Toyama Univ. 25 (2002), 13–23. I. Vaisman, On locally conformal almost Kähler manifolds, Israel J. Math. 24 (1976), 338–351. G.E. Vîlcu, Riemannian foliations on quaternion CR-submanifolds of an almost quaternion Kähler product manifold, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., Math. Sci. 119 (2009), No. 5, 611–618.\ \ Gabriel Eduard VÎLCU$^{1,2}$\ \ $^1$University of Bucharest,\ Research Center in Geometry, Topology and Algebra,\ Str. Academiei, Nr. 14, Sector 1,\ Bucureşti 70109-ROMANIA\ e-mail: [email protected]\ \ $^2$Petroleum-Gas University of Ploieşti,\ Department of Mathematical Economics,\ Bd. Bucureşti, Nr. 39,\ Ploieşti 100680-ROMANIA\ e-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider flux penetration to a 2D superconducting cylinder. We show that in the low field limit the kinetics is deterministic. In the strong field limit the dynamics becomes stochastic. Surprisingly the inhomogeneity in the cylinder reduces the level of stochasticity because of the predominance of Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices.' author: - 'Mathieu Lu-Dac and V. V. Kabanov' title: 'Phase slip phenomena in superconductors: from ordered to chaotic dynamics' --- The kinetics of vortex production in superconductors and superfluids is one of the intriguing problems of condensed matter physics. It is interesting not only in the field of solid state physics but represents as well a very good model to study topological phase transitions in cosmology and other branches of physics [@zurek1]. In the last few decades different scenarios for vortex production in superconductors and superfluids were proposed. The most common way to produce vortices is to increase the superfluid velocity in order to reduce the energy barrier between homogeneous flow and flow with vortices. This mechanism is observed in rotating $^{3}\text{He}$ where vortex nucleation and critical velocities are measured [@parts]. In 2D homogeneous superconducting films, increasing the current leads to dynamics which are similar to the phase slip (PS) transition in 1D [@ludac]. The order parameter (OP) reaches zero along a straight line across the film and the phase displays a $2\pi$ jump along this line. This PS line solution [@Weber09] corresponds to the deterministic and most ordered PS kinetics in 2D. The inhomogeneity caused by current contacts leads to a qualitatively similar picture. The OP is strongly suppressed along a straight line across the film but it reaches zero only at two points on this line. This pair of vortices is called kinematic vortex-antivortex (VaV) pair [@andronov93]. It spreads quickly in opposite directions along this line propagating the $2\pi$ jump of the phase. Therefore PS occurs without formation of well defined VaV pairs [@berdiyorov]. A different scenario of vortex production was proposed by Kibble[@kibble1] and Zurek[@zurek2] (KZ). When the sample is quickly quenched through the critical temperature $T_c$, the nucleation of the low temperature phase starts in different places with uncorrelated phases of OP. Then, domains grow and start to overlap leading to the formation of vortices. This mechanism is a promising way to test cosmological theories in condensed matter physics [@Ruutu96-98; @Maniv03]. This dynamics is stochastic and sensitive to small variations of initial conditions. On the other hand the dependence of the vortex density on the quench time and their spatial correlation are universal. Later, in Refs. [@kibblevolovik; @kopninthuneberg], it was proposed that the quench occurs not only due to fast temperature change but also due to the temperature front propagation. Aranson et al. considered the case of a temperature quench in the presence of external current [@aranson]. The new phase with zero current grows after the quench. Therefore on the border of the quenched region, the superfluid velocity has tangential discontinuity, leading to vortex formation, similarly to the classical hydrodynamic Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instability [@fridman] which is also known in superfluids [@Blaauwgeers02; @volovikKH]. Moreover, the KH instability suppresses the development of KZ vortices [@aranson]. In this paper, kinematic VaV, KZ and KH vortices are distinguished by their production mechanism although they are topologically equivalent. To demonstrate how deterministic type of dynamics becomes stochastic, we model a superconducting film rolled on a cylinder in an external time dependent magnetic field parallel to the cylinder axis (Fig.1). Depending on the applied magnetic field and the dimensions of the ring, we follow the evolution from the deterministic PS line dynamics to the stochastic behavior described by the KZ mechanism. In the proposed model, topological defects are generated by the intrinsic quench induced by the external field. The evolution towards stochastic behavior is strongly influenced by the KH instability which develops in the presence of inhomogeneities. To model the inhomogeneity of the film we assume that there is a thin stripe of superconductor along the film with a different coherence length. The thickness of the film $d$ is small $d\ll \xi\ \ll \lambda_{\text{eff}}$. Here $\xi$ is the coherence length and $\lambda_{\text{eff}}$ is the Pearl penetration depth. Therefore we can neglect all corrections to the external magnetic field $\mathbf{H}$ caused by the current in the film. The radius of the film is $R > \xi$. The time dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation in dimensionless units has the form: $$u(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}+i\Phi \psi) = b(z)(\psi-\psi\|\psi\|^{2})-(i\nabla+\mathbf{a})^{2}\psi +\eta.\label{tdgl1}$$ Here $\psi$ is the dimensionless complex OP, the spacial coordinate ${\mathbf r}$ is measured in units of $\xi$ and time is measured in units of phase relaxation time $\tau_{\theta}=\frac{4\pi\lambda_{\text{eff}}\sigma_{n} } {c^{2}}$, $\lambda_{\text{eff}}=\frac{\lambda^{2}}{d}$, $\lambda$ is the bulk penetration depth, $\sigma_{n}$ is the normal state conductivity, and $c$ is the speed of light. The parameter $u=\frac{\tau_{\psi}}{\tau_{\theta}}$ is a material dependent parameter, where $\tau_{\psi}$ is the relaxation time of the amplitude of the OP. According to the microscopic theory, $u$ is ranging from $5$ to $12$ but we assume $0<u<\infty$. The vector potential $\mathbf{a}$ is measured in units of $\frac{\phi_{0}}{2\pi\xi}$ where $\phi_{0}$ is the flux quantum. The function $b(z)$ models the $z$ dependence of the coherence length $\xi(z)$. As shown in Fig.1, we chose $\xi(z)=\xi/\sqrt{b(z)}$ and $b(z)=1-b^{2}\vartheta(z-w/4)\vartheta(3w/4-z)$. Here $w$ is the width of the film in units of $\xi$, $b$ parameterizes the level of inhomogeneity of the film and $\vartheta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. Here we use periodic boundary conditions and the boundary condition with vacuum [@degennes] at $z=0$ and $z=w$. The equation for the electrostatic potential $\Phi$, measured in units of $\frac{\phi_{0}}{2\pi c\tau_{\theta}}$,where $e$ is the electronic charge and $\hbar$ is the Planck constant, reads: $$\nabla^{2}\Phi=-\nabla\Bigl[ {{i}\over{2}}(\psi^{}\nabla\psi-\psi\nabla\psi^{}) +\mathbf{a}\|\psi\|^{2}\Bigr].\label{tdgl2}$$ To model the process of vortex formation we assume that at time $t<0$ external magnetic field is absent. At $t=0$ the field suddenly appears and stays constant for $t>0$ i.e. tangential component of the vector potential is $a\vartheta(t)$. We thus study the kinetics of the vortex generation as a function of $a$ with different values of $u$. Let us first consider the stability of the solution in the uniform case. We linearize the TDGL Eqs.(\[tdgl1\],\[tdgl2\]) in small fluctuations of OP $f(\mathbf{r},t)=\psi(\mathbf{r},t)-\psi_{0}$ and search for a solution in the form $f(\mathbf{r},t)=\sum_{\mathbf{k}}C_{\mathbf{k}} \exp{(i\mathbf{kr}+\lambda_{\mathbf{k}} t)}$. It is clear that the transverse $k_{z}$ component always contributes to the stability of the initial state. Therefore, the condition $\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}>0$ is the same as in 1D [@ludac]: $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0} > > \frac{R}{\xi\sqrt{3}}$, where $\phi$ is the magnetic flux through the ring at $t>0$. This condition provides a rough estimate for the number of the expected PS events $N\sim \frac{\phi}{\phi_0}$. It defines the first critical value of the external field $a_{c1}=1/\sqrt{3}$. Therefore, in the low field limit $a_{c1}\leq a \leq 1$, the dynamics will be similar to the 1D case with very weak $z$-dependence. Well defined vortices may appear in this region of the field if the film is inhomogeneous as shown in Fig.1. The situation is different when the field $a$ increases further. Dropping $k_{z}=0$, the eigenvalues are: $$\begin{aligned} \lambda^{(1,2)}_{\mathbf{k}}=-\psi_{0}^{2}/2+(1 -2\psi_0^2-a^2-k^2)/u \nonumber \\ \pm \sqrt{(16\psi_0^2 a^2+\psi_0^4(u-2)^2+16k^2a^2)/4u^2} \label{decay}\end{aligned}$$ $\lambda_{\mathbf{k}=0}=\frac{1-2 \psi_0^2-a^2}{u}-\frac{\psi_{0}^2}{2} - \sqrt{(16\psi_0^2 a^2+\psi_0^4(u-2)^2)/4u2}$ describes the decay rate of the uniform solution. On the other hand for finite $k$, $\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}$ is positive and characterizes the growth of the corresponding Fourier components $C_{\mathbf{k}}$. The fastest growth is found for $k=\frac{1}{4a} \sqrt{-16u\psi_0^2a^2- \psi_0^4(u-2)^2+16a^4}$ and the rate is determined by $\lambda_{\text{max}}=\frac{1}{16ua^2}(8(u-4)\psi_0^2a^2 +16a^2+\psi_0^4(u-2)^2)$. The qualitative difference in kinetics takes place when the decay rate of the uniform solution becomes faster then the growth of the new phase. This effect is similar to the quench through $T_{c}$ in the KZ mechanism [@zurek1; @kibble1]. We find that at $a>a_{c2}=\sqrt{2}$, the OP is suppressed to zero and the growth of the phase with finite $k$ is accompanied by the rapid development of vortices. The density of vortices may be estimated using Zurek arguments where the quench time should be replaced by $\tau_{Q}=(a^{2}-1)^{-1}$ leading to $n\propto \tau_{Q}^{-1/2}$ [@zurek3]. We simulate Eqs.(\[tdgl1\],\[tdgl2\]) using the fourth order Runge-Kutta method. The spatial derivatives are evaluated using a finite difference scheme of second order or using a fast fourier transform algorithm depending on the boundary conditions. The choice of the algorithm is made to optimize the convergence and the calculation times. The calculations are performed for the vector potential $0<a<5$ and for the total flux $\phi$ through the ring ranging from $0$ to $50 \phi_0$. [![image](fig2.eps){width="175mm"}]{} We investigate the flux penetration into the homogeneous ring for two different boundary conditions. In the case of periodic boundary conditions we identify different regimes in accordance with Eq.(\[decay\]). In the small field limit $a<a_{c1}$ the ring is in a stable state and the penetration of the magnetic flux into the ring can only be induced by a very strong noise $\eta$ in Eq.(\[tdgl1\]). When $a_{c1}<a<a_{c2}$, in agreement with the stability analysis, the PS kinetics depends on the external magnetic field. When $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}<10$ the kinetics is similar to the 1D case. The transition is characterized by one or more lines in the $z$-direction where the OP decreases to zero (the PS line case [@andronov93]). These lines may appear simultaneously or consecutively in time, depending on $u$ [@ludac]. As expected, the number of PS events is determined by the ratio $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}$. These PS lines represent the limiting case of kinematic VaV pairs travelling with infinite velocity. When the flux is increased ($\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}>10$), the kinematic vortices become clearly distinguishable. In Fig.2(a), we present the time evolution of the average value of the OP together with the time dependence of the number of vortices in the sample. The kinetics is characterized by series of consecutive PS events well separated in time (Fig.2(a)). As it was noticed [@vodo07], few VaV pairs may propagate along the same line at the same time. PS events are produced by kinematic VaV pairs propagating along the same line where the amplitude of OP is reduced. Kinematic vortices can propagate in the same direction, one after another or in opposite direction leading to annihilation of VaV pairs and accelerating the dynamics. Contrary to [@berdiyorov], kinematic VaV pairs are formed without any inhomogeneity in the film. At higher fluxes kinematic VaV pairs are randomly created on the line like in the case of a “1D quench”. In the $x$ direction, the dynamics remains very ordered with values of the standard deviation of the position of the vortices $\sqrt{\bar{\delta x^{2}}}$ approaching $0.5\xi$. [![image](fig3.eps){width="175mm"}]{} With the further increase of $a$ the number of PS lines increases and the kinetics becomes more stochastic because of the interaction of different PS lines. As a result, straight lines are replaced by vortex rivers which become broader and have finite curvature (Fig.2(b)). The vortex rivers are comparable to the vortex self-organization discussed in [@Aranson96] under different boundary conditions. Along one vortex river, few vortex-antivortex pairs are propagated. The kinetics is determined by the motion of these pairs along the rivers and finally by their annihilation. Importantly, the sample average of OP never reaches zero, contrarily to the case of the large field $a>a_{c2}$. The total number of vortices in the beginning of the process is larger than $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}$ (Fig.2(b)) which is also an indication of the growing importance of chaotic behavior in the dynamics. The values of $\sqrt{\bar{\delta x^{2}}}$ are also strongly enhanced, reaching $2\pi R/3$. The velocity of vortices along the rivers becomes smaller which is seen from the time dependence of the vortex number (Fig.2(d)). Nevertheless the velocity is still high compared to the case when the OP has recovered to its equilibrium value. The last regime $a>a_{c2}$ is presented in Fig.2(c). Here the quench condition is satisfied and the OP decreases uniformly until it reaches zero (Fig. 2(c)). As a result, the new phase starts to grow uncorrelated and the vortices are created randomly. The number of vortices is substantially larger than $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}$. Most of these vortices recombine rapidly. The remaining vortices move slowly through the sample propagating the $2\pi$ phase jump. The random dispersion of these vortices is a fingerprint of the KZ mechanism. Indeed, $\sqrt{\bar{\delta x^{2}}}$ reaches now $2\pi R/2$, which means that vortex distribution is completely random. Another characteristic of the KZ scenario is that the vortices are created while the order parameter is very close to zero and not during the fast growth like in the previous cases as one can see by comparing Fig. 2(a) and (b) with Fig. 2(c). It is important to notice that the total net vorticity is strictly equal to zero at any time in the case of periodic boundary condition in the z direction. For vacuum boundary conditions [@degennes] the kinetics is very similar. When $a_{c1}<a<a_{c2}$ and $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}<10$ one or more lines with reduced OP are formed. The difference is that the PS lines here have finite curvature, because they start to grow from the edges of the film and finally connect each other. Further increase of the flux, keeping $a$ constant leads to the formation of flux rivers. The most important difference is that not all “rivers” necessarily connect two edges of the film. As a result some of them ended in the middle of the film, leading to the relatively small vorticity. These remaining vortices and antivortices propagate slowly to the edges of the film and kinetic is determined by the slow vortex motion. The dynamics when $a>a_{c2}$ is governed by KZ mechanism, as in the previous case but the total net vorticity may be finite. In the case of an inhomogeneous superconductor, the effective coherence length is now $z$-dependent $\xi(z) = \xi/\sqrt{b(z)}$. Therefore only the middle part of the ring may be unstable while the other parts of the film remain in the metastable state. The introduction of $z$-dependence of the parameters in Eq.(\[tdgl1\]) is designed to enhance the transverse vortex dynamics and allows to demonstrate different mechanisms of vortex formation. As expected, the PS dynamics starts first in the region with stronger current and is characterized by $a$ and $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}$. In the region $a_{c1}<a<a_{c2}$ and small flux $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}<10$ the initial stage of the kinetics is similar to kinetics in the homogeneous film. The VaV pairs are not well defined. However, when kinematic VaV pairs approach the low current regions, they become well defined and are slowing down (fig.3(a)). Therefore vortices are stabilized near the line where the tangential velocity has discontinuity. These vortices represent another case of KH instability in superconductors. This instability leads to the formation of well defined vortices and governs the kinetics of the PS. To the best of our knowledge this is the only instability which allows vortex production in the low flux limit. When the flux through the ring is large $\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}>10$, the initial fast dynamics is similar to the dynamics in the homogeneous case until vortices reach the low current regions. Then they become slow and well defined. As it is seen in Fig.3(b), the vortices propagate one after another to the film edge, demonstrating the vortex-vortex attraction even in the case when the OP has already recovered. The further increase of $a>a_{c2}$ leads to the quench in the middle part of the film (Fig.1). During the quench many KZ vortices are created. Most of them are annihilated on a very short time scale. The rest reaches the line separating the region with different currents. The vortices almost stop near this line. The further dynamics is determined by the diffusion of these vortices to the film edges. When $a$ is large enough, the KH vortices become well defined before the recovery of the OP in the middle part of the film and therefore the inhomogeneity suppresses the KZ mechanism in agreement with Ref.[@aranson], making kinetics less stochastic. Experimentally, observing such dynamics of vortices might be a real challenge because the short characteristic times does not allow the use of instruments with sufficient space resolution. However, recent works [@Maniv03; @Silhanek10] showed that freezing the dynamics can characterize both KZ and vortex river scenarios. Another idea is to use time resolved femtosecond optical spectroscopy as proposed in the Ref.[@yusupov]. As it is shown in the Refs.[@ludac; @suppl] the role of heating is not important for the proposed geometry of the film. We have considered the kinetics of the flux penetration to the 2D ring. We found out that for small values of the external field $a$, the kinetics is deterministic and essentially 1D. Increasing the flux $\phi$ creates kinematic vortices and even leads to a 1D quench along the PS line which is a first step towards stochastic behavior (see Ref.[@suppl]). Further increase of $a$ leads to the formation of vortex rivers, and ultimately to the quench of the sample leading to the stochastic dynamics of KZ vortices. The dynamics in the inhomogeneous film demonstrates that the VaV pairs are the topological analog of the PS mechanism in 2D but this analogy is not as straightforward as is often believed. Finally, our calculations for a partially quenched film indicate that KH vortices at the interface are strongly predominant. [200]{} W.H. Zurek Physics Reports, 276, 177 (1996). G.E. Volovik, Pisma ZhETF, 15, 116 (1972). U. Parts et al., Europhys. Letters, 31, 449 (1995). M. Lu-Dac, V.V. Kabanov, Phys. Rev. B 79, 184521 (2009); J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 129, 012050 (2008). A. Weber and L. Kramer, J. Low Temp. Phys. 84, 289 (1991). A. Andronov et al., Physica C 213, 193 (1993). G.R. Berdiyorov et al., Phys. Rev. B 79, 184506 (2009). T.W.B. Kibble J. Phys. A, 9, 1387 (1976). W.H. Zurek Nature, 317, 505 (1985). V. M. Ruutu et al., Nature 382, 334 (1996); Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1465 (1998). A. Maniv, E. Polturak, and G. Koren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 197001 (2003). T.W.B. Kibble, G. Volovik JETP Lett., 65,102 (1997). N.B. Kopnin, E.V. Thuneberg, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 116 (1999). I.S. Aranson, N.B. Kopnin and V.M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 2600 (1999). L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Hydrodynamics. A.M. Fridman, Uspehi Fizicheskih Nauk, 78, 225 (2008). R. Blaauwgeers et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 155301 (2002) G.E. Volovik, Pis’ma ZhETF, 75, 491 (2002). S.E. Korshunov, ibid, 496 (2002). P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (Benjamin, New York, 1966). P. Laguna, W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 085021, (1998). D. Y. Vodolazov and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 76, 014521 (2007). I. Aranson, B. Ya Shapiro and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 142 (1996) A. V. Silhanek et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 017001 (2010) R. Yusupov et. al. arXiv:1006.1815, (2010). Supplementary materials.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We establish a general transference principle for the irrationality measure of points with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent coordinates in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, for any given integer $n\geq 1$. On this basis, we recover an important inequality of Marnat and Moshchevitin which describes the spectrum of the pairs of ordinary and uniform exponents of rational approximation to those points. For points whose pair of exponents are close to the boundary in the sense that they almost realize the equality, we provide additional information about the corresponding sequence of best rational approximations. We conclude with an application.' address: - \| University of Information Technology\ Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City\ Vietnam - \| Département de Mathématiques\ Université d’Ottawa\ 150 Louis Pasteur\ Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada - \| Département de Mathématiques\ Université d’Ottawa\ 150 Louis Pasteur\ Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada author: - Ngoc Ai Van Nguyen - Anthony Poëls - Damien Roy title: A transference principle for simultaneous rational approximation --- [^1] Introduction {#section: resultat principal} ============ Let $n$ be a positive integer and let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(\xi_0,\dots,\xi_n)$ be a point of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ whose coordinates are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. For any integer point ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_0,\dots,x_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ we set $$L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}) = \max_{1\leq k \leq n}\|\xi_0x_k-\xi_kx_0\|,$$ and for each $X\geq 1$ we define $$\label{eq: def fonction L(X)} {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X) = \min\{L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}})\, ; \, {\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}, {\\|{\mathbf{x}}\\|}\leq X\},$$ where ${\\|\cdot\\|}$ denotes the usual Euclidean norm in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. The behavior of this irrationality measure ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}$ is roughly captured by the quantities $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: def expo} \lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) = \sup\{ \lambda\, ; \, \liminf_{X\rightarrow\infty} X^{\lambda}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X) < \infty \} \quad \textrm{and}\quad {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) = \sup\{ \lambda\, ; \, \limsup_{X\rightarrow\infty} X^{\lambda}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X) < \infty \}\end{aligned}$$ which are called respectively the ordinary and the uniform exponents of rational approximation to ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$. It is well known that they satisfy $$\label{eq: partie spectre expo} \frac{1}{n} \leq {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) \leq 1 \quad\textrm{and}\quad {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})\leq \lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) \leq \infty,$$ the inequality ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})\geq 1/n$ coming from Dirichlet’s box principle [@Schmidt1980 Theorem 1A, Chapter II]. The study of such Diophantine exponents goes back to Jarník [@jarnik1938khintchineschen] and Khinchine [@khintchine1926klasse; @khintchine1926metrischen] and remains a topic of much research. Recently Marnat and Moshchevitin [@marnat2018optimal] proved the following inequality conjectured by Schmidt and Summerer [@schmidt2013simultaneous Section 3, p. 92]. \[thm: Marnat-Moshchevitin simultanee\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ be a point whose coordinates are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: Marnat-Moshchevitin approx simultanee reecrite} {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})^2}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}})}+\dots + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})^{n}}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}})^{n-1}} \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ the ratio ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})/\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}})$ being interpreted as $0$ when $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}})=\infty$. The formulation given by Marnat and Moshchevitin in [@marnat2018optimal] is slightly different and is complemented by a similar result for the dual pair of exponents which we omit here. These authors also show that and give a complete description of the set of values taken by $(\lambda,{\widehat{\lambda}})$ at points ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent coordinates. Previous to [@marnat2018optimal], the problem had been considered by several authors. The case $n=1$ of Theorem \[thm: Marnat-Moshchevitin simultanee\] is classical, as it reduces to . The case $n=2$ is a corollary of the work of Laurent [@laurent2006exponents]. The case $n=3$ was established by Moshchevitin in [@moshchevitin2012exponents], and revisited by Schmidt and Summerer using parametric geometry of numbers in [@schmidt2013simultaneous]. For an alternative proof of the results of [@marnat2018optimal] based only on parametric geometry of numbers together with partial results towards a more general conjecture, see the PhD thesis of Rivard-Cooke [@PhDMartin2019 Chapter 2]. Given a subset ${S}$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$, we define for each $X\geq 1$ $${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S}) = \min\{L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}})\; \| \; {\mathbf{x}}\in{S}\textrm{ and } 0< {\\|{\mathbf{x}}\\|}\leq X\},$$ with the convention that $\min \emptyset = \infty$. When $S\nsubseteq \{0\}$, that function is eventually finite and monotonic decreasing. Then, upon replacing ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X)$ by ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S})$ in we obtain two exponents $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$, ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ which satisfy $$\label{eq: relation expo avec S et sans S} 0\leq{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})\leq {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})\leq 1 {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}},{S})\leq \lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}}).$$ In particular, we have $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1})=\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}})$ and ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1})={\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})$. The next result gives further information about the behaviour of ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S})$ as a function of $X$. \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent coordinates and let ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Suppose that there exist positive real numbers $a,b,\alpha,\beta$ such that $$\label{eq: encadrement initial version exposants thm1.2} bX^{-\beta} \leq {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S}) \leq aX^{-\alpha}$$ for each large enough real number $X$. Then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ satisfy $$\label{eq: thm 2 egalite ratio exposants} \alpha + \frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}+\dots+\frac{\alpha^n}{\beta^{n-1}} \leq 1.$$ In case of equality in , we have $$\label{eq: thm 1.2 estimation des constantes} \limsup_{X\rightarrow\infty}X^{\alpha}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S}) > 0 {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\liminf_{X\rightarrow\infty}X^{\beta}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S}) < \infty,$$ thus $\alpha = {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ and $\beta=\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$. Assuming that ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S}) > 0$, the first part of Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\] implies that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: Marnat-Moshchevitin relatif a S} {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S}) + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^2}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})}+\dots + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^{n}}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^{n-1}} \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ which gives Theorem \[thm: Marnat-Moshchevitin simultanee\] by choosing ${S}= {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Indeed, if $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})<\infty$, then holds for $X$ large enough with $a=b=1$ and any choice of $\alpha, \beta$ with $0<\alpha < {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ and $\beta>\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$. Inequality then gives by letting $\alpha$ tend to ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ and $\beta$ to $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$. Otherwise, we have $\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};S) = \infty$ and holds trivially since ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})\leq 1$. Another application of Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\] is given in Section \[Section: applications\]. Rather than taking monomials to control the function ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}$, we now turn to a more general setting in the spirit of [@jarnik1938khintchineschen]. The following transference principle is our main result. As we will see, it implies Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. \[thm: thm transfert\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent coordinates and let ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Suppose that there exist an unbounded subinterval $I$ of $(0,\infty)$, a point $A\in I$ and continuous functions ${\varphi},\psi,{\vartheta}:I\rightarrow (0,\infty)$ with the following properties. 1. \[condition 4 thm ppal\] We have $\psi(X)\leq{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;S) \leq {\varphi}(X)$ for each $X\geq A$. 2. \[condition 1 thm ppal\] The functions ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ are strictly decreasing, whereas ${\vartheta}$ is increasing with $$\lim_{X\rightarrow\infty} {\varphi}(X) = \lim_{X\rightarrow\infty} \psi(X)= 0 \quad \textrm{and} \quad \lim_{X\rightarrow\infty} {\vartheta}(X) = \infty.$$ 3. \[condition 1 bis thm ppal\] For each $k=1,\dots,n-1$, the $k$-th iterate ${\vartheta}^k$ of ${\vartheta}$ maps $[A,\infty)$ to $I$. 4. \[condition 2 thm ppal\] We have ${\varphi}(X) = \psi({\vartheta}(X))$ for each $X\geq A$. 5. \[condition 3 thm ppal\] The functions ${\varphi}_0,\dots,{\varphi}_{n-1}$, $\Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_{n-1}$ defined on $[A,\infty)$ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: def phi_0} {\varphi}_0(X) &= {\varphi}(X) \\ \label{eq: def phi_k et Phi_k} {\varphi}_k(X) &= {\varphi}({\vartheta}^{k}(X))\cdots {\varphi}({\vartheta}(X)){\varphi}(X)\quad(1\leq k < n), \\ \label{eq: def Phi_k} \Phi_k(X) &= X{\varphi}_k(X)\quad(0\leq k\leq n-1). \end{aligned}$$ have the property that $\Phi_0$ is monotonically increasing and that $\Phi_1,\dots,\Phi_{n-1}$ are monotonic (either decreasing or increasing). Then $\Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_{n-2}$ are monotonically increasing and we have $$\label{thm: eq ppale thm transfert} \Phi_{n-1} \geq c,$$ for some constant $c>0$ depending only on ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$. Note that since ${\varphi}$ is decreasing and ${\vartheta}$ is increasing, each function ${\varphi}_k$ is decreasing and tends to $0$. The most natural choice for the functions ${\varphi},{\varphi},{\vartheta}$ is to take monomials in $X$ as below. In doing so, we now prove that Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\] implies Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. With the notation of Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\], the functions $\psi,{\varphi},{\vartheta}$ defined for each $X>0$ by $$\label{eq: def psi, phi, theta for power functions} (\psi,{\varphi},{\vartheta})(X) = \Big(bX^{-\beta},aX^{-\alpha},\Big(\frac{a}{b}\Big)^{-1/\beta}X^{\alpha/\beta} \Big)$$ satisfy ${\varphi}= \psi\circ{\vartheta}$. Moreover since $\alpha\leq {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}},{S})\leq 1$ by , the product $\Phi_0(X) = X{\varphi}(X) = aX^{1-\alpha}$ is monotonically increasing for $X>0$. For each $k$ with $0\leq k\leq n-1$ and $X>0$ we have $$\label{eq: eq inter triplet compatibles functions inter} {\varphi}({\vartheta}^k(X)) = a\Big(\frac{a}{b}\Big)^{(\alpha/\beta) +\dots + (\alpha/\beta)^k}X^{-\alpha^{k+1}/\beta^k},$$ and so the functions $\Phi_1,\dots,\Phi_{n-1}$ defined by are monotonic. Thus ${\varphi},\psi,{\vartheta}$ satisfy Conditions \[condition 1 thm ppal\] to \[condition 3 thm ppal\] of Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\], and Condition \[condition 4 thm ppal\] amounts to Condition of Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. Furthermore note that there is a positive number $\delta>0$ (which is a polynomial in $\alpha/\beta$) such that for each $X>0$ we have $$\label{eq: def Phi_n-1 generale pour corollaires} \Phi_{n-1}(X) = a^n\Big(\frac{a}{b}\Big)^\delta X^{{\varepsilon}},\quad\textrm{where } {\varepsilon}= 1-\Big(\alpha+\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}+\dots + \frac{\alpha^n}{\beta^{n-1}}\Big).$$ By we then get , namely ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$. This in turn implies as explained after Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. Suppose now that ${\varepsilon}= 0$. Since $\alpha\leq {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ and $\beta\geq\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$, we thus have $$\begin{aligned} 1 = \alpha + \frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}+\dots+\frac{\alpha^n}{\beta^{n-1}} \leq {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S}) + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^2}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})}+\dots + \frac{{\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^{n}}{\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})^{n-1}} \leq 1, \end{aligned}$$ and we conclude that $\alpha = {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$ and $\beta=\lambda({\boldsymbol{\xi}};{S})$. Moreover, by using once again , and the hypothesis that ${\varepsilon}=0$, we obtain $$a^n\Big(\frac{a}{b}\Big)^\delta \geq c,$$ where $c$ is given by . It means that in , we cannot replace $a$ by a constant strictly smaller that $a'=(cb^\delta)^{1/(n+\delta)}$ and $b$ by a constant strictly larger than $b'=(a^{n+\delta}/c)^{1/\delta}$. This proves with the superior limit $\geq a'$ and the inferior limit $\leq b'$. Clearly, Conditions \[condition 1 thm ppal\] to \[condition 3 thm ppal\] apply to many more general classes of functions ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$. For example, we can take ${\varphi}(X) = aX^{-\alpha}\log^{\sigma}(X)$ and $\psi(X) = bX^{-\beta}\log^{\rho}(X)$ for suitable positive numbers $a,b,\alpha,\beta$ and real numbers $\sigma,\rho$. The next result complements Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\] Let $n>1$, let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ be a point of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ whose coordinates are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and let ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Suppose that there are positive real numbers $a,b,\alpha,\beta$ such that $$\label{eq: encadrement initial version exposants} bX^{-\beta} \leq {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X ; {S}) \leq aX^{-\alpha}$$ for each sufficiently large real number $X$. Then we have $\alpha\leq \beta$ and $$\label{eq: egalite expo dans thm points min} {\varepsilon}:= 1-\Big(\alpha + \frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}+\dots + \frac{\alpha^{n}}{\beta^{n-1}}\Big) \geq 0.$$ Moreover, there exists a constant $C>0$ which depends only on ${\boldsymbol{\xi}},a,b,\alpha,\beta$ with the following property. If $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 def ee_0} {\varepsilon}\leq \frac{1}{4n}\Big(\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\Big)^n \min\{\alpha,\beta-\alpha\},$$ then there is an unbounded sequence $({\mathbf{y}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ of non-zero integer points in ${S}$ which for each $i\geq 0$ satisfies the following conditions: 1. \[condition i thm suite\] $ \big\|\alpha\log {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_{i+1}\\|}-\beta\log{\\|{\mathbf{y}}_i\\|}\big\| \leq C +4{\varepsilon}(\beta/\alpha)^n\log {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_{i+1}\\|}$; 2. \[condition ii thm suite\] $ \big\|\log L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_i) + \beta\log {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_{i}\\|}\big\| \leq C+4{\varepsilon}(\beta/\alpha)^2\log {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_i\\|}$; 3. \[condition iii thm suite\] $\det({\mathbf{y}}_i,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{i+n}) \neq 0$; 4. \[condition iv thm suite\] there exists no ${\mathbf{x}}\in {S}\setminus\{0\}$ with ${\\|{\mathbf{x}}\\|} \le {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_i\\|}$ and $L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}) < L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_i)$. For a point ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ of the form ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}= (1,\xi,\xi^2)$ with $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$ not algebraic of degree at most $2$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, satisfying with $S={\mathbb{Z}}^3$, $\beta=1$ and ${\varepsilon}=0$, we recover a construction of the third author [@roy2004approximation Theorem 5.1] dealing with extremal numbers. For a point ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(1,{\vartheta},\dots,{\vartheta}^n,\xi)$ with ${\vartheta}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ algebraic of degree $n$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus{\mathbb{Q}}({\vartheta})$, satisfying with $S={\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$, $\beta = 1/(n-1)$ and ${\varepsilon}=0$, the result is due to the first author [@N2014 Theorem 2.4.3]. As the proof will show, the upper bound for ${\varepsilon}$ in and the coefficients of ${\varepsilon}$ in \[condition i thm suite\] and \[condition ii thm suite\] can easily be improved. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section: notations\] we set the notation and we recall the definition of minimal points. Section \[Section:construction de Nguyen\] is devoted to our main tool which is a construction of subspaces of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, together with inequalities relating their heights. The proofs of Theorems \[thm: thm transfert\] and \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\] follow in Sections \[section: preuve du theoreme principal\] and \[section: preuves thm comportement points min\] respectively. Finally, some applications of our results are presented in the last section. Notation, heights and minimal points {#section: notations} ==================================== Given points ${\mathbf{y}}_1,{\mathbf{y}}_2,\dots$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, we denote by $\langle {\mathbf{y}}_{1}, {\mathbf{y}}_2, \dots \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ the vector subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ that they span. Recall that we endow ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with its usual structure of inner product space and that we denote by ${\\|\cdot\\|}$ the corresponding Euclidean norm. In general, for any integer $k$ with $1\leq k \leq n+1$, we endow the vector space $\bigwedge^k({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$ with the unique structure of inner product space such that, for any orthonormal basis $(e_1,\dots,e_n)$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, the products $e_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge e_{i_k}$ ($i_1<\dots <i_k$) form an orthonormal basis of $\bigwedge^k({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$. We still denote by ${\\|\cdot\\|}$ the associated norm. If $W$ is a subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, we define its height $H(W)$ as the co-volume in $W$ of the lattice of integer points $W\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. If $\dim W = k$, this is given by $$H(W) = {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_1\wedge\dots\wedge{\mathbf{x}}_k\\|}$$ for any ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis $({\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_k)$ of $W\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Schmidt proved the following result [@Schmidt1991 Chap. 1, Lemma 8A]. \[thm: Schmidt inequality\] There exists a positive constant $c$ which depends only on $n$ such that for any subspaces $A,B$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, we have $$\label{eq: Schmidt inequality} H(A+B)\, H(A\cap B) \leq c H(A)\, H(B).$$ If $f,g:I\rightarrow[0,+\infty)$ are two functions on a set $I$, we write $f={\mathcal{O}}(g)$ or $f\ll g$ or $g \gg f$ to mean that there is a positive constant $c$ such that $f(x)\leq cg(x)$ for each $x\in I$. We write $f\asymp g$ when both $f\ll g$ and $g \ll f$. When ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ is such that $\lim_{X\rightarrow\infty}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;S) = 0$, there exists a sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ of non-zero points in ${S}$ satisfying 1. ${\\|{\mathbf{x}}_0\\|} < {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_1\\|} < {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_2 \\|} < \dots$ 2. $L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) > L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_1) > L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_2) > \dots$ 3. For any $i\geq0$ and any non-zero point ${\mathbf{z}}\in{S}$ with ${\\|{\mathbf{z}}\\|} < {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_{i+1}\\|}$, we have $L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{z}}) \geq L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_i)$. We say that such a sequence is a sequence of minimal points for ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ with respect to ${S}$. Minimal points are a standard tool for studying rational approximation. The usual choice is to take ${S}={\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Families of vector subspaces {#Section:construction de Nguyen} ============================ The goal of this section is to prove the following key-theorem established by the first author in her thesis [@N2014 §2.3] in the case where ${S}={\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. The proof in the general case is the same. In this section $n$ is an integer $>1$. \[thm: lemme Nguyen\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent coordinates. Suppose that for some ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ we have $\lim_{X\rightarrow\infty}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X;{S}) = 0$. Let $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ be a sequence of minimal points for ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ with respect to ${S}$. For each $i\geq 0$, set $$X_i = {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_i\\|} \quad\text{and}\quad L_i={\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X_i;{S}) = L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_i).$$ Fix also an index $i_0\geq 0$. Then for each $t=1,\dots,n-1$ there exists a largest integer $i_t$ with $i_t\ge i_0$ such that $$\label{equation2.19} \dim \langle {\mathbf{x}}_{i_0}, {\mathbf{x}}_{i_0+1}, \ldots, {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t} \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}} = t+1.$$ For these indices $i_0<i_1<\cdots<i_{n-1}$, we have $$X_{i_1}\cdots X_{i_{n-1}} \leq c L_{i_0}X_{i_0+1}\cdots L_{i_{n-1}}X_{i_{n-1}+1}$$ with a constant $c>0$ depending only on ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ and not on $i_0$. We first note that under the conditions of Theorem \[thm: lemme Nguyen\], each subsequence $({\mathbf{y}}_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ of $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ spans ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. Indeed, suppose by contradiction that a subsequence $({\mathbf{y}}_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ spans a proper subspace $W$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. Since $({\mathbf{y}}_i)_{i \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ projectively, we deduce that ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in W$, which is impossible since $W$ is defined by linear equations with coefficients in ${\mathbb{Q}}$ while the coordinates of ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. In particular, $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\ge i_0}$ spans ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ for the given index $i_0$, and the existence of $i_1,\dots,i_{n-1}$ follows. Clearly we have $i_0 < i_1 < \ldots < i_{n-1}$. For simplicity, we set $${{\mathcal{V}}}[i,j] := \langle {\mathbf{x}}_{i}, {\mathbf{x}}_{i+1}, \ldots, {\mathbf{x}}_{j} \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}}$$ for each pair of integers $i,j$ with $0\leq i \leq j$. Then, for each $t=0,1,\dots,n-1$, we have $$\dim {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_t]=t+1 \quad\text{and}\quad \dim {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_t+1]=t+2,$$ thus ${\mathbf{x}}_{i_t+1}\notin {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_t]$. By comparing dimensions, we deduce that $$\label{eq: thmN: eq1} {\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}= {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_{n-1}+1] \quad\text{and}\quad {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_{t-1}+1] = {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_t] \quad (1\le t \le n-1).$$ For each $(t,k) \in {\mathbb{N}}^2$ with $1 \le k \le t+1\le n$, we define $$V^{k+1}_t = {{\mathcal{V}}}[s(t,k), i_t +1] \quad \textrm{and} \quad U^k_t = {{\mathcal{V}}}[s(t,k), i_t],$$ where $s(t,k)$ is the largest integer with $s(t,k)\le i_t$ such that $\dim V^{k+1}_t = k+1$. By varying $k$ for fixed $t$, we obtain a decreasing sequence $$s(t,1) =i_t > s(t,2) >\ldots >s(t,t+1) \ge i_0.$$ Thus $U^k_t$ is contained in ${{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0,i_t]$ , so ${\mathbf{x}}_{i_t+1} \notin U^k_t$ and therefore $\dim U^k_t = k$. Moreover, when $2\le k\le t+1$, we have $s(t,k)<s(t,k-1)\le i_t$, thus $$\label{eq10} V^{k+1}_t = U^k_t + V^k_t$$ is the sum of two distinct $k$-dimensional subspaces. Since $U^k_t$ and $V^k_t$ both contain $U^{k-1}_t$, we deduce that $$\label{equation2.11} U^{k-1}_t = U^k_t \cap V^k_t,$$ as both sides have dimension $k-1$. Finally, we note that, for $t=1,\dots,n-1$, the subspaces $U^{t+1}_t$ and $V^{t+1}_{t-1}$ are both contained in ${{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0, i_{t}] = {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0, i_{t-1}+1]$. Since all of these have dimension $t+1$, we conclude that $$\label{eq15} U^{t+1}_t = {{\mathcal{V}}}[i_0, i_{t-1}+1] = V^{t+1}_{t-1}.$$ The proof of Theorem \[thm: lemme Nguyen\] relies on the following lemma relating the heights of the above families of subspaces. \[lem: lemme Nguyen hauteurs\] For each $k=1,\dots,n-1$, we have $$\label{equation7} H(U^k_k) H(U^k_{k+1}) \cdots H(U^k_{n-1}) \ll H(V^{k+1}_{k-1}) H(V^{k+1}_k) \cdots H(V^{k+1}_{n-1})$$ with an implicit constant depending only on $n$. We proceed by descending induction on $k$. By and , we have $${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} = V^{n+1}_{n-1}= U^n_{n-1} + V^n_{n-1}.$$ Since gives $U^{n-1}_{n-1} = U^n_{n-1} \cap V^n_{n-1}$, it follows from Schmidt’s Theorem \[eq: Schmidt inequality\] that $$H(U^{n-1}_{n-1}) \ll H(U^n_{n-1}) H(V^n_{n-1})$$ because $H({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})=1$. As gives $H(U^n_{n-1}) = H(V^n_{n-2})$, this proves for $k = n-1$. Assume that holds for some $k$ with $1 <k \le n-1$. By Theorem \[eq: Schmidt inequality\], the relations and imply that $$H(V^{k+1}_t) \ll \frac{H(U^k_t) H(V^k_t)}{H(U^{k-1}_t)}$$ for each $t = k-1,\ldots, n-1$. Combining this with the induction hypothesis, we obtain $$H(U^k_k) \cdots H(U^k_{n-1}) \ll \frac{H(U^k_{k-1}) H(V^k_{k-1})}{H(U^{k-1}_{k-1})} \cdots \frac{H(U^k_{n-1}) H(V^k_{n-1})}{H(U^{k-1}_{n-1})}.$$ After simplification, this leads to $$H(U^{k-1}_{k-1}) \cdots H(U^{k-1}_{n-1}) \ll H(U^k_{k-1}) H(V^k_{k-1}) \cdots H(V^k_{n-1}).$$ Since $U^k_{k-1} = V^k_{k-2}$ by , this yields with $k$ replaced by $k-1$. Thus, by induction, holds for all $k =1, \ldots,n-1$. By Lemma \[lem: lemme Nguyen hauteurs\] applied with $k=1$, we have $$H(U^1_1) H(U^1_{2}) \cdots H(U^1_{n-1}) \ll H(V^{2}_{0}) H(V^{2}_1) \cdots H(V^{2}_{n-1})$$ where $U^1_t = \langle {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t} \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $V^2_t = \langle {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t}, {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t+1} \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}} $ for $t =0, \ldots, n-1$. The conclusion follows since $$H(U_{t}^1) = \\| {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t} \\| = X_{i_t} \quad\text{and}\quad H(V^2_{t}) \leq \\| {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t} \wedge {\mathbf{x}}_{i_t+1} \\| \ll X_{i_t+1} L_{i_t}$$ for $t =0, \ldots, n-1$, with implicit constants depending only on ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$. Proof of Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\] {#section: preuve du theoreme principal} ======================================= Suppose that ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, ${S}\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, $A\in I$ and ${\varphi},\psi,{\vartheta}: I \rightarrow (0,\infty)$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\], and let $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ be a sequence of minimal points for ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ with respect to ${S}$. Since $\Phi_0$ is monotonically increasing, the case $n=1$ of Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\] is trivial. Thus we may suppose that $n>1$. As in Section \[Section:construction de Nguyen\], we write $X_i = {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_i\\|}$ and $L_i=L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_i) = {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X_i;S)$ for each $i\geq 0$. Choose $k_0\geq 0$ such that $X_{k_0} \geq A$. Then, for each $i\geq k_0$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1]$ we have $$\psi(X_i)\leq L_i = {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X_i;{S}) = {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X_{i+1}-{\varepsilon};{S}) \leq {\varphi}(X_{i+1}-{\varepsilon})$$ by definition of minimal points. Letting ${\varepsilon}$ tend to $0$, we deduce that $$\label{eq: X_i minore par X_i+1} L_i \leq {\varphi}(X_{i+1}) {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}X_i \geq {\vartheta}(X_{i+1})\quad (i\geq k_0),$$ because ${\varphi}=\psi\circ{\vartheta}$ is continuous and $\psi$ is strictly decreasing. Then, for each $i_0\ge k_0$, the sequence of integers $i_0<\dots<i_{n-1}$ given by Theorem \[thm: lemme Nguyen\] satisfies $$\label{eq: inegalite de Nguyen} X_{i_1}\cdots X_{i_{n-1}} \leq c \Phi_0(X_{i_0+1})\cdots \Phi_0(X_{i_{n-1}+1}),$$ where $c=c({\boldsymbol{\xi}})>0$ and $\Phi_0(X) = X{\varphi}(X)$ as in . \[lem: lemme intermediaire\] Suppose that the functions $\Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_{m-2}$ are monotonically increasing for some integer $m$ with $2\le m \le n$, and let $j_0,\dots,j_{m-1}$ be integers with $k_0\leq j_0<\dots < j_{m-1}$. Then we have $$\label{eq: conclusion lemme 2} \Phi_0(X_{j_0+1})\cdots \Phi_0(X_{j_{m-1}+1}) \leq X_{j_1}\cdots X_{j_{m-1}}\Phi_{m-1}(X_{j_{m-1}+1}).$$ For simplicity set $Y_k = X_{j_k}$ and $Z_k= X_{j_k+1}$ for $k=0,\dots, m-1$. By induction on $k$, we show that $$\label{eq: H.R. pour lemme 2} \prod_{\ell=0}^{m-1}\Phi_0(Z_\ell) \leq \Big(\prod_{\ell=1}^{k-1}Y_\ell\Big)\Phi_{k-1}(Z_{k-1}) \Big(\prod_{\ell=k}^{m-1} \Phi_0(Z_\ell)\Big) \quad(k=1,\dots, m).$$ The case $k=1$ is an equality; there is nothing to prove. Suppose that holds for some $k$ with $1\leq k < m$. We have $Z_{k-1}\leq Y_k$ since $j_{k-1} < j_k$ and ${\vartheta}(Z_k) \leq Y_k$ by . Since $\Phi_{k-1}$ is monotonically increasing and ${\varphi}_{k-1}$ is monotonically decreasing, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: preuve lemme tranfert fonctionnel} \Phi_{k-1}(Z_{k-1}) \leq \Phi_{k-1}(Y_{k}) = Y_k{\varphi}_{k-1}(Y_k) \leq Y_k{\varphi}_{k-1}({\vartheta}(Z_k)). \end{aligned}$$ Since ${\varphi}_{k-1}({\vartheta}(Z_k))\Phi_0(Z_k) = \Phi_{k}(Z_k)$, we conclude that holds as well with $k$ replaced by $k+1$. The inequality corresponds to the case $k=m$. \[lem: lemme intermediaire 2\] The functions $\Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_{n-2}$ are monotonically increasing. Otherwise there is a largest integer $m$ with $2\leq m < n$ such that $\Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_{m-2}$ are monotonically increasing. By our choice of $m$, the function $\Phi_{m-1}$ is monotonically decreasing. It is thus bounded from above. Let $i_0< i_1 < \dots < i_{n-1}$ be integers satisfying for a choice of $i_0\geq k_0$. For simplicity we write $Y_k=X_{i_k}$ and $Z_k=X_{i_k+1}$ ($k=0,\dots, n-1$). Then, Lemma \[lem: lemme intermediaire\] applied to $j_0=i_{n-m},\dots, j_{m-1} = i_{n-1}$ implies that $$\Phi_0(Z_{n-m})\cdots \Phi_0(Z_{n-1}) \leq Y_{n-m+1}\cdots Y_{n-1}\Phi_{m-1}(Z_{n-1}) = {\mathcal{O}}(Y_{n-m+1}\cdots Y_{n-1}),$$ with an implicit constant depending only on $\Phi_{m-1}$, not on $i_0$. Furthermore for $k=0,\dots, n-m-1$ we have $\Phi_0(Z_k) = {\varphi}(Z_k)Z_k \leq {\varphi}(Z_k)Y_{k+1} = o(Y_{k+1})$ as $i_0$ tends to infinity. Putting these inequalities together yields $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_0(Z_{0})\cdots \Phi_0(Z_{n-1}) = o(Y_1\cdots Y_{n-1}) \end{aligned}$$ as $i_0$ tends to infinity. This contradicts . Fix $i_0<\cdots<i_{n-1}$ satisfying for some $i_0\geq k_0$. According to Lemma \[lem: lemme intermediaire 2\], we may apply Lemma \[lem: lemme intermediaire\] with $m=n$ and $j_0=i_0,\dots,j_{m-1} = i_{n-1}$. This gives $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_0(X_{i_0+1})\cdots \Phi_0(X_{i_{n-1}+1}) \leq X_{i_1}\cdots X_{i_{n-1}} \Phi_{n-1}(X_{i_{n-1}+1}), \end{aligned}$$ which together with yields $\Phi_{n-1}(X_{i_{n-1}+1}) \geq c^{-1}$. Since the function $\Phi_{n-1}$ is monotonic, we deduce that $\Phi_{n-1}(X)\geq c^{-1}$ for each $X$ large enough, by letting $i_0$ go to infinity. Proof of Theorem \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\] {#section: preuves thm comportement points min} =================================================================== First, note that follows from Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. So it only remains to prove the second part of Theorem \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\]. Let $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ be a sequence of minimal points for ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ with respect to ${S}$. For each $i\geq 0$, we write $$X_i = {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_i\\|} {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}L_i={\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X_i;{S}) = L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_i).$$ The sequence $({\mathbf{y}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ will be constructed as a subsequence of $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_i$ so that Condition \[condition iv thm suite\] of Theorem \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\] will be automatically satisfied. In this section, all implicit constants depend only on ${\boldsymbol{\xi}},a,b,\alpha,\beta$. For each $X>0$, we set $$(\psi,{\varphi},{\vartheta})(X) = \Big(bX^{-\beta},aX^{-\alpha}, \Big(\frac{a}{b}\Big)^{-1/\beta}X^{\alpha/\beta} \Big),$$ as in . Then, for $k=0,\dots,n-1$, we denote by ${\varphi}_k$ and $\Phi_k$ the functions defined on $(0,\infty)$ by the formulas – from Theorem \[thm: thm transfert\]. We also fix an index $\ell_0$ such that the main hypothesis is satisfied for each $X\geq X_{\ell_0}$. Consider the sequence $i_0 < i_1 < \dots < i_{n-1}$ given by Theorem \[thm: lemme Nguyen\] for a choice of $i_0\geq \ell_0$. For each $k=0,\dots,n-1$, we set $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 choix y,Y,z,Z} ({\mathbf{y}}_k,Y_k) = ({\mathbf{x}}_{i_k}, X_{i_k}) {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}({\mathbf{z}}_k,Z_k) = ({\mathbf{x}}_{i_k+1}, X_{i_k+1}).$$ By construction, we have $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 0} \langle{\mathbf{y}}_0,{\mathbf{z}}_0\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}=\langle{\mathbf{y}}_0,{\mathbf{y}}_1\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\langle{\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{n-1},{\mathbf{z}}_{n-1}\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}={\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}.$$ Using , we also find that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 0 explicitation phi_k} \Phi_{k}(X) = X{\varphi}_{k}(X) = c_{k}X^{{\varepsilon}_k}\quad \textrm{with } {\varepsilon}_k=1-\alpha-\dots-\frac{\alpha^{k+1}}{\beta^{k}}, \end{aligned}$$ for each $k=0,\dots,n-1$ and each $X>0$, where $c_{k} > 0$ depends only on $a,b,\alpha,\beta$. Note that $${\varepsilon}_0 > \cdots > {\varepsilon}_{n-1} = {\varepsilon}\geq 0$$ where ${\varepsilon}$ is given by . We find $$\begin{aligned} c^{-1}\prod_{k = 1}^{n-1}Y_k &\leq \prod_{k = 0}^{n-1}Z_kL_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k) & & \textrm{by Theorem~\ref{thm: lemme Nguyen}}, \\ & \leq \prod_{k = 0}^{n-1}\Phi_0(Z_k) & & \textrm{by \eqref{eq: X_i minore par X_i+1}}, \\ & \leq \Big(\prod_{k = 1}^{n-1}Y_k\Big)\Phi_{n-1}(Z_{n-1}) & & \textrm{by Lemma~\ref{lem: lemme intermediaire} with $m=n$},\\ & = \Big(\prod_{k = 1}^{n-1}Y_k\Big)c_{n-1}Z_{n-1}^{\varepsilon}& & \textrm{by \eqref{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 0 explicitation phi_k}}. \end{aligned}$$ This uses sequentially the inequalities $$L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k)\leq {\varphi}(Z_k) \quad (0\leq k < n),$$ coming from as well as the inequalities $$\Phi_{k-1}(Z_{k-1})\leq \Phi_{k-1}(Y_k) {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}{\varphi}_{k-1}(Y_k) \leq {\varphi}_{k-1}({\vartheta}(Z_{k})) \quad (1\leq k < n)$$ coming from in the proof of Lemma \[lem: lemme intermediaire\] with $m=n$. In each of these inequalities the ratio of the right-hand side divided by the left-hand side is therefore at most $cc_{n-1}Z_{n-1}^{{\varepsilon}}$. Using and the fact that for $k=1,\dots,n-1$ we have $${\varepsilon}_{k-1} = {\varepsilon}+ \frac{\alpha^{k+1}}{\beta^{k}} + \dots + \frac{\alpha^{n}}{\beta^{n-1}} \geq \alpha\Big(\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\Big)^{k} {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}1-{\varepsilon}_{k-1} \geq \alpha,$$ we thus get the following estimates $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: L(Y_k) proche Z_k} \big\|\log L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k)+ \alpha\log Z_k \big\| & \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + {\varepsilon}\log Z_{n-1} &&(0\leq k < n),\\ \label{eq: Y_k Z_k-1} \big\|\log Y_k - \log Z_{k-1} \big\| & \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{k} \log Z_{n-1} && (1\leq k < n),\\ \label{eq: Y_k proche a/bZ_k} \big\|\log Y_k - \frac{\alpha}{\beta}\log Z_k \big\| & \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha} \log Z_{n-1} && (1\leq k < n). \end{aligned}$$ Suppose from now on that $\epsilon$ satisfies the inequality of Theorem \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\]. We distinguish two cases. First case: {#first-case .unnumbered} ----------- $\alpha<\beta$. We start by noting that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 1.2 bis} \log Z_{n-1} \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n-k}\log Z_{k-1} \quad (1\leq k < n). \end{aligned}$$ Indeed, and imply that $$\log Z_k \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + \frac{\beta}{\alpha}\log Z_{k-1} + \frac{2{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{k+1} \log Z_{n-1} \quad (1\leq k < n),$$ and by descending induction starting with $k=n-1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \log Z_{n-1} \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + \Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n-k}\log Z_{k-1} + \frac{2(n-k){\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log Z_{n-1} \quad (1\leq k < n). \end{aligned}$$ This yields since by the coefficient of $\log Z_{n-1}$ in the right-hand side is less than $1/2$. Combining and together with $Z_{k-1}\leq Y_k$, we obtain $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 relation Z_k Y_k} \big\|\alpha\log Z_k -\beta\log Y_k \big\| \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n-k+1}\log Y_k \quad(1\leq k < n).$$ Thus there exists a constant $C>0$ (depending only on $\xi,a,b,\alpha,\beta$) such that $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 2.2} \Big\|\log X_{i+1} -\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\log X_{i} \Big\| \leq C + 2\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n}\log X_{i}$$ for each $i$ among $\{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_{n-1}\}$. By and , we also have $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 2.3} \big\|\log Y_k- \log Z_{k-1} \big\| \leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log Z_{k-1} \quad (1\leq k < n).$$ For the intermediate indices $i$ with $i_{k-1} < i < i_{k}$ for some $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, we have $Z_{k-1}\leq X_i < X_{i+1} \leq Y_k$, and the above estimate yields $$\label{eq: preuve thm 2.1 inter 2.4} \big\| \log X_{i+1} - \log X_i \big\| \leq C + 2\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log X_{i},$$ at the expense of replacing $C$ by a larger constant if necessary. By the hypothesis on $\epsilon$ and the fact that $\beta/\alpha > 1$, the inequalities and cannot hold simultaneously for any sufficiently large integer $i$, say for any $i\ge \ell_1$ where $\ell_1\ge \ell_0$. Define $I$ to be the set of all integers $i\geq \ell_1$ for which holds. Then, for a sequence $i_0<i_1<\cdots<i_{n-1}$ as above, with $i_0\ge \ell_1$, we have $I\cap (i_0,i_{n-1}]=\{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_{n-1}\}$. In particular, the set $I$ is infinite and, if we choose $i_0\in I$, then $i_0,i_1,\dots,i_{n-1}$ are $n$ consecutive elements of $I$. Denote by $i_0 < i_1 < \cdots$ the elements of $I$ and define ${\mathbf{y}}_k$, $Y_k$, ${\mathbf{z}}_k$ and $Z_k$ by for each $k\ge 0$. By the above, the relations extend to $$\langle{\mathbf{y}}_k,{\mathbf{z}}_k\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}=\langle{\mathbf{y}}_k,{\mathbf{y}}_{k+1}\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\langle{\mathbf{y}}_k,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k+n-1},{\mathbf{z}}_{k+n-1}\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}={\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$$ for each $k\ge 0$. Thus $\{{\mathbf{y}}_k,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k+n-1},{\mathbf{y}}_{k+n}\}$ spans ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ for each $k\ge 0$ and so $({\mathbf{y}}_k)_{k\ge 0}$ satisfies Condition (iii) of the theorem. Applying , , and with $k=n-1$ (which is possible since $n\ge 2$), we also obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \big\|\log L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k)+ \alpha\log Z_k \big\| &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + {\varepsilon}\log Z_k, \label{preuve1.4:eq5}\\ \log Z_k &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)\log Z_{k-1}, \label{preuve1.4:eq6}\\ \big\|\alpha\log Z_k -\beta\log Y_k \big\| &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^2\log Y_k, \label{preuve1.4:eq7}\\ \big\|\log Y_k- \log Z_{k-1} \big\| &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\alpha}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log Z_{k-1}, \label{preuve1.4:eq8} \end{aligned}$$ for each $k\ge n-1$. Combining the first three inequalities –, we find $$\begin{aligned} \big\|\log L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k) + \beta\log Y_k \big\| &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)\log Z_{k-1} + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^2\log Y_k \\ &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 4{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^2\log Y_k \end{aligned}$$ since $Z_{k-1}\le Y_k$. Thus Condition (ii) is fulfilled. Finally, replacing $k$ by $k+1$ in and using , we find $$\begin{aligned} \big\|\alpha\log Y_{k+1} -\beta\log Y_k \big\| &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log Z_{k} + 2{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^2\log Y_k \\ &\leq {\mathcal{O}}(1) + 4{\varepsilon}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\Big)^{n} \log Y_{k+1} \end{aligned}$$ since $Y_k\le Z_k\le Y_{k+1}$. Thus Condition (i) is satisfied as well. Second case: {#second-case .unnumbered} ------------ $\alpha=\beta$. Then we have ${\varepsilon}=0$ and $\alpha=\beta=1/n$. Moreover, the hypothesis implies that $$\label{eq:preuve1.4:cas2:eq1} L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \asymp X_i^{-1/n} \quad (i\ge 0).$$ Thus the estimate with $k=0$ yields $Y_0\asymp Z_0$, while and simplify to $$Z_0 \asymp Y_1 \asymp Z_1 \asymp\dots \asymp Y_{n-1} \asymp Z_{n-1}.$$ Thus $\{{\mathbf{x}}_{i_0},{\mathbf{x}}_{i_1},\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}},{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}+1}\}$ is a basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with $$\label{eq:preuve1.4:cas2:eq2} {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_{i_0}\\|}\asymp {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_{i_1}\\|}\asymp\cdots\asymp {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}}\\|} \asymp {\\|{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}+1}\\|}.$$ We now construct recursively a subsequence $({\mathbf{y}}_k)_{k\geq 0}$ of $({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ such that $${\\|{\mathbf{y}}_k\\|} \asymp {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_{k+1}\\|} {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\langle{\mathbf{y}}_k,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k+n}\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}={\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$$ for each $k\geq 0$. To start, we simply choose $i_0=\ell_0$ and set $({\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{n}) = ({\mathbf{x}}_{i_0},\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}},{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}+1})$. Now suppose that ${\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k}$ have been constructed for an index $k\geq n$. Then $W=\langle {\mathbf{y}}_{k-n+1},\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k}\rangle_{\mathbb{R}}$ is a subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ of dimension $n$. We take $i_0$ to be the index for which ${\mathbf{y}}_{k} = {\mathbf{x}}_{i_0}$. By the above there exists a point ${\mathbf{y}}_{k+1}$ among ${\mathbf{x}}_{i_1},\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}},{\mathbf{x}}_{i_{n-1}+1}$ which lies outside of $W$. Then $\{{\mathbf{y}}_{k-n+1},\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{k+1}\}$ spans ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, and by we have ${\\|{\mathbf{y}}_{k+1}\\|} \asymp {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_k\\|}$. This sequence $({\mathbf{y}}_k)_{k\geq0}$ has all the requested properties since it also satisfies $L_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}_k) \asymp {\\|{\mathbf{y}}_k\\|}^{-1/n}$ for each $k\ge 0$ by . Applications {#Section: applications} ============ The following result is implicit in the thesis of the first author. It follows from the proof of Theorem 2.1.3 of [@N2014] although the theorem by itself is a weaker assertion. We give a short proof based on Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\]. \[thm: cor thm 1.2\] Let ${\vartheta}$ be a real algebraic number of degree $n\geq 2$ and let $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus{\mathbb{Q}}({\vartheta})$. Then the point ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(1,{\vartheta},\dots,{\vartheta}^{n-1},\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ satisfies $$\label{eq 1 thm-cor Van} {\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}}) \leq \lambda_n$$ where $\lambda_n$ is the unique positive solution of $$x+(n-1)x^2+\dots+(n-1)^{n-1}x^n = 1.$$ Moreover precisely, we have $$\label{eq 2 thm-cor Van} \limsup_{X\rightarrow\infty}X^{\lambda_n}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X) > 0.$$ By Liouville’s inequality, there exists a constant $c_1=c_1({\vartheta})>0$ such that the system $$\begin{aligned} \max_{1\leq k\leq n-1} \|y_k\|\leq X^{1/(n-1)} \quad\textrm{and}\quad \|y_0+{\vartheta}y_1+\dots + {\vartheta}^{n-1}y_{n-1}\| \leq c_1X^{-1} \end{aligned}$$ admits no non-zero integer solution $(y_0,\dots,y_{n-1})$ for any $X\geq 1$. By Khinthine’s transference principle [@Schmidt1980 Theorem 5A], there is therefore a constant $c_2=c_2({\vartheta})>0$ such that the dual system $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq 2 bis thm-cor Van proof} \|x_0\|\leq X \quad\textrm{and}\quad \max_{1\leq k \leq n-1}\|x_k-{\vartheta}^k x_0\| \leq c_2 X^{-1/(n-1)} \end{aligned}$$ admits no non-zero integer solution $(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1})$ for each $X\geq 1$. Thus, we have $$\label{eq 0 thm-cor Van proof} c_2X^{-1/(n-1)} \leq {\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X)$$ for each $X\geq 1$. If ${\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X)\geq X^{-\lambda_n}$ for arbitrarily large values of $X$, then is immediate. Otherwise, Condition of Theorem \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\] is fulfilled with $\alpha = \lambda_n$ and $\beta=1/(n-1)$. As this yields an equality in , we again get as a consequence of . In the case $n=2$, the number $\lambda_2\cong 0.618$ is the inverse of the golden ratio and it follows from [@roy2013conics] – which more generally deals with approximation to real points on conics in ${\mathbb{P}}^2({\mathbb{R}})$– that the upper bound is best possible: for any quadratic number ${\vartheta}\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus{\mathbb{Q}}$, there exists $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus{\mathbb{Q}}({\vartheta})$ such that ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(1,{\vartheta},\xi)$ satisfies $\limsup X^{\lambda_2}{\mathcal{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}}(X) <\infty$ and ${\widehat{\lambda}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}})=\lambda_2$. For $n\geq 3$ the optimal upper bound is not known. In [@poelsroy2019], the second and the third authors apply Theorems \[thm: transfert exposants avec constante\] and \[thm: comportement points minimaux cas extremal\] to extend the results of [@kleinbock2018simultaneous] and [@roy2013conics] to points on general quadratic hypersurfaces of ${\mathbb{P}}^n({\mathbb{R}})$ defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. [10]{} V. Jarn[í]{}k. . , 3:193–212, 1938. A. Khintchine. . , 50(2):170–195, 1926. A. Khintchine. . , 24(1):706–714, 1926. D. Kleinbock and N. Moshchevitin. Simultaneous Diophantine approximation: sums of squares and homogeneous polynomials. , 190(1):87–100, 2019. M. Laurent. Exponents of [D]{}iophantine approximation in dimension two. , 61:165–189, 2009. A. Marnat and N. Moshchevitin. An optimal bound for the ratio between ordinary and uniform exponents of [D]{}iophantine approximation. , 40 pages, 2018. N. Moshchevitin. Exponents for three-dimensional simultaneous [D]{}iophantine approximations. , 62(1):127–137, 2012. N. A. V. Nguyen. . PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, 2014; https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/30350. A. Poëls and D. Roy. Rational approximation to real points on quadratic hypersufarces. , 29 pages, 2019. M. Rivard-Cooke. . PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, 2019; https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/38871. D. Roy. Approximation to real numbers by cubic algebraic integers [I]{}. , 88(1):42–62, 2004. D. Roy. Rational approximation to real points on conics. , 63(6):2331–2348, 2013. W. M. Schmidt. , [Lecture [N]{}otes in [M]{}athematics]{}, vol. 785, Springer-Verlag, 1980. W. M. Schmidt. , [Lecture [N]{}otes in [M]{}athematics*]{}, vol. 1467, Springer-Verlag, 1991. W. M. Schmidt and L. Summerer. Simultaneous approximation to three numbers. , 3(1):84–107, 2013. [^1]: Work of the three authors partially supported by NSERC	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- address: \| I. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg, Jungiusstrasse 9, D-20355 Hamburg, Germany\ and\ Institut de Physique Théorique, Université de Fribourg, Pérolles, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland\ [()]{}\ author: - 'Thorsten Dröse and Cristiane Morais-Smith' title: Crossovers in the thermal decay of metastable states in discrete systems --- Introduction ============ The decay of metastable states in systems with one [@Kram40] or more degrees of freedom [@Lang67-69](DOF) has been intensively studied in the last decades [@Haen90]. The crossover from rigid to elastic decay [@Ivle87; @Lefr92; @Mora94] was studied in systems with one and two DOF by using methods known from the analysis of the crossover from thermal to quantum decay [@Affl81; @Lark83; @Grab84a; @Weis99]. In this work we consider a system with $N$ DOF and investigate crossovers that occur in its thermal decay from a metastable state while tuning an external parameter. A system localized in a relative minimum of a potential energy surface can escape from the trap due to thermal or quantum fluctuations. At high temperatures the decay process is purely thermal, and most probably occurs through the free-energy lowest-lying saddle point that connects two local minima. In this paper we study a model where the energy surface changes upon varying an external parameter $ \delta $. Above a critical value $ \delta_{}$, the saddle point bifurcates into new lower lying ones, causing an enhancement of the escape rate $ \Gamma $. In the steepest-descent approximation $ \Gamma(\delta)$ and its derivative $ \Gamma'(\delta)$ are continuous at $ \delta_{} $, whereas the second derivative $ \Gamma''(\delta_{})$ diverges. This behavior can be interpreted in terms of a second-order phase transition [@Lark83] and hence is called crossover of second order. Experimental measurements concerning the decay of metastable states in dc superdonducting interference devices (SQUID’s) were interpreted in terms of a saddle-point splitting of the potential energy [@Lefr92]. This device consists of a superconducting ring intercepted by two Josephson junctions (JJ’s). The phase differences across the junctions play the role of generalized coordinates. The inductance of the circuit couples the two phases. By reducing the bias current $I$ that flows through the system, the decay of the phases changes from a rigid regime [@Yong86; @Shar88; @Han89], with the two phases decaying together as if they were rigidly coupled, to an elastic regime, with the phases decaying independently [@Lefr92]. An interesting question is how such a crossover occurs in more complex systems like in a discrete Josephson transmission line (DJTL), which is a one-dimensional array of $N$ parallelly coupled JJ’s. Instead of two DOF, one would then have $N$ coupled DOF. Another example of such a system is a stack of $N$ pancake vortices [@Clem91] in a layered superconductor in the presence of columnar defects [@Blat94]. A vortex pinned by a columnar defect, but subject to a driving current flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field can escape from the trap by thermal activation. The open question is then whether a transition from a rigid to an elastic behavior can be found in the vortex or the DJTL systems, and also if more crossovers inside the elastic regime would arise due to the different decay possibilities involving the large number of DOF. In this paper we analyze the crossover in the decay process due to a saddle-point bifurcation in systems with $ N>2$ DOF. It turns out that for $ N=3 $ the saddle points of the potential energy can still be solved exactly. For larger $ N $ we determine them perturbatively. Furthermore, we find that for $ N \gg 1$ a second crossover from boundary to bulk nucleation can take place in the elastic regime. The thermal escape rate $ \Gamma_{th} = P \exp(-U_{a}/k_{B}T)$ is determined in the rigid and elastic regimes for an arbitrary number of particles, by assuming an overdamped motion out of a weakly metastable state. Far from the saddle-point bifurcation, $ \Gamma_{th} $ is evaluated within the Gaussian approximation, including the pre-exponential factor $P$. Close to the crossover from rigid decay to boundary nucleation, we calculate the rate beyond steepest descent and find that $ P $ displays a scaling property. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we introduce the model that can be applied both to DJTL and to pancake vortices in layered superconductors in the presence of a columnar defect. In Sec. III we determine the crossover from rigid decay to elastic boundary nucleation and the corresponding decay diagram. We show that in the elastic regime a second crossover from boundary to bulk nucleation can occur. We evaluate the saddle-point solutions and their activation energies in the three decay regimes. In Sec. IV the thermal escape rate is calculated. Finally, we discuss our results and draw our conclusions in Sec. V. Model ===== Free energy ----------- Let us consider a system of $ N $ degrees of freedom $ {\bf u} = (u_0,\dots, u_{N-1})$, each of them experiencing a single-particle potential $ U(u_{n}) $, and interacting with one another via spring-like nearest-neighbor interactions, $$\label{eff_free} {\cal E}( {\bf u}) = \frac{\kappa}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} ( u_{n}-u_{n-1})^{2} + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} U(u_{n}),$$ where $ \kappa $ is the spring constant. We assume that all the particles are initially situated near a local minimum of the potential $ U $. The coordinates $ u_{n} $ measure the distance of each particle $n$ from this minimum. Close to the local minimum $ u_{n} = 0$, the single-particle potential can be approximated by a cubic parabola, $$\label{single_pot} U(u_{n}) = U_{B} \left[ 3 \delta \left( \frac{ u_{n} }{R} \right)^{2} - 2 \left( \frac{ u_{n} }{R} \right)^{3} \right].$$ Here $ \delta \ll 1$ is a tunable parameter. The constants $ U_{B} $ and $ R $ are the characteristic energy and length scales, respectively. At $ u_{n}= R \delta $ the single-particle potential has a maximum. The energy difference between the local minimum and the maximum is $ {\tilde U_{B}}= U(R \delta) = U_{B} \delta^{3}$. (8,3.5) =7.5cm (0.5,0.5) Among the physical systems that can be described by Eq. (\[eff\_free\]) are the DJTL, see Fig. \[DJTL\]. The potential energy of a system of $ N $ identical JJ’s in the presence of a bias current $ I $ is $$\begin{aligned} \label{static} V(\varphi_0,\dots,\varphi_{N-1})& =& \frac{E_{J}^{2}}{2L I_{c}^{2} } \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} (\varphi_{n} -\varphi_{n-1})^{2} \nonumber \\ & & + E_{J} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left[1-\cos(\varphi_{n}) -\frac{I \varphi_{n}}{N I_{c}} \right]. \end{aligned}$$ Here the phase differences across the JJ’s are given by $ \varphi_0,\dots,\varphi_{N-1}$. The first term in Eq. (\[static\]) represents the interaction energy due to the inductances between the loops. Here only the self-inductances of the loops are taken into account, whereas the mutual inductances are neglected [@Bock94]. The elastic constant is $ \kappa = E_{J}^{2}/ L I_{c}^{2} $, where $ E_{J} = (\Phi_{0}/2 \pi) I_{c}$ is the Josephson energy, $ I_{c} $ the critical current of a single junction, $ L $ is the inductance, and $ \Phi_{0} = hc/2e$ is the flux quantum. The second term represents the tilted washboard potentials of the driven JJ’s that arise due to the relation between currents and gauge invariant phases across the junctions. If we concentrate on the experimentally most interesting limit of currents $I$ close to criticality, $ N I_{c} - I \ll N I_{c} $, the tilted washboard potential can be well approximated by its cubic expansion, and we can identify $ {\cal E} = V $ with $ u_n = \varphi_n + R \delta/2 - \pi/2 $, $ U_{B} = 4 \sqrt{2} E_{J}/3 $, $ R = 2 \sqrt{2},$ and $\delta = \sqrt{(1-I/NI_{c})}$. (8,4.5) (1.5,0.5) Another physical realization of the model described by Eq. (\[eff\_free\]) is a stack of pancake vortices trapped in a columnar defect, which is artificially introduced in a layered superconductor. Both the magnetic field that produces the pancake vortices and the columnar defect are perpendicular to the superconducting layers; see Fig. \[model\]. Once a bias current $ {\bf j} = j {\bf e}_{y} $ flows through the layers perpendicular to the magnetic field pointing in the $z$ direction, the pancakes will be driven by the resulting Lorentz force. The corresponding free energy reads $$\label{Veff} {\cal F} = \frac{\varepsilon_{l}}{2s} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} ({\bf u}_{n}-{\bf u}_{n-1})^{2} + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left[ U_{p}({\bf u}_{n}) - {\bf f}_{L} \cdot {\bf u}_{n}) \right].$$ The displacement of the $n$th pancake vortex from its equilibrium position in the columnar defect is now given by a two-dimensional vector $ {\bf u}_{n}=(u_{n,x}, u_{n,y})$. The first sum in Eq. (\[Veff\]) models the magnetic and Josephson couplings between the layers by elastic interactions between pancakes in adjacent layers [@Kosh96]. Here $ \varepsilon_{l} = (\varepsilon_{0}/\gamma^{2}) \ln(\lambda_{ab} / \xi_{ab})$ is the elastic constant, $ \varepsilon_{0} = \Phi_{0}^{2}/(4\pi \lambda_{ab})^{2}$ is the vortex self energy, $ \gamma = \lambda_{c} / \lambda_{ab} $ is the anisotropy ratio of the penetration depths $ \lambda_{c} $ and $ \lambda_{ab}$, $ s$ is the interlayer spacing, and $ \xi_{ab} $ is the in-plane coherence length. The second sum contains the columnar defect pinning potentials $ U_{p} $ felt by the single pancakes and the Lorentz force density $ {\bf f}_{L} = \Phi_{0}~ {\bf j} \wedge {\bf e}_{z} / c$, where $ {\bf e}_{z} $ is the unit vector pointing perpendicular to the planes. The potential $ U_{p} $ is smooth on the length scale $ \xi_{ab}$ with a local minimum at the center of the defect. An upper estimate for the depth of the potential well is given by $ U_{B} \approx t \varepsilon_{0} \ln(R/\xi_{ab}) $, where $ R $ is the radius of the columnar defect [@Blat94]. The parameter $t$ denotes the superconducting layer thickness. In the large current limit, $ \delta = \sqrt{1-j/j_{c}} \ll 1$ gives a measure of how close the current $ j $ is to the critical current $ j_{c}$. Then the sum of the pinning and the Lorentz part of the free energy is approximately $$\label{approx_pot} U_{B} \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left[ 3 \delta \left( \frac{ u_{n,x} }{R} \right)^{2} - 2 \left( \frac{ u_{n,x} }{R} \right)^{3} + \frac{3}{2} \left( \frac{ u_{n,y} }{R} \right)^{2} \right],$$ where we have kept only the terms that are of order $ \delta^{3}$. The terms proportional to $ \delta (u_{n,y}/R)^{2} $ and $ u_{n,y}^{2} u_{n,x} /R^{3}$, that are of the order $ \delta^{4}$, have been neglected. Hence the displacements in the $y$ direction are essentially decoupled from the displacements in the $x$ direction. As a consequence, two identical integrals over $u_{n,y}$ appear in the enumerator and in the denominator of the decay rate expression, [@Lang67-69] which will cancel each other. For this reason, we will neglect $u_{n,y}$ in the following. Renaming $ u_{n}= u_{n,x}$, we obtain Eq. (\[eff\_free\]) with $ \kappa = \varepsilon_l/s$. Decay rate {#rate} ---------- Well above the crossover temperature $ T_{0}$ that separates the thermally activated decay regime from the quantum tunneling regime, $ T \gg T_{0}$, the escape of the DOF from the pinning potential can be described by a Langevin equation $ \eta \stackrel{.}{\bf u} + \nabla {\cal E}({\bf u}) = {\bf f}(t),$ assuming that the motion is overdamped. Here $ \eta $ denotes the friction coefficient. If we consider the resistively shunted model for the DJTL, $ \eta $ is the inverse shunting resistance. For the vortex problem, $ \eta $ is given by the Bardeen-Stephen coefficient [@Bard65]. The white noise random force $ {\bf f}(t)$ represents a heat bath at temperature $T$. It has ensemble averages $ \langle f_{i}(t) \rangle = 0 $ and $ \langle f_{i}(t) f_{j}(t') \rangle= 2\eta k_{B} T \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t') $. In the limit of weak metastability, where the barrier is much larger than the thermal energy $ U_{a} \gg k_{B}T $, the corresponding Klein-Kramers equation can be reduced to a Smoluchowsky equation [@Kram40]. The escape rate $ \Gamma_{th}$ for the (quasi)stationary case was determined to be [@Lang67-69] $$\label{thermal_rate1} \Gamma_{th} = \frac{1}{\eta} \left( \frac{k_{B} T \|\mu_{0}^{s}\|}{2 \pi} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\int_{\cal S} d^{N-1} {\bf u'} ~{\rm e}^{ -{\cal E} ({\bf u'}) /k_{B}T } } {\int_{\cal V} d^{N} {\bf u} ~{\rm e}^{ -{\cal E}({\bf u} )/k_{B}T } },$$ where $ {\bf u'} \in {\cal S}$, $ {\bf u} \in {\cal V}$, $ {\cal S}$ is the hypersurface in the configuration space intersecting the saddle point(s) perpendicular to the unstable direction(s), $ {\cal V}$ is the configuration volume occupied by all metastable solutions and $ \mu_{0}^{s} $ is the curvature of the energy surface ${\cal E}({\bf u} ) $ along the unstable direction evaluated at the saddle point. Solving Eq. (\[thermal\_rate1\]) in the steepest-descent approximation, one can derive the Arrhenius law $$\label{thermal_rate} \Gamma_{th}= P(\delta)~ \exp \left( -\frac{U_{a}(\delta)}{k_{B}T} \right).$$ The activation energy $ U_{a} $ is obtained by evaluating the energy functional (\[eff\_free\]) at the saddle-point configuration, which will be done in Sec. \[sec\_sad\]. The computation of the prefactor $P$ is a more involving task. In this case, we have to analyze the spectrum of the curvature matrix $ \partial_{n} \partial_{m} {\cal E} $ at the minimum and at the saddle point, since $P$ describes the contributions to the rate that stem from the fluctuations around the extrema. At a characteristic value $ \delta = \delta_{}$ the saddle bifurcates indicating a crossover from a rigid regime to an elastic regime. In the crossover region, the steepest-descent approximation cannot be applied. However, even beyond the steepest-descent approximation, the form of Eq. (\[thermal\_rate\]) remains valid. The calculations of $P$ will be performed in Sec. \[sec\_pre\]. Saddle-point solutions and their activation energies {#sec_sad} ==================================================== The thermally activated escape from the local minimum $ {\bf u}_{min}=(0,\dots,0) $ of the potential proceeds mainly via the saddle-point solutions ${\bf u}_{s} $ of (\[eff\_free\]). These unstable stationary solutions satisfy $ \nabla_{u} {\cal E}( {\bf u}_{s})=0$, and their curvature matrix $ {\bf H}( {\bf u}_{s} )$ with elements $$\label{hesse} H_{nm}({\bf u}_{s}) = \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial u_{n} \partial u_{m}} {\cal E}({\bf u}_{s})$$ has at least one negative eigenvalue. Saddle-point bifurcation {#bifurcation} ------------------------ The saddle point $ {\bf u}_{rs} = (R \delta,\dots,R \delta)$, which we call the rigid saddle point (rs), can be readily identified. In Appendix A we calculate the eigenvalues of a curvature matrix for a uniform extremal solution. Using Eq. (\[eigenss\]) we find the eigenvalues for $ H({\bf u}_{rs}) $, $$\label{eigen_sad} \mu_{n}^{rs} = - \frac{6 U_{B} \delta}{R^{2}} + 4 \kappa\sin^{2} \left( \frac{n \pi}{2 N} \right).$$ The lowest eigenvalue $ \mu_{0}^{rs} =- 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} < 0$ indicates that there is at least one unstable direction. It is the only one, if $ \delta $ is smaller than $$\delta_{} = \frac{2 \kappa R^{2}}{3 U_{B}} \sin^{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2N} \right).$$ (8,7.) (0.5,0.5) However, when $ \delta \to \delta_{}$, the eigenvalue $ \mu_{1}^{rs} = 6 U_{B} (\delta_{}-\delta) /R^{2}$ vanishes. At $ \delta = \delta_{} $ the saddle splits indicating the existence of an [elastic]{} saddle-point configuration $ {\bf u}_{es}$. Below, we will show that for $ \delta > \delta_{} $ the energy ${ \cal E} ({\bf u}_{es})$ is smaller than $ { \cal E} ({\bf u}_{rs})= N {\tilde U}_{B} $. Hence the [elastic]{} saddle-point configuration $ {\bf u}_{es}$ instead of the [rigid]{} one is the most probable configuration that leads to decay. One identifies the energy of the most probable configuration with the activation energy $ U_{a}$. The saddle-point bifurcation can thus be interpreted as a crossover between two types of decay: the crossover from a [rigid]{} regime with an activation energy $ U_{a} (\delta \le \delta_{} ) = N {\tilde U}_{B} $ to an [elastic]{} regime with $ U_{a} (\delta > \delta_{} ) = { \cal E} ({\bf u}_{es})$. The corresponding decay diagram is shown in Fig. \[creep\_dia\]. Rigid and elastic saddles {#saddles} ------------------------- We now calculate the elastic saddle-point solutions. First, we discuss the appearance of the elastic saddle in the crossover regime for arbitrarily many DOF. The evolution of the elastic saddle point with increasing $ \delta $ is elucidated by analyzing the exactly solvable case of three DOF. Far from the crossover, the three-particle result is used to make an ansatz for the $N$-particle solutions, which can again be determined perturbatively. Near the crossover, we expand the elastic solution around the rigid one, $ {\bf u}_{es} = {\bf u}_{rs} +\Delta {\bf u} $. Then $ {\cal E} $ is most conveniently represented in the coordinate system of the principal axis of $ H({\bf u}_{rs})$, where $ {\cal E}$ is diagonal in the coordinates up to second order. The transformation is achieved by rewriting $ \Delta {\bf u} $ as a trigonometric polynomial, $$\label{trans} u_{n} = R \delta \left[ 1 + \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} q_{k} \cos \left( \frac{\pi k \left( n+ 1/2 \right)}{N} \right) \right].$$ Here the coordinates $ q_{k} $ are the dimensionless amplitudes of the Fourier modes with a wave number $k$ that measure the deviations from the rigid saddle-point solution $ u_{n}^{rs} = R \delta $. In this coordinate system, the energy functional reads $$\begin{aligned} {\cal E}( {\bf q}) & = & N {\tilde U}_{B} \left[ \ 1- 2 q_{0}^{3} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{k}}^{rs} q_{k}^{2} \right. \\ && - 3 q_{0} \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} q_{k}^{2} -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{N-1}q_{k}^{2} \left( q_{2k} - q_{2(N-k)} \right) \nonumber \\ && \left. - \sum_{m>k=1}^{N-1} q_{m} q_{k} \left( q_{m+k} +q_{m-k} - q_{2N-m-k}\right) \right] , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we define $ q_{k} \equiv 0 $ for $ k<0 $ or $ k \ge N$, and $ {\bf q}=(q_{0},\dots, q_{N-1})$. In the new coordinate system, the dimensionless eigenvalues $ {\tilde \mu_{k}} $ of the curvature matrix are given by $ {\tilde \mu_{0}} = (R^{2}/U_{B} \delta) \mu_{0}$ and $ {\tilde \mu_{k}} = (R^{2}/2 U_{B}\delta) \mu_{k}$ for $ k \not= 0$. The different prefactors are due to transformation (\[trans\]). At the rigid saddle one finds $${\tilde \mu_{k}}^{rs} = \frac{2 \kappa R^{2}}{U_{B} \delta} \sin^{2}\left( \frac{\pi k}{2N}\right) - 3 - 3\delta_{0,k},$$ where $\delta_{0,k}$ is the Kronecker delta function. For $ \delta < \delta_{} $, where the saddle-point solution is the rigid one with $ u_{n} = R \delta$, all the values $ q_{n} =0$. The second order expansion of $ {\cal E}$ around the rigid saddle point reads $${\cal E}( {\bf q}) = N {\tilde U}_{B} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{k}}^{rs} q_{k}^{2} \right).$$ At the crossover, $ {\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs}$ vanishes and the quadratic approximation of $ {\cal E} $ becomes independent of $ q_{1}$. Since large fluctuations in $ q_{1}$ would not contribute to the free energy, this approximation becomes insufficient within the crossover regime where $ \ {\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs} \ll 1 $. Thus, in order to describe the free energy contributions of fluctuations in $ q_{1} $ more properly, higher-order terms in $ q_{1}$ that arise due to the coupling to the other fluctuation coordinates have to be taken into account. One estimates that $ \Delta^{2} {\cal E} \sim q_{n \not = 1} q_{m \not = 1} \sim q_{n \not = 1} q_{1}^{2} $. In comparison, the third-order terms $ q_{k} q_{m} q_{n}$ with $ m,n \not= 1$ are much smaller and hence can be neglected. Since $ q_{1}^{2} $ is only coupled to $ q_{0}$ and $ q_{2}$, one finds $$\label{beyond1} {\cal E}( {\bf q}) = N {\tilde U}_{B} \left[1+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1}{\tilde \mu}_{k}^{rs} q_{k}^{2} - 3 q_{1}^{2} \left(q_{0} + \frac{q_{2}}{2} \right) \right].$$ In the following, we define the small parameter $ \epsilon = (1- \delta_{}/\delta)= -{\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs}/3$, which measures the distance from the crossover. It is positive in the elastic regime and negative in the rigid one. Within the crossover regime, $ -1 \ll \epsilon \ll 1 $. By solving $ \nabla {\cal E} = 0$, one finds the extrema. In addition to the extrema already found in the rigid regime, an elastic saddle-point solution $ {\bf q}_{es}$ with a [single]{} kink emerges slightly below the crossover, for $ \delta > \delta_{}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{approx_ela} q_{0}^{es} & = & \frac{9 \epsilon }{2D {\tilde \mu_{0}}^{rs}}, \nonumber \\ q_{1}^{es} & = & \left( \frac{3 \epsilon}{2D} \right)^{1/2}, \\ q_{2}^{es} & = & \frac{9 \epsilon}{4D {\tilde \mu_{2}}^{rs}}, \nonumber \\ q_{k}^{es} & = & 0, ~k>2 \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde \mu_{0}}^{rs},~ {\tilde \mu_{2}}^{rs}$, and $$\label{D} D = - 18/(2 {\tilde \mu_{0}^{rs}}) - 9/(4 {\tilde \mu_{2}^{rs}}) = 3/2 - 9/(4 {\tilde \mu_{2}^{rs}})$$ are evaluated at the crossover. This [elastic]{} solution has a lower activation energy $ U_{a}^{es} \approx N U_{B} \delta^{3} [1- C \epsilon^{2}(\delta)]$ than the stiff solution. Here $ C=(54-81/{\tilde \mu_{2}}^{rs})/32D^{2} $ is a positive constant of the order of unity, since ${\tilde \mu_{2} }^{rs}\ge 6 $ for $ N \ge 3$. Since both $ U_{a}(\delta ) $ and its derivative $ U_{a}'(\delta) $ are continuous, but $ U_{a}''(\delta) $ is discontinuous at $ \delta = \delta_{}$, the crossover from rigid to elastic decay is of second order. In order to illustrate that in our discrete model, close to the crossover, [boundary]{} nucleation is the dominant process leading to decay in the elastic regime, we will study a chain consisting of three particles, where the saddle-point solutions can be determined exactly. The parameter $\epsilon $ can now take any value in the interval $ -\infty < \epsilon \ll 1- \delta_{}$. After substituting $ {\tilde \mu_{0}}^{rs} = -6, {\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs} = -3 \epsilon $ and $ {\tilde \mu_{2}}^{rs} = 6 - 9 \epsilon $, the free-energy function reads $$\begin{aligned} {\cal E}(q_{0},q_{1},q_{2}) & = & 3 {\tilde U}_{B} \left[ \left.\frac{}{} 1- 3 q_{0}^{2} - 2 q_{0}^{3} \right. \right. \nonumber \\ && - \frac{3 \epsilon}{2} q_{1}^{2} + \left(3 - \frac{9 \epsilon}{2} \right) q_{2}^{2} \\ && \left. -3 q_{0} \left(q_{1}^{2} + q_{2}^{2} \right) - \frac{q_{2}}{2} \left( 3 q_{1}^{2} - q_{2}^{2} \right) \right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From the extremal condition $ \nabla {\cal E} = 0 $ we calculate the extrema and find that slightly below the crossover in the elastic regime, only ${\bf q}_{es} = (q_{0}^{es},q_{1}^{es},q_{2}^{es})$, with $$\begin{aligned} q_{0}^{es}& = &-\frac{2 \epsilon }{3}, \\ q_{1}^{es} &=& (\pm) \left( \frac{4 \epsilon }{3} - \epsilon^{2} \right)^{1/2}, \\ q_{2}^{es} & = & \frac{\epsilon}{3}, \end{aligned}$$ is a possible elastic saddle-point solution. Energetically, the sign in front of $q_{1}^{es} $ does not have any relevance since $ q_{1} $ appears only quadratically in $ {\cal E}$. It arises due to the existence of two degenerate solutions that can mapped into each other by changing the sign of $ q_{1}$, which is equivalent to a mirror symmetry transformation. (8,6.2) (0.5,0.5) Inserting the solutions for the elastic saddle $ {\bf q}_{es} $ into $ {\cal E} $, we can represent the free energy as a function of $ \epsilon $; $${\cal E}({\bf q}_{es}) = {\tilde U}_{B} (3-3\epsilon^{2}+\epsilon^{3}).$$ At $ \epsilon=0$ one finds $ {\cal E}({\bf q}_{es}) = {\cal E}({\bf q}_{rs}) $. For $ \epsilon > 0$, the value of $ {\cal E}({\bf q}_{es}) $ is smaller than that of $ {\cal E}({\bf q}_{rs})$. Thus there is a smooth crossover from the rigid $ {\bf q}_{rs}$to the elastic configuration $ {\bf q}_{es}$, which becomes the most probable one. To summarize, the activation energy of a three particle chain is given by $$\begin{aligned} U_{a}^{rs} & = & 3 U_{B} \delta^{3}, \\ U_{a}^{es} & = & U_{B} \left( \delta^{3} + 3 \delta_{}^{2} \delta - \delta_{}^{3} \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ in the rigid and elastic regimes, respectively. In order to visualize the most probable configuration leading to decay, we represent the saddle-point solution in the original coordinates $ u_{0}, u_{1} $ and $ u_{2}$ as a function of the parameter $ \delta$. We find that for $ \delta > \delta_{} $ $$\begin{aligned} u_{0}^{es} &=& \frac{R}{2} \left[ \delta + \delta_{} - \left( \delta^{2} + 2 \delta \delta_{} - 3 \delta_{}^{2} \right)^{1/2} \right],\\ u_{1}^{es} &=& R \delta_{}, \\ u_{2}^{es} &=& \frac{R}{2} \left[ \delta + \delta_{} + \left( \delta^{2} + 2 \delta \delta_{} - 3 \delta_{}^{2} \right)^{1/2} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Note that there exists a second solution with the same energy, which can be found by simply exchanging the indices $ 0$ and $2$. (8,4) =7.5cm (0.5,0.5) The results are displayed in Fig. \[ui\_paper\] and illustrated in Fig. \[SPS\_paper\]. By increasing the barrier parameter $ \delta $ above $ \delta_{}$, the symmetry along the defect is broken as the elastic saddle-point solution develops. When $ \delta $ is raised further, particle $0 $ approaches the potential minimum at $ u_{min}=0$. Particle $ 1 $ tries to adjust between its neighbors. It is dragged toward the minimum by particle $ 0 $, but, due to the coupling to particle $ 2$, there will be a finite distance between the particles $ 1 $ and $ 0 $. On the other hand, particle $ 2 $ has swapped to the other side of the maximum. Far in the elastic regime, $\delta / \delta_{}\gg N^{2} $, we can generalize this picture to arbitrary $ N$. Making the ansatz $ u_{N-1} \gg u_{N-2} \gg u_{N-3} \sim 0$ we find the approximate solutions of $ \nabla {\cal E} = 0$, $$\begin{aligned} &&u_{N-1}^{es} \approx R \delta + \kappa R^{3}/6U_{B}, \label{uNas1} \\ &&u_{N-2}^{es} \approx \kappa R^{3}/6U_{B},\label{uNas2}\\ &&u_{n \le N-3}^{es} \approx 0\label{uNas3},\end{aligned}$$ and the equivalent saddle $ u_{n} \to u_{N-1-n}$, with an activation energy $$\label{U_bound} U_{a} = U_{B} \delta^{3} \left(1+ \frac{\kappa R^{2} }{2U_{B} \delta} \right).$$ The activation energy $ U_{a} $ is displayed in Fig. \[activation\] for $ N=2,3,$ and $4$. (8,5.5) =7.5cm (0.5,0.5) Note that in this limit the elasticity term $ \kappa R^{2} \ll 2U_{B} \delta $ and the activation energy resembles that of a single particle $ U_{a} \sim U_{B} \delta^{3}$ with a renormalized barrier parameter. This means that for large $ \delta $ the system cannot gain much energy by nucleating at the boundary and bulk excitations become important. The bulk saddles are particle like excitations at position $m$ with a double kink, $$\begin{aligned} &&u_{m}^{bs} \approx R \delta + \kappa R^{3}/3U_{B}, \label{uNbs1} \\ &&u_{m \pm 1}^{bs} \approx \kappa R^{3}/6U_{B},\label{uNbs2} \\ &&u_{n}^{bs} \approx 0,\label{uNbs3} \end{aligned}$$ where $ \|m-n\| >1$ . They have an activation energy $$\label{U_bulk} U_{a} \approx U_{B} \delta^{3} \left( 1 + \frac{\kappa R^{2} }{U_{B} \delta} \right),$$ which is larger than the activation energy of the elastic boundary saddles. Though energetically not preferable, for $ N \gg 1$ the decay can occur via bulk saddle-point solutions if the barrier parameter exceeds a crossover value $ \delta > \delta_{bs}$. The crossover to this new regime will be discussed in more detail in Sec. \[sec\_pre\]. Prefactor {#sec_pre} ========= Having determined the activation energies $ U_{a}(\delta) $ for the different regimes, the remaining task is to calculate the prefactor $ P(\delta) $ in Eq. (\[thermal\_rate\]). Rewritten in terms of $ {\bf q} = (q_{0},\dots,q_{N-1})$, Eq. (\[thermal\_rate1\]) reads $$\label{thermal_rate2} \Gamma_{th} = \sqrt{ \frac{U_{B} k_{B}T \|\tilde \mu_{0}^{s}\|} {2 \pi N \eta^{2} R^{4} \delta} } \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d^{N-1} {\bf q^{'}} ~{\rm e}^{ -{\cal E}( {\bf q^{'}}) /k_{B}T } } {\int_{-\infty}^{0} d q_{0} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d^{N-1} {\bf q^{''}} ~{\rm e}^{ -{\cal E}( {\bf q}) /k_{B}T } }.$$ Here $ {\bf q^{'}} = (q_{0}^{s},q_{1},\dots,q_{N-1}) $ is running along $ {\cal S}$ and $ {\bf q} = (q_{0},{\bf q^{''}})$ is probing $ {\cal V}$. In the denominator, $ q_{0} <0$ ensures that the integration is only performed over stable configurations. The additional prefactor arises when transforming the integrals to the $q$ system and taking into account that $ \mu_{0}^{s} = U_{B} \delta {\tilde \mu_{0}^{s}}/R^{2}$. Far from the crossover: Gaussian approximation ---------------------------------------------- In the Gaussian approximation, the integrals in the numerator and in the denominator in Eq. (\[thermal\_rate2\]) are evaluated by taking into account only the quadratic fluctuations around the saddle point $ {\bf q}_{s}$, $${\cal E}( {\bf q}) \approx {\cal E}( {\bf q}_{s} ) + \frac{N {\tilde U}_{B}}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{k}}^{s} (q_{k}-q_{k}^{s})^{2},$$ and the local minimum $ {\bf q}_{min}$, $${\cal E}( {\bf q} ) \approx {\cal E}( {\bf q}_{min} ) + \frac{N {\tilde U}_{B}}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{k}}^{min} (q_{k}-q_{k}^{min})^{2},$$ respectively. Thus one obtains a prefactor $$\begin{aligned} \label{Gaussian_P} P &=& \sum_{s} \frac{U_{B} \delta \| {\tilde \mu_{0}}^{s} \| }{2 \pi \eta R^{2}} \left( \prod_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{ {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{min} } { \|{\tilde \mu_{n}}^{s}\|} \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\ &=& \sum_{s}\frac{\| \mu_{0}^{s} \| }{2 \pi \eta} \left[ \frac{ \det H({\bf u}_{min}) } { \|\det H({\bf u}_{s}) \| } \right]^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$ where the sum over the saddle index $s$ takes into account the contributions of equivalent saddles. Here $ ({\tilde \mu_{n}^{min}}) \mu_{n}^{min} $ and $ ({\tilde \mu_{n}^{s}}) \mu_{n}^{s} $ are the (dimensionless) eigenvalues of the curvature matrices $ H({\bf u}_{min})$ and $ H({\bf u}_{s})$ evaluated at the local minimum $({\bf q}_{min}) {\bf u}_{min} $ and the saddles $ ({\bf q}_{s}) {\bf u}_{s}$, respectively. In contrast to a system with translational invariance, in the finite systems considered here there is no Goldstone mode of the critical nucleus. Hence, well above and below the crossover, where $ \mu_{1}^{s} \not= 0 $, the evaluation of $ P $ is not corrupted by divergences. In the rigid regime, we take only the energetically lowest-lying saddle into account, and the sum over $s$ reduces to a single contribution. With the determinants $\det H({\bf u}_{min}) $ and $ \det H({\bf u}_{rs}) $ given in Eqs. (\[Dmin\_N\]) and (\[Drs\_N\]) in Appendix \[appendix\_a\], we find $$\label{rate_rigid} P(\delta < \delta_{}) = \frac{ 3 U_{B} \delta }{ \pi \eta R^{2}} \left[ \frac{\sinh ( N \Omega ) \tanh(\Omega/2)} { \sin (N {\tilde \Omega} ) \tan( {\tilde \Omega}/2) } \right]^{1/2},$$ where $ \Omega = 2~{\rm arcsinh}(\omega /2)$ and $ {\tilde \Omega} = 2 \arcsin (\tilde \omega /2)$ with $ \omega = {\tilde \omega} =\sqrt{6 U_{B} \delta / \kappa R^{2}} $. Below the crossover, two equivalent low-energy saddle-point solutions arise, as was discussed in Sec. \[sec\_sad\]. The sum over both saddles gives rise to the factor $2$ in $$\label{rate_elastic} P(\delta > \delta_{}) = 2 \frac{\| \mu_{0}^{es} \| }{2 \pi \eta} \left[ \frac{ \det H({\bf u}_{min}) } { \|\det H({\bf u}_{es}) \| } \right]^{1/2}.$$ In Eqs. (\[Del\_N\]) and (\[muel\]) we have estimated the determinant $ \det H({\bf u}_{es})$ and the eigenvalue $ \mu_{0}^{es}$, respectively, in the limit $ \delta \gg \delta_{}$. We obtain $$\label{pre_elastic} P(\delta \gg \delta_{}) \approx \frac{ 6 U_{B} \delta }{ \pi \eta R^{2}} \left[1 + {\cal O}(\delta_{}/\delta) \right].$$ As already mentioned in Sec. III, for $ N \gg 1 $ a crossover to a regime can occur, where the decay dominantly occurs via bulk excitations. The number of DOF $ N_{bs}$, where the crossover from boundary to bulk nucleation occurs, is found by comparing the corresponding rates according to Eq. (\[thermal\_rate\]). In the bulk regime, one has approximately $ N $ equivalent saddles and thus with Eqs. (\[DNbs\]) and (\[mubs\]) the prefactor is given by $$\label{pre_bulk} P \approx N \frac{ 3 U_{B} \delta }{ \pi \eta R^{2}} \left[1 + {\cal O}(\delta_{}/\delta) \right].$$ Comparing the rates for boundary and bulk nucleation with $ U_{a}$ given by Eqs. (\[U\_bound\]) and (\[U\_bulk\]), and $ P $ given by Eqs. (\[pre\_elastic\]) and (\[pre\_bulk\]), respectively, we obtain $$\delta_{bs} \approx \left[ \frac{2 k_{B}T \ln(N/2)}{\kappa R^{2}} \right]^{1/2}.$$ Note, that within our approximations the choice of the system specific parameters $ N,R,\kappa $ and the temperature $ T$ is restricted to values that meet the constraint $ \delta_{bs} \ll 1$. Near the saddle-point bifurcation: Beyond steepest descent ---------------------------------------------------------- (8,5) =7.5cm (0.0,0.5) In the crossover regime, where $ \delta \to \delta_{}$ and hence $ \|\epsilon\| \to 0$, the prefactor calculated in the Gaussian approximation diverges as $ P \sim 1/\sqrt{\epsilon}$ due to the vanishing eigenvalue $ {\tilde \mu_{1}} =-3 \epsilon$. The divergence can be regularized by taking into account the third order terms in $ q_{1}$ in the approximation of $ {\cal E}({\bf q}')$ around the saddle point in Eq. (\[thermal\_rate2\]). Defining the system-dependent scaling variables $$P_{s} \approx \frac{\left[54 \tanh ( \Omega /2 )~ \sinh(N \Omega) \right]^{1/2} U_{B}^{7/4} \delta_{}^{9/4} } {\pi^{3/2} \eta R^{3} (N k_{B}TD)^{1/4} \tan(\pi/2N)}$$ and $$\epsilon_{s} = \left( \frac{16 k_{B}T D}{9 N \delta_{}^{3} U_{B} } \right)^{1/2},$$ we show in Appendix \[appendix\_pre\] that $$\label{crossfun} P(\epsilon) = P_{s} F(\epsilon/\epsilon_{s}),$$ where the function $ F $ is found to be $$F(y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \pi \sqrt{ \frac{\|y\|}{2}} \exp(y^{2}) \left[ I_{-1/4}(y^{2}) - I_{1/4}(y^{2}) \right], & \delta < \delta_{}, \\ \\ 8^{-1/4}\Gamma(1/4), & \delta = \delta_{}, \\ \\ \pi \sqrt{ \frac{\|y\|}{2}} \exp(y^{2}) \left[ I_{-\frac{1}{4}}(y^{2}) + I_{\frac{1}{4}}(y^{2}) \right], & \delta > \delta_{}. \end{array} \right.$$ For large $ \|\epsilon/\epsilon_{s}\|$ the prefactor given in Eq. (\[crossfun\]) matches with the Gaussian result. However, in the crossover regime, where $ \|\epsilon/\epsilon_{s}\| < 1 $, the Gaussian prefactor deviates strongly from Eq. (\[crossfun\]), as expected, since here the Gaussian approximation becomes invalid. Since we considered a metastable situation, where $ k_{B}T \ll U_{B} \delta^{3} $, we have $ \epsilon_{s} \ll 1 $. Hence, the crossover regime is extremely narrow, $ \|\delta-\delta_{}\| \ll \delta_{}$. The function $ F=P/P_{s}$, which is shown in Fig. \[scaling\], reflects two interesting aspects. First, one realizes that the behavior of the rate is smooth at the crossover. The divergences that occur in the Gaussian approximation are regularized by taking into account higher orders of the fluctuation coordinates. Second, $F$ can be regarded as a scaling function, where the constants $ \epsilon_{s}$ and $P_{s}$ contain the system-specific parameters. The scaling relation is universal in the sense that it does not depend on the details of the considered system. Of course, a constraint is that the crossover must be of second order to guarantee the validity of the perturbative treatment that we applied. However, we have excluded systems with a single-particle potential that enforce a first-order transition from the beginning. Note, that Eq. (\[crossfun\]) was found by taking into account only the cubic terms of the modes $ q_{0},~ q_{1}$, and $q_{2}$. These long-wavelength excitations determine the decay process at the crossover, where the discreteness of the system becomes irrelevant. Hence the result can be applied to continuous systems as well. In fact, a similar crossover function is found at the second-order transition from thermal to quantum decay of a single particle in a metastable state [@Grab87]. Formally, this theory can also be used to describe a rigid-to-elastic crossover in the thermal decay of an elastic line escaping from a homogeneous defect, but with [periodic]{} instead of [open]{} boundary conditions, which we considered here. Note that the scaling function found in Ref. 19 is different from ours. One can indeed show, that the functional form of the scaling function is influenced by the symmetry of the system. Discussions and Conclusions =========================== We studied the thermal decay of a chain of elastically coupled particles from a metastable state. The metastability arises from each of the particles being trapped in a local minimum of their single-particle potential. The energy barrier that separates the local minimum from energetically lower-lying ones can be tuned by a barrier parameter $ \delta $. At $ \delta = 0 $ the energy barrier vanishes and the metastability ceases to exist. With increasing $ \delta$, we find three regimes. For small $ \delta $, the decay occurs mainly via a rigid configuration, where all the DOF leave the trap at once. At $ \delta_{} = 2 \kappa R^{2} \sin^{2} (\pi/2N) / 3 U_{B}\ $ a saddle-point bifurcation occurs, which marks a crossover from rigid to elastic motion. For $\delta > \delta_{} $ the decay occurs mainly via boundary nucleation. However, at even higher values $ 1 \gg \delta > \delta_{bs} > \delta_{} $ a crossover to bulk nucleation can take place. Our main goal was to evaluate the thermal decay rate $ \Gamma_{th} = P \exp(-U_{a}/k_{B}T)$ in the three regimes. This involves the calculation of the prefactor $ P$ and the activation energy $ U_{a}$. The latter is given by the energy $ {\cal E}$ of the most probable configuration leading to decay, namely, the lowest-lying saddle-point solution. We solved the problem for $ N=3$ particles exactly. Furthermore, we treated the case of an arbitrary number $N$ of DOF perturbatively in the crossover regime and deep in the elastic regime. We have shown how the system uses its elasticity to lower the activation energy in the elastic regime. Whereas in the rigid regime the activation barrier is $ U_{a}^{rs} = N U_{B} \delta^{3}$, in the elastic regime near the crossover $ U_{a}^{es}\approx U_{a}^{rs}(1-C \epsilon^{2})$, where $ \epsilon = 1 - \delta_{}/ \delta$ and $ C \sim 1$ is a positive constant that depends on the details of the potential. Increasing $\delta$ in the elastic regime, the particles first escape via nucleation at the boundaries with an activation energy $ U_{a}^{es} \sim U_{B} \delta^{3} +\kappa R^{2} \delta^{2}/2$, where the first term arises from the potential energy of the activated particle and the second term is the elastic energy of the kink that occurs in the boundary saddle. Due to the imposed free (von Neumann) boundary conditions, this kind of activation is energetically preferred compared to bulk nucleation with an activation energy $ U_{a}^{bs} \sim U_{B} \delta^{3} +\kappa R^{2} \delta^{2}$. Since the bulk saddle consists of two kinks, twice the elastic energy is needed to activate a bulk nucleation process. However, in large systems, with $ N \gg 1$, bulk nucleation becomes more probable for $ 1\gg \delta > \delta_{bs} = \sqrt{ 2 k_{B}T \ln(N/2)/ \kappa R^{2} } $. Above $ \delta_{bs}$ the many possibilities to excite a particle somewhere in the bulk, which grow as $ N$ in the prefactor $P$, outnumber the two possibilities of boundary nucleation. At large $ \delta$, the elastic interaction between the particles becomes less and less important and the activation energy approaches the energy $ U_{B} \delta^{3}$ which is needed to excite a single particle over the barrier independently of the others. To discuss the relevant energy scales, we now fix all variables except $N$. The crossover occurs when the number of DOF is increased above $ N_{bs} = 2 \exp(\kappa R^{2} \delta^{2}/2k_{B}T)$. Hence, when the elastic coupling is weak and the temperature is high, bulk nucleation already occurs at lower values of $N_{bs}$. The crossover is thus determined by the ratio of elastic energy and thermal energy. Second, we determined the prefactor $P$. Far from the rigid-to-elastic crossover, the calculation of the prefactor $ P$ was done in Gaussian approximation both in the rigid and elastic regimes. Near the crossover, the Gaussian approximation breaks down due to a diverging integral, which is caused by a vanishing eigenvalue of the curvature matrix. By taking into account higher orders in the fluctuation coordinates, we remove the divergence and obtain a smooth behavior of the rate at the crossover. The prefactor of the rate exhibits a scaling property $ P/P_{s} = F(\epsilon/\epsilon_{s})$. The function $F$ is universal, but depends on the symmetries of the model. The scaling parameters $ P_{s}$ and $ \epsilon_{s}$ are system-specific constants. At the saddle-point bifurcation $ U_{a}(\delta),$ $ U_{a}'(\delta),$ $ P(\delta),$ $ P'(\delta), $ and $ P''(\delta) $ are continuous, whereas $U_{a}''(\delta) $ is discontinuous. Hence $ \Gamma_{th}(\delta)$ and $ \Gamma_{th}'(\delta)$ are continuous, but $ \Gamma_{th}''(\delta)$ is discontinuous. Interpreting $ U_{a}$ as a thermodynamic potential, one easily sees the analogy between the crossover described here and a second-order phase transition. This analogy becomes even clearer when the integral in the enumerator in Eq. (\[thermal\_rate1\]) is interpreted as the reduced partition sum over the DOF transverse to the unstable direction. Note that close to the crossover the discrete structure of the model becomes unimportant, this kind of crossover can also be also found in continuous systems [@Chri95; @Sima90; @Cast96]. The question arises whether first-order-like transitions could occur also in the thermal decay of elastic chain systems. As in the crossover from thermal to quantum decay [@Lark83; @Chud92] the type of the crossover depends crucially on the shape of the single-particle potential $ U(u_{n})$. For a cubic parabola as is discussed in this work, the crossover is of second order. However, one could imagine other physical systems where the single-particle potential has a form that causes a first order transition. The discrete model that we have used here is quite general. In the following we will discuss the application of the theory to two physical situations, the dynamics of the phases in DJTL’s and the thermal creep of pancake vortices in layered superconductors with columnar defects. DJTL are parallelly coupled one dimensional Josephson-junction arrays, and the $N$ DOF in this case are the phase differences across each of the $N$ Josephson junctions. In current driven DJTL, metastable states occur when the DOF are trapped in a local minimum of the tilted washboard potential common to these systems. For $N = 2$, the problem reduces to the decay of the phases in a current biased dc SQUID [@Ivle87; @Lefr92; @Mora94]. Both the rigid decay [@Han89], where the two phases behave as a single one, and the elastic case [@Lefr92], where the two phases decay one after another, were experimentally observed. In the continuous limit, $N \to \infty $, the system becomes identical to a long JJ. The rigid-to-elastic crossover occurs [@Sima90; @Cast96] when the junction length $ L_{J} $ becomes of the order of the Josephson length $ L_{J} \sim \pi \lambda_{J}$. Here we analyzed a model for a DJTL, that provides a system to study the intermediate case of decay from a metastable state with a finite number of DOF. An experimental investigation of the rigid-to-elastic crossover requires that the current $I$ can be driven through the crossover current $I_{} = N I_{c} (1-\delta_{}^{2}) $. An orientation for the choice of the system parameters can be obtained by comparison with the dc-SQUID [@Lefr92; @Han89], noting that $I_{} - N I_{c} \propto h^{2}c^{2}/ ( e^{2 }L^{2} I_{c}^{2} N^{4})$. A systematic experimental study of the rigid-to-elastic crossover as a function of the system parameters $ L,~ I_{c}, $ and $ N $ is still lacking and would be highly desirable. A remaining question was, if additional crossovers occur in systems with a large number of DOF. In addition to the rigid-to-elastic crossover due to a saddle-point bifurcation of the potential energy, we find that in systems with large $N$ a second crossover from boundary to bulk nucleation can take place. DJTL’s with a large number of DOF offer the possibility to observe such a crossover by varying system-specific parameters or the temperature. Let us now discuss our theory in the context of a single stack of pancake vortices trapped in a columnar defect in a layered superconductor. In the presence of a current density $j$ that flows within the layers, the vortices are driven by the resulting Lorentz force. Once thermally activated from the defect, the pancake stack starts to move through the sample until it is trapped by another defect. The resulting motion is called thermal vortex creep. A typical example for a layered system is a high-temperature superconductor (HTSC). A HTSC like YBCO is characterized by an anisotropy $ \gamma \sim 5$, and the ratio of the penetration depth to the coherence length is $ \lambda_{ab}/\xi_{ab} \sim 100$. The distance between the layers and their thickness are $s \sim t \sim \xi_{ab}$, and the defect radius is $ R \sim 2 \xi_{ab}$. In order to observe the transition from rigid to elastic decay experimentally, the ratio $ (j_{c} -j_{})/j_{c}>0$ must be sufficiently large. However, substituting the defect energy $ U_{B} \sim t \varepsilon_{0} \ln(R/\xi_{ab})$ and the elastic energy $ \varepsilon_{l} R^{2}/s $, with $ \varepsilon_{l} = (\varepsilon_{0}/\gamma^{2}) \ln(\lambda_{ab} / \xi_{ab})$, into $(j_{c} -j_{})/j_{c} = \delta_{}^{2}$, one finds that even in systems with low anisotropy and a small number of layers $ (j_{c} -j_{})/j_{c} < 10^{-2}$, indicating that the phenomenon could hardly be observed experimentally in high-$T_c$ superconductors since $ j_{}$ is very close to $ j_{c}$. Thus, for large currents $j_{c} -j \ll j_{c} $ as considered here, the vortex system turns out to be mainly in the elastic regime where the layered structure of the material is important. Then, the activation barrier $ U_{a} $ is of the order of the single-particle barrier $ U_{B}(1-j/j_{c})^{3/2}$, which can be interpreted as a vortex creep induced by the escape of individual pancakes from the columnar defect [@Bran92a; @Nels92]. This “decoupling” regime can be also entered from the low-current half-loop regime $j \ll j_{c}$, when the width of the bulk critical nucleus becomes of the order of the layer separation [@Kosh96]. We find that at low temperatures $T$ the thermal creep is induced by boundary (surface) nucleation. It would be interesting to investigate experimentally if the crossover from bulk to surface nucleation might be observed in thin layered samples. In sum, we calculated analytically the creep rate for coupled particles trapped in a metastable state and found that an interesting behavior arises from the interplay between elasticity, pinning, discreteness and finite-size effects. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We indebted to H. Schmidt, J. Kötzler, G. Blatter, O. S. Wagner, A. V. Ustinov and A. Wallraff for fruitful discussions. Financial support from the DFG-Projekt No. Mo815/1-1 and the Graduiertenkolleg “Physik nanostrukturierter Festkörper,” University of Hamburg, is gratefully acknowledged. Determinant and eigenvalues of the curvature matrix {#appendix_a} =================================================== Recurrence relation for the Hessian matrix ------------------------------------------ As was shown in Sec. \[sec\_pre\], the prefactor $ P $ of the thermal decay rate is a function of the determinant and the eigenvalues of the curvature matrix evaluated at the relative minimum and the saddle points, respectively, see Eq. (\[Gaussian\_P\]). The curvature or Hessian matrix ${\bf H}_{N} $ with matrix elements $ H_{nm}({\bf u}_{0}) = \partial_{n}\partial_{m} {\cal E}({\bf u}_{0}) $ determines the nature of $ {\cal E} $ at the extremum $ {\bf u}_{0} $. If all eigenvalues of ${\bf H}_{N}({\bf u}_{0}) $ are negative (positive), $ {\bf u}_{0} $ is a relative maximum (minimum). If some of the eigenvalues are positive and some are negative, then $ {\bf u}_{0} $ is a saddle point. For ${\cal E}({\bf u}_{0})$ with $N \ge 3$, the Hessian matrix reads $${\bf H}_{N}({\bf u}) =\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} \partial_{0}^{2} {\cal E}({\bf u})& -\kappa & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -\alpha \kappa\\ -\kappa & \ddots& \ddots & & & 0 \\ 0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & & \vdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & & & \ddots & \ddots & -\kappa \\ -\alpha \kappa & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -\kappa & \partial_{N-1}^{2} {\cal E}({\bf u}) \end{array} \right).$$ In the case of open boundary conditions $ \alpha=0$, the diagonal elements are given by $$\partial_{n}^{2} {\cal E}({\bf u}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \kappa + U'' (u_{n}), & n=0,N-1 \\ 2 \kappa + U'' (u_{n}), & 0 < n < N-1. \end{array} \right.$$ In the discussion that follows, we introduce $$\label{D_N} D_{N} =\det_{N}\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 1+ x_{0} & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ -1 & 2+ x_{1} & -1 & \cdots & \vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 2 + x_{N-2} & -1 \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & 1+ x_{N-1} \end{array} \right),$$ which is used to calculate both the determinant and the characteristic polynomial of ${\bf H}_{N}$. For example, in order to calculate the determinant of the normalized Hessian ${\bf H}_{N}/\kappa$ for $N>4$, one sets $ x_n = U''(u_{n}) / \kappa$. Below, we will derive a recurrence relation, which is used to determine $ D_{N}$ in some special cases. By shifting the last column to the first and then lifting the bottom row to the top, one can rewrite the determinant as $$D_{N} =\det_{N}\left( \begin{array}{ccccccc} 1+ x_{N-1} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 1+x_{0} & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & & & & \\ \vdots & 0 & & & & \\ 0 & \vdots & & A_{N-2}& & \\ -1 & 0 & & & & \end{array} \right),$$ where the $ (N-2) \times (N-2)$ matrix $A_{N-2}$ is given by $$A_{N-2} = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 2+ x_{1} & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ -1 & 2+ x_{2} & -1 & \dots & \vdots \\ 0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\ \vdots & \ddots & -1 & 2+ x_{N-3} & -1 \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & 2+x_{N-2} \end{array} \right).$$ In the following, we will consider the case where $ x_{1} = \dots = x_{N-2} =x$. Note that $ x_{0}$ and $ x_{N-1}$ can be arbitrary. Expanding $ D_{N}$, we find with $G_{n}=\det A_{n}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{DN1} D_{N} & = & (1+x_{N-1}) \left[ (1+x_{0}) G_{N-2} - G_{N-3} \right] \nonumber \\ &&- (1+x_{0}) G_{N-3} + G_{N-4} .\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the determinant $G_{n} $ according to the last row of $ A_{n}$, one finds the recursive relation [@Gelf60] $ G_{n} = (2+x_{n}) G_{n-1} - G_{n-2}$ that can be rewritten as a difference equation $$\label{difference} ( G_{n} - G_{n-1} ) - ( G_{n-1} - G_{n-2} ) -x_{n} G_{n-1} = 0.$$ The initial conditions are given by the determinants $ G_{1} $ and $ G_{2} $, $$\begin{aligned} G_{1} & = & 2+x, \nonumber \\ \label{init} G_{2} & = & (2+ x)^{2}-1.\end{aligned}$$ For $ 2 \le N \le 4$, we can use the recurrence relations for $ G_{n}$, if we define $ G_{0} =1$, $ G_{-1} =0$, and $ G_{-2} =-1$. Uniform case ------------ The solution of these difference equations is possible for special cases. We now analyze the uniform case where $ x= x_{0} = \dots = x_{N-1}$. Then Eq. (\[DN1\]) simplifies to $$\label{DNhomo} D_{N} = (1+x)^{2} G_{N-2} - 2(1+x) G_{N-3} + G_{N-4}.$$ ### Determinant at the relative minimum, $ x \ge 0$ We first discuss the case of the local minimum $ {\bf u} ={\bf u}_{min} $, where $x= \omega^{2} >0 $. Imposing the initial conditions given by Eq. (\[init\]), one obtains a solution [@Gelf60] of Eq. (\[difference\]), $$\label{Gmin} G^{min}_{N-1} = \frac{\sinh(N \Omega)}{\sinh \Omega},$$ where $$\sinh \frac{\Omega}{2} = \frac{\omega}{2}.$$ Using Eqs. (\[DNhomo\]) and (\[Gmin\]), we obtain $$\label{Dmin_N} D^{min}_{N} = \omega^{2} G_{N-1}^{min} = 2 \tanh \left(\frac{ \Omega }{2} \right)~ \sinh (N \Omega) .$$ ### Determinant at the rigid saddle, $x<0$ In the same way as for the local minimum, one obtains $ D_{N} $ at the rigid saddle $ {\bf u} ={\bf u}_{rs} $ but now with negative $x = - {\tilde \omega}^{2}<0$. One finds $$G^{rs}_{N-1} = \frac{\sin(N {\tilde \Omega})}{\sin {\tilde \Omega}},$$ where $$\label{omega2} \sin \frac{{\tilde \Omega}}{2} = \frac{{\tilde \omega}}{2},$$ and hence $$\label{Drs_N} D^{rs}_{N} = 2 \tan\left(\frac{ {\tilde \Omega} }{2}\right)~ \sin (N {\tilde \Omega})$$ ### Eigenvalues The eigenvalues of ${\bf H}_{N}$ are found by evaluating the roots of the characteristic polynomial, $ \det( {\bf H}_{N} - \mu {\bf I} )=0$. We have again a determinant of the form of Eq. (\[D\_N\]), but now with $ x_{n} = U''(u_{n})/\kappa -\mu /\kappa $, such that we can define $ D_{N}(\mu) = \kappa^{-N} \det( {\bf H}_{N} - \mu {\bf I})$. Using Eq. (\[Drs\_N\]) we find that the roots where $ D_{N}(\mu) = 0 $ are given by $ {\tilde \Omega}_{m} = m \pi/N$, where $ m=0,\dots,N-1 $. Inserting $ {\tilde \Omega}_{m} $ into Eq. (\[omega2\]) yields ${\tilde \omega}_{m} = 2 \sin({\tilde \Omega}_{m}/2)$, hence $ D_{N}(\mu_{m}) = 0 $ for $$\label{eigenss} \mu_{m} = 4 \kappa\sin^{2} \left( \frac{m \pi}{2N} \right) + U''(u_{0}),$$ which are the eigenvalues of $ {\bf H}_{N}({\bf u}_{0}) $ for a given uniform extremal solution ${\bf u}_{0}=(u_{0},\dots,u_{0})$. Nonuniform case --------------- Approximate solutions for the determinant and the eigenvalues can be obtained deep in the elastic regime, $ \delta/ \delta_{} \gg 1$. ### Elastic boundary saddle $(\delta_{bs} > \delta \gg \delta_{}) $ For the elastic boundary saddle-point configurations obtained in Eqs. (\[uNas1\])-(\[uNas3\]), to highest order in $ \delta/ \delta_{} $ one finds that $ U''(u_{0}) = \cdots = U''(u_{N-3}) \approx 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} $, $ U''(u_{N-2}) \approx 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} -2 \kappa $, and $ U''(u_{N-1}) \approx - 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} -2 \kappa $. With $ x_{n} = U''(u_{n})/\kappa $ one obtains for the determinant up to $ {\cal O}\left( \delta^{N-2} \right) $ $$\begin{aligned} \label{Del_N} D_{N}^{es} & \approx & (1+x_{N-1})(2+x_{N-2})(1+x_{0}) G_{N-3}^{min}.\end{aligned}$$ The ratio $ D_{N}^{min}/D_{N}^{es}$, which is needed to calculate the prefactor in the elastic regime is found to be $$\frac{D_{N}^{min}}{D_{N}^{es}} = -1 - \frac{\kappa R^{2}}{3 U_{B} \delta} + {\cal O}\left[ (\delta_{}/\delta)^{2} \right].$$ To calculate the eigenvalues, we set again $ x_{n} = U''(u_{n})/\kappa - \mu/\kappa$. The characteristic polynomial $ D_{N}(\mu) $ is now up to ${\cal O}( \delta^{N-2})$, given by $$D_{N}(\mu) \approx (1+x_{N-1})(2+x_{N-2})(1+x_{0}) G_{N-3}(\mu).$$ Thus, to lowest order in $ \delta $, we find that the smallest eigenvalue is $$\begin{aligned} \label{muel} \mu_{0}^{es} & \approx & = -\kappa - \frac{6 U_{B} \delta}{R^{2}} .\end{aligned}$$ ### Elastic bulk saddle $(\delta > \delta_{bs}) $ For the elastic bulk saddle-point configurations obtained in Eqs. (\[uNbs1\]) and (\[uNbs2\]) to highest order in $ \delta/ \delta_{} $ one finds for a double kink situated at $ m$, $ U''(u_{m}) \approx - 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} -4 \kappa $, $ U''(u_{m \pm 1}) \approx 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2} -4 \kappa $, and for $ \|n-m\| > 1$ $ U''(u_{n}) \approx 6 U_{B} \delta /R^{2}$. With $ x_{n} = U''(u_{n})/\kappa $ and using periodic boundary conditions, the determinant is approximately given by $$D_{N}^{bs} \approx (2+x_{m+1})(2+x_{m})(2+x_{m-1}) G_{N-3}^{min}.$$ The ratio $ D_{N}^{min}/D_{N}^{bs}$ is $$\label{DNbs} \frac{D_{N}^{min}}{D_{N}^{bs}} = -1 - \frac{4\kappa R^{2}}{3 U_{B} \delta} + {\cal O}\left[ (\delta_{}/\delta)^{2} \right].$$ The characteristic polynomial $ D_{N}(\mu) $ is now up to ${\cal O}( \delta^{N-2})$ given by $$D_{N}(\mu) \approx (2+x_{m+1})(2+x_{m})(2+x_{m-1}) G_{N-3}(\mu),$$ where $ x_{n} = U''(u_{n})/\kappa - \mu/\kappa$. Thus, to lowest order in $ \delta $, we find that the smallest eigenvalue is $$\begin{aligned} \label{mubs} \mu_{0}^{bs} & \approx & = -2\kappa -\frac{6 U_{B} \delta}{R^{2}} .\end{aligned}$$ Prefactor in the crossover regime {#appendix_pre} ================================= Rigid regime $(\delta {\mathrel{\raise.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern-0.8em\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} \delta_{})$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For $ \delta \to \delta_{}$, both the eigenvalue $ \mu_{1}^{rs} $ and the determinant $ D_{N}^{rs} $ vanish. Hence the Gaussian integral containing $ \mu_{1}^{rs}$ in Eq. (\[Gaussian\_P\]) diverges, and third-order terms in $ q_{1} $ have to be taken into account. In the rigid regime, the third-order expansion of $ {\cal E}$ in $q_{1}$ is given by Eq. (\[beyond1\]). The contributions to $ P $ of all degrees of freedom except $ q_{1} \in {\cal S}$ are found by Gaussian integration: $$\begin{aligned} P & = & \frac{U_{B} \delta }{ 2 \pi \eta R^{2}} \left( \frac{ \| {\tilde \mu_{0}}^{rs} \| \prod_{n=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{min} } { \prod_{n = 2}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{rs}} \right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{N U_{B} \delta^{3}}{2 \pi k_{B}T} \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\ && \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dq_{1} \exp \left[ -\frac{N {\tilde U}_{B}}{2k_{B}T} \left( {\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}} q_{1}^{2} + D q_{1}^{4} \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$ In the following we first derive an approximate expression for $ \prod {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{min} / \prod_{n \not= 1} {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{rs} $ and then evaluate the remaining integral over $ q_{1}$. For the calculation of the product term we use the relation $ \prod {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{min} / \prod_{n \not= 1} {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{rs} = { \tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs} D_{N}^{min} / D_{N}^{rs} $. Let us analyze $ D_{N}^{rs} $ for $ {\tilde\mu}_{1}^{rs}$ close to zero. Recall that $${\tilde \omega}^{2} = -\frac{U''(u_{0})}{\kappa} = 4 \sin^{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2N} \right) - \frac{\mu_{1}^{rs}}{\kappa}.$$ Inserting this expression into Eq. (\[omega2\]) in the limit of small $\mu_{1}^{rs} $, we find $${\tilde \Omega} \approx \frac{\pi}{N} - \frac{\mu_{1}^{rs}} {2 \kappa \sin (\pi/N)},$$ such that, to lowest order in $ \mu_{1}^{rs}$, $$\sin (N {\tilde \Omega}) \approx \frac{N \mu_{1}^{rs}} {2 \kappa \sin (\pi/N)},$$ and $$\tan \left(\frac{\tilde \Omega}{2}\right) \approx \tan \left(\frac{\pi}{2N}\right).$$ Hence $${ \tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs}\frac{ D_{N}^{min}} {D_{N}^{rs}} = - \frac{4 \kappa}{N} \cos^{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2N} \right) \tanh \left(\frac{\Omega}{2} \right) \sinh (N \Omega ) .$$ The integration over $ q_{1}$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dq_{1} \exp \left[ -\frac{N {\tilde U}_{B}}{2k_{B}T} \left( {\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}} q_{1}^{2} + D q_{1}^{4} \right) \right] \nonumber \\ = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \frac{ {\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}} } { D }} \exp \left[ \frac{ N {\tilde U}_{B}({\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}})^{2}} {16k_{B}T D } \right] K_{1/4} \left[ \frac{N {\tilde U}_{B}({\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}})^{2}} {16k_{B}T D } \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $ D $ as defined above in Eq. (\[D\]) arises during the Gaussian integrations over $ q_{0}$ and $q_{2}$. $ K_{1/4} $ is the modified Bessel function. We make the substitution $ {\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}}=-3 \epsilon$. After defining $$\begin{aligned} \label{A} P_{s} &=& \left( \frac{ U_{B}^{2} \delta^{2} \| {\tilde \mu_{0}^{rs}} \| \prod_{n=0}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{n}}^{min} } { 8 \pi^{3}\eta^{2} R^{4} \prod_{n=2}^{N-1} {\tilde \mu_{n}^{rs}}} \right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{N \delta^{3} U_{B}}{ k_{B}TD} \right)^{1/4} \nonumber \\ & \approx & \frac{\left[54 \tanh ( \Omega /2 )~ \sinh(N \Omega) \right]^{1/2} U_{B}^{7/4} \delta_{}^{9/4} } {\pi^{3/2} \eta R^{3} (N k_{B}TD)^{1/4} \tan(\pi/2N)} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{B} \epsilon_{s} = \left( \frac{16 k_{B}T D}{9 N \delta_{}^{3} U_{B} } \right)^{1/2},$$ which are constants to leading order in $ \epsilon $, we obtain the prefactor of the rate for the rigid region of the crossover regime $ \delta {\mathrel{\raise.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern-0.8em\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} \delta_{}:$, $$\label{P_rigid} P(\epsilon)= \frac{\pi P_{s}}{\sqrt{2}}~~ \sqrt{\left\| \frac{ \epsilon}{\epsilon_{s} } \right\|} \left[ I_{-1/4}\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right) - I_{1/4}\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right) \right] \exp\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right).$$ Elastic regime $(\delta {\mathrel{\raise.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-0.8em\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} \delta_{})$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the elastic regime near the crossover, where $ \epsilon {\mathrel{\raise.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-0.8em\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 0$, we expand $ {\cal E}({\bf q})$ around the perturbative elastic saddle-point solution (\[approx\_ela\]), $${\cal E}({\bf q}) = {\cal E}({\bf q}_{es}) + \frac{1}{2} {\cal E}^{(2)}(\{\xi_{k}\}) + \frac{1}{6} {\cal E}^{(3)}(\{\xi_{k}\}),$$ where $ {\cal E}^{(2)}$ and ${\cal E}^{(3)}$ contain the terms of second and third order, respectively, and $ \xi_{k} = q_{k} -q_{k}^{es} $ are the fluctuations around the elastic saddle point. By introducing the shifted fluctuation coordinates for $m \not = 1$, $${\hat \xi_{m}} = \xi_{m} + \frac{2 q_{1}^{es} \xi_{1} A_{m} }{{\tilde \mu_{m}}^{rs}},$$ with $ A_{0} =-3,~ A_{2}=-3/2$ and $ A_{i>2}=0$, we find, for the quadratic part to leading order in $\epsilon$, $${\cal E}^{(2)} = - 2 {\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}} \xi_{1}^{2} + \sum_{m \not = 1} {\tilde \mu_{m}^{rs}} {\hat \xi_{m}}^{~2}.$$ Note that $ {\tilde \mu_{m}^{rs}}$ are the dimensionless eigenvalues evaluated at the [rigid]{} saddle-point configuration. Within the crossover regime, to leading order in $ \epsilon$, the eigenvalues at the elastic saddle-point solution $ {\tilde \mu_{i \not= 1}^{es}} = {\tilde \mu_{i \not= 1}^{rs}} $ are independent of $ \epsilon$, except $ {\tilde \mu_{1}^{es}} =-2{\tilde \mu_{1}^{rs}}=2 \epsilon /3 $. The higher order contributions to the expansion read $$\frac{1}{6} {\cal E}^{(3)} = \left( \sum_{m \not = 1} A_{m} {\hat \xi_{m}} \right) \xi_{1}^{2} +2D q_{1}^{es} \xi_{1}^{3}.$$ Transforming the fluctuation coordinates a second time, $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde \xi_{m \not = 1} } & = & {\hat \xi_{m}} + \frac{A_{m}}{{\tilde \mu_{m}}^{rs}} \xi_{1}^{2}, \nonumber \\ {\tilde \xi_{1}} & = & \xi_{1} + q_{1}^{es}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ we find $${\cal E}({\bf q}) = {\cal E}({\bf q_{es}}) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m \not = 1}{\tilde \mu_{m}}^{rs} {\tilde \xi_{m}}^{~2} + \frac{D}{2} \left[ {\tilde \xi_{1}}^{~2} - \left(q_{1}^{es} \right)^{2} \right]^{2}.$$ By using $ (q_{1}^{es})^{2}=-\mu_{1}^{rs}/2D = 3 \epsilon/2D$, we evaluate the integrals as in the previous paragraph, [@Grad:3.548] $$\begin{aligned} && \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d{\tilde \xi_{1}} \exp \left\{ -\frac{D}{2k_{B}T} \left[ {\tilde \xi_{1}}^{~2} - (q_{1}^{es})^{2} \right]^{2} \right\} \nonumber \\ && = \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{2} } ~\sqrt{ \left\| \frac{ {\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs} } { D } \right\| } ~\left\{ I_{-1/4} \left[ \frac{({\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs})^{2}}{16k_{B}T D } \right] + I_{1/4} \left[ \frac{({\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs})^{2}} {16k_{B}T D } \right] \right\} \\ && \times ~\exp \left[ -\frac{({\tilde \mu_{1}}^{rs})^{2}}{16k_{B}T D } \right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $ I_{1/4}$ and $ I_{-1/4}$ are modified Bessel functions. The prefactor of the rate for the elastic regime $ \delta {\mathrel{\raise.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-0.8em\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} \delta_{} $ in the crossover region then reads $$\label{P_elastic} P(\epsilon)= \frac{\pi P_{s}}{\sqrt{2}}~~ \sqrt{ \frac{ \epsilon}{\epsilon_{s} }} \left[ I_{-1/4}\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right) + I_{1/4}\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right) \right] \exp\left(\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{\epsilon_{s}^{2}} \right).$$ [10]{} H. A. Kramers, Physica [7]{}, 284 (1940). J. S. Langer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [41]{}, 108 (1967); Phys. Rev. Lett. [21]{}, 973 (1968); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [54]{}, 258 (1969). P. Hänggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Rev. Mod. Phys. [62]{}, 251 (1990). B. Ivlev and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. [93]{}, 668 (1987) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [66]{}, 378 (1987)\]. V. Lefreve-Seguin [et al.]{} Phys. Rev. B [46]{}, 5507 (1992). C. [Morais Smith]{}, B. Ivlev, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. B [49]{}, 4033 (1994). I. K. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [46]{}, 388 (1981). A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. [37]{}, 322 (1983) \[JETP Lett. [37]{}, 382 (1983)\]. H. Grabert and U. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [53]{}, 1787 (1984). U. Weiss, in [Quantum Dissipative Systems]{}, Vol. 2 of [Series in Modern Condensed Matter Physics]{}, 2nd ed., edited by I. E. Dzyaloshinski, S. O. Lundquist, and Y. Lu (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999). Y.-C. Chen, J. Low Temp. Phys. [65]{}, 133 (1986). F. Sharifi, J. L. Gavilano, and D. J. V. Harlingen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 61]{}, 742 (1988). S. Han, J. Lapointe, and J. E. Lukens, Phys. Rev. Lett. [63]{}, 1712 (1989). J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. B [43]{}, 7837 (1991). G. Blatter, [et al.]{} , Rev. Mod. Phys. [66]{}, 1125 (1994). R. D. Bock, [J. R. Phillips, H. J. S. van der Zant]{}, and T. P. Orlando, Phys. Rev. B [49]{}, 10009 (1994). A. E. Koshelev, P. [Le Doussal]{}, and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [53]{}, R8855 (1996). J. Bardeen and M. J. Stephen , Phys. Rev. [140]{}, A 1197 (1965). H. Grabert, P. Olschowski, and U. Weiss, Phys. Rev. B [36]{}, 1931 (1987). T. Christen, Phys. Rev. E [51]{}, 604 (1995); Europhys. Lett. [31]{}, 181 (1995). H. Simanjuntak and L. Gunther, Phys. Rev. B [42]{}, 930 (1990). M. G. Castellano [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. B [54]{}, 15417 (1996). E. M. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. A [46]{}, 8011 (1992). E. H. Brandt, Europhys. Lett. [18]{}, 635 (1992). D. R. Nelson and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [68]{}, 2398 (1992). I. M. Gelfand and A. M. Yaglom, J. Math. Phys. [48]{}, 1 (1960). I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{}, 5th ed., edited by A. Jeffrey (Academic Press, London, 1994).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| The ground-state fluctuation of polarization [P]{} is finite in insulators and divergent in metals, owing to the SWM sum rule \[I. Souza, T. Wilkens, and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B [62]{}, 1666 (2000)\]. This is a virtue of periodic (i.e. transverse) boundary conditions. I show that within any other boundary conditions the [P]{} fluctuation is finite even in metals, and a generalized sum rule applies. The boundary-condition dependence is a pure correlation effect, not present at the independent-particle level. In the longitudinal case $\nabla \cdot {\bf P} = -\rho$, and one equivalently addresses charge fluctuations: the generalized sum rule reduces then to a well known result of many-body theory. author: - Raffaele Resta title: 'Polarization fluctuations in insulators and metals: New and old theories merge' --- =5000 =10000 In a paper appeared in 2000 Souza, Wilkens, and Martin [@Souza00] (SWM) proved a fluctuation-dissipation sum rule relating the ground-state fluctuation of polarization [P]{} in a quantum system to its macroscopic conductivity. The sum rule implies that [P]{} fluctuations are finite in insulators and divergent in metals, thus providing a clearcut [qualitative]{} difference between insulating and metallic ground states. In fact SWM complete the program initiated in 1964 by W. Kohn with his “Theory of the insulating state” [@Kohn64]. However, a different and apparently unrelated fluctuation-dissipation sum rule is well known since the 1950s in many-body physics [@Pines; @Noz]. The disturbing fact is that metals and insulators [do not]{} behave in a qualitatively different way as far as the latter sum rule is concerned. I show here that both sum rules are special cases of a more general one, the difference owing to the boundary conditions (BCs) adopted when taking the thermodynamic limit: SWM adopt periodic Born–von–Kàrmàn BCs, i.e. transverse, while within many-body physics it is customary to adopt longitudinal ones. The precise meaning of “transverse” and “longitudinal” in the present context is illustrated below. For any BC choice different from the purely transverse the ground-state [P]{} fluctuation is finite even in metals. I also show that the BC dependence of the [P]{} fluctuation is a combined effect of the long range of Coulomb interaction and of [electron correlation]{}. There is no such dependence for independent electrons (either Hartree-Fock or Kohn-Sham), where the standard SWM sum rule applies anyhow. The presentation starts considering a finite system with “open” BCs, and then proceeds to taking the thermodynamic limit in the appropriate way. Let $\Psi$ be the singlet ground-state wavefunction of an $N$-electron system, with even $N$, within “open” BCs, i.e., $\Psi$ is square-integrable. We address the first and second moments of the position operator $$\hat{\bf R} = \sum_{i=1}^N {\bf r}_i .$$ Since it is expedient to deal with quantities that become intensive in the large-$N$ limit, I define the first and second cumulant moments [per electron]{}: $$\langle r_\alpha \rangle_{\rm c} = \frac{1}{N} \langle \Psi \| \hat{R}_\alpha \| \Psi \rangle = \frac{1}{N} {\int \! d{\bf r} \;}r_\alpha \, n({\bf r}) ; \label{first}$$ $$\langle r_\alpha r_\beta \rangle_{\rm c} = \frac{1}{N} ( \, \langle \Psi \| \hat{R}_\alpha \hat{R}_\beta \| \Psi \rangle - \langle \Psi \| \hat{R}_\alpha \| \Psi \rangle \langle \Psi \| \hat{R}_\beta \| \Psi \rangle \, ) \label{second}$$ (Greek subscripts indicate Cartesian components throughout). The first moment (times the trivial factor $-e N/V$) is the electronic term in the macroscopic polarization ${\bf P}$, while the second cumulant moment $\langle r_\alpha r_\beta \rangle_{\rm c}$ is its quadratic quantum fluctuation in the many-body ground state. We notice that the second moment is a function of the relative coordinates, while the first moment is a function of the absolute ones; indeed, the macroscopic polarization ${\bf P}$ is well defined only when the (classical) nuclear contribution is accounted for. As said above, SWM address the ${\bf P}$ fluctuations in extended systems within periodic BCs. Therein, the position $\hat{\bf R}$ is a “forbidden” operator [@rap100] and the definition of $\langle r_\alpha r_\beta \rangle_{\rm c}$ looks formally quite different from [Eq. (\[second\])]{} [@rap107; @rap_a23]. Indicating with ${\bf x}_i \equiv ({\bf r}_i,\sigma_i)$ the space and spin coordinates of the $i$-the electron, the one-body and two-body densities are defined as: $$n({\bf r}_1) = N \sum_{\sigma_1} \int d {\bf x}_2 \cdots d {\bf x}_N \| \Psi({\bf x}_1,{\bf x}_2,\dots {\bf x}_N) \|^2 ; \label{dgen}$$ $$n^{(2)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = N (N-1) \sum_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2} \int d {\bf x}_3 \cdots d {\bf x}_N \| \Psi({\bf x}_1,\dots {\bf x}_N) \|^2 .$$ Straightforward manipulations lead to the equivalent form: r\_r\_\_[c]{} & = & d [r]{} d [r]{}’([r]{} - [r]{}’)\_([r]{} - [r]{}’)\_ && \[ n([r]{}) n([r]{}’) - n\^[(2)]{}([r]{},[r]{}’) \] .\[bform\] We observe that, for large values of the relative coordinate ${\bf r} - {\bf r}'$, the electron distribution becomes uncorrelated and one has $n^{(2)}({\bf r},{\bf r}') \simeq n({\bf r}) n({\bf r}')$: this fact can be regarded as a manifestation of the “nearsightedness” principle [@Kohn96]. For any finite $N$ the integration in [Eq. (\[bform\])]{} obviously converges, owing to the boundedness of the ground wavefunction $\Psi$. One of the main questions is whether $\langle r_\alpha r_\beta \rangle_{\rm c}$ goes to a well defined finite limit or instead diverges in the limit of large $N$. A well known exact sum rule relates the two-body density to the frequency integral of the imaginary part of the linear response: such relationship belongs to the general class of fluctuation-dissipation theorems [@Kubo2; @Forster]. By definition, the linear polarizability tensor $\alpha_{\beta\gamma}(\omega)$ yields the $\beta$ component of the dipole ${\bf d}$ linearly induced by an electric field ${\bf E}_0$ of unit magnitude in the $\gamma$ direction, at frequency $\omega$. I address purely electronic response, therefore assuming [clamped nuclei]{}. Furthermore I stress that ${\bf E}_0$ is the field far outside the finite sample, different from the screened macroscopic field ${\bf E}$ inside. Starting e.g from Eq. (2.17) in Ref. [@McLachlan64] and using [Eq. (\[bform\])]{}, it is straightforward to prove the sum rule: $$\frac{1}{N} \int_0^\infty \!\!\! d \omega \; \mbox{Im } \alpha_{\beta\gamma}(\omega) = \frac{\pi e^2}{\hbar} \langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c} \label{sumrule} .$$ It is worth noticing that the rhs is by construction a ground-state property, while the lhs is a property of the [excitations]{} of the system. In [Eq. (\[sumrule\])]{}, fluctuation and dissipation are perspicuous: from the definition of [Eq. (\[second\])]{} the rhs is a quantum fluctuation, while the imaginary part of $\alpha(\omega)$ measures dissipation in the zero-temperature limit [@Kubo2]. Because of the sum rule, the actual value of $\langle r_\alpha r_\beta \rangle_{\rm c}$ in a given system can in principle be measured by actually probing the excited states. I now discuss [Eq. (\[sumrule\])]{} in the limit a macroscopic solid, where for the sake of simplicity the bulk is assumed as macroscopically homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore the macroscopic polarization ${\bf P} = {\bf d}/V$ linearly induced by a macroscopic field at frequency $\omega$ can be written as: $${\bf P} = \frac{\varepsilon(\omega) - 1}{4 \pi} \, {\bf E} , \label{epsi}$$ where $\varepsilon(\omega)$ is the electronic (clamped-nuclei) macroscopic dielectric function of the bulk material. In terms of ${\bf E}_0$, this polarization is $$P_\beta = \frac{1}{V} \sum_\gamma \alpha_{\beta\gamma}(\omega) E_{0,\gamma} ,$$ where the relationship between ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf E}_0$ depends on the [shape]{} of the sample. Following a well-known practice for the study of dielectric bodies, we consider a sample of ellipsoidal shape, in which case the ${\bf E}$ field is constant in the bulk, and the shape effects are embedded in the depolarization coefficients ${n}_\beta$, with $\sum_\beta {n}_\beta = 1$. The main relationship is [@Landau1]: $$E_\beta = E_{0,\beta} -4 \pi n_\beta P_\beta . \label{simple}$$ The extremely prolate ellipsoid ($n_x = n_y = 1/2, n_z=0$) is a cylinder along $z$, while the extremely oblate one ($n_x = n_y = 0, n_z=1$) is a slab normal to $z$. The slab geometry epitomizes both the longitudinal and the transverse cases: ${\bf P}$ is purely longitudinal when along $z$, and purely transverse when along $xy$. In the former case, in fact, we have $P_z = P_z(z)$ (independent of $xy$): hence $\nabla \cdot {\bf P} \neq 0$, $\nabla \times {\bf P} = 0$. Conversely in the latter case we have $P_x = P_x(z)$ (independent of $xy$): hence $\nabla \cdot {\bf P} = 0$, $\nabla \times {\bf P} \neq 0$. It is worth noticing that the charge is uniquely related to ${\bf P}$ via $\nabla \cdot {\bf P} = -\rho$ in the longitudinal case, whereas the charge [does not enter]{} a macroscopic description in the transverse one. In the ellipsoidal geometry [Eqs. (\[epsi\]) and (\[simple\])]{} yield [@Landau1]: $$E_\beta = \frac{1}{1 + {n}_\beta [ \varepsilon(\omega) - 1]} E_{0,\beta} . \label{ezer}$$ $$P_\beta = \frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\varepsilon(\omega) - 1}{1 + {n}_\beta [ \varepsilon(\omega) - 1]} E_{0,\beta} . \label{ellips}$$ The $\alpha$ tensor is diagonal over the ellipsoid axes, and the above results transform [Eq. (\[sumrule\])]{} into: $$\delta_{\beta\gamma} \; \frac{V}{4 \pi N} \int_0^\infty \!\!\! d \omega \; \mbox{Im } \frac{\varepsilon(\omega) - 1}{1 + {n}_\beta [ \varepsilon(\omega) - 1]} = \frac{\pi e^2}{\hbar} \langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c} \label{sumrule2} .$$ It is expedient to recast this sum rule in terms of the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$, which by definition measures the macroscopic current linearly induced by a field ${\bf E}$ at frequency $\omega$. Since the current is the time derivative of the electronic polarization, [Eq. (\[epsi\])]{} yields $\varepsilon(\omega) - 1 = 4 \pi i \sigma(\omega)/\omega$ and $$\langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c} = \delta_{\beta\gamma} \; \frac{V}{N} \frac{\hbar}{\pi e^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{d \omega}{\omega} \; \mbox{Im } \frac{i \sigma(\omega)}{1 + 4 \pi i n_\beta \sigma(\omega)/\omega} \label{sumrule3} ,$$ which generalizes the SWM sum rule. In fact the assumption of periodic BCs corresponds—as I am going to explain below—to the choice $n_\beta =0$, yielding the original SWM sum rule: $$\langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c} = \delta_{\beta\gamma} \; \frac{V}{N} \frac{\hbar}{\pi e^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{d \omega}{\omega} \; \mbox{Re } \sigma(\omega) \label{sumrule4} .$$ The rhs has a [qualitatively]{} different behavior in insulators and in metals. In the latter materials, in fact, the real part of the conductivity is either finite or divergent in the dc ($\omega \rightarrow 0$) limit, thus implying in both cases the divergence of the integral, ergo of the ${\bf P}$ fluctuation. In insulators, instead, the integral in the rhs of [Eq. (\[sumrule4\])]{} converges to a finite value. Some precursor work, before SWM, attempted to relate ground-state fluctuations to dc conductivity [@Schonhammer73; @Kudinov91]. It is worth noticing that such work severely overlooks the role of BCs, while instead SWM provide a rigorous theory in a purely transverse framework. However, SWM neither consider different BCs, nor relate their work to the Nozières-Pines [@Nozieres58] early fluctuation-dissipation sum rule. Here we provide a generalization of SWM to all possible BCs, [Eq. (\[sumrule3\])]{}. Its novel outstanding message is that for any $n_\beta \neq 0$ choice the ${\bf P}$ fluctuation is finite even in metals (contrary to what stated in Ref. [@Kudinov91]). The second cumulant moment $\langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c}$ has been defined as a bulk property of the condensed system, which measures the quadratic quantum fluctuations of the polarization in the many-body ground state at zero temperature [@Souza00]. It may appear therefore disturbing that its expression, as given in [Eq. (\[sumrule3\])]{}, depends explicitly—via the $n_\beta$ coefficients—on the [shape]{} which has been chosen for taking the large-$V$ limit. In fact, this is a real physical effect and has a simple interpretation. The fluctuating polarization ${\bf P}$ induces a surface charge at the boundary of the sample, which in turn generates a homogeneous depolarizing field ${\bf E}$, which counteracts polarization: in the unperturbed ${\bf E}_0 = 0$ case [Eq. (\[simple\])]{} reads $$E_\beta = -4 \pi n_\beta P_\beta . \label{simple2}$$ Seen in this way, the effect obviously [does]{} depend on shape. But in condensed matter physics one tries to steer clear from any shape issue, and therefore one [interprets]{} [Eq. (\[simple2\])]{}, for any choice of $n_\beta$, as a choice of BCs for performing the thermodynamic limit. Indeed, [Eq. (\[simple2\])]{} becomes the basic one, and any reference to shape is no longer needed. The condition $\sum_\beta {n}_\beta = 1$ is not needed either. When adopting the usual periodic BCs in all three Cartesian coordinates, we are effectively imposing ${\bf E} = 0$, i.e. $n_x = n_y = n_z = 0$. From what said above, and from [Eq. (\[sumrule3\])]{}, one would obtain the same fluctuation when working in a slab geometry and addressing the ${\bf P}$ component parallel to the slab, i.e. transverse. The other extreme case of [Eq. (\[simple2\])]{}, namely $n_x = n_y = n_z = 1$, is also well known in condensed matter physics. In fact, the BCs for zone-center phonon modes in cubic binary crystals are ${\bf E} = 0$ for transverse modes, and ${\bf E} = - 4 \pi {\bf P}$ for longitudinal ones [@Huang50; @Maradudin; @Baroni01; @note2]. There is a complete analogy between the ground-state fluctuations of polarization in a many-electron system at zero temperature, as discussed here, and the equilibrium fluctuations of polarization in a classical dipolar system at finite temperature. In the latter case, in fact, it is well known [@Frenkel] that different BCs lead to different fluctuations but to the [same]{} value for the static dielectric constant, provided the correct fluctuation formula is used for each case [@Neumann83]. The shape-dependence is a combined effect of interparticle correlations and of the long-range nature of the interactions. The analogy goes further, since even in the quantum case the dependence on shape (or equivalently on BCs) is a pure [correlation effect]{}, not present at the independent-electron level (either Hartree-Fock or Kohn-Sham), where the many-body wavefunction is a Slater determinant. In fact, the second cumulant moment $\langle r_\beta r_\gamma \rangle_{\rm c}$, [Eq. (\[bform\])]{}, is a function of the two-body density: the latter, for the special case of a single-determinant wavefunction, is an explicit function of the one-body [density matrix]{}. As such, it can only be affected by the mean ${\bf E}$ field (i.e. zero, for the unperturbed system), and [not]{} by its fluctuations. This is confirmed by the present sum rule. Starting from [Eq. (\[sumrule\])]{}, we notice that when we evaluate the rhs using the independent-electron two-body density, we must interpret the $\alpha(\omega)$ tensor in the lhs as the independent-electron polarizability, which by construction neglects self-consistency effects. Therefore ${\bf E} = {\bf E}_0$ i.e., after [Eq. (\[ezer\])]{}, $n_\beta = 0$. Therefore [Eq. (\[sumrule3\])]{} reduces to [Eq. (\[sumrule4\])]{}, which is manifestly shape-independent (or BC independent). Incidentally, the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ therein must be understood as the independent-electron conductivity. I now address the special form taken by [Eq. (\[sumrule2\])]{} in the longitudinal case, where $n_x = n_y = n_z = 1$: the diagonal $zz$ component is $$\langle z^2 \rangle_{\rm c} = - \frac{\hbar}{4 \pi^2 e^2} \frac{V}{N} \int_0^\infty \!\!\! d \omega \; \mbox{Im } \frac{1}{\varepsilon(\omega)} . \label{eg}$$ One would obtain the same fluctuation working in a slab geometry and addressing the fluctuation of the ${\bf P}$ component normal to the slab. [Eq. (\[eg\])]{} applies to correlated wavefunctions, and is invalid for independent-electron ones; it provides a finite value both in insulators and metals. We are going to verify the above general findings on the simplest metal of all, namely, the homogeneous electron gas, showing that $\langle z^2 \rangle_{\rm c}$ is infinite in the noninteracting case, and finite in the interacting one. In order to make contact with the electron-gas literature, we need to introduce the static structure factor defined as $$S({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{N} \langle \Psi \| \sum_{i,j} {{\rm e}^{i {\bf k} \cdot ({\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j)}} \| \Psi \rangle . \label{struct}$$ This is identically expressed in terms of the one– and two–body densities as: S([k]{}) & = & 1 + d [r]{} d [r]{}’ [[e]{}\^[i [k]{} ([r]{} - [r]{}’)]{}]{} n\^[(2)]{}([r]{}, [r]{}’) , & = & 1 + \| ([k]{}) \|\^2\ \[struct3\] For ${\bf k} = 0$ the second term is equal to $N$, which obviously diverges in the thermodynamic limit: such $\delta$-like singularity is neglected as usual. We then expand in powers of ${\bf k}$ imposing centrosymmetry: therefore the second term is quartic, and we have to second order: S([k]{}) & & - \_ d [r]{} d [r]{}’ ([r - r’]{})\_([r - r’]{})\_& &\[ n\^[(2)]{}([r]{}, [r]{}’) - n([r]{}) n([r’]{}) \] & & \_ r\_r\_\_[c]{} k\_k\_\[struct4\] , Therefore for an isotropic system $$\langle z^2 \rangle_{\rm c} = \lim_{k \rightarrow 0} \; S(k) /k^2 . \label{limit}$$ For the noninteracting (either Hartree-Foch or Kohn-Sham) electron gas the one-body density, and hence $S(k)$, are known exactly [@Pines]: this in fact leads to a divergent [Eq. (\[limit\])]{}. Polarization fluctuations are indeed BC- (or shape-) independent, and diverge even in the longitudinal case, thus confirming our general finding. In the interacting case $S(k)$, as defined here, depends on shape via [Eq. (\[struct4\])]{}, whereas in the existing electron-gas literature $S(k)$ is apparently shape-independent. The reason is very simple: such literature addresses charge fluctuations, [not]{} polarization fluctuations. It has been stressed above that no macroscopic charge is associated to transverse polarization fluctuations: charge fluctuations manifest themselves only within longitudinal BCs, which are therefore [implicitly]{} assumed by electron-gas theorists. Our longitudinal [Eq. (\[eg\])]{}, together with [Eq. (\[limit\])]{}, yields $$S(k) \simeq - \frac{\hbar k^2}{4 \pi^2 e^2} \frac{V}{N} \int_0^\infty \!\!\! d \omega \; \mbox{Im } \frac{1}{\varepsilon(\omega)} ,$$ which indeed is the standard fluctuation-dissipation theorem for the interacting electron gas, known since the 1950s [@Noz]. The frequency integral is finite: replacement into [Eq. (\[limit\])]{} confirms that the longitudinal polarization fluctuation $\langle z^2 \rangle_{\rm c}$ is finite as well. In conclusion, I have reconciled two different forms of the fluctuation-dissipation sum rule for quantum many-body systems: one recent [@Souza00] and one old [@Noz]. The two were apparently contradictory and apparently unrelated. Instead, I have shown that a more general sum rule holds, yielding the previously known ones as special cases. At the root of the generalization is a careful treatment of electron correlation in Coulomb systems. Remarkably, the novel feature found here is a pure correlation effect, not present at the Hartree-Fock or Kohn-Sham level. Discussions with G. Senatore are gratefully acknowledged. Work supported by ONR grant N00014-03-1-0570 and grant PRIN 2004 from the Italian Ministry of University and Research. [10]{} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We report the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) detection of a $\gamma$-ray source at the position of SAX J1808.4$-$3658. This transient low-mass X-ray binary contains an accreting millisecond pular, which is only seen during its month-long outbursts and likely switches to be rotation powered during its quiescent state. Emission from the $\gamma$-ray source can be described by a power law with an exponential cutoff, the characteristic form for pulsar emission. Folding the source’s 2.0–300GeV photons at the binary orbital period, a weak modulation is seen (with an H-test value of $\sim$17). In addition, three sets of archival XMM-Newton data for the source field are analyzed, and we find only one X-ray source with 3–4$\sigma$ flux variations in the 2$\sigma$ error circle of the $\gamma$-ray source. However based on the X-ray properties, this X-ray source is not likely a background AGN, the major class of [Fermi]{} sources detected by LAT. These results support the possible association between the $\gamma$-ray source and SAX J1808.4$-$3658 and thus the scenario that the millisecond pulsar is rotation powered in the quiescent state. Considering a source distance of 3.5kpc for SAX J1808.4$-$3658, the 0.1–300GeV luminosity is 5.7$\times 10^{33}$ergs$^{-1}$, implying a [$\gamma$-ray]{} conversion efficiency of 63% for the pulsar in this binary.' author: - 'Y. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xing</span>, Z. Wang, and V. Jithesh' title: 'Possible Fermi Detection of the Accreting Millisecond Pulsar Binary SAX J1808.4$-$3658' --- INTRODUCTION ============ Millisecond radio pulsars (MSPs) are formed from neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs; [@bv91]). The primary neutron star in an LMXB can gain sufficient angular momentum by accreting material from the companion through an accretion disk, and thus be ‘recycled’ to a spin period of milliseconds. The discovery of millisecond X-ray pulsations in the transient LMXB SAX J1808.4$-$3658 has confirmed the formation scenario from the observational side [@wv98; @cm98]. Thus far over a dozen of so-called accreting millisecond X-ray pulsars (AMXPs) have been found ([@pw12]). Nearly all of them are in transient systems, and for these transients, X-ray pulsations are seen only during their X-ray outbursts. Interestingly, it was suggested that several AMXPs actually switch to be rotation powered pulsars during their quiescent states ([@bur+03]; [@wan+13] and references therein), although no direct evidence, such as pulsed radio emission [@burgay+03], was found over the time. The recent observational identification of the MSP binary J1824$-$2452I in the globular cluster M28 has firmly confirmed the suggestion [@pap+13]. The binary was observed to have an X-ray outburst, and during the outburst, the previously known radio MSP in the binary switched to appear like a typical AMXP. This confirmation has thus identified an interesting feature for the evolution from LMXBs to MSP binaries, and we may suspect that either these systems would probably be at the end of their LMXB phase or it could be a common feature for the quiescent state of transient neutron star LMXBs (e.g., [@hei+15]). The similar type of feature has also been seen in the recently identified two transitional MSP binaries: J1023+0038 [@arc+09] and XSS J12270$-$4859 ([@bas+14] and references therein). Extensive observational studies have shown that they can switch between the states of having an accretion disk and being disk free. One particular property in them is that they have sufficiently bright $\gamma$-ray emission and are detectable by the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT; see [@tam+10; @sta+14; @tak+14] for J1023+0038; and see [@hil+11; @mar+13; @xw14] for XSS J12270$-$4859). The emission is variable, stronger in the active accretion state than that in the disk-free state [@sta+14; @tak+14; @xw14]. Given the property similarities between the two MSP binaries and AXMP binaries, it is thus highly possible that AMXPs would also have significant $\gamma$-ray emission, as they stay in their quiescent state and would be rotation-powered most time. This possibility has been explored by @xw13 by searching for $\gamma$-ray emission from four AMXP systems, which include SAX J1808.4$-$3658. Nearly four year LAT data for the four AMXPs were analyzed, but no $\gamma$-ray emission was found. However, given the improved sensitivity of [Fermi]{} over the last two years (see § \[subsec:si\] for details), we re-analyzed the LAT data for them. We found significant $\gamma$-ray emission at the position consistent with that of SAX J1808.4$-$3658. Here in this paper, we report the results. Observation {#sec:obs} =========== LAT is a $\gamma$-ray imaging instrument onboard the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. It makes all-sky survey in an energy range from 20 MeV to 300 GeV [@atw+09]. In our analysis, we selected LAT events from the Fermi Pass 7 Reprocessed (P7REP) database inside a $\mathrm{20^{o}\times20^{o}}$ region centered at the optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}, which is R.A.=18$^{\rm h}$08$^{\rm m}$27$\farcs$62, Decl.=$-$36$^{\circ}$58$'$43$\farcs$3 (equinox J2000.0) obtained in @har+08. We kept events during the time period from 2008-08-04 15:43:36 (UTC) to 2014-11-10 21:04:57 (UTC) and in the energy range of 100MeV to 300GeV. In addition, only events with zenith angle less than 100deg and during good time intervals were selected. The former prevents the Earth’s limb contamination, and for the latter, the quality of the data was not affected by the spacecraft events. Data Analysis and Results {#sec:ana} ========================= Source Identification {#subsec:si} --------------------- We included all sources within 20 deg in the Fermi second source catalog [@nol+12] centered at the position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} [@har+08] to make the source model. The spectral function forms of the sources are provided in the catalog. The spectral parameters of the sources within 5 deg from [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} were set free, and all other parameters of the sources were fixed at their catalog values. A point source at the optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} was also included in the source model, with its emission modeled by a simple power law. In addition, we used the spectrum model gll\_iem\_v05\_rev1.fits and the spectrum file iso\_source\_v05.txt for the Galactic and the extragalactic diffuse emission, respectively, in the source model. The normalizations of the diffuse components were set as free parameters. Using the LAT science tools software package [v9r33p0]{}, we performed standard binned likelihood analysis to the LAT data. Events below 200 MeV were rejected because of the relative large uncertainties of the instrument response function of the LAT in the low energy range. Energy ranges of 0.2–300, 0.5–300, 1–300, and 2–300 GeV were tested in the analysis. A source at the optical position was detected with Test Statistic (TS) values of 32, 34, 26, and 31, respectively. The TS value at a specific position, calculated from TS$= -2\log(L_{0}/L_{1})$ (where $L_{0}$ and $L_{1}$ are the maximum likelihood values for a model without and with an additional source respectively), is a measurement of the fit improvement for including the source, and is approximately the square of the detection significance of the source [@abd+10]. Thus the source was best detected in 0.5–300GeV with a significance of $\simeq$5$\sigma$. We extracted the TS maps of a $2\arcdeg\times 2\arcdeg$ region centered at the position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} in the four energy ranges, with all sources in the source model considered except the source we found. No catalog sources are within the square region. In Figure \[fig:tsmap\], the 0.5–300GeV TS map is shown. We ran gtfindsrc in the LAT software package to determine the position of the source using photons in 0.5–300 GeV, and obtained the best-fit position R.A. = 27215, Decl. = $-$3706 (equinox J2000.0), with 1$\sigma$ nominal uncertainty of 005. The 2$\sigma$ error circle is marked in Figure \[fig:tsmap\] as a dark dashed circle. The optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} (mark by a dark cross in Figure \[fig:tsmap\]) is 008 from the best-fit position and within the 2$\sigma$ error circle, suggesting possible association of the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source with [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. Below we considered the source as the candidate [$\gamma$-ray]{} counterpart to [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. In our TS maps, separate excess [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission at the northwest corner appears (Figure \[fig:tsmap\]). We investigated whether it possibly contaminated our detection of the candidate counterpart. We found that it is consistent with being a point source at a position of R.A. = 2714, Decl. = $-$364 (equinox J2000.0; 1$\sigma$ nominal uncertainty is 01). Including this source in our source model, it can be totally removed from the TS maps, and the results of the position and spectrum (see Section \[subsec:sa\]) of the counterpart source did not have significantly differences (consistent within uncertainties). In addition, since the source position is toward the Galactic center direction ($G_b\simeq -8\fdg1$), we also checked if the uncertainty on the Galactic diffuse emission could produce false detection of the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source. We manually increased the normalization of the Galactic diffuse component to a value 5$\sigma$ above the best-fit value, the $>$0.5 GeV [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission at the position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} was still detected, with TS$\simeq$32. We found only when we increased the Galactic diffuse emission by 10% (approximately 77$\sigma$ above the best-fit value), the $>$0.5 GeV emission was then detected with TS$\simeq$9 (i.e., $\sim$3$\sigma$ detection significance). The [$\gamma$-ray]{} source was not detected in the previous search using nearly four-year LAT data in $>$0.2GeV energy range [@xw13]. We re-analyzed the LAT data in the same time interval from 2008-08-04 15:43:36 (UTC) to 2012 July 8 18:59:57 (UTC), and obtained a TS value of $\simeq$25 at the position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}, which is much higher than the value of $\sim$3 previously reported. Therefore the detection is due to the improved sensitivity of the [Fermi]{} telescope. The database used in @xw13 is [Fermi]{} Pass 7, comparing to Pass 7 Reprocessed in this work. The LAT science tools software package and the Instrument Response Functions (IRFs) have also been updated from [v9r27p1]{} to the current [v9r33p0]{} and from P7SOURCE\_V6 to P7REP\_SOURCE\_V15, respectively. In addition, the diffuse emission models have also been updated. All these changes have improved the point source detection sensitivity of the [Fermi]{}/LAT[^1]. Spectral Analysis {#subsec:sa} ----------------- Including the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source in the source model, we performed standard binned likelihood analysis to the LAT data, with emission of this source modeled with an exponentially cutoff power law, which is characteristic of pulsars [@abd+13]. In addition a simple power law was also used. We used data in $>$0.2 GeV energy range to obtain a overall description of the [$\gamma$-ray]{} spectrum of the source. A photon index of $\Gamma$ = 2.2$\pm$0.1 with a TS$_{pl}$ value of $\sim$32 was obtained for the power-law model, and a photon index of $\Gamma$ = 1.6$\pm$0.4 and a cutoff energy of E$_{c}$ = 5.5$\pm$3.7 GeV with a TS$_{exp}$ value of $\sim$37 were obtained for the exponentially cutoff power-law model. The low energy cutoff was thus detected with $>$2$\sigma$ significance (estimated from $\sqrt{{\rm TS}_{cutoff}}$, where TS$_{cutoff}\simeq {\rm TS}_{exp}-{\rm TS}_{pl}\simeq 5$; [@abd+13]). While the significance is low, this result also favors the possible association of the $\gamma$-ray source with [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. These spectral results are summarized in Table \[tab:likelihood\]. We then extracted the [$\gamma$-ray]{} spectrum for the source, by considering the emission as a point source with a power-law spectrum at the optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} and performing maximum likelihood analysis to the LAT data in 10 evenly divided energy bands in logarithm from 0.1–300 GeV. The photon index was fixed at 2.2. Only spectral points with TS$\geq$4 were kept, and the 95% upper limits in other energy bins were derived. The spectrum extracted by this method is less model dependent and provides a more detailed description for the [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission of the source. The obtained spectrum is shown in Figure \[fig:spectrum\], and the energy flux values are given in Table \[tab:spectrum-point\]. It can be seen that the exponentially cutoff power law fits the data better, particularly in low energy ranges where no [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission was significantly detected. Variability Analysis {#subsec:ta} -------------------- We performed timing analysis to the LAT data of the [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} region to search for possible [$\gamma$-ray]{} pulsations. We folded the LAT data according to the X-ray ephemeris given in @har+09. The optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} was used for the barycentric corrections to photon arrival times, and photons within $R_{max}$ ($R_{max}$ ranges from 01–10 with a step of 01) from the position were collected. Different energy ranges ($>$0.2, $>$0.5, $>$1, and $>$2 GeV) were tested in folding. No pulsation signals were detected, and the H-test values were smaller than 9 (corresponding to $<$3$\sigma$ detection significance; [@jrs89]). We folded the LAT data using the orbital parameters given in @har+09. We found that the highest orbital signal was revealed in the $>$2 GeV energy range using photons within 06 from the optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. The folded light curve, which has an H-test value of $\sim$17 (corresponding to $>$3$\sigma$ detection significance, [@jrs89]), is shown in Figure \[fig:timing\]. The phase zero is set at the ascending node of the pulsar in [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. We also obtained the light curves for the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source, with different time intervals (e.g., 30, 100, and 300 days) used. Due to the faintness of the source, no significant flux variations can be determined from the light curves. XMM-Newton data Analysis -------------------------- We searched in the SIMBAD Astronomical Database. Most sources identified in the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source region are not high-energy but star-type objects. There are two other X-ray sources, SAX J1808.5$-$3703 and SAX J1809.0$-$3659, previously reported in the region [@wij+02; @cam+02]. While the two sources are 002 and 011 away from our best-fit position, respectively, there are also other X-ray sources detected in the region but not studied in detail [@cam+02]. We thus searched and found three archival [XMM-Newton]{} observations of SAX J1808.4$-$3658 available. They were carried out on 2001 Mar. 24 (ObsID : 0064940101; exposure 39.5 ks), 2006 Sept. 15 (ObsID : 0400230401; exposure 55.1 ks), and 2007 Mar. 10 (ObsID : 0400230501; exposure 57.8 ks). We analyzed the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) pn and MOS data using the standard tools of the XMM-Newton Science Analysis Software (SAS, version 14.0). For the first observation, pn was used in the timing mode and the data were not included in our analysis. We excluded the high particle flaring background by creating the good time intervals (GTI) based on the count rate cut-off criteria. We extracted the full-field background light curve in the 10-12 keV band and selected the GTI with count rate $< 0.8$ and $< 0.4$ctss$^{-1}$ for pn and MOS data respectively. The data were then filtered to the good X-ray events (FLAG == 0) with PATTERN $\le$ 4 for pn and PATTERN $\le$ 12 for MOS in the 0.3–10 keV energy band. We then performed the source detection routine ([EDETECT\_CHAIN]{}) on 2007 EPIC-pn data and identified 17 field X-ray sources in the 2$\sigma$ [Fermi]{} error circle (radius of 01) other than the AMXP, SAXJ 1808.4$-3$658. Their positions were astrometrically calibrated by correlating the sources detected in the whole pn field with the USNO B1.0 optical catalog ([@mon+03]; the SAS task [EPOSCORR]{} was used). The X-ray field is shown in Figure \[fig:xray\]. We obtained the source counts of the 17 sources in both pn and MOS data of the three observations. They were faint with pn count rates of 0.5–7.9$\times 10^{-3}$ ctss$^{-1}$ and MOS count rates of 0.1–2.6$\times 10^{-3}$ ctss$^{-1}$. Comparing their count rates in the three observations, we investigated their variability. Out of 17 sources, 16 of them were non-variable ($< 3\sigma$). Only one source, located at R.A.=18$^{\rm h}$08$^{\rm m}$54$\farcs$22, Decl.=$-$37$^{\circ}$06$'$50$\farcs$4 (equinox J2000.0; 1$\sigma$ positional uncertainty is 04), exhibited variability in the count rate at a significance level of $\sim 4\sigma$ and $\sim 3\sigma$ between 2006 and 2007 pn data and 2001 and 2007 MOS data, respectively. However, this source did not show a significant variation ($\sim 2\sigma$) between the 2006 and 2007 MOS data. We further studied this variable source by fitting its spectra with different models. The count rates were low in the 2001 and 2006 observations, and probably due to this reason, an absorbed power law can provide a good fit to the spectra. When the column density $N_H$ was set as a free parameter, unphysically large power-law indices of 3–6 were favored. If we fixed $N_H=1.3\times 10^{21}$cm$^{-2}$, the Galactic value toward the source direction [@dl90], the indices were lowered to 2.9–3.6, and the obtained MOS (absorbed) fluxes were in a range of 1.7–4.1$\times 10^{-14}$ ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ and the 2006 pn flux was 1.4$^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\times 10^{-14}$. However the 2007 pn spectrum, the most significantly detected (with a count rate of 7.91$\pm 0.71\times 10^{-3}$ctss$^{-1}$) among the sources and observations, can not be fit with a single model such as a power law (reduced $\chi^2>2$; 20 degrees of freedom). We searched the SIMBAD database and USNO B1.0 catalog, no radio or optical counterparts (generally down to 20 mag in $R$ band) were found. Given the properties, we suggest that this source is either a low luminosity X-ray binary or a background galaxy. The power law index values are too high for an AGN (e.g., [@umu97]), the largest class among [Fermi]{} LAT sources [@f3rd]. Discussion {#sec:disc} ========== Carrying out maximum likelihood analysis of more than 6-year [Fermi]{} $\gamma$-ray data of the source region of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}, we have detected a [$\gamma$-ray]{} source with the best-fit position consistent with that of AMXP. The source’s [$\gamma$-ray]{} spectrum can be described by an exponentially cutoff power law. The obtained parameters of $\Gamma$ = 1.6$\pm$0.4 and E$_{c}$ = 5.5$\pm$3.7 GeV are within the parameter ranges for pulsars (0.4 $<\Gamma<$2, 0.4 GeV $< E_{c} <$ 5.9 GeV; see the [Fermi]{} second pulsar catalog, [@abd+13]), although the uncertainties are large due to low counts of the source. In addition, a possible orbital modulation has also been detected. These results support the association of the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source with [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. Observational studies of the transitional MSP binaries (i.e., J1023$+$0038 and XSS J12270$-$4859) have shown that [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission is brighter during their active state when an accretion disk appears [@sta+14; @tak+14; @xw14] than that in the disk-free state, while the radio pulsars are possibly still active but not observable. Very likely in the latter state, the [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission arises from the magnetosphere of the MSPs (e.g., [@tak+14]). In the former state, it has been suggested that either the [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission is enhanced due to inverse Compton (IC) scattering of a cold pulsar wind off the optical/infrared photons from the accretion disk [@tak+14], or alternatively self-synchrotron Compton processes at the magnetospheric region of a propellering neutron star is the possible working mechanism for producing [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission [@ptl14]. Considering the similarities between the quiescent state of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} and the active state of the transitional MSP binaries, it is likely that a same emission mechanism also works in the AMXP and thus the observed [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission is expected. The orbital modulation from this source was possibly detected. However because of the relative low significance and the unique modulation profile, we can not draw a certain conclusion. The modulation has two brightness peaks around the inferior conjunction (phase 0.25, when the companion is in front of the neutron star) and the superior conjunction (phase 0.75, when the companion is behind the neutron star) respectively. Such modulation has not been observed in other MSP binaries. Usually there is only one brightness peak, either around the inferior conjunction (see, e.g. PSR J1023$+$0038 in [@bog+11] and XSS J12270$-$4859 in [@xw14]) and possibly due to the occultation of the photon emitting region by the companion, or around the superior conjunction (see, e.g., PSR B1957$+$20 in [@wu+12], 2FGL J0523.3$-$2530 in [@xwn14]) and possibly due to the viewing angle of the intrabinary interaction region [@wu+12; @bed14]. Moreover, the orbital signals in these MSP binaries are only seen when accretion disks are not present [@bog+11; @bog+14; @xw14]. Thus the possible orbital modulation needs further confirmation from different studies. Phase-resolved spectra may help identify the spectral differences and the origin of the modulation. Unfortunately the photon counts from this [$\gamma$-ray]{} source were too low to allow such analysis. Considering that the [$\gamma$-ray]{} emission is from [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}, the $>$0.1 GeV [$\gamma$-ray]{} luminosity of the source is $\sim 5.7d^{2}_{3.5} \times 10^{33}$ergs$^{-1}$ (for the exponentially cutoff power-law model) at the source distance of 3.5kpc [@gc06]. The spin-down luminosity $\dot{E}_{sd}$ of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} is $\sim 9\times 10^{33}$ergs$^{-1}$ ([@har+09]), indicating a [$\gamma$-ray]{} conversion efficiency $\eta_{\gamma}$ of 63%. The efficiency is above the ‘death line’ defined in @xw13 with the characteristic age of $\sim 12\times 10^{9}$yr for [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} (calculated from the pulsar parameters given in [@har+09]), which supports the suggestion that older MSPs tend to have higher $\eta_{\gamma}$ values. AGNs are the major class of [Fermi]{} LAT sources [@f3rd], and they may be identified from their strong variability (e.g., [@umu97; @wil+14]). We have analyzed three sets of XMM-Newton X-ray imaging data of the [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} field, and found 17 faint X-ray sources in the 2$\sigma$ error circle of the [$\gamma$-ray]{} source. Among them, only one had 3–4$\sigma$ low flux variations. However, this variable source did not have AGN-like emission, not supporting that it could be a background AGN. We caution that from the X-ray variability study, none of the other 16 sources are likely an AGN, but we can not totally exclude the possibility. In order to identify their nature from spectral properties, deep X-ray observations are needed. As we write the paper, the Fermi third source catalog is released [@f3rd], and we note that the source 3FGL J1808.4$-$3703 is reported to be detected at the region of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. The catalog position of 3FGL J1808.4$-$3703 is R.A. = 27212, Decl. = $-$3705 (equinox J2000.0), consistent with the best-fit position we obtained within uncertainties (see Figure \[fig:tsmap\]). Thus our data analysis is confirmed by the catalog results. The catalog source is also identified not to be unassociated with any known type of objects in the recently available catalogs. We thank Y. Tanaka and M. Gu for helpful discussion about AGN variability and multiple energy properties. This research made use of the High Performance Computing Resource in the Core Facility for Advanced Research Computing at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory. This research was supported by the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation for Youth (13ZR1464400), the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Youth (11403075), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11373055), and the Strategic Priority Research Program “The Emergence of Cosmological Structures" of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB09000000). Z.W. is a Research Fellow of the One-Hundred-Talents project of Chinese Academy of Sciences. J. V. acknowledges the support by Chinese Academy of Sciences President’s international fellowship initiative (Grant No. 2015PM059). [39]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} , A. A., [et al.]{} 2010, , 188, 405 —. 2013, , 208, 17 , A. M., [et al.]{} 2009, Science, 324, 1411 , W. B., [et al.]{} 2009, , 697, 1071 , C. G., [et al.]{} 2014, , 441, 1825 , W. 2014, , 561, A116 , D., & [van den Heuvel]{}, E. P. J. 1991, , 203, 1 , S., [Archibald]{}, A. M., [Hessels]{}, J. W. T., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [Lorimer]{}, D., [McLaughlin]{}, M. A., [Ransom]{}, S. M., & [Stairs]{}, I. H. 2011, , 742, 97 , S., [Patruno]{}, A., [Archibald]{}, A. M., [Bassa]{}, C., [Hessels]{}, J. W. T., [Janssen]{}, G. H., & [Stappers]{}, B. W. 2014, , 789, 40 , L., [Di Salvo]{}, T., [D’Antona]{}, F., [Robba]{}, N. R., & [Testa]{}, V. 2003, , 404, L43 , M., [Burderi]{}, L., [Possenti]{}, A., [D’Amico]{}, N., [Manchester]{}, R. N., [Lyne]{}, A. G., [Camilo]{}, F., & [Campana]{}, S. 2003, , 589, 902 , S., [et al.]{} 2002, , 575, L15 , D., & [Morgan]{}, E. H. 1998, , 394, 346 , O. C., [Raubenheimer]{}, B. C., & [Swanepoel]{}, J. W. H. 1989, , 221, 180 , D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 550, A89 , J. M., & [Lockman]{}, F. J. 1990, , 28, 215 , D. K., & [Cumming]{}, A. 2006, , 652, 559 , J. M., [Patruno]{}, A., [Chakrabarty]{}, D., [Markwardt]{}, C. B., [Morgan]{}, E. H., [van der Klis]{}, M., & [Wijnands]{}, R. 2009, , 702, 1673 , J. M., [et al.]{} 2008, , 675, 1468 , C. O., [Bahramian]{}, A., [Degenaar]{}, N., & [Wijnands]{}, R. 2014, ArXiv e-prints , A. B., [et al.]{} 2011, , 415, 235 , D. G., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 984 , P. L., [et al.]{} 2012, , 199, 31 , A., [Torres]{}, D. F., & [Li]{}, J. 2014, , 438, 2105 , A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 501, 517 , A., & [Watts]{}, A. L. 2012, ArXiv e-prints , B. W., [et al.]{} 2014, , 790, 39 , J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 785, 131 , P. H. T., [et al.]{} 2010, , 724, L207 . 2015, ArXiv e-prints , M.-H., [Maraschi]{}, L., & [Urry]{}, C. M. 1997, , 35, 445 , Z., [Breton]{}, R. P., [Heinke]{}, C. O., [Deloye]{}, C. J., & [Zhong]{}, J. 2013, , 765, 151 , R., [Kuiper]{}, L., [in ’t Zand]{}, J., [Dotani]{}, T., [van der Klis]{}, M., & [Heise]{}, J. 2002, , 571, 429 , R., & [van der Klis]{}, M. 1998, , 394, 344 , K. E., [et al.]{} 2014, , 789, 135 , E. M. H., [Takata]{}, J., [Cheng]{}, K. S., [Huang]{}, R. H. H., [Hui]{}, C. Y., [Kong]{}, A. K. H., [Tam]{}, P. H. T., & [Wu]{}, J. H. K. 2012, , 761, 181 , Y., & [Wang]{}, Z. 2013, , 769, 119 —. 2014, ArXiv e-prints , Y., [Wang]{}, Z., & [Ng]{}, C.-Y. 2014, ArXiv e-prints ----------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---- -- Spectral model $>$0.2 GeV Flux $\Gamma$ E$_{c}$ TS (10$^{-9}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) (GeV) Power law 3.2 $\pm$ 0.9 2.2 $\pm$ 0.1 ... 32 Power law with cutoff 2.4 $\pm$ 0.9 1.6 $\pm$ 0.4 5.5 $\pm$ 3.7 37 ----------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---- -- \[tab:likelihood\] ------- ------------------------------- ---- -- -- E F$\mathrm{_{low}}$/10$^{-12}$ TS (GeV) (erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) 0.15 1.1 0 0.33 1.7 0 0.74 1.4 $\pm$ 0.5 10 1.65 1.0 $\pm$ 0.3 10 3.67 0.8 $\pm$ 0.3 9 8.17 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 5 18.20 0.5 $\pm$ 0.4 4 40.54 0.6 0 90.27 1.8 0 20.10 5.6 0 ------- ------------------------------- ---- -- -- : Flux measurements of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. Columns 2 and 3 list the energy flux (E$^{2}$ $\times$ dN/dE) and the TS value in each energy bin, respectively. The fluxes without uncertainties are upper limits. \[tab:spectrum-point\] ![TS map of a $\mathrm{2^{o}\times2^{o}}$ region, with an image scale of 0.04 pixel$^{-1}$, centered at the position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} in $>$0.5 GeV energy range. The color bar indicates the TS values. The dark cross marks the optical position of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. The dark dashed and solid circles are the 2$\sigma$ error circles of the best-fit position obtained by us and given in the Fermi third source catalog for 3FGL J1808.4$-$3703, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:tsmap"}](f1.eps){width="3.4in"} ![[$\gamma$-ray]{} spectrum of [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}. The exponentially cutoff power-law and the power-law fits obtained from maximum likelihood analysis are shown as the dashed curve and dot-dashed line, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](f2.eps){width="3.4in"} ![2–300 GeV light curve folded with using the X-ray orbital parameters [@har+09]. The phase zero is at the ascending node of the MSP in [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{}.[]{data-label="fig:timing"}](f3.eps){width="3.4in"} ![XMM-Newton pn image of the [SAX J1808.4$-$3658]{} field. The large circle indicates the 2$\sigma$ error circle of the [Fermi]{} [$\gamma$-ray]{} source, in which 17 X-ray sources were detected (marked with small blue circles). The source found with 3–4$\sigma$ flux variations is marked with $V$.[]{data-label="fig:xray"}](f4.eps){width="3.4in"} [^1]: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/glast/groups/canda/lat\_Performance.htm	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present a model that can automatically learn alignments between high-dimensional data in an unsupervised manner. Our proposed method casts alignment learning in a framework where both alignment and data are modelled simultaneously. Further, we automatically infer groupings of different types of sequences within the same dataset. We derive a probabilistic model built on non-parametric priors that allows for flexible warps while at the same time providing means to specify interpretable constraints. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach with superior quantitative performance to the state-of-the-art approaches and provide examples to illustrate the versatility of our model in automatic inference of sequence groupings, absent from previous approaches, as well as easy specification of high level priors for different modalities of data.' bibliography: - 'references.bib' --- ### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} This work has been supported by EPSRC CDE (EP/L016540/1) and CAMERA (EP/M023281/1) grants as well as the Royal Society. IK would like to thank the Frostbite Physics team at EA. Supplementary material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered} ======================	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'String theory has the $T$-duality symmetry when the target space has Abelian isometries. A generalization of the $T$-duality, where the isometry group is non-Abelian, is known as the non-Abelian $T$-duality, which works well as a solution-generating technique in supergravity. In this paper, we describe the non-Abelian $T$-duality as a kind of ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation when the isometry group acts without isotropy. We then provide a duality transformation rule for the Ramond–Ramond fields by using the technique of double field theory (DFT). We also study a more general class of solution-generating technique, the Poisson–Lie (PL) $T$-duality or $T$-plurality. We describe the PL $T$-plurality as an ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation and clearly show the covariance of the DFT equations of motion by using the gauged DFT. We further discuss the PL $T$-plurality with spectator fields, and study an application to the ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$ solution. The dilaton puzzle known in the context of the PL $T$-plurality is resolved with the help of DFT.' --- Type II DFT solutions from Poisson–Lie $T$-duality/plurality [Yuho Sakatani]{} [Department of Physics, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine,]{}\ [Kyoto 606-0823, Japan]{}\ [`[email protected]`]{} [1.17]{} Introduction ============ The $T$-duality was discovered in [@Kikkawa:1984cp] as a symmetry of string theory compactified on a torus. The mass spectrum or the partition function of string theory on a $D$-dimensional torus was studied for example in [@Sakai:1985cs; @Nair:1986zn; @Ginsparg:1986wr; @Giveon:1988tt; @Shapere:1988zv] and the $T$-duality was identified as an ${\text{O}}(D,D;\mathbb{Z})$ symmetry. It was further studied from a different approach [@Buscher:1987sk; @Buscher:1987qj], and the transformation rules for the background fields (i.e. metric, the Kalb–Ramond $B$-field, and the dilaton) under the $T$-duality were determined. In [@Cecotti:1988zz; @Duff:1989tf], the $T$-duality was understood as an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ symmetry of the classical equations of motion of string theory. The classical symmetry was clarified in [@hep-th/9110053] by using the gauged sigma model, and this approach has proved quite useful, for example when we discuss the global structure of the $T$-dualized background [@hep-th/9309039]. The transformation rules for the Ramond–Ramond (R–R) fields and spacetime fermions were determined in [@hep-th/9504081; @hep-th/9504148; @hep-th/9601150; @hep-th/9907152]. This well-established symmetry of string theory is called the Abelian $T$-duality since it relies on the existence of Killing vectors which commute with each other (see [@hep-th/9401139; @hep-th/9410237] for reviews). An extension of the $T$-duality to the case of non-commuting Killing vectors was explored in [@hep-th/9210021] (see [@Fridling:1983ha; @Fradkin:1984ai] for earlier works), and this is known as the non-Abelian $T$-duality (NATD). Various aspects have been studied in [@hep-th/9308154; @hep-th/9308112; @hep-th/9309039; @hep-th/9402031; @hep-th/9403155; @hep-th/9404063; @hep-th/9406082; @hep-th/9409011; @hep-th/9411242; @hep-th/9502065; @hep-th/9503045; @hep-th/9507014; @hep-th/9510092; @hep-th/9602179; @1408.1715], but unlike the Abelian $T$-duality, there are still many things to be clarified. For example, the partition function in the dual model is not the same as that of the original model (see [@1805.03657] for a recent study), and NATD may rather be regarded as a map between two string theories. The global structure of the dual geometry is also not clearly understood [@hep-th/9309039]. However, NATD at least generates many new solutions of supergravity, and it can be utilized as a useful solution-generating technique. Under NATD, the isometries are generally broken, and naively we cannot recover the original model from the dual model. However, this issue was resolved by relaxing the condition for the dualizability [@hep-th/9502122]. The generalized duality is called the Poisson–Lie (PL) $T$-duality [@hep-th/9509095], and it can be performed even in the absence of the usual Killing vectors. The PL $T$-duality is based on a pair of groups with the same dimension, $G$ and $\tilde{G}$, that form a larger Lie group known as the Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{D}$. The PL $T$-duality is a symmetry that exchanges the role of the subgroups $G$ and $\tilde{G}$. Conventional NATD can be reproduced as a special case where one of the two groups is an Abelian group. Aspects of the PL $T$-duality and generalizations have been studied in [@hep-th/9512040; @hep-th/9605212; @hep-th/9602162; @hep-th/9610198; @hep-th/9611199; @hep-th/9710163; @hep-th/9904188; @hep-th/0106211; @1105.0162], and concrete applications are given, for example, in [@hep-th/9509095; @hep-th/9803175; @hep-th/9903152; @hep-th/0210095; @1308.0153]. Low-dimensional Drinfel’d doubles were classified in [@hep-th/0110139; @math/0202209; @math/0202210], and it was stressed that some Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{d}$ can be decomposed into several different pairs of subalgebras ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$, $(\mathfrak{d},\,{\mathfrak{g}},\,\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}) \cong (\mathfrak{d},\,{\mathfrak{g}}',\, \tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}') \cong \cdots$. The decomposition is called the Manin triple, and each Manin triple corresponds to a sigma model. The existence of several decompositions suggests that many sigma models are related through a Drinfel’d double. This idea was explicitly realized in [@hep-th/0205245] and the classical equivalence of the sigma models was called the PL $T$-plurality (see [@hep-th/0403164; @hep-th/0408126; @hep-th/0601172; @hep-th/0608069; @1201.5939] for more examples). Various aspects of the PL $T$-plurality were discussed in [@hep-th/0608133; @1811.12235] and in particular quantum aspects of the PL $T$-duality/plurality were studied in [@hep-th/9509123; @hep-th/9512025; @hep-th/9803019; @hep-th/0205245; @hep-th/0304053; @0902.1459; @0904.4248; @0910.0431; @0910.1345; @1212.5936]. Recent developments in NATD were triggered by [@1012.1320], which provided the transformation rule for the R–R fields under NATD. Although the analysis was limited to the case where the isometry group acts freely, that restriction was relaxed in [@1104.5196]. By exploiting the techniques, NATD for an ${\text{SU}}(2)$ isometry were extensively studied in [@1205.2274; @1212.1043; @1212.4840; @1301.6755; @1302.2105; @1305.7229; @1310.1264; @1310.1609; @1311.4842; @1312.4945; @1402.3294; @1408.0912; @1408.6545; @1409.7406; @1410.2650; @1411.7433; @1503.00553; @1503.07527; @1507.02659; @1507.02660; @1508.06568; @1509.04286; @1511.00269; @1511.05991; @1609.09061; @1701.01643; @1703.00417] (mainly in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence) and many novel solutions were constructed. Subsequently, the transformation rules that can also be applied to the fermionic $T$-duality were obtained in [@1806.04083]. More recently, NATD has received much attention in the context of integrable deformations of string theory, since a class of integrable deformation called the homogeneous Yang–Baxter deformation was shown to be a subclass of NATD [@1609.02550; @1609.09834; @1611.08020; @1706.10169]. Other integrable deformations such as the $\lambda$-deformation and the $\eta$-deformations can also be understood as a subclass of the so-called ${\mathcal E}$-model [@1508.05832], which was developed in the PL $T$-duality [@hep-th/9512040; @hep-th/9502122]. Moreover, as discussed in [@1504.06303; @1504.07213; @1506.05784; @1508.05832], the $\lambda$-deformation and the $\eta$-deformations are related by a PL $T$-duality and an analytic continuation. Thus, there is a close relationship between the PL $T$-duality and integrable deformations (see [@1606.03016; @1706.08912; @1809.01614; @1903.00439] for recent studies on the ${\mathcal E}$-model). Another approach to the $T$-duality has been developed in [@hep-th/9302036; @hep-th/9305073; @hep-th/9308133; @0904.4664; @0908.1792; @1003.5027; @1006.4823; @1009.2624; @1011.1324; @1011.4101; @1012.2744; @1105.6294; @1106.5452; @1107.0008; @1108.4937; @1112.5296; @1206.3478; @1207.4198; @1210.5078] and is called the double field theory (DFT). This manifests the Abelian ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ $T$-duality symmetry at the level of supergravity by formally doubling the dimensions of the spacetime. Several formulations of DFT have been proposed, such as the flux formulation (or the gauged DFT) [@1109.0290; @1109.4280; @1201.2924; @1304.1472] and DFT on group manifolds (or DFT$_{\text{WZW}}$) [@1410.6374; @1502.02428; @1509.04176]. Recently, by applying the idea of DFT$_{\text{WZW}}$, a formulation of DFT which manifests the PL $T$-duality was proposed in [@1707.08624] and the transformation of the R–R fields under the PL $T$-duality was discussed for the first time. The idea was developed in [@1810.11446] and applications to various integrable deformations were studied (see also [@1803.03971] for discussion on the PL $T$-duality, ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ symmetry, and integrable deformations). The covariance of the supergravity equations of motion under the PL $T$-duality was also shown in [@1708.04079; @1810.07763] using mathematical approaches. In this paper, we revisit the traditional NATD in a general setup where the non-vanishing $B$-field and the R–R fields are included. By assuming that the isometry group acts freely on the target space, we describe the NATD as a kind of ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation of the supergravity fields. From the obtained ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix, we can easily determine the transformation rule for the R–R fields by using the technique of DFT. Indeed, by using the information of given isometry generators, we provide simple duality transformation rules for bosonic fields. We then demonstrate the efficiency of the formula by studying some concrete examples. Since many examples have already been studied in the literature, in this paper, we will basically consider the cases where the isometry group is non-unimodular $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\neq 0$. This type of NATD is not well studied because the resulting dual geometry does not satisfy the supergravity equations of motion [@hep-th/9308112; @hep-th/9403155; @hep-th/9409011]. However, as pointed out in [@1710.06849; @1801.09567], the dual geometry in fact satisfies the generalized supergravity equations of motion (GSE) [@1511.05795; @1605.04884]. When the target space satisfies the GSE, string theory has the scale invariance [@Hull:1985rc; @1511.05795] and the $\kappa$-symmetry [@1605.04884]. The conformal symmetry may be broken, but recently, a local counterterm that cancels out the Weyl anomaly was constructed in [@1811.10600] (see also [@1703.09213]), and string theory may be consistently defined even in the generalized background. Even if it is not the case, NATD for a non-unimodular algebra still works as a solution-generating technique in supergravity, because an arbitrary GSE solution can be mapped to a solution of the usual supergravity [@1508.01150; @1511.05795; @1611.05856; @1703.09213] by performing a (formal) $T$-duality. Then, combining the NATD with $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\neq 0$ and the formal $T$-duality, we can generate a new supergravity solution. We also study the PL $T$-plurality with the R–R fields. In fact, the PL $T$-plurality can be regarded as a constant ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation acting on “untwisted fields” $\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB},\,\hat{d},\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}\}$. By requiring the untwisted fields to satisfy the dualizability condition or the ${\mathcal E}$-model condition of [@1811.10600], we show that the DFT equations of motion in the original and the transformed background are covariantly related by an ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation. This shows that if the original background satisfies the DFT equations of motion, the transformed background is also a solution of DFT. We also discuss the PL $T$-plurality with spectator fields. Again, by requiring certain conditions for the untwisted fields, we show that the DFT equations of motion are satisfied in the dual background. By using the proposed duality rules, we study an example of the PL $T$-plurality with the R–R fields. In studies of the PL $T$-plurality the so-called dilaton puzzle has been discussed in [@hep-th/0205245; @hep-th/0403164; @hep-th/0408126; @hep-th/0601172]. Under a PL $T$-plurality transformation, a dual-coordinate dependence (i.e. dependence on the coordinates of the dual group $\tilde{G}$) can appear in the dilaton. When such coordinate dependence appears, the background does not have the usual supergravity interpretation, and we are forced to disallow such transformation. However, in DFT we can treat the dual coordinates and the usual coordinates on an equal footing and we do not need to worry about the dilaton puzzle. As discussed in [@1611.05856; @1703.09213], a DFT solution with a dual-coordinate-dependent dilaton can be regarded as a solution of GSE, and by performing a further formal $T$-duality, we can obtain a linear dilaton solution of the usual supergravity. In this way, the issue of the dilaton puzzle is totally resolved and we can consider an arbitrary PL $T$-plurality transformation. This paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:DFT-review\], we briefly review DFT and GSE. In section \[sec:NATD\], we begin with a review of the traditional NATD, and translate the results into the language of DFT. We then provide a general transformation rule for the R–R fields. Examples of NATD without and with the R–R fields are studied in section \[sec:NATD-example-NS-NS\] and \[sec:NATD-example-R-R\]. In section \[sec:T-plurality\], we study the PL $T$-plurality in terms of DFT and determine the transformation rules from the DFT equations of motion. As an example of the PL $T$-plurality, in section \[sec:PL-AdS5\], we study the PL $T$-plurality transformation of ${\text{AdS}}_5\times {\text{S}}^5$ solution. Section \[sec:conclusion\] is devoted to conclusions and discussions. A review of DFT and GSE {#sec:DFT-review} ======================= Generalized-metric formulation of DFT {#generalized-metric-formulation-of-dft .unnumbered} ------------------------------------- There are several equivalent formulations of DFT, but the generalized-metric formulation [@1006.4823; @1011.1324; @1105.6294; @1112.5296] may be the most accessible; we thus utilize it as much as possible in this paper. In this formulation, the fundamental fields are a symmetric tensor, called the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}(x)$, and a scalar density ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d(x)}}$ called the DFT dilaton. The Lagrangian of DFT is given by $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal L}_{\text{DFT}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}{\mathcal S}\,, \\ &{\mathcal S}\equiv \frac{1}{8}\,{\mathcal H}^{MN}\,\partial_M {\mathcal H}^{PQ}\partial_N {\mathcal H}_{PQ} -\frac{1}{2}\, {\mathcal H}^{PQ}\,\partial_Q{\mathcal H}^{MN}\,\partial_N {\mathcal H}_{PM} + 4\,\partial_M d\,\partial_N{\mathcal H}^{MN} \\ &\qquad -4\,{\mathcal H}^{MN}\,\partial_M d\,\partial_N d - \partial_M\partial_N{\mathcal H}^{MN} +4\,{\mathcal H}^{MN}\,\partial_M\partial_N d\,. \end{split} \label{eq:DFT-action}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the fields are supposed to depend on the generalized coordinates $(x^M)=(x^m,\,\tilde{x}_m)$ ($M=1,\dotsc,2\,D$, $m=1,\dotsc,D$), and we raise or lower the indices $M,N$ by using the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$-invariant metric $\eta_{MN}$ and its inverse $\eta^{MN}$: $$\begin{aligned} \eta_{MN}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \delta_m^n \\ \delta^m_n & 0 \end{pmatrix},\qquad \eta^{MN}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \delta^m_n \\ \delta_m^n & 0 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ is defined to be an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_M{}^P\,{\mathcal H}_N{}^Q\,\eta_{PQ} = \eta_{MN} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and this property allows us to define projection operators as $$\begin{aligned} P^{MN} &\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{MN}+{\mathcal H}^{MN}\bigr)\,,\qquad \bar{P}^{MN}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{MN}-{\mathcal H}^{MN}\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $P_{M}{}^N +\bar{P}_M{}^N =\delta_M^N$. For consistency, we assume that arbitrary fields or gauge parameters $A(x)$ and $B(x)$ satisfy the so-called section condition, $$\begin{aligned} \eta^{MN}\,\partial_M \partial_N A =0 \,,\qquad \eta^{MN}\,\partial_M A\, \partial_N B =0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ According to this requirement, none of the fields can depend on more than $D$ coordinates. Under the section condition, the DFT action is invariant under the generalized Lie derivative $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\hat{\pounds}}_V {\mathcal H}_{MN} &\equiv V^P\,\partial_P {\mathcal H}_{MN} + \bigl(\partial_M V^P- \partial^P V_M\bigr)\,{\mathcal H}_{PN} + \bigl(\partial_N V^P- \partial^P V_N\bigr)\,{\mathcal H}_{MP}\,, \\ {\hat{\pounds}}_V d &\equiv V^M\,\partial_M d - \frac{1}{2}\,\partial_M V^M \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Namely, the generalized Lie derivative generates the gauge symmetry of DFT, known as the generalized diffeomorphisms. Under the section condition, we can also check that the generalized Lie derivative is closed by means of the C-bracket $[{\hat{\pounds}}_V,\,{\hat{\pounds}}_W] = {\hat{\pounds}}_{[V,\,W]_{\text{C}}}$, where $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} [V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}}^M &\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl({\hat{\pounds}}_{V_1} V_2^M - {\hat{\pounds}}_{V_2} V_1^M\bigr) \\ &= V_1^N\,\partial_N V_2^M - V_2^N\,\partial_N V_1^M - V_{[1}^N\, \partial^M V_{2]N}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, when the gauge parameters $V_{\mathrm{a}}^M$ satisfy $\eta_{MN}\,V_{\mathrm{a}}^M\,V_{\mathrm{b}}^N=2\,c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ ($c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ a constant), we can show that the C-bracket coincides with the generalized Lie derivative, $$\begin{aligned} [V_{\mathrm{a}},\,V_{\mathrm{b}}]_{\text{C}}^M = {\hat{\pounds}}_{V_{\mathrm{a}}}V_{\mathrm{b}}^M = -{\hat{\pounds}}_{V_{\mathrm{b}}}V_{\mathrm{a}}^M\,,\end{aligned}$$ similar to the case of the usual Lie derivative ${\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}v_{\mathrm{b}}^m=[v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}]^m$. In fact, the scalar ${\mathcal S}$ in can be understood as the generalized Ricci scalar curvature $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(P^{MK}\,P^{NL}-\bar{P}^{MK}\,\bar{P}^{NL}\bigr)\, S_{MNKL}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the (semi-covariant) curvature $S_{MNPQ}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} S_{MNPQ} &\equiv R_{MNPQ} + R_{PQMN} - \Gamma_{RMN} \,\Gamma^R{}_{PQ} \,, \\ R_{MNPQ} &\equiv \partial_M \Gamma_{NPQ} -\partial_N \Gamma_{MPQ} +\Gamma_{MPR}\,\Gamma_N{}^R{}_Q - \Gamma_{NPR}\,\Gamma_M{}^R{}_Q\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ If we use the curvature ${\mathcal S}$, the invariance of the DFT action under generalized diffeomorphisms is manifest. Then, the DFT action can be understood as a natural generalization of the Einstein–Hilbert action. The equations of motion are also summarized in a covariant form as[^1] $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}= 0 \,,\qquad {\mathcal S}_{MN}=0 \,, \label{eq:DFT-eom-Ricci}\end{aligned}$$ where the generalized Ricci tensor is defined by $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}_{MN} \equiv \bigl(P_M{}^P\,\bar{P}_N{}^Q+\bar{P}_M{}^P\,P_N{}^Q \bigr)\, S_{RPQ}{}^R \,. \end{aligned}$$ For concrete computation, the following expression may be more useful: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}_{MN}&= -2\,\bigl(P_M{}^P\,\bar{P}_N{}^Q + \bar{P}_M{}^P\,P_N{}^Q\bigr)\, {\mathcal K}_{PQ} \,, \\ {\mathcal K}_{MN} &\equiv \frac{1}{8}\,\partial_M {\mathcal H}^{PQ}\,\partial_N {\mathcal H}_{PQ} - \frac{1}{2}\,\partial_{(M\|} {\mathcal H}^{PQ}\,\partial_P {\mathcal H}_{\|N)Q} + 2\,\partial_M \partial_N d {\nonumber}\\ &\quad + \bigl(\partial_P - 2\,\partial_P d\bigr)\,\Bigl( \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal H}^{PQ}\,\partial_{(M} {\mathcal H}_{N)Q} + \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal H}^Q{}_{(M\|}\,\partial_Q {\mathcal H}^P{}_{\|N)} -\frac{1}{4}\,{\mathcal H}^{PQ}\,\partial_Q {\mathcal H}_{MN} \Bigr) \,. \label{eq:DFT-eom}\end{aligned}$$ When we make the connection to conventional supergravity, we suppose $\tilde{\partial}^m=0$ and parameterize the generalized metric and the DFT dilaton as $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal H}_{MN}) = \begin{pmatrix} g_{mn}-B_{mp}\,g^{pq}\,B_{qn} & B_{mp}\,g^{pn} \\ -g^{mp}\,B_{pn} & g^{mn} \end{pmatrix}\,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}= {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ by using the standard NS–NS fields $\{g_{mn},\,B_{mn},\,\Phi\}$. Then, ${\mathcal S}$ and ${\mathcal S}_{MN}$ reduce to $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal S}&=R + 4\,D^m \partial_m \Phi - 4\,D^m \Phi\,D_m\Phi - \frac{1}{12}\,H_{mnp}\,H^{mnp} \,, \\ ({\mathcal S}_{MN})&= \begin{pmatrix} 2\,g_{(m\|k}\,s^{[kl]} \,B_{l\|n)} - s_{(mn)} - B_{mk}\,s^{(kl)}\,B_{ln}\quad & B_{mk}\,s^{(kn)} - g_{mk}\,s^{[kn]} \\ s^{[mk]}\,g_{kn} -s^{(mk)}\,B_{kn}\quad & s^{(mn)} \end{pmatrix} \,, \\ s_{mn} &\equiv R_{mn}-\frac{1}{4}\,H_{mpq}\,H_n{}^{pq} + 2 D_m \partial_n \Phi - \frac{1}{2}\,D^k H_{kmn} + \partial_k\Phi\,H^k{}_{mn} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and the standard supergravity Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal L}= \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}{\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi}}\Bigl(R + 4\,D^m \partial_m \Phi - 4\,D^m \Phi\,D_m\Phi - \frac{1}{12}\,H_{mnp}\,H^{mnp}\Bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the equations of motion are reproduced, $$\begin{aligned} R + 4\,D^m \partial_m \Phi - 4\,D^m \Phi\,D_m\Phi - \frac{1}{12}\,H_{mnp}\,H^{mnp}=0\,,\quad s_{(mn)}=0\,,\quad s_{[mn]}=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ We can also introduce the R–R fields in a manifestly ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ covariant manner. However, the treatment of the R–R fields is slightly involved, and we will not write out the covariant expression explicitly here (see Appendix \[app:DFT\], and also [@1703.09213; @1803.05903] for the detail). In the following, aimed at readers who are not familiar with DFT, we will try to describe the R–R fields as the usual $p$-form fields as much as possible. Gauged DFT {#gauged-dft .unnumbered} ---------- When we manifest the covariance under the PL $T$-plurality, it is convenient to rewrite the DFT equations of motion by using the technique of the gauged DFT [@1109.0290; @1109.4280; @1201.2924; @1304.1472]. Suppose that the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ has the form $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN}(x) = \bigl[U(x)\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}(x)\bigr]_{MN}\,, \qquad U \equiv (U_M{}^A)\,, \label{eq:twist-matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ is a constant matrix, which we call the untwisted metric. In this case, it is useful to define ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ and ${\mathcal F}_A$, called the gaugings or the generalized fluxes, as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal F}_{ABC} \equiv 3\,\Omega_{[ABC]}\,, \qquad {\mathcal F}_A \equiv \Omega^B{}_{AB} + 2\, {\mathcal D}_A d \,, \\ &\Omega_{ABC} \equiv - {\mathcal D}_A U_B{}^M\, U_{MC} = \Omega_{A[BC]} \,,\quad {\mathcal D}_A \equiv U_A{}^M\,\partial_M \,,\quad U_A{}^M \equiv (U^{-1})_A{}^M\,. \end{split} \label{eq:generalized-fluxes}\end{aligned}$$ They behave as scalars under generalized diffeomorphisms. By using the generalized fluxes, we can show that the DFT equations of motion , under the section condition, are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal R}= 0\,,\qquad {\mathcal G}^{AB} = 0 \,, \label{eq:EOM-flux}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal R}&\equiv -2\,{\bar{P}}^{AB}\, \bigl(2\,{\mathcal D}_A{\mathcal F}_B - {\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal F}_B\bigr) - \frac{1}{3}\,{\bar{P}}^{ABCDEF}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} \,, \\ {\mathcal G}^{AB} &\equiv -4\,{\bar{P}}^{D[A}\, {\mathcal D}^{B]}{\mathcal F}_D + 2\,({\mathcal F}_D-{\mathcal D}_D)\,\check{{\mathcal F}}^{D[AB]} - 2\,\check{{\mathcal F}}^{CD[A}\,{\mathcal F}_{CD}{}^{B]} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have defined $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} (\eta_{AB}) &\equiv \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}\\ \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad (\eta^{AB}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}\\ \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad \check{{\mathcal F}}^{ABC}\equiv {\bar{P}}^{ABCDEF}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF}\,, \\ P_{AB}&\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta_{AB}+\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\bigr)\,,\qquad \bar{P}_{AB}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta_{AB}-\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\bigr)\,, \\ {\bar{P}}^{ABCDEF} &\equiv {\bar{P}}^{AD}\,{\bar{P}}^{BE}\,{\bar{P}}^{CF} + {P}^{AD}\,{\bar{P}}^{BE}\,{\bar{P}}^{CF} + {\bar{P}}^{AD}\,{P}^{BE}\,{\bar{P}}^{CF} + {\bar{P}}^{AD}\,{\bar{P}}^{BE}\,{P}^{CF} \\ &= \tfrac{1}{4}\,\bigl(\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF} - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF} - \eta^{AD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\eta^{CF} - \eta^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF}\bigr) \\ &\quad + \tfrac{1}{2}\,\eta^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF} \,, \end{split} \label{eq:P-check}\end{aligned}$$ and the indices $A,\,B$ are raised or lowered with $\eta_{AB}$ and $\eta^{AB}$. Under the section condition we can check that ${\mathcal R}={\mathcal S}$. The equivalence between ${\mathcal S}_{MN}=0$ and ${\mathcal G}^{AB}=0$ is slightly more non-trivial, but it is concisely explained in [@1304.1472] (see also Appendix \[app:DFT\]). In the flux formulation of DFT [@1304.1472], we take the untwisted metric $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ as a diagonal Minkowski metric, and then $E_A{}^M \equiv U_A{}^M$ is regarded as the generalized vielbein. The fundamental fields are $E_M{}^A$ and $d$, and the equations of motion can be derived from $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal L}= {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}\, {\mathcal R}\,. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, in this paper, we rather interpret as a reduction ansatz and the equations of motion are just rewritings of , similar to the gauged DFT [@1109.0290; @1109.4280; @1201.2924]. For our purpose, it is enough to consider the cases where the generalized fluxes are constant. In that case, the equations of motion are simple algebraic equations, $$\begin{aligned} &{\mathcal R}= \frac{1}{12}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} \,\bigl(3\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF}- \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF}\bigr) - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\, {\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal F}_B = 0 \,, \label{eq:flux-dilaton-eom} \\ &{\mathcal G}^{AB} = \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{CE}\,\eta^{DF} - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{DF} \bigr)\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{G[A}\,{\mathcal F}_{CD}{}^{B]}\,{\mathcal F}_{EFG} + 2\,{\mathcal F}_D \,\check{{\mathcal F}}^{D[AB]} = 0 \,, \label{eq:flux-vielbein-eom}\end{aligned}$$ where we have again used the section condition. In general, the untwisted metric and the DFT dilaton may depend on the coordinates $y^\mu$ on the uncompactified external spacetime. In this case, we denote the extended coordinates as $(x^M)=(y^\mu,\,x^i,\,\tilde{y}_\mu,\,\tilde{x}_i)$ and consider $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} = \bigl[U(x^I)\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}(y^\mu)\,U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}(x^I)\bigr]_{MN}\,, \qquad d = \hat{d}(y^\mu) + {\mathsf{d}}(x^I)\,, \label{eq:SS-ansatz}\end{aligned}$$ where $(x^I)\equiv (x^i,\,\tilde{x}_i)$. By following [@1201.2924], we assume that $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}(y)$ and $\hat{d}(y)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal D}_A \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{BC}(y) = \partial_A \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{BC}(y)\,,\qquad {\mathcal D}_A \hat{d}(y) = \partial_A \hat{d}(y) \qquad (\partial_A\equiv \delta_A^M\,\partial_M)\,, \label{eq:external-condition}\end{aligned}$$ and then the generalized Ricci scalar (under the section condition) becomes [@1201.2924] \[see \] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal S}&= \hat{{\mathcal S}} + \frac{1}{12}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} \,\bigl(3\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF}- \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF}\bigr) - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\, {\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal F}_B \\ &\quad - \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal F}^A{}_{BC}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CE}\,{\mathcal D}_D\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AE} + 2\,{\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal D}_B\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB} - 4\,{\mathcal F}_A\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\,{\mathcal D}_B \hat{d}\,, \end{split} \label{eq:generalized-Ricci-gauged}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{{\mathcal S}}$ denotes the generalized Ricci scalar associated with $\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB},\,\hat{d}\}$, and the fluxes ${\mathcal F}_{A}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ are now made of $\{U_M{}^A(x),\, {\mathsf{d}}(x)\}$. It is important to note that the equation of motion ${\mathcal S}=0$ is invariant under a constant ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB} \to (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB}\,,\qquad U_A{}^M \to C_A{}^B\,U_B{}^M\,, \label{eq:gauged-ODD}\end{aligned}$$ which also transforms the generalized fluxes covariantly. This transformation looks similar to the PL $T$-plurality discussed in section \[sec:T-plurality\], but they are totally different transformations since does not change ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ while the PL $T$-plurality changes ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$. GSE from DFT {#gse-from-dft .unnumbered} ------------ As already explained, if we choose a section $\tilde{\partial}^m=0$, the DFT equations of motion reproduce the usual supergravity equations of motion. On the other hand, we can derive the GSE by choosing another solution of the section condition [@1611.05856; @1703.09213], $$\begin{aligned} &{\mathcal H}_{MN} = {\mathcal H}_{MN}(x^m)\,,\qquad d = d_0(x^m) + I^m \,\tilde{x}_m \qquad (I^m \text{ a constant})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the DFT dilaton has a linear dependence on the dual coordinates. In order to satisfy the section condition, we require the vector field $I^m$ to satisfy $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\pounds}}_{{\bm X}}{\mathcal H}_{MN} = {\hat{\pounds}}_{{\bm X}}d = 0 \,,\qquad ({{\bm X}}^M) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} I^m \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} , \label{eq:fixed-X}\end{aligned}$$ which are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} {{\bm X}}^P\,\partial_P {\mathcal H}_{MN} = {{\bm X}}^P\,\partial_P d = {{\bm X}}^P\,\partial_P d_0 = 0\,, \end{aligned}$$ and indeed ensure the section condition, $$\begin{aligned} \eta^{PQ}\,\partial_P {\mathcal H}_{MN}\,\partial_Q d = {{\bm X}}^P\,\partial_P {\mathcal H}_{MN} = 0\,,\qquad \eta^{MN}\,\partial_M d\,\partial_N d = 2\,{{\bm X}}^P\,\partial_P d_0 = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$ If we choose this section and parameterize ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ as usual in terms of $\{g_{mn},\,B_{mn}\}$ and $d_0$ as ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d_0}}={\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}$, the DFT equations of motion (without R–R fields) become $$\begin{aligned} &R + 4\,D^m \partial_m \Phi - 4\,{\lvert{\partial \Phi} \rvert}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\,{\lvert{H_3} \rvert}^2 - 4\,\bigl(I^m I_m+U^m U_m + 2\,U^m\,\partial_m \Phi - D_m U^m\bigr) =0 \,, {\nonumber}\\ &R_{mn}-\frac{1}{4}\,H_{mpq}\,H_n{}^{pq} + 2 D_m \partial_n \Phi + D_m U_n +D_n U_m = 0 \,, \\ &-\frac{1}{2}\,D^k H_{kmn} + \partial_k\Phi\,H^k{}_{mn} + U^k\,H_{kmn} + D_m I_n - D_n I_m = 0 \,, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_m \equiv I^n\,B_{nm}$. They are precisely the GSE studied in [@Hull:1985rc; @1511.05795; @1605.04884]. When $I^m=0$ (where the Killing equations are trivial), they reduce to the usual supergravity equations of motion. Another way to derive the GSE is to make the modification $$\begin{aligned} \partial_M d \to \partial_M d + {{\bm X}}_M\qquad ({{\bm X}}_M \text{ a generalized vector})\,, \label{eq:mDFT-shift}\end{aligned}$$ everywhere in the DFT equations of motion [@1611.05856]. As long as ${{\bm X}}^M$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\pounds}}_{{\bm X}}{\mathcal H}_{MN} = {\hat{\pounds}}_{{\bm X}}d = 0 \,,\qquad \eta_{MN}\,{{\bm X}}^M\,{{\bm X}}^N = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ we can choose a gauge such that ${{\bm X}}^M$ takes the form [@1703.09213]. In terms of the generalized flux, obviously this modification corresponds to $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A \to {\mathcal F}_A + 2\, {{\bm X}}_A \,,\qquad {{\bm X}}_A \equiv U_A{}^M\,{{\bm X}}_M \,. \end{aligned}$$ Even in the presence of the R–R fields, this replacement is enough to derive the type II GSE, although we additionally need to require the isometry condition for the R–R fields, $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_I F = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ A formal $T$-duality {#a-formal-t-duality .unnumbered} -------------------- In generalized backgrounds, where the supergravity fields satisfy the GSE, the string theory may not have conformal symmetry. Accordingly, when we obtain a generalized background as a result of NATD, it is usually regarded as a problematic example, and such backgrounds have not been considered seriously. However, as discussed in [@1508.01150; @1511.05795; @1611.05856; @1703.09213], by performing a formal $T$-duality, we can always transform a generalized background to a linear-dilaton solution of the usual supergravity. Here, we review what the formal $T$-duality is. The DFT equations of motion are covariant under a constant ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} x^M \to \Lambda^M{}_N\,x^N\,,\qquad {\mathcal H}_{MN} \to \bigl(\Lambda\,{\mathcal H}\,\Lambda^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}\bigr)_{MN}\,, \qquad \partial_M d \to \partial_M d \,. \label{eq:formal-Odd}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if we consider an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix, $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} - e_z & e_z \\ e_z & \bm{1} - e_z \end{pmatrix},\qquad e_z \equiv {\mathrm{diag}}(0,\dotsc,0,\underbrace{1}_{x^z},0,\dotsc,0)\,, \label{eq:factorized}\end{aligned}$$ it corresponds to the (factorized) $T$-duality along the $x^z$-direction. For a given GSE solution with $d=d_0 + I^z\,\tilde{x}_z$, the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation with exchanges the coordinates $x^z$ and $\tilde{x}_z$, and the dilaton becomes $d=d_0 + I^z\,x^z$. According to the Killing equation, the generalized metric is independent of $x^z$, and the dual coordinate $\tilde{x}_z$ does not appear in the resulting background. This means that the GSE background is transformed to a solution of the usual supergravity with a linear dilaton $d=d_0 + I^z\,x^z$. The reason we call this ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation a “formal” $T$-duality is as follows. The usual Abelian $T$-duality in the presence of $D$ Abelian isometries is an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} \to \Lambda_M{}^P\,\Lambda_N{}^Q\,{\mathcal H}_{PQ}\,, \qquad \partial_M d \to \partial_M d \,. \label{eq:T-dual}\end{aligned}$$ The difference from is whether the coordinates are transformed or not. If we transform the coordinates, is always a symmetry of the DFT equations of motion even without isometries. In the presence of Abelian isometries, due to the coordinate independence, the transformation $x^M \to \Lambda^M{}_N\,x^N$ is trivial and the formal $T$-duality reduces to the usual $T$-duality . To stress the difference, when we perform the transformation with along a non-isometric direction, we call it a formal $T$-duality. Non-Abelian $T$-duality {#sec:NATD} ======================= In this section we study the traditional NATD in general curved backgrounds. We begin with a review of NATD for the NS–NS sector. We then describe the duality as a kind of local ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation and provide the general transformation rule for the R–R fields by employing the results of DFT. To provide a closed-form expression for the duality rule, we restrict our discussion to the case where we can take a simple gauge choice, $x^i(\sigma)=\text{const.}$ NS–NS sector ------------ In the case of the Abelian $T$-duality, the dual action is obtained with the procedure of [@Buscher:1987qj; @hep-th/9110053]. When a target space has a set of Killing vector fields $v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m$ that commute with each other $[v_{{\mathrm{a}}},\,v_{{\mathrm{b}}}]=0$, the sigma model has a global symmetry generated by $x^m(\sigma)\to x^m(\sigma) + \epsilon^{{\mathrm{a}}}\,v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m(\sigma)$. This global symmetry can be made a local symmetry by introducing gauge fields ${A}^{{\mathrm{a}}}(\sigma)$ and replacing ${{\mathrm{d}}}x^m \to Dx^m\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m - v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}$. We also introduce the Lagrange multipliers $\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}}(\sigma)$, which constrain the field strengths to vanish. Then, by integrating out the gauge fields ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}$ we obtain the dual action, where the Lagrange multipliers $\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}}$ become the embedding functions in the dual geometry. In [@hep-th/9210021], this procedure was generalized to the case of non-commuting Killing vectors. It was further developed later, and in the following we review NATD in a general setup as discussed in [@hep-th/9403155; @1408.1715]. We consider a target space with $n$ generalized Killing vectors $V_{\mathrm{a}}$ (${\mathrm{a}}=1,\dotsc,n$) satisfying $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\pounds}}_{V_{\mathrm{a}}} {\mathcal H}_{MN} =0 \,, \qquad [V_{\mathrm{a}},\, V_{\mathrm{b}}]_{\text{C}} = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,V_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad \eta_{MN}\,V_{\mathrm{a}}^M\,V_{\mathrm{b}}^N = 2\,c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,, \qquad f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{c}}} = 0\,. \label{eq:setup1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ is a constant symmetric matrix. If we choose a section $\tilde{\partial}^m=0$ and parameterize the generalized Killing vectors as $$\begin{aligned} (V_{\mathrm{a}}^M) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} v_{\mathrm{a}}^m \\ \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m} \end{pmatrix} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} v_{\mathrm{a}}^m \\ \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m}+B_{mn}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^n \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ these conditions reduce to[^2] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} g_{mn}=0\,,\qquad \iota_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} H_3 + {{\mathrm{d}}}\hat{v}_{\mathrm{a}}= 0 \,,\qquad v_{({\mathrm{a}}}\cdot\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}})} = c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,, \\ &{\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} v_{\mathrm{b}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} \hat{v}_{\mathrm{b}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\hat{v}_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{c}}} = 0 \,, \label{eq:setup2} \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the dot denotes a contraction of the index $m$. They are precisely the requirements to perform NATD [@hep-th/9403155; @1408.1715] (see [@Hull:1989jk; @Hull:1990ms] for the origin of the conditions). Under the setup, we consider the gauged action by following the standard procedure [@Buscher:1987qj; @hep-th/9110053]. Ignoring the dilaton term, the gauged action takes the form [@Hull:1989jk; @Hull:1990ms; @hep-th/9403155; @1408.1715] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} S &\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \bigl(\EPSneg g_{mn}\,D x^m\wedge \,D x^n -2\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge \hat{v}_{\mathrm{a}}+ B_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr) +\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'} \int_{\mathcal B}H_3 \\ &\quad + \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'} \int_\Sigma \bigl(2\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}+ f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr)\qquad (\partial{\mathcal B}=\Sigma)\,, \end{split} \label{eq:gauged-NATD}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced gauge fields ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma)\equiv {A}^{\mathrm{a}}_a(\sigma)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\sigma^a$ $(a=0,1)$ and have defined $$\begin{aligned} D_a x^m\equiv \partial_a x^m - {A}^{\mathrm{a}}_a\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m \,, \quad F^{\mathrm{a}}\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}{A}^{\mathrm{a}}+ \frac{1}{2}\,f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,{A}^{\mathrm{b}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\quad B_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \equiv \hat{v}_{[{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot v_{{\mathrm{b}}]} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Under the conditions , this action is invariant under the local symmetry, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \delta_\epsilon x^m(\sigma) &= \epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma)\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m(x)\,,\qquad \delta_\epsilon {A}^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma) = {{\mathrm{d}}}\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma) + f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,{A}^{\mathrm{b}}(\sigma)\,\epsilon^{\mathrm{c}}(\sigma) \,, \\ \delta_\epsilon \tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma) &= c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\epsilon^{{\mathrm{b}}}(\sigma) - f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\, \epsilon^{\mathrm{b}}(\sigma) \, \tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}(\sigma) \,. \end{split} \label{eq:coordinate-gauge}\end{aligned}$$ If we first use the equations of motion for the Lagrange multipliers $\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}$, the field strengths $F^{\mathrm{a}}$ are constrained to vanish and the gauge fields will become a pure gauge. Then, at least locally, we can choose a gauge ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}=0$ and the original theory will be recovered, $$\begin{aligned} S_0 = \EPSneg \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma g_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n +\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'} \int_{\mathcal B}H_3 \,.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by using the equations of motion for ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}$ first, we obtain the dual model. For this purpose, it is convenient to rewrite the action as $$\begin{aligned} S &= \EPSneg \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma g_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n + \frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'} \int_\Sigma B_2 {\nonumber}\\ &\quad + \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \bigl[ 2\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge \nu_{{\mathrm{a}}} \EPSminus g_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, {A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{b}}+ (B_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} + f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{c}}})\,{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \nu_{{\mathrm{a}}} \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}} \EPSplus v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m\,g_{mn}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n - \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}} \,,\qquad g_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \equiv g_{mn}\,v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m\,v_{{\mathrm{b}}}^n\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the equations of motion for ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}$ become[^3] $$\begin{aligned} \nu_{{\mathrm{a}}} = \EPSpos g_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, {A}^{\mathrm{b}}- (B_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}+f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{c}}})\, {A}^{\mathrm{b}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and this can be solved for ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {A}^{{\mathrm{a}}} = \EPSpos N^{({\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}})}\, * \nu_{\mathrm{b}}- N^{[{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}]}\, \nu_{\mathrm{b}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned} (N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) \equiv (E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}+f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{c}}})^{-1} \,. \end{aligned}$$ After eliminating the gauge fields, the action becomes $$\begin{aligned} S &= \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \bigl(\EPSneg g_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n + B_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n \EPSminus N^{({\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}})}\, \nu_{\mathrm{a}}\wedge \nu_{{\mathrm{b}}} + N^{[{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}]}\, \nu_{{\mathrm{a}}} \wedge \nu_{\mathrm{b}}\bigr) {\nonumber}\\ &= -\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma{{\mathrm{d}}}^2\sigma \sqrt{-\gamma}\,(\gamma^{ab}\EPSplus \varepsilon^{ab})\,\bigl(E_{mn}\,\partial_a x^m\,\partial_b x^n + N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \nu_{{\mathrm{a}}a}\, \nu_{{\mathrm{b}}b}\bigr) \,, \label{eq:dual-action1}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{mn} \equiv g_{mn} + B_{mn}$. In the above computation, we have assumed that the matrix $(E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}+f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{c}}})$ is invertible,[^4] but other than that the computation is general. Now, a major difference from the Abelian case appears. In the Abelian case, by choosing the adapted coordinates $v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m=\delta_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m$ we can always realize a gauge $x^{{\mathrm{a}}}(\sigma)=0$. However, in the non-Abelian case, such a gauge choice is not always possible since we cannot realize $v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m=\delta_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m$. In order to provide a closed-form expression for the duality transformation rule, in this paper we assume that the gauge symmetries can be fixed as $x^i(\sigma)=c^i$ ($c^i$ constant) under a suitable decomposition of spacetime coordinates $(x^m)=(y^\mu,\,x^i)$. This gauge choice removes $n$ coordinates $x^i$ and instead introduces $n$ dual coordinates $\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}}$. Then, the situation is the same as the Abelian case. Under the gauge choice $x^i(\sigma)=c^i$, the action reproduces the dual action for the dual coordinates $x'^m=(y^\mu,\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}})$, $$\begin{aligned} S &= -\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma{{\mathrm{d}}}^2\sigma \sqrt{-\gamma}\,(\gamma^{ab}\EPSplus \varepsilon^{ab})\, E'_{mn}\,\partial_a x'^m\,\partial_b x'^n \,, \\ \bigl(E'_{mn}\bigr) &\equiv \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} - \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{a}}\mu} - \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\mu} \bigr)\,N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{b}}\nu} + \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\nu} \bigr) & \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu} - \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu} \bigr)\,N^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}} \\ - N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}\,\bigl(v_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu} + \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu} \bigr) & N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix}\Biggr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} . \label{eq:dual-BG}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the NATD can be understood as a transformation of the target space geometry, $$\begin{aligned} E_{mn} \quad \rightarrow \quad E'_{mn}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Regarding the transformation rule for the dilaton, we employ the result of [@hep-th/9210021], $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi'}} = \frac{1}{{\lvert{\det (N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}})} \rvert}} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi}} . \label{eq:dual-dilaton}\end{aligned}$$ NATD as ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation ---------------------------------------- In order to show a general transformation rule for the R–R fields, it is convenient to describe NATD as ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotations. Starting with the original background, $$\begin{aligned} (E_{mn}) = \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & E_{\mu j} \\ E_{i\nu} & E_{ij} \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ we construct the dual background through the following three steps. 1. We first perform a ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} E \ \to \ E^{(1)} = \Lambda_v\,E\,\Lambda_v^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}} \,,\qquad \Lambda_v \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\mu^\nu & 0 \\ v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^\nu & v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^j \end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ As we have assumed, we can fix the gauge symmetry $\delta_\epsilon x^i = \epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i$ such that $x^i(\sigma)=c^i$ is realized. For this to be possible, $\det(v_{\mathrm{a}}^i)\neq 0$ should be satisfied and the ${\text{GL}}(D)$ matrix $\Lambda_v$ is invertible. We then obtain $$\begin{aligned} E^{(1)} = \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & E_{\mu n}\,v^n_{{\mathrm{b}}} \\ v_{\mathrm{a}}^{m}\,E_{m\nu} & v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^n\,E_{mn} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & (v_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu}-\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu})+\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu} \\ (v_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu}+\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu})-\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} & E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} + v_{[{\mathrm{a}}} \cdot \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}]} \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\begin{aligned} v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m\,B_{m\nu} = \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} - \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu}\,,\qquad B_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=\hat{v}_{[{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot v_{{\mathrm{b}}]} \,. \end{aligned}$$ 2. We next perform a $B$-transformation, $$\begin{aligned} E^{(1)} \ \to\ E^{(2)} \equiv E^{(1)} + \Lambda_f \,,\qquad \Lambda_f\equiv \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu} \\ \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} & f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{c}}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}- v_{[{\mathrm{a}}} \cdot \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}]} \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned} E^{(2)} = \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & (v_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu}-\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu}) \\ (v_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu}+\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu}) & E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} +f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{c}}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}\end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ 3. Finally, we perform a $T$-duality transformation, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} E^{(2)} \ &\to\ E^{(3)} \equiv \bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} + \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}}\,E^{(2)}\bigr)\,\bigl(\Lambda_{\mathsf{T}}+ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}}\, E^{(2)}\bigr)^{-1} \,, \\ \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} &\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_{d-n} & \bm{0} \\ \bm{0} & \bm{0} \end{pmatrix},\qquad \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}}\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \bm{0} & \bm{0} \\ \bm{0} & \bm{1}_n\end{pmatrix}, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned} E^{(3)} &= \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\rho} & (v_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu}-\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu}) \\ 0 & \bm{1} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} & \bm{0} \\ (v_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu}+\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu}) & E_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}} +f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{d}}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{d}}\end{pmatrix}^{-1} {\nonumber}\\ &= \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} - \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{a}}\mu} - \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\mu} \bigr)\,N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{b}}\nu} + \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\nu} \bigr) & \bigl(v_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu} - \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\mu} \bigr)\,N^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}} \\ - N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}\,\bigl(v_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu} + \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{c}}\nu} \bigr) & N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ By choosing the gauge $x^i=c^i$, this precisely reproduces the dual background . Of course, each step is not a symmetry of supergravity, but this decomposition is useful when we determine the transformation rule of the R–R fields. In terms of the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$, the above NATD is expressed as a local ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal H}_{MN} &\to {\mathcal H}'_{MN} = (h \,{\mathcal H}\, h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN}\bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} \,, \\ (h_M{}^N) &\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} & \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} \\ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} & \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} & \Lambda_f \\ 0&\bm{1} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_v &0 \\ 0&(\Lambda_v)^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}} \end{pmatrix}, \end{split} \label{eq:NATD-Odd}\end{aligned}$$ and the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix $h_M{}^N$ can be straightforwardly constructed from the given set of generalized Killing vectors $V_{{\mathrm{a}}}=(v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m,\,\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m})$. Under a general ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal H}_{MN} &\to {\mathcal H}'_{MN}=(h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad h_M{}^N \equiv \begin{pmatrix} p_{m}{}^{n} & q_{mn} \\ r^{mn} & s^{m}{}_{n} \end{pmatrix} , \\ E_{mn} &\to E'_{mn} = [(q+p\,E)\,(s+r\,E)^{-1}]_{mn} = [(s^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}-E\,r^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})^{-1}\,(- q^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}+ E\,p^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})]_{mn}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ the determinant of the metric transforms as (see for example [@hep-th/9201040]) $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}} \to \sqrt{{\lvert{g'} \rvert}} = {\lvert{\det(s+r\,E)} \rvert}^{-1} \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}} \,. \label{eq:detg-formula}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, under the NATD we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{{\lvert{g'} \rvert}} &= {\lvert{\det(\Lambda_{\mathsf{T}}+ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}}\, E^{(2)})} \rvert}^{-1}\,{\lvert{\det(\Lambda_v)} \rvert} \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}\ \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} {\nonumber}\\ &= {\lvert{\det (N^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}})} \rvert} \,{\lvert{\det(v_{\mathrm{a}}^i)} \rvert} \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}\ \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Combining this with , we obtain the transformation rule for the DFT dilaton: $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d'}} &= {\lvert{\det(v_{\mathrm{a}}^i)} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}\ \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}\,. \label{eq:NATD-DFT-dilaton}\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the DFT dilaton ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}$ transforms covariantly under the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation. R–R sector {#sec:RR-NATD} ---------- Since the NS–NS fields are transformed covariantly under NATD, it is natural to expect that the R–R fields are also transformed covariantly under the same ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation. Indeed, as we see from many examples, under NATD ${\mathcal H}_{MN} \to {\mathcal H}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}$, the generalized Ricci tensors are always transformed covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal S}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}\,,\qquad {\mathcal S}' = {\mathcal S}\bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} \,. \end{aligned}$$ This shows that the R–R fields should also transform covariantly, in order to satisfy the equations of motion of type II DFT (see Appendix \[app:DFT\]), $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}_{MN} = {\mathcal E}_{MN}\,,\qquad {\mathcal S}= 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal E}_{MN}$ is an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$-covariant energy–momentum tensor that contains the R–R fields. In DFT, the R–R fields are initially studied in [@1012.2744], based on an earlier work [@1009.2624] that reproduces the NS–NS part of the DFT action along the line of the $E_{11}$ conjecture [@hep-th/0104081; @hep-th/0307098]. Subsequently, two equivalent approaches to describe the R–R fields are developed. One treats the R–R fields as an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor [@1107.0008], based on the earlier work [@hep-th/9907132], and the other treats them as an ${\text{O}}(D)\times{\text{O}}(D)$ bi-spinor [@1206.3478], which is based on the approach of [@hep-th/9912236; @hep-th/0103149]. ### R–R fields as a polyform {#rr-fields-as-a-polyform .unnumbered} We first explain the former because it is simpler. Since the treatment of the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor can be rephrased in terms of the differential form, here we treat the R–R field strength as the usual polyform (see Appendices \[app:conventions\] and \[app:DFT\] for our convention), $$\begin{aligned} F = \sum_{p:\text{even/odd}} \frac{1}{p!}\,F_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_p}\qquad (\text{type IIA/IIB})\,. \end{aligned}$$ Let us summarize the behavior of an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor in terms of the polyform. 1. Under a ${\text{GL}}(D)$ subgroup of ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} (h_M{}^N) = \begin{pmatrix} M &0 \\ 0& M^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}} \end{pmatrix},\qquad M\in {\text{GL}}(D)\,,\end{aligned}$$ a polyform $F$ transforms as a ${\text{GL}}(D)$ tensor, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &F' = F^{(M)}\equiv \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\,F^{(M)}_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_p}\,, \\ &F^{(M)}_{m_1\cdots m_p} \equiv M_{m_1}{}^{n_1}\cdots M_{m_p}{}^{n_p}\,F_{n_1\cdots n_p}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ 2. Under the $B$-transformation, $$\begin{aligned} (h_M{}^N) = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_d & \omega \\ 0& \bm{1}_d \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ a polyform $F$ transforms as $$\begin{aligned} F' = {\operatorname{e}^{\omega\wedge}}F \equiv F+\omega\wedge F+\frac{1}{2!}\,\omega\wedge \omega\wedge F+\cdots \,.\end{aligned}$$ 3. Under the (factorized) $T$-duality along the $x^m$-direction, it transforms as $$\begin{aligned} F' = F \cdot \mathsf{T}_{x^m} \,,\qquad F \cdot \mathsf{T}_{x^m} \equiv F \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_m + F \vee {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{x}_m$ is the coordinate dual to $x^m$, and $\vee {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m$ denotes the interior product acting from the right. 4. An arbitrary ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation can be decomposed into the above three types of transformations, but for later convenience, we also show that under the $\beta$-transformation, $$\begin{aligned} (h_M{}^N) = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_d & 0 \\ \chi & \bm{1}_d \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ the transformation rule is given by $$\begin{aligned} F' = {\operatorname{e}^{\chi\vee}}F \equiv F+\chi\vee F+\frac{1}{2!}\,\chi\vee\chi\vee F+\cdots \,,\qquad \chi\vee F \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\chi^{mn}\,\iota_m\iota_n\,.\end{aligned}$$ By using the rules, the general formula for the R–R fields under the NATD becomes $$\begin{aligned} F' = \bigl[\,{\operatorname{e}^{\bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge}}\, F^{(\Lambda_v)}\, \bigr] \cdot \mathsf{T}_{y^1}\cdots\mathsf{T}_{y^n} \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}\,,\qquad \bm{\Lambda_f} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,(\Lambda_f)_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the order of $\mathsf{T}_{y^1}\cdots\mathsf{T}_{y^n}$ is not important since the overall sign flip is a trivial symmetry. Note that the field strength $F={{\mathrm{d}}}A$ is known as the field strength in the A-basis [@hep-th/0103233] (which is sometimes called the Page form). Another definition, $G\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}C + H_3\wedge C$, is known as the C-basis (see Appendix \[app:conventions\]). In the dual background, $G$ can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned} G' = {\operatorname{e}^{-B'_2\wedge}} F' \,.\end{aligned}$$ We also note that the approach of [@1310.1264] based on the Fourier–Mukai transformation (see also [@1511.00269] for an application) will be closely related to the procedure explained here. ### R–R fields as a bi-spinor {#rr-fields-as-a-bi-spinor .unnumbered} Next, let us also explain the treatment of the R–R fields as a bi-spinor $\bm{{\mathcal G}}^\alpha{}_\beta$. Starting with a polyform $G$, by using a vielbein $e_a^m$ associated with $g_{mn}$, we define the flat components as $G_{a_1\cdots a_p}=e_{a_1}^{m_1}\cdots e_{a_p}^{m_p}\,G_{m_1\cdots m_p}$ and then define the bi-spinor $\bm{{\mathcal G}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal G}} = \sum_{p} \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{\Phi}}}{p!}\,G_{a_1\cdots a_p}\,\gamma^{a_1\cdots a_p}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma^{a_1\cdots a_p}\equiv \gamma^{[a_1} \cdots \gamma^{a_p]}$ and $(\gamma^a)^\alpha{}_\beta$ is the usual gamma matrix satisfying $\{\gamma^a,\,\gamma^b\}=2\,\eta^{ab}$. According to [@hep-th/9912236; @hep-th/0103149; @1206.3478] (see also [@1803.05903]), under a general ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ rotation $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} \to (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad h = \begin{pmatrix} p & q \\ r & s \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ the bi-spinor transforms as $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal G}} \to \bm{{\mathcal G}}\,\Omega^{-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is a spinor representation of the Lorentz transformation $\Lambda^a{}_b$, $$\begin{aligned} \Omega^{-1}\,\bar{\gamma}^a\,\Omega = \Lambda^a{}_b\,\bar{\gamma}^b\,,\qquad \Lambda^a{}_b \equiv \bigl[e^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,(s+r\,E)^{-1}(s-r\,E^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})\,e^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}\bigr]^a{}_b\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $\bar{\gamma}^a\equiv \gamma^{11}\,\gamma^a$. In particular, under a $T$-duality along a (spatial) $x^z$-direction, we have $$\begin{aligned} \Omega = \Omega^{-1} = \frac{e_z^a\,\gamma_a}{\sqrt{g_{zz}}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ When the vielbein $e_m^a$ has a diagonal form, $\Omega$ is just the gamma matrix $\Omega = \gamma_z$. The $\Omega$ corresponding to the $\beta$-transformation $$\begin{aligned} h = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ \chi & 1 \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ was obtained in [@1803.05903] as $$\begin{aligned} \Omega = [\det({\mathcal E}'\,{\mathcal E})_e{}^f]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, \AE\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\beta'^{ab}\,\gamma_{ab}\bigr)\,\AE\bigl(-\tfrac{1}{2}\,\beta^{ab}\,\gamma_{ab}\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\AE$ is similar to an exponential function defined in [@hep-th/9912236] $$\begin{aligned} \AE \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\beta^{ab}\,\gamma_{ab}\bigr) \equiv \sum^5_{p=0}\frac{1}{2^{p}\,p!}\, \beta^{a_1a_2}\cdots\beta^{a_{2p-1}a_{2p}}\,\gamma_{a_1\cdots a_{2p}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ the position of the indices $a,\,b$ are changed with $\eta_{ab}$, and we have also defined $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal E}^{ab} &\equiv e^{am}\,e^{bn}\,E^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}_{mn}\,,\quad \beta^{ab} \equiv - {\mathcal E}^{[ab]}\,,\quad \tilde{e}_m{}^a\equiv e_m{}^b\,({\mathcal E}^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_b{}^a\,, \\ {\mathcal E}'^{ab} &\equiv \tilde{e}^a_m\,\tilde{e}^b_n\,(E^{mn}+\chi^{mn}) \,,\quad \beta'^{ab} \equiv - {\mathcal E}'^{[ab]}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us consider the NATD . Since it is not easy to find a general expression for $\Omega$, let us truncate the $B$-field and restrict ourselves to a simple background, $$\begin{aligned} (E_{mn}) = \begin{pmatrix} g_{\mu\nu} & 0 \\ 0 & e_i^{\mathrm{a}}\,e_j^{\mathrm{b}}\,\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ We also suppose the generalized Killing vectors have simple forms $V_{\mathrm{a}}= v_{\mathrm{a}}^i\,\partial_i$ $\bigl(v_{\mathrm{a}}^i\,e_i^{\mathrm{b}}=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr)$. Then, the vielbein $e_m^a$ has the block-diagonal form $$\begin{aligned} (e_m^a) = \begin{pmatrix} \hat{e}_\mu^{\hat{{\mathrm{a}}}} & 0 \\ 0 & e_i^{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$ and using this, we define the R–R bi-spinor as $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal G}} = \sum_p \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{\Phi}}}{p!}\,G_{a_1\cdots a_p}\,\gamma^{a_1\cdots a_p}\,, \qquad G_{a_1\cdots a_p} \equiv e_{a_1}^{m_1}\cdots e_{a_p}^{m_p}\,G_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Under the first ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation, $\bm{{\mathcal G}}$ is invariant while the internal part of the vielbein becomes an identity matrix $e_i^{\mathrm{a}}=\delta_i^{\mathrm{a}}$. We next perform the $B$-transformation and $T$-dualities, but it is more useful to perform the $T$-dualities first, because the vielbein is now just an identity matrix. Namely, we rewrite the $B$-transformation and $T$-dualities as $T$-dualities and the $\beta$-transformation with parameter $\chi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}$, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} & \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} \\ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} & \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} & \Lambda_f \\ 0&\bm{1} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} & \bm{0} \\ \Lambda_f &\bm{1} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} & \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} \\ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} & \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} \end{pmatrix} ,\qquad \Lambda_f= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \chi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ Under the $T$-dualities and the $\beta$-transformation, the bi-spinor is transformed as $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal G}} \to \bm{{\mathcal G}}\,\Omega^{-1}\,,\qquad \Omega^{-1} = [\det(\delta_{{\mathrm{c}}}^{\mathrm{d}}+\chi_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{{\mathrm{d}}})]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,\AE\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\, \chi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\gamma_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\bigr) \, \prod_{{\mathrm{a}}=1}^n \gamma_{{\mathrm{a}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This appears to be consistent with the formula given in Eq. (3.8) of [@1104.5196] up to convention. If we need to consider the spacetime fermions such as the gravitino and the dilatino, they are also transformed by this $\Omega$, and this approach will be important. However, in order to determine the transformation rule for the R–R fields, the first approach will be more useful. Examples without R–R fields {#sec:NATD-example-NS-NS} =========================== In this section we study examples of NATD without the R–R fields. In the absence of the R–R fields, our setup is basically the same as the standard one. In order to find new solutions, we consider NATD for non-unimodular algebras $f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{{\mathrm{b}}}\neq 0$. As found in [@hep-th/9308112], in non-unimodular cases, the dual geometry does not solve the supergravity equations of motion. However, as recently found in [@1710.06849], the dual geometry is a solution of GSE. Additional examples were discussed in [@1801.09567], and there, by using the result of [@hep-th/9409011], it was shown that the Killing vector $I$ in GSE is given by a simple formula, $$\begin{aligned} I= f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{\partial}^{{\mathrm{a}}} \,. \label{eq:I-in-NATD}\end{aligned}$$ As we reviewed in section \[sec:DFT-review\], an arbitrary solution of GSE can be regarded as a solution of DFT with linear dual-coordinate dependence. Then, through a formal $T$-duality in DFT, the GSE solution can be mapped to a solution of the conventional supergravity. In this section, we generate new solutions of supergravity by combining the NATD for a non-unimodular algebra and the formal $T$-duality. In fact, by allowing for non-unimodular algebras, we can perform a rich variety of NATD. In order to demonstrate that, we consider several non-Abelian $T$-dualities of a single solution, the ${\text{AdS}}_3\times{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4$ background with the $H$-flux. AdSST: Example 1 ---------------- In the first example, we introduce the coordinates as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^- + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{T}}^4}\,,\qquad B_2 = \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{z^2} + \omega_2 \,, \\ {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3}&\equiv \frac{1}{4}\, \bigl[ {{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi^2 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}\psi + \cos\theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi)^2 \bigr] \,, \qquad \omega_2 \equiv - \frac{1}{4}\,\cos\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi \,. \end{split} \label{eq:AdS3-S3-LC}\end{aligned}$$ We then consider the generalized isometries generated by two generalized Killing vectors $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} V_1 &\equiv (v_1,\,\tilde{v}_1)\equiv \bigl(-(x^+)^2\,\partial_+ + \tfrac{z^2}{2}\,\partial_- - x^+\,z\,\partial_z\,,\ {{\mathrm{d}}}x^+ -\tfrac{x^+}{z}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\bigr)\,, \\ V_2 &\equiv (v_2,\,\tilde{v}_2) \equiv \bigl(-x^+\,\partial_+ -\tfrac{z}{2}\,\partial_z\,,\ -\tfrac{1}{2\,z}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\bigr)\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy the algebra $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = V_1$. The structure constant has the non-vanishing trace $f_{{\mathrm{b}}2}{}^{\mathrm{b}}= f_{12}{}^1 = 1$, and the dual background will be a solution of GSE. The $B$-field is not isometric along the $v_1$ direction, ${\pounds}_{v_1}B_2 \neq 0$, and the dual component $\tilde{v}_1$ is necessary to satisfy the generalized Killing equations ${\pounds}_{v_1}B_2+{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{v}_1=0$. Moreover, in order to realize $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = V_1$, the dual component of $V_2$ is also necessary. In this case, we find $$\begin{aligned} (c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}})=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2} \end{pmatrix}\neq 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ but the requirement $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{d}}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{c}}}=0$ in is not violated and we can perform the NATD. The gauge symmetry associated with the generalized Killing vector $V_2$ $$\begin{aligned} \delta_{\epsilon^2} x^+(\sigma) = \epsilon^2 \,v_2^+(x) = - \epsilon^2(\sigma)\,x^+(\sigma) \,,\end{aligned}$$ can be fixed by realizing $x^+(\sigma)=1$. Similarly, the gauge symmetry associated with $V_1$ $$\begin{aligned} \delta_{\epsilon^1} z(\sigma) = \epsilon^1 \,v_1^z(x)\bigr\vert_{x^+=1} = -\epsilon^1(\sigma)\,z(\sigma) \,,\end{aligned}$$ can be also fixed as $z(\sigma)=1$. The AdS parts of the matrices in (before the gauge fixing) become $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} -(x^+)^2 & \frac{z^2}{2} & - x^+\,z \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -x^+ & 0 & -\tfrac{z}{2} \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \tilde{x}_+ -\frac{x^+}{2} \\ -\tilde{x}_+ + \frac{x^+}{2} & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and under the gauge $x^+=1$ and $z=1$, the dual background becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_+^2 + 2\,(1-4\,\tilde{x}_+)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_+\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{4\,\tilde{x}_+^2} + \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^-\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}}{\tilde{x}_+} +{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi'}}= \tilde{x}_+^2\,, \\ B'_2 &= \frac{(1-4\,\tilde{x}_+)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_+\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{4\,\tilde{x}_+^2} - \frac{({{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_+ +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^-)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}}{\tilde{x}_+} + \omega_2 \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ As expected, this background does not solve the conventional supergravity equations of motion, but instead satisfies the GSE with the Killing vector $$\begin{aligned} I' = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{\partial}^{{\mathrm{b}}} = \tilde{\partial}^z \,. \end{aligned}$$ Interestingly, this geometry is locally the same as the original ${\text{AdS}}_3\times {\text{S}}^3$ spacetime. Indeed, by changing coordinates as $$\begin{aligned} x'^+ \equiv \tilde{z} - \tilde{x}_+ + \frac{1}{4}\,\ln \tilde{x}_+ \,,\qquad x'^- \equiv x^-\,,\qquad z' \equiv \sqrt{\tilde{x}_+}\,,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the expressions $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x'^+\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x'^- + {{\mathrm{d}}}z'^2}{z'^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = z'^4 \,, \\ B_2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}x'^+\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{z'^2} + \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x'^+\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z'}{z'} + \omega_2 \,,\qquad I = \partial_+' \,. \end{split} \label{eq:chiral-non-unimodular}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, we can find a two-parameter family of solutions, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^- + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = z^{4\,c_0\,c_1} \,, \\ B_2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{z^2} + \frac{2\,c_1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z} + \omega_2 \,,\qquad I = c_0\,\partial_+ \,, \end{split} \label{eq:2-param}\end{aligned}$$ and NATD maps the original solution $(c_0,\,c_1)=(0,0)$ to the dual solution $(c_0,\,c_1)=(1,1)$. The metric in is the same as the original one , and the $B$-field is also just shifted by a closed form $B_2 \to B_2 + 2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\ln z$. The essential difference from the original background is in the dilaton and $I^m$. We note that, unlike the case of “trivial solutions” [@1803.07391], we cannot remove the Killing vector $I^m$ in the dual geometry .[^5] It is natural to consider performing a $B$-field gauge transformation in order to undo the shift in the $B$-field. However, in the standard GSE, where the only modification is given by the Killing vector $I^m$, the gauge symmetry for the $B$-field is already fixed and we cannot perform a $B$-field gauge transformation. Indeed, if we truncate the closed form in the $B$-field by hand, we find another solution: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^- + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = z^{4\,c_1} \,, \\ B_2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}x^+\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^-}{z^2} + \omega_2 \,,\qquad I = c_0\,\partial_+ \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_0$ is a free parameter and $c_1$ can take two values, $c_1=0$ or $c_1=1$. This is an example of the trivial solution and $c_0$ can be chosen as $c_0=0$. Then, we get two ${\text{AdS}}_3\times{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4$ solutions of the supergravity with two different dilatons, $c_1=0$ and $c_1=1$. For an arbitrary GSE solution, by taking a coordinate system with $I=I^z\,\partial_z$ we can regard it as a DFT solution with the DFT dilaton $d=d_0 + I^z\,\tilde{x}_z$ (${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d_0}}\equiv{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}$). Then, if we perform a formal $T$-duality that exchanges $\tilde{x}_z$ with the physical coordinate $x^z$, we can get a solution of the conventional supergravity where the DFT dilaton is $d=d_0 + I^z\,x^z$. In the present example , we perform a formal $T$-duality along the $x^+$-direction, and then the DFT dilaton becomes a function of the physical coordinates, $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,c_0\,x^+}} z^{4\,c_0\,c_1} \sqrt{\frac{\sin^2\theta}{64\,z^6}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Then, the dual-coordinate dependence disappears from the background fields. However, in this case the AdS part of the dualized generalized metric becomes $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal H}_{MN}) = \begin{pmatrix} g_{mn}-B_{mp}\,g^{pq}\,B_{qn} & B_{mp}\,g^{pn} \\ -g^{mp}\,B_{pn} & g^{mn} \end{pmatrix} = {\tiny\left(\begin{array}{ccc\|ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & z^2 & 0 \\[1mm] 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\[1mm] 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{z^2} & -\frac{2\,c_1}{z} & -2\,c_1\, z & 0 \\[1mm] \hline 1 & 0 & -\frac{2\,c_1}{z} & 4\,c_1^2 & 0 & 2\,c_1\, z \\[1mm] z^2 & -1 & -2\,c_1\,z & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[1mm] 0 & 0 & 0 & 2\,c_1\,z & 0 & z^2 \end{array}\right)} ,\end{aligned}$$ and we cannot extract the supergravity fields $\{g_{mn},\,B_{mn},\,\Phi\}$ from ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ due to $\det (g^{mn})=0$. This type of (genuinely) DFT solution is called the non-Riemannian background [@1307.8377], and is studied in detail in [@1508.01121; @1707.03713; @1808.10605; @1902.01867]. Using a parameterization given in [@1707.03713], we find that $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} ({\mathcal H}_{MN}) &= \begin{pmatrix} \delta_m^p & B_{mp} \\ 0 & \delta^m_p \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} K_{pq} & X^1_p\,Y_1^q - \bar{X}^{\bar{1}}_p\,\bar{Y}_{\bar{1}}^q \\ Y_1^p\,X^1_q - \bar{Y}_{\bar{1}}^p\,\bar{X}^{\bar{1}}_q & H^{pq} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \delta^q_n & 0 \\ -B_{qn} & \delta_q^n \end{pmatrix}, \\ H &= \begin{pmatrix} 4\,c_1^2 & 0& 2\,c_1\,z\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 2\,c_1\,z& 0& z^2\end{pmatrix}, \quad K = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{4\,c_1^2} & 0& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad B = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0& -\frac{1}{2\,c_1\,z} \\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ \frac{1}{2\,c_1\,z} & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \\ X^1 &= \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{z}{2} \\ 0 \\ c_1 \end{pmatrix},\quad \bar{X}^{\bar{1}} = \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{z}{2} \\ \frac{1}{z} \\ c_1 \end{pmatrix},\quad Y_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ -z \\ \frac{1}{c_1}\end{pmatrix},\quad \bar{Y}_{\bar{1}} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ z \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In the parameterization of [@1707.03713], there are in general $n$ pairs of vectors $(X^i,\,Y^i)$ and $\tilde{n}$ pairs of vectors $(\bar{X}_{\bar{i}},\,\bar{Y}_{\bar{i}})$, and such a non-Riemannian background is called a ($n,\tilde{n}$) solution. In this classification, this background is a (1,1) solution. In this way, in the first example of NATD, the formal $T$-duality does not produce the usual supergravity solution, and we instead obtain a (1,1) non-Riemannian background. AdSST: Example 2 ---------------- In the second example, we take the coordinates $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times{\text{T}}^4} \,,\qquad B_2 = \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x}{z^2} + \omega_2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and consider the translation and the dilatation generators as the generalized Killing vectors, $$\begin{aligned} V_1 \equiv (v_1,\,\tilde{v}_1)\equiv \bigl(\partial_x\,,\ 0\bigr)\,, \qquad V_2 \equiv (v_2,\,\tilde{v}_2) \equiv \bigl(t\,\partial_t + x\,\partial_x + z\,\partial_z \,,\ 0\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = V_1$ and $c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=0$. Here, we fix the gauge as $x(\sigma)=0$ and $z(\sigma)=1$. The ${\text{AdS}}_3$ parts of the transformation matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ t & x & z \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \tilde{x} \\ -\tilde{x} & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and the NATD gives $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= \frac{-\tilde{x}^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + 2\,(1-t\,\tilde{x})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x + (1-t^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}^2}{1-2\,t\,\tilde{x}+\tilde{x}^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4} \,, \\ B'_2 &= \frac{[\,(t-\tilde{x})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} -\tilde{x}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\,]\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}}{1-2\,t\,\tilde{x}+\tilde{x}^2} + \omega_2 \,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi'}} = 1-2\,t\,\tilde{x}+\tilde{x}^2 \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This satisfies the GSE by introducing the Killing vector as $I' = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{\partial}^{{\mathrm{b}}} = \tilde{\partial}^z$. Again, in order to remove the Killing vector $I$, let us perform a formal $T$-duality along the $\tilde{z}$-direction. This yields a simple linear-dilaton solution of the supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= 2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} + {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}^2 -2\,\tilde{x}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z + 2\,(t-\tilde{x})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z + \bigl(1-2\,t\,\tilde{x}+\tilde{x}^2\bigr)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4}\,, \\ B_2 &= \omega_2 \,,\qquad \Phi = z\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the AdS part of the $B$-field has disappeared. AdSST: Example 3 ---------------- We next use the Rindler-type coordinates, $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4}\,, \qquad B_2 = \frac{x\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x}{z^2} + \omega_2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and consider the generalized Killing vectors $$\begin{aligned} V_1 \equiv (v_1,\,\tilde{v}_1)\equiv \bigl(\partial_t\,,\ 0\bigr)\,, \qquad V_2 \equiv (v_2,\,\tilde{v}_2) \equiv \bigl({\operatorname{e}^{-t}}\bigl(x^{-1}\,\partial_t + \partial_x\bigr)\,,\ 0\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = -V_2$ and $c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=0$. Here, we take a gauge $t(\sigma)=0$ and $x(\sigma)=1$. The AdS parts of the transformation matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-t}}x^{-1} & {\operatorname{e}^{-t}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\tilde{x} \\ \tilde{x} & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and the dual background, which satisfies the GSE, becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}^2 -2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}}{\tilde{x}\,(2-\tilde{x}\,z^2)} + \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4}\,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi'}} = \frac{\tilde{x}\,(\tilde{x}\,z^2-2)}{z^2} \,, \\ B'_2 &= \frac{1-\tilde{x}\,z^2}{\tilde{x}\,(2-\tilde{x}\,z^2)}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} + \omega_2 \,,\qquad I' = \tilde{\partial}^t\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain a solution of the supergravity, we again perform a formal $T$-duality along the $\tilde{t}$-direction. Again we find a non-Riemannian background, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal H}_{MN}) ={\footnotesize\left(\begin{array}{ccc\|ccc} \tilde{x}\,(\tilde{x}\,z^2-2) & 1-\tilde{x}\,z^2 & 0 & \tilde{x}\,z^2-1 & \tilde{x}\,(\tilde{x}\,z^2-2) & 0 \\ 1-\tilde{x}\,z^2 & z^2 & 0 & -z^2 & 1-\tilde{x}\,z^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{z^2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \tilde{x}\,z^2-1 & -z^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \tilde{x} (\tilde{x}\,z^2-2) & 1-\tilde{x}\,z^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & z^2 \end{array}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where the ${\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4$ part of the generalized metric is not displayed. This is also a (1,1) solution, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} ({\mathcal H}_{MN}) &= \begin{pmatrix} \delta_m^p & B_{mp} \\ 0 & \delta^m_p \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} K_{pq} & X^1_p\,Y_1^q - \bar{X}^{\bar{1}}_p\,\bar{Y}_{\bar{1}}^q \\ Y_1^p\,X^1_q - \bar{Y}_{\bar{1}}^p\,\bar{X}^{\bar{1}}_q & H^{pq} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \delta^q_n & 0 \\ -B_{qn} & \delta_q^n \end{pmatrix}, \\ H &= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0& z^2 \end{pmatrix}, \quad K = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0& \frac{1}{z^2} \end{pmatrix}, \quad B = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\frac{1}{2}& 0 \\ \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \\ X^1 &= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\tilde{x}\,z^2}{2} \\ -\frac{z^2}{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad \bar{X}^{\bar{1}} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{2}{z^2}-\tilde{x} \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad Y_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \tilde{x}-\frac{2}{z^2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad \bar{Y}_{\bar{1}} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{z^2}{2} \\ \frac{\tilde{x}\,z^2}{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ To briefly summarize, NATD works well as a solution-generating technique of DFT even if the isometry algebra is non-unimodular. If we additionally perform a formal $T$-duality, we usually obtain the usual supergravity solution. Sometimes, the parameterization of the generalized metric becomes singular and we obtain a non-Riemannian background, which does not have the usual supergravity interpretation. However, they are interesting backgrounds by themselves, as discussed in [@1508.01121; @1707.03713; @1808.10605; @1902.01867]. Therefore, it is important to study NATD for non-unimodular algebras more seriously. Examples with R–R fields {#sec:NATD-example-R-R} ======================== In this section we consider NATD with non-vanishing R–R fields. After reproducing a known example, we again consider examples for non-unimodular algebras. For convenience, let us display the summary of the duality rules. Under the setup $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\pounds}}_{V_{\mathrm{a}}} {\mathcal H}_{MN} =0 \,, \qquad [V_{\mathrm{a}},\, V_{\mathrm{b}}]_{\text{C}} = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,V_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad \eta_{MN}\,V_{\mathrm{a}}^M\,V_{\mathrm{b}}^N = 2\,c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,, \qquad f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{c}}} = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $(V_{\mathrm{a}}^M)=(v_{\mathrm{a}}^m,\,\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m})$, the dual background is given by $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal H}'_{MN} &= (h \,{\mathcal H}\, h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN}\bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i} \,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d'}} = {\lvert{\det(v_{\mathrm{a}}^i)} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}\ \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}\,, \\ F' &= \bigl[\,{\operatorname{e}^{\bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge}}\, F^{(\Lambda_v)}\, \bigr] \cdot \mathsf{T}_{y^1}\cdots\mathsf{T}_{y^n} \bigr\rvert_{x^i=c^i}\,, \qquad I= f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{\partial}^{{\mathrm{a}}} \,, \label{eq:NATD-summary1} \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &(h_M{}^N) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} & \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} \\ \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}} & \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1} & \Lambda_f \\ 0&\bm{1} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Lambda_v &0 \\ 0&(\Lambda_v)^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}} \end{pmatrix},\qquad \bm{\Lambda_f} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,(\Lambda_f)_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n\,, \label{eq:NATD-summary2} \\ &\Lambda_v \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\mu^\nu & 0 \\ v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^\nu & v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^j \end{pmatrix} ,\quad \Lambda_f\equiv \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}\mu} \\ \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} & f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{c}}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}- v_{[{\mathrm{a}}} \cdot \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}]} \end{pmatrix} ,\quad \Lambda_{\mathsf{T}} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_{d-n} & \bm{0} \\ \bm{0} & \bm{0} \end{pmatrix},\quad \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathsf{T}}\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \bm{0} & \bm{0} \\ \bm{0} & \bm{1}_n\end{pmatrix}, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ and the coordinates are transformed as $(x^m)=(y^\mu,\,x^i) \to (x'^m) =(y^\mu,\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}})$. AdSST ----- As the first example of NATD with the R–R fields, let us review the example of [@1012.1320] and demonstrate that our formula gives the same result. The original background is $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{\ell^2\,z^2} + \frac{1}{4\,\ell^2}\, \bigl[ {{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi^2 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}\psi + \cos\theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi)^2 \bigr] +{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{T}}^4}\,, \\ G_3 &= \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{\ell^2\,z^3} - \frac{\sin\theta}{4\,\ell^2}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the ${\text{AdS}}_3$ and ${\text{S}}^3$ part have the curvature $R=\mp 6\,\ell^2$, respectively. We perform NATD associated with three generalized Killing vectors on the ${\text{S}}^3$, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} V_1 &= \bigl(\cos\psi\,\partial_\theta+\tfrac{\sin\psi}{\sin\theta}\,\partial_\phi-\tfrac{\sin\psi}{\tan\theta}\,\partial_\psi\,,\,\,0\bigr)\,, \\ V_2 &= \bigl(-\sin\psi\,\partial_\theta+\tfrac{\cos\psi}{\sin\theta}\,\partial_\phi-\tfrac{\cos\psi}{\tan\theta}\,\partial_\psi\,,\,\,0\bigr)\,,\qquad V_3 = (\partial_\psi\,,\,0)\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $$\begin{aligned} [V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = V_3\,,\qquad [V_2,\,V_3]_{\text{C}} = V_1\,,\qquad [V_3,\,V_1]_{\text{C}} = V_2\,. \end{aligned}$$ As is clear from the explicit form of the Killing vectors, we can choose a gauge $$\begin{aligned} \theta(\sigma)=\frac{\pi}{2}\,,\qquad \phi(\sigma)=0\,,\qquad \psi(\sigma)=0\,. \label{eq:RR1-gauge}\end{aligned}$$ The $(\theta,\,\phi,\,\psi)$ parts of the transformation matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\psi & \tfrac{\sin\psi}{\sin\theta} & -\tfrac{\sin\psi}{\tan\theta}\\ -\sin\psi & \tfrac{\cos\psi}{\sin\theta} & -\tfrac{\cos\psi}{\tan\theta}\\ 0 & 0 &1 \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \tilde{\psi} & -\tilde{\phi} \\ -\tilde{\psi} & 0 & \tilde{\theta} \\ \tilde{\phi} & -\tilde{\theta} & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and the NS–NS fields in the dual background are $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{\ell^2\,z^2} + \frac{4\,\ell^2\,\bigl(\delta_{ij} + 16\,\ell^4\,u_i\,u_j\bigr)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^j}{1+16\,\ell^4\,u_k\,u^k} +{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{T^4}\,, \\ B'_2 &= -\frac{8\,\ell^4\, \epsilon_{ijk}\,u^i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^j\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^k}{1+16\,\ell^4\,u_k\,u^k}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi'}} = \frac{1+16\,\ell^4\,u_k\,u^k}{64\,\ell^6}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where we have denoted $(u^i)\equiv (\tilde{\theta},\,\tilde{\phi},\,\tilde{\psi})$, $u_i\equiv u^i$, and $\epsilon_{123}=1$. Now, let us consider the R–R fields. Under the gauge , the Page form becomes $$\begin{aligned} F = \Bigl(\frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{\ell^2\,z^3} - \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4\,\ell^2}\Bigr)\wedge\bigl[1 - \text{vol}(T^4) \bigr] \,. \label{eq:Page-under-gauge}\end{aligned}$$ The first ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation is trivial, $\Lambda_v = \bm{1}$, under the gauge . We next perform the $B$-transformation $F \to {\operatorname{e}^{\bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge}} F$ where $$\begin{aligned} \bm{\Lambda_f} = u^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi + u^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta + u^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi \,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by performing $T$-dualities along the $(\theta,\, \phi,\,\psi)$-directions, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} F' &= \bigl(F + \bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge F\bigr)\,(\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^1 +\vee {{\mathrm{d}}}\theta)\,(\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 +\vee {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi)\,(\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^3 +\vee {{\mathrm{d}}}\psi) {\nonumber}\\ &= \Bigl[\frac{1}{4\,\ell^2} - \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge (u_i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^i - {{\mathrm{d}}}u^1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^3)}{\ell^2\,z^3}\Bigr]\wedge\bigl[1- \text{vol}(T^4)\bigr] \,. \label{eq:Page-example1}\end{aligned}$$ From this Page form we get the R–R field strengths in the C-basis as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} G'_0 &= \frac{1}{4\,\ell^2}\,,\qquad G'_2 = \frac{2\,\ell^2\,\epsilon_{ijk}\,u^i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^j\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^k}{1+16\,\ell^4\,u_l\,u^l}\,, \\ G'_4 &= - \frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge u_i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^i}{\ell^2\,z^3}-\frac{\text{vol}(T^4)}{4\,\ell^2} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ These are precisely the solution of the massive type IIA supergravity obtained in [@1012.1320]. Since the R–R potential also behaves as an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor in DFT, let us also explain how to determine the R–R potential in the dual background. Due to the gauge fixing of , the Page form takes the form . Then the R–R potential in the A-basis is $$\begin{aligned} A = -\Bigl(\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x}{\ell^2\,z^2} + \frac{\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4\,\ell^2}\Bigr)\wedge\bigl[1 - \text{vol}(T^4) \bigr] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ should not be set to $\theta=\pi/2$ in order to realize $F={{\mathrm{d}}}A$. Similar to the field strength, ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation is trivial, and the $B$-transformation $A \to {\operatorname{e}^{\bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge}} A$ and $T$-dualities along the $(\theta,\, \phi,\,\psi)$-directions give $$\begin{aligned} A' = \Bigl[\frac{\tilde{u}_1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^1}{4\,\ell^2} + \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge (u_i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^i-{{\mathrm{d}}}u^1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^3)}{\ell^2\,z^2}\Bigr]\wedge\bigl[1 - \text{vol}(T^4) \bigr]\,, \label{eq:RR-ex1-Ap}\end{aligned}$$ where we have denoted $\tilde{u}_1\equiv \theta$ as it is dual to $u^1=\tilde{\theta}$. Since $A$ depends on the dual coordinate explicitly, the relation between $F$ and $A$ is generalized as \[see Eq. \] $$\begin{aligned} F = \bm{d} A \,,\qquad \bm{d} \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \partial_m + \iota_m\,\tilde{\partial}^m\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the $A'$ in correctly reproduces the $F'$ obtained in . This result is consistent with [@1108.4937] where the massive type IIA supergravity was reproduced from DFT by introducing a linear dual-coordinate dependence into the R–R 1-form potential. The potential in the C-basis can also be obtained by computing $C'={\operatorname{e}^{-B'_2\wedge}}A'$. AdSS ---- As the second example, let us consider a NATD of the ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$ background associated with a non-unimodular algebra. The original ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$ background is $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{\eta_{\mu\nu}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^\mu\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^\nu + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\qquad (\eta_{\mu\nu})\equiv {\mathrm{diag}}(-1,\,1,\,1,\,1)\,, \\ G &= 4\,\bigl(- {{\mathrm{d}}}x^0 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z + \omega_5 \bigr) \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5} &\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}r^2 + \sin^2 r\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi^2 + \sin^2r\cos^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1^2 + \sin^2r \sin^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2^2 + \cos^2r\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3^2\,, \\ \omega_5 &\equiv \sin^3r \cos r\sin\xi\cos\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}r\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We consider a NATD associated with two Killing vectors, $$\begin{aligned} V_1^M = (z\,\partial_z+x^\mu\,\partial_\mu,\,0)\,,\qquad V_2^M = (\partial_1,\,0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = -V_2$. The gauge symmetry can be fixed as $z(\sigma)=1$ and $x^1(\sigma)=0$, and the AdS parts of the transformation matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ x^0 & x^1 & x^2 & x^3 & z \\ \end{pmatrix}},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \tilde{x}_1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\tilde{x}_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}} .\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we denote $(u^\mu)\equiv (x^0,\,\tilde{x}_1,\,x^2,\,x^3)$; then the dual background becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}^2 + a_{\mu\nu}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}u^\mu\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^\nu}{1+\eta_{\rho\sigma}\,u^\rho\,u^\sigma} + \eta_{\mu\nu}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^\mu\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^\nu +{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\Phi'}}=1+\eta_{\mu\nu}\,u^\mu\,u^\nu\,, \\ B'_2&= \frac{(-u^0\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^0-u^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^1+u^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^2+u^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^3)\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}}{1+\eta_{\rho\sigma}\,u^\rho\,u^\sigma}\,, \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} (a_{\mu\nu})&= \begin{pmatrix} -u^0\,u^0 & -u^0\,u^1 & u^0\,u^2 & u^0\,u^3\\ -u^1\,u^0 & -u^1\,u^1 & u^1\,u^2 & u^1\,u^3\\ u^2\,u^0 & u^2\,u^1 & -u^2\,u^2 & -u^2\,u^3\\ u^3\,u^0 & u^3\,u^1 & -u^3\,u^2 & -u^3\,u^3 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Regarding the R–R fields, the first ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation does not change the Page form and the next $B$-transformation gives $$\begin{aligned} F= 4\,\bigl(- {{\mathrm{d}}}u^0 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z + \omega_5 \bigr) + 4\,u^1\,\omega_5\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z\,. \end{aligned}$$ The Abelian $T$-dualities along the $z$ and $x^1$ directions give $$\begin{aligned} F' = - 4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^0 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^3 + 4\,\omega_5\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^1 + 4\,u^1\,\omega_5 \,. \end{aligned}$$ From this Page form, we find that $$\begin{aligned} G'_3 = -4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^0 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^3\,, \qquad G'_5 = -\frac{4\,u^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^0\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 \wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}u^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{z}}{1+\eta_{\mu\nu}\,u^\mu\,u^\nu} + u^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\omega_4 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by introducing $I = f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{\partial}^{\mathrm{a}}= \tilde{\partial}^z$, they satisfy the type IIB GSE. In order to obtain a solution of the usual supergravity, we perform a formal $T$-duality along the $\tilde{z}$-direction. By using the $T$-duality rule , we obtain a simple type IIA solution: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= (1+\eta_{\mu\nu}\,u^\mu\,u^\nu)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2 + 2\,\bigl(-u^0\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^0-u^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^1+u^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^2+u^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^3\bigr)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z \\ &\quad +\eta_{\mu\nu}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^\mu\,{{\mathrm{d}}}u^\nu + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,,\qquad \Phi=z\,,\qquad G_4 = 4{\operatorname{e}^{-z}}{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^0 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}u^3 \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ AdSST with NS–NS and R–R fluxes ------------------------------- In order to demonstrate the efficiency of our formula, let us consider a more involved example. We start with the ${\text{AdS}}_3\times{\text{S}}^3\times {\text{T}}^4$ solution with the NS–NS and the R–R fluxes, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{1}{4}\, \bigl[ {{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi^2 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}\psi + \cos\theta \, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi)^2 \bigr] +{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{T}}^4}\,, \\ B_2 &= p\,\Bigl(\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x}{z^2} - \frac{\cos\theta\, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4}\Bigr)\,, \quad G_3 = q\,\Bigl(\frac{2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^3} - \frac{\sin\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4}\Bigr)\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ and $q$ are constants satisfying $p^2+q^2=1$. The Page form is $$\begin{aligned} F = G_3 + F_5 - (G_3 + F_5) \wedge \text{vol}_{{\text{T}}^4} \,, \qquad F_5 \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}\Bigl(\frac{p\,q\cos\theta}{4\,z^2}\Bigr)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\psi\,. \label{eq:AdS3-RR-NS-Page}\end{aligned}$$ Then, we consider two generalized Killing vectors, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} V_1 &\equiv (v_1,\,\tilde{v}_1) \equiv \bigl(t\,\partial_t + x\,\partial_x + z\,\partial_z \,,\ 0\bigr)\,, \\ V_2 &\equiv (v_2,\,\tilde{v}_2)\equiv \bigl(-2\,t\,x\,\partial_t +(-t^2 - x^2 + z^2)\,\partial_x -2\,x\,z\,\partial_z \,,\ 2\,p \,{{\mathrm{d}}}t -\tfrac{2\,p\,t}{z}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\bigr)\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $[V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = V_2$ and $c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=0$. The $B$-field is isometric along the dilatation generator ${\pounds}_{v_1} B_2 =0$, but it is not isometric along the special-conformal generator ${\pounds}_{v_2} B_2 \neq 0$ and the dual component $\tilde{v}_2$ is important. Here, we choose the gauge as $t(\sigma)=1$ and $x(\sigma)=1$. The AdS parts of the transformation matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} t & x & z \\ -2\,t\,x & -t^2 - x^2 + z^2 & -2\,x\,z \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \tilde{x} & 0 \\ -\tilde{x} & 0 & -\frac{2\,p}{z} \\ \frac{2\,p}{z} & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and the NS–NS fields and the Killing vector take the form $$\begin{aligned} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 = \frac{z^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}^2 + 2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} + {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}^2 + \frac{(\tilde{x}- p)^2-1}{z^2}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2 -\frac{2}{z}\,\bigl[2\,\tilde{x}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t} +(\tilde{x}-p)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}\bigr]\, {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^2 + (\tilde{x} + p)^2 -1} +{{\mathrm{d}}}s_{{\text{S}}^3}^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}s_{{\text{T}}^4}^2\,, {\nonumber}\\ &B'_2 = \frac{-z\,(\tilde{x} + p)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} -\bigl[z^2 + 2\,p\,(\tilde{x} + p) -2\bigr]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z +{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z\,\bigl[z^2 + (\tilde{x} + p)^2 -1\bigr]} - \frac{p\,\cos\theta\, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4}\,, {\nonumber}\\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi'}} = z^2 + (\tilde{x} + p)^2 -1\,,\qquad I' = - \tilde{\partial}^t\,. \end{aligned}$$ For the R–R fields, the first ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation makes the replacement $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z\ \rightarrow z^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z \end{aligned}$$ in the Page form , and by further acting ${\operatorname{e}^{\bm{\Lambda_f}\wedge}}$ and $\mathsf{T}_{t}\cdot\mathsf{T}_{x}$, we obtain the Page form in the dual background, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} F'_1&= -\frac{2\,q\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z}\,, \qquad F'_3 = \frac{2\,q}{z}\,\Bigl[p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge \frac{\cos\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4} + z\,(\tilde{x}+p)\,\omega_{{\text{S}}^3} \Bigr]\,, \\ F'_5&= \frac{2\,q}{z}\,\Bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}z \wedge \text{vol}_{{\text{T}}^4} - \bigl(z\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}+2\,p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z\bigr)\wedge \omega_{{\text{S}}^3}\Bigr]\,, \\ F'_7&= -\frac{2\,q}{z}\,\Bigl[p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge \frac{\cos\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4} + z\,(\tilde{x}+p)\,\omega_{{\text{S}}^3} \Bigr]\wedge \text{vol}_{{\text{T}}^4}\,, \\ F'_9&= \frac{2\,q}{z}\,\bigl(z\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}+2\,p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z\bigr)\wedge \omega_{{\text{S}}^3}\wedge \text{vol}_{{\text{T}}^4}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{{\text{S}}^3}\equiv \frac{1}{8}\,\sin\theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi$. Finally, the field strength $G'={\operatorname{e}^{-B'_2\wedge}}F'$ becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} G'_1 &= -\frac{2\,q\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z}\,,\qquad G'_3 = 2\,q\,(\tilde{x}+p) \, \biggl[ -\frac{z^{-1}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{(\tilde{x}+p)^2+z^2-1} + \omega_{{\text{S}}^3} \biggr]\,, \\ G'_5 &= 2\,q\,\frac{\bigl[\tilde{x}\,(z^2-2)-p\,z^2\bigr]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z - (\tilde{x}+p)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z - z\,(z^2-1)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{t}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}}{z\,\bigl[(\tilde{x}+p)^2+z^2-1\bigr]}\wedge \omega_{{\text{S}}^3} \\ &\quad +\frac{2\,q\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z\wedge \text{vol}_{{\text{T}}^4}}{z} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ These satisfy type IIB GSE under the original constraint $p^2+q^2=1$. By performing a formal $T$-duality along the $\tilde{t}$-direction, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{(z^2+4\,p^2-4)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^4} + \frac{2\,\bigl[(z^2 + 2\,p\,\tilde{x}+2\,p^2-2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t + 2\,p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x\bigr]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^3} \\ &\quad +\frac{(z^2+\tilde{x}^2+2\,p\,\tilde{x}+p^2-1)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + 2\,(\tilde{x}+p)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} + {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}^2}{z^2} +{{\mathrm{d}}}s_{{\text{S}}^3}^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}s_{{\text{T}}^4}^2\,, \\ B_2 &= -\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}}{z^2} + \frac{2\,\bigl(x\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t+{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x})\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^3} - \frac{p\,\cos\theta\, {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\psi}{4}\,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = z^2{\operatorname{e}^{2\,t}} \,, \\ G_2 &= \frac{2\,q{\operatorname{e}^{t}}{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z}\,, \qquad G_4 =-\frac{2\,q {\operatorname{e}^{t}} \bigl[z\,(\tilde{x}+p)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t+ z\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x} +2\,p\,{{\mathrm{d}}}z \bigr]\wedge \omega_{{\text{S}}^3}}{z} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which is a solution of type IIA supergravity. Extremal black D3-brane background ---------------------------------- In order to show that the AdS factor is not important, let us consider an extremal black D3-brane background. To manifest the Bianchi type V symmetry we employ a non-standard coordinate system, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= H^{\frac{1}{2}}(r) \bigl\{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + t^2\, \bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 + {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2) \bigr]\bigr\} + \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}r^2}{H^2(r)} \\ &\quad + r^2\,\bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi^2 + \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1^2+ \sin^2 \theta \sin^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2^2 + \cos^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3^2 \bigr)\,, \\ G_5 &= -\frac{4\,r_+^4\,t^3 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}r}{r^5} \\ &\quad + 4\,r_+^4\sin^3 \theta \cos \theta \sin \xi \cos \xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\theta \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\xi \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $H(r) \equiv 1-(r_+/r)^4$ and the four-dimensional metric inside the brackets $\{\cdots\}$ is flat. We consider the following three Killing vectors, $$\begin{aligned} V_1 \equiv \bigl(\partial_1 + x^2\,\partial_2 + x^3\,\partial_3 \,,\ 0\bigr)\,, \quad V_2 \equiv \bigl(\partial_2 \,,\ 0\bigr)\,,\quad V_3 \equiv \bigl(\partial_3 \,,\ 0\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ that satisfy the algebra $$\begin{aligned} [V_1,\,V_2]_{\text{C}} = -V_2 \,,\qquad [V_1,\,V_3]_{\text{C}} = -V_3 \,,\qquad [V_2,\,V_3]_{\text{C}} = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The $(x^1,\,x^2,\,x^3)$ parts of the matrices are $$\begin{aligned} (\Lambda_v) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & x^2 & x^3 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\Lambda_f) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\tilde{x}_2 & -\tilde{x}_3 \\ \tilde{x}_2 & 0 & 0 \\ \tilde{x}_3 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ and the gauge symmetry is fixed as $x^i(\sigma)=0$ ($i=1,2,3$). The dual background becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s'^2 &= -H^{\frac{1}{2}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + \frac{t^4\,H\,({{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_1^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3^2) + \tilde{x}_3^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2^2 - 2\,\tilde{x}_2\,\tilde{x}_3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3 + \tilde{x}_2^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3^2}{t^2\,H^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\bigl(H\,t^4+\tilde{x}_2^2+\tilde{x}_3^2\bigr)} + \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}r^2}{H^2} \\ &\quad + r^2\,\bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi^2 + \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1^2+ \sin^2 \theta \sin^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2^2 + \cos^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3^2 \bigr)\,, \\ B'_2 &= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_1\wedge (\tilde{x}_2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2+\tilde{x}_3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3)}{H\,t^4 +\tilde{x}_2^2+\tilde{x}_3^2}\,, \quad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi'}} = t^2\,H^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\bigl(H\,t^4+\tilde{x}_2^2+\tilde{x}_3^2\bigr)\,,\quad I'= 2\,\tilde{\partial}^1\,, \\ G'_2 &= - \frac{4\,r_+^4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}r}{r^5}\,,\qquad G'_4 = - \frac{4\,r_+^4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_1 \wedge (\tilde{x}_2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2 +\tilde{x}_3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}r}{r^5\,(H\,t^4 + \tilde{x}_2^2+ \tilde{x}_3^2)}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and this is a solution of type IIA GSE. Again, by performing a formal $T$-duality along the $\tilde{x}_1$-direction we obtain a solution of type IIB supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= H^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\bigl(-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2+t^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2\bigr) + \frac{({{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_2 - \tilde{x}_2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)^2 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_3 - \tilde{x}_3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)^2}{H^{\frac{1}{2}}\,t^2} + \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}r^2}{H^2} \\ &\quad + r^2\,\bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi^2 + \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1^2+ \sin^2 \theta \sin^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2^2 + \cos^2 \theta\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3^2 \bigr)\,, \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} &= t^4 {\operatorname{e}^{-4\,x^1}}H(r)\,,\qquad G_3 = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} \frac{4\,r_+^4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}r}{r^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We note that, as discussed in [@1811.10600], some supergravity solutions, obtained by a combination of NATD and a formal $T$-duality can also be obtained from another route, a combination of diffeomorphisms and the Abelian $T$-dualities. Similarly, the solutions obtained in this paper may also be realized from such procedure. Poisson–Lie $T$-duality/plurality {#sec:T-plurality} ================================= Here we study a more general class of $T$-duality known as the Poisson–Lie $T$-duality [@hep-th/9502122; @hep-th/9509095] or $T$-plurality [@hep-th/0205245]. We can perform the PL $T$-duality/plurality when the target space has a set of vectors $v_{\mathrm{a}}$ satisfying the dualizability conditions [@hep-th/9502122] $$\begin{aligned} [v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}]= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn}= - \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,E_{mp}\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^p \, v_{\mathrm{c}}^q\,E_{qn} \,. \end{aligned}$$ The traditional NATD (with $\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}}=0$) can be regarded as a special case, $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}=0$. We begin with a brief review of the idea and techniques, and show the covariance of the DFT equations of motion under the PL $T$-plurality. Namely, we show that if we start with a DFT solution, the PL $T$-dualized background is also a DFT solution. In some examples the Killing vector $I^m$ appears, and the dualized DFT solutions are regarded as GSE solutions. However, through a formal $T$-duality the GSE solutions can always be transformed into linear-dilaton solutions of the conventional supergravity. Review of PL $T$-duality ------------------------ We review the PL $T$-duality as a symmetry of the classical equations of motion of the string sigma model. To make the discussion transparent, we first ignore spectator fields $y^\mu(\sigma)$, which are invariant under the PL $T$-duality. As studied in [@hep-th/9502122; @hep-th/9509095], it is straightforward to introduce spectators, and their treatment is discussed in section \[sec:spectator\]. Let us consider a sigma model with a target space $M$, on which a group $G$ acts transitively and freely (i.e. $M$ itself can be regarded as a group manifold), $$\begin{aligned} S = \EPSneg \frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma E_{mn}(x)\,\bigl( {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n \EPSminus {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n\bigr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Under an infinitesimal right action of a group $G$, the coordinates $x^m$ are shifted as $$\begin{aligned} g(x) \ \to\ g(x)\,(1+\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\,T_{\mathrm{a}}) \equiv g(x+\delta x)\,,\qquad \delta x^m = \epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma)\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m(x)\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\mathrm{a}}$ (${\mathrm{a}}=1,\dotsc,n$) are the generators of the algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} [T_{\mathrm{a}},\,T_{\mathrm{b}}]=f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,T_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ are the left-invariant vector fields satisfying $$\begin{aligned} [v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}] = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}\,, \qquad v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,\ell^{\mathrm{b}}_m = \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}\,,\qquad \ell \equiv \ell^{\mathrm{a}}\,T_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv g^{-1}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}g \,. \end{aligned}$$ In general, the variation of the action becomes $$\begin{aligned} \delta_\epsilon S = \frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \Bigl\{-\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\,\Bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}J_{\mathrm{a}}\EPSplus \frac{1}{2}\,{\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn}\,\bigl( {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n \EPSminus {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n\bigr) \Bigr] + {{\mathrm{d}}}\bigl(\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\, J_{\mathrm{a}}\bigr)\Bigr\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} J_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,\bigl(\EPSneg g_{mn}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n + B_{mn}\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^n\bigr) \,.\end{aligned}$$ If the $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ satisfy the Killing equation ${\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn} =0$, equations of motion for $x^m$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}J_{\mathrm{a}}= 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ further satisfy $[v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}]=0$ we can find a coordinate system where $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ is realized. Then, the Abelian $T$-duality can be realized as the exchange of $x^m(\sigma)$ with the dual coordinates $\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma)$, which are defined as $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv J_{\mathrm{a}}\,. \label{eq:abelian-dual}\end{aligned}$$ The Bianchi identity ${{\mathrm{d}}}^2 \tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}=0$ corresponds to the equations of motion in the original theory. The PL $T$-duality is a generalization of this duality when the vector fields $v_{\mathrm{a}}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn}= - \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,E_{mp}\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^p \, v_{\mathrm{c}}^q\,E_{qn} \,. \label{eq:Drinfel'd-double-condition}\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the variation becomes $$\begin{aligned} \delta S = \frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma \biggl[-\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\,\Bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}J_{\mathrm{a}}- \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}\, J_{\mathrm{b}}\wedge J_{\mathrm{c}}\Bigr) + {{\mathrm{d}}}(\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}\,J_{\mathrm{a}}) \biggr] \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the equations of motion for $x^m$ become the Maurer–Cartan equation, $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}J_{\mathrm{a}}- \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}\, J_{\mathrm{b}}\wedge J_{\mathrm{c}}= 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ This suggests introducing the dual coordinates $\tilde{x}_m(\sigma)$ through a non-Abelian generalization of , namely, $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv J_{\mathrm{a}}\qquad \bigl(\ \tilde{r}\equiv \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}\, \tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}}\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{g}\,\tilde{g}^{-1} \,,\quad \tilde{g} \equiv \tilde{g}(\tilde{x})\in \tilde{G}\ \bigr)\,, \label{eq:PL-dual}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}}$ are the generators of the dual algebra $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ (associated with a dual group $\tilde{G}$) satisfying $$\begin{aligned} [\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{b}}] = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{c}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, under the equations of motion, the physical coordinates $x^m(\sigma)$ describe the motion of the string on the group $G$ while the dual coordinates $\tilde{x}_m(\sigma)$ describe the motion of the string on the dual group $\tilde{G}$. It is important to note that the condition and the identity $$\begin{aligned} [{\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}},\,{\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{b}}}]E_{mn} = {\pounds}_{[v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}]} E_{mn} \,,\end{aligned}$$ show the relation $$\begin{aligned} f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\, \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{d}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}+ f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}-f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\, \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{d}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}- f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{e}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}{}_{\mathrm{e}}\,. \label{eq:1-cocycle}\end{aligned}$$ By considering the vector space $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ as the dual space of ${\mathfrak{g}}$, $\langle T_{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{b}}\rangle=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}$, the relation gives the structure of the Lie bialgebra. By further introducing an $ad$-invariant bilinear form as $$\begin{aligned} \langle T_A,\,T_B \rangle = \eta_{AB}\,,\qquad (\eta_{AB}) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}\\ \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad (T_A) \equiv (T_{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}})\,,\end{aligned}$$ the commutation relations on a direct sum $\mathfrak{d}\equiv {\mathfrak{g}}\oplus\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ are determined as $$\begin{aligned} [T_{\mathrm{a}},\,T_{\mathrm{b}}] = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,T_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad [T_{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{b}}] = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,T_{\mathrm{c}}- f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad [\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{b}}] = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the pair of algebras can be regarded as that of the Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{D}$. Given the structure of the Drinfel’d double, the differential equation can be integrated [@hep-th/9502122; @hep-th/9509095] as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \equiv v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^n\,E_{mn} = \bigl[a^{-1} \, \hat{E} \,(a^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}+b^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,\hat{E})^{-1} \bigr]_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \,, \label{eq:twist-original}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrices $a$ and $b$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} g^{-1}\,T_A\,g = (\text{Ad}_{g^{-1}})_A{}^B\,T_B \,,\qquad \text{Ad}_{g^{-1}} = \begin{pmatrix} a_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \\ b^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & (a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix} , \label{eq:Ad-def}\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{E}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ is an arbitrary constant matrix (that corresponds to ${\mathsf{E}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}(x)$ at $g=1$). We can check that the $E_{mn}$ given by indeed satisfies .[^6] Now, we rewrite the relation , namely $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}= J_{\mathrm{a}}= \EPSneg {\mathsf{g}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \ell^{\mathrm{b}}+ {\mathsf{B}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \ell^{\mathrm{b}}\qquad \bigl({\mathsf{g}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv {\mathsf{E}}_{({\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}})}\,,\quad {\mathsf{B}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv{\mathsf{E}}_{[{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}]}\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ into two equivalent expressions (by following the standard trick [@Duff:1989tf] in the Abelian case), $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \ell^{\mathrm{a}}&= \EPSpos ({\mathsf{g}}^{-1}\,{\mathsf{B}})^{{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{{\mathrm{b}}}\, * \ell^{\mathrm{b}}\EPSminus {\mathsf{g}}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\tilde{r}_{\mathrm{b}}\,, \\ \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}&= \EPSneg ({\mathsf{g}}-{\mathsf{B}}\,{\mathsf{g}}^{-1}\,{\mathsf{B}})_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, \ell^{\mathrm{b}}\EPSminus ({\mathsf{B}}\,{\mathsf{g}})_{{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{{\mathrm{b}}}\,\tilde{r}_{\mathrm{b}}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ They can be neatly expressed as a self-duality relation, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathsf{P}}^A = \EPSneg {\mathsf{H}}^A{}_B(x)\, {\mathsf{P}}^B \,,\qquad ({\mathsf{P}}^A) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \ell^{\mathrm{a}}\\ \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix}\,, \\ &({\mathsf{H}}_{AB}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} ({\mathsf{g}}-{\mathsf{B}}\,{\mathsf{g}}^{-1}\,{\mathsf{B}})_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & {\mathsf{B}}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}\,{\mathsf{g}}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}} \\ -{\mathsf{g}}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}\,{\mathsf{B}}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}} & {\mathsf{g}}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix}, \end{split} \label{eq:self-dual-sfH}\end{aligned}$$ where the indices $A,B,\cdots$ are raised or lowered with $\eta_{AB}$ and its inverse $\eta^{AB}$. In terms of the metric ${\mathsf{H}}_{AB}$, the relation can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{H}}_{AB}(x) = (\text{Ad}_g)_A{}^C\,(\text{Ad}_g)_B{}^D\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{CD}\,,\qquad (\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \hat{g} -\hat{B}\,\hat{g}^{-1}\,\hat{B} & \hat{B}\,\hat{g}^{-1} \\ - \hat{g}^{-1}\,\hat{B} & \hat{g}^{-1} \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{g}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv \hat{E}_{({\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}})}$, $\hat{B}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv \hat{E}_{[{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}]}$, and gives the important relation $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal P}}^A = \EPSneg \hat{{\mathcal H}}^A{}_B \,* \hat{{\mathcal P}}^B \,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal P}}(\sigma) \equiv \hat{{\mathcal P}}^A\,T_A \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}l\,l^{-1} \,, \qquad l \equiv g\,\tilde{g} \,, \label{eq:EOM-original}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used[^7] $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal P}}(\sigma) \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}l\,l^{-1} = g\,\bigl(\ell^{\mathrm{a}}\,T_{\mathrm{a}}+ \tilde{r}_{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}}\bigr)\,g^{-1} = {\mathsf{P}}^B\,(\text{Ad}_g)_B{}^A\,T_A \,. \end{aligned}$$ Expressed in this form, the equations of motion are given in terms of the Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{D}$; the decomposition $l= g\,\tilde{g}$ is no longer important. Similar to the Abelian $T$-duality we can recover the same equations of motion from the dual model, by exchanging the role of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Starting with the dual background $\tilde{E}_{mn}$, which has a set of vector fields $\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{a}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} [\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{b}}]=\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn}= -f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\, \tilde{E}_{mp}\,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{b}}p} \,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{c}}q}\,\tilde{E}_{qn} \,,\end{aligned}$$ the equations of motion can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal P}}_A = \EPSneg \tilde{\hat{{\mathcal H}}}_A{}^B \,* \hat{{\mathcal P}}_B \,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal P}}_A\,T^A \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{l}\,\tilde{l}^{-1} \,, \qquad \tilde{l} \equiv \tilde{h} \,h \quad (h\in {\mathfrak{g}}\,,\quad \tilde{h}\in \tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}) \label{eq:EOM-dual}\end{aligned}$$ by using a constant matrix $\tilde{\hat{{\mathcal H}}}_A{}^B$. For the duality equivalence, we demand that and are equivalent. This leads to the identifications $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB} = \tilde{\hat{{\mathcal H}}}_{AB} \,,\qquad g\, \tilde{g} = l = \tilde{l} \equiv \tilde{h} \,h\,.\end{aligned}$$ After this identification, string theory defined on the original background $E_{mn}$ and the dual background $E'_{mn}$ give the same equations of motion, and are classically equivalent. In summary, in PL $T$-dualizable backgrounds the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}(x)$ is always related to a constant matrix $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} = (U\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,U^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN} \,, \label{eq:PL-LM}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $U$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} U_M{}^A\equiv L_M{}^B\,(\text{Ad}_{g})_B{}^A\,,\qquad (L_M{}^A) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \ell_m^{\mathrm{a}}& 0 \\ 0 & v^m_{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ By comparing this with , we call the matrix $U$ the twist matrix and call the constant matrix $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ the untwisted metric. The dual geometry also has the same structure, where the twist matrix is $\tilde{U}_{MA}\equiv \tilde{L}_{MB}\,(\text{Ad}_{\tilde{g}})^B{}_A$. The relation between the original and the dual background becomes $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{{\mathcal H}}_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad h_M{}^N\equiv \tilde{U}_{MA}\,\eta^{AB}\,U_B{}^N\,. \end{aligned}$$ For later convenience, we rewrite the twist matrix as $$\begin{aligned} U = L \, \text{Ad}_{g} = R \, \bm{\Pi} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &(R_M{}^A) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} r_m^{\mathrm{a}}& 0 \\ 0 & e^m_{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix}\qquad (\bm{\Pi}_A{}^B)\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \\ -\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix}, \\ &r\equiv r^{\mathrm{a}}\,T_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}g\,g^{-1}\,,\qquad r_m^{\mathrm{a}}\,e^m_{\mathrm{b}}=\delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}\,,\qquad \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \equiv (b\,a^{-1})^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=-(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}\,b^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and used $r^{\mathrm{a}}=(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,\ell^{\mathrm{b}}$. Then, in terms of $E_{mn}(x)$, can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} E_{mn}(x) = \bigl[ (\hat{E}^{-1} - \Pi)^{-1} \bigr]_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,r^{\mathrm{a}}_m\,r^{\mathrm{b}}_n\,, \label{eq:Emn-right}\end{aligned}$$ and, similarly, the dual background is $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{E}_{mn}(\tilde{x}) = \bigl[ (\hat{E} - \tilde{\Pi})^{-1} \bigr]^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\tilde{r}_{{\mathrm{a}}m}\,\tilde{r}_{{\mathrm{b}}n}\,. \end{aligned}$$ In the special case where $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}=0$, by parameterizing $\tilde{g}={\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}}}}$ we obtain $\tilde{r}={{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}}$, $\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=0$, and $\tilde{\Pi}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} = - f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}$. This is precisely the case of NATD. In the dualized background, in general the isometries are broken and in the traditional NATD, we cannot recover the original model. However, the dual background has the form $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{E}^{mn} = (\hat{E} - \tilde{\Pi})_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\tilde{e}^{{\mathrm{a}}m}\,\tilde{e}^{{\mathrm{b}}n} = (\hat{E}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} + f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{c}}) \,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{a}}m}\,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{b}}n} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{e}^{\mathrm{a}}= \tilde{v}^{\mathrm{a}}= \tilde{\partial}^{\mathrm{a}}$, and we find that the dual background is $T$-dualizable, $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_{\tilde{v}^{\mathrm{a}}}E^{mn} = \tilde{\partial}^{\mathrm{a}}E^{mn} = f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{b}}m}\,\tilde{v}^{{\mathrm{c}}n}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, through the PL $T$-duality we can recover the original background $E_{mn}=\hat{E}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,r_m^{\mathrm{a}}\,r_n^{\mathrm{b}}$. As a side remark, we note that in the case of the Abelian ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ $T$-duality, the covariant equations of motion of string ${{\mathrm{d}}}x^M = \EPSneg \hat{{\mathcal H}}^M{}_N \,* {{\mathrm{d}}}x^N$ [@Duff:1989tf] can be derived from the double sigma model (DSM) [@Tseytlin:1990nb; @Tseytlin:1990va; @hep-th/0406102; @hep-th/0605149; @1111.1828; @1307.8377]. The correspondent of the DSM for the PL $T$-duality has been studied in [@hep-th/9512025; @hep-th/9602162; @hep-th/9605212; @hep-th/9609112; @0902.4032; @1001.2479], and this approach will be useful to manifest the PL $T$-duality. PL $T$-plurality ---------------- The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{d}$ of the Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{D}$ can be constructed as a direct sum of two algebras ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$, which are maximally isotropic with respect to the bilinear form $\langle \cdot,\,\cdot\rangle$, and the pair $(\mathfrak{d},\,{\mathfrak{g}},\,\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ is called the Manin triple. In general, a Drinfel’d double has several decompositions into Manin triples, and this leads to the notion of the PL $T$-plurality [@hep-th/0205245]. More concretely, let us consider a redefinition of the generators $T_A$ of $\mathfrak{d}$, $$\begin{aligned} T'_A \equiv C_A{}^B\,T_B\,,\end{aligned}$$ such that the new generators also satisfy the algebra of the Drinfel’d double, $$\begin{aligned} [T'_{\mathrm{a}},\,T'_{\mathrm{b}}] = f'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,T'_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad [T'_{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}'^{\mathrm{b}}] = \tilde{f}'^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,T'_{\mathrm{c}}- f'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{T}'^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad [\tilde{T}'^{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}'^{\mathrm{b}}] = \tilde{f}'^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{T}'^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the bilinear form is preserved, $$\begin{aligned} \langle T'_A,\, T'_B\rangle = \eta_{AB} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The latter condition shows that the matrix $C_A{}^B$ should be a certain ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ matrix. Since the rescaling of the generators is trivial, we choose $C_A{}^B$ as a “volume-preserving” ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation that does not change the DFT dilaton. The transformation of the background fields under the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation can be found in the same manner as the PL $T$-duality. Starting with a background $E'_{mn}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} [v'_{\mathrm{a}},\,v'_{\mathrm{b}}]= f'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\, v'_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{v'_{\mathrm{a}}}E'_{mn}= - \tilde{f}'^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\, E'_{mp}\,v'^p_{{\mathrm{b}}} \,v'^q_{{\mathrm{c}}} \,E'_{qn} \,,\end{aligned}$$ we again obtain the same equations of motion, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal P}'^A = \EPSneg \hat{{\mathcal H}}'^A{}_B \,* {\mathcal P}'^B \,,\qquad {\mathcal P}'^A\,T'_A \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}l'\,l'^{-1} \,, \qquad l' \equiv g'\,\tilde{g}' \,. \end{aligned}$$ From the identification $l=l'$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal P}}^A\, T_A = {{\mathrm{d}}}l\,l^{-1} = {{\mathrm{d}}}l'\,l'^{-1} = \hat{{\mathcal P}}'^A\,T'_A = \hat{{\mathcal P}}'^A\,C_A{}^B\,T_B \,, \end{aligned}$$ and the relation between the untwisted metrics becomes $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{AB} = (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB} \,. \label{eq:plural}\end{aligned}$$ The generalized metric in the transformed frame has the form $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{MN} = (U'\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}'\,U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the relation between the original and the dual generalized metric is $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad (h_M{}^N)\equiv U' \,C \, U^{-1} \,. \label{eq:PL-T-plurality}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of $E_{mn}(x)$, the original background is $$\begin{aligned} E_{mn}(x) = \bigl[ (\hat{E}^{-1} - \Pi)^{-1} \bigr]_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,r^{\mathrm{a}}_m\,r^{\mathrm{b}}_n\,, \label{eq:original-E}\end{aligned}$$ while the dual background is $$\begin{aligned} E'_{mn}(x') = \bigl[ (\hat{E}'^{-1} - \Pi')^{-1} \bigr]_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\, r'^{{\mathrm{a}}}_m \, r'^{\mathrm{b}}_n \,,\qquad E'_{mn} = [(\bm{q}+\bm{p}\,\hat{E})\,(\bm{s}+\bm{r}\,\hat{E})^{-1}]_{mn} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we parameterized the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ matrix $C$ as $$\begin{aligned} C = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{p}_{m}{}^{n} & \bm{q}_{mn} \\ \bm{r}^{mn} & \bm{s}^{m}{}_{n} \end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the PL $T$-duality is a special case of the $T$-plurality where $$\begin{aligned} C = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and the original background corresponds to the trivial choice $C=1$. ### Duality rule for the dilaton The transformation rule for the dilaton was studied in [@hep-th/9512025] in the context of the PL $T$-duality. This was improved in [@hep-th/0205245] in the study of the PL $T$-plurality. In our convention, the result is $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi'}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{\Phi}}} \frac{{\lvert{\det (\bm{q}+\bm{p}\,\hat{E})} \rvert}}{{\lvert{\det(E'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}})} \rvert}\,{\lvert{\det a'^{-1}} \rvert}}\qquad \bigl(E'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\equiv e'^m_{\mathrm{a}}\,e'^n_{\mathrm{b}}\,E'_{mn}\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\Phi}(x)$ is an arbitrary function. By using the formula , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{{\lvert{g'} \rvert}} &= {\lvert{\det(r'^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}\,{\lvert{\det(\bm{1}-\Pi'\,\hat{E}')} \rvert}^{-1}\, {\lvert{\det(\bm{s}+\bm{r}\,\hat{E})} \rvert}^{-1} \sqrt{{\lvert{\hat{g}} \rvert}} {\nonumber}\\ &= {\lvert{\det(r'^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}\,{\lvert{\det E'_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}} \rvert} \,{\lvert{\det (\bm{q}+\bm{p}\,\hat{E})} \rvert}^{-1}\,\sqrt{{\lvert{\hat{g}} \rvert}} \,, \end{aligned}$$ and the DFT dilaton in the dual background becomes $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d'}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}}\, {\lvert{\det(r'^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}\, {\lvert{\det a'} \rvert} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}}\, {\lvert{\det(\ell'^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} \equiv {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{\Phi}}} \sqrt{{\lvert{\hat{g}} \rvert}} \,. \label{eq:DFT-dilaton-PL}\end{aligned}$$ Namely, the duality rule for the DFT dilaton is $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert{\det(v'^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,(d'-\bar{d})}} = 1 = {\lvert{\det(v^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,(d-\bar{d})}} \,. \label{eq:DFT-dilaton-PL1}\end{aligned}$$ If $\bar{d}$ (or equivalently $\bar{\Phi}$) is constant, this duality rule coincides with the recent proposal [@1810.11446], where the PL $T$-duality was studied by utilizing “the DFT on a Drinfel’d double” proposed in [@1707.08624]. There, it was shown that the dilaton transformation rule is also consistent with [@1708.04079]. Moreover, when the dual algebra is Abelian $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}=0$, we have ${\lvert{\det(v'^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert}=1$ and the result known in NATD is also reproduced as a particular case. In fact, as demonstrated in [@hep-th/0205245], the PL $T$-plurality works even if $\bar{d}$ has a coordinate dependence. A subtle point is that when ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}}$ depends on the original coordinates $x^m$, it is not clear how to understand the $x^m$-dependence in the dual model. A prescription proposed in [@hep-th/0205245] is as follows. We first identify the relation between coordinates $(x^M)=(x^m,\,\tilde{x}_m)$ and $(x'^M)=(x'^m,\,\tilde{x}'_m)$ through the identification $$\begin{aligned} g'(x')\,\tilde{g}'(\tilde{x}') = l = g(x)\,\tilde{g}(\tilde{x})\,. \label{eq:Double-coordinate-change}\end{aligned}$$ We next substitute the relation $x^M=x^M(x')$ into ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}}$ as ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}}={\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x(x'))}}\equiv {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x')}}$. Then, the relation can be understood on both sides $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert{\det(v'^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,[d'-\bar{d}(x')]}} = 1 = {\lvert{\det(v^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,[d-\bar{d}(x)]}} \,. \label{eq:DFT-dilaton-PL2}\end{aligned}$$ In general, $\bar{d}(x')$ may depend on the dual coordinates $\tilde{x}'_m$, and the background does not have the usual supergravity description. However, in our examples the DFT dilaton has at most a linear dependence on the dual coordinates, and it can be absorbed into the Killing vector $I^m$ in the GSE. ### Covariance of equations of motion In the approach of [@1707.08624; @1810.11446], the PL $T$-duality was realized as a manifest symmetry of DFT. We discuss here the covariance under a more general PL $T$-plurality by using the gauged DFT. The approach may be slightly different from [@1707.08624; @1810.11446] but the essence will be the same. In PL $T$-dualizable backgrounds, the generalized metric always has the simple form $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} = [U(x)\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}(x)]_{MN}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the twist matrix $U$ is explicitly determined, we can compute the generalized fluxes ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ and ${\mathcal F}_A$ defined in . In fact, as shown in [@1810.11446], in PL $T$-dualizable backgrounds the three-index flux is precisely the structure constant of the Drinfel’d double, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}} = 0\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}} = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}} = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$ We can check this by using the explicit form of the twist matrix and its inverse, $$\begin{aligned} (U_M{}^A) = \begin{pmatrix} r_m^{\mathrm{a}}& 0 \\ -e^m_{\mathrm{b}}\,\Pi^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}} & e^m_{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix} , \qquad (U_A{}^M) = \begin{pmatrix} e_{\mathrm{a}}^m & 0 \\ \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,e^m_{\mathrm{b}}& r^{\mathrm{a}}_m \end{pmatrix} , \end{aligned}$$ and the relations ${\pounds}_{e_{\mathrm{a}}}e_{\mathrm{b}}= -f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,e_{\mathrm{c}}$, ${\pounds}_{e_{\mathrm{a}}}r^{\mathrm{b}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,r^{\mathrm{c}}$, $\partial_m\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}= - (a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{d}}\,(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{b}}{}_{\mathrm{e}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}_{\mathrm{f}}\,a^{{\mathrm{f}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,r^{\mathrm{c}}_m$, and $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}= (a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{d}}\,(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{b}}{}_{\mathrm{e}}\,a_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{f}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}_{\mathrm{f}}- 2\,f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{[{\mathrm{a}}}\, \Pi^{{\mathrm{b}}]{\mathrm{e}}}$ (see [@hep-th/9710163] for useful identities). We can also compute the single-index flux as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A = \begin{pmatrix} 2\,e_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,\partial_m d + e_{\mathrm{c}}^n\,\partial_n r^{\mathrm{c}}_m\,e_{\mathrm{a}}^m \\ -(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}+ \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,(2\,e_{\mathrm{b}}^m\,\partial_m d + e_{\mathrm{c}}^n\,\partial_n r_m^{\mathrm{c}}\, e_{\mathrm{b}}^m\bigr) + 2\,r^a_m\,\tilde{\partial}^m d \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ By using the expression for the DFT dilaton , ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}}\, {\lvert{\det(r^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}\,{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}$, we find $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A = U_A{}^M \, {\mathcal F}_M \,,\qquad {\mathcal F}_M \equiv 2\,\partial_M \bar{d} + \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ - \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v^m_{\mathrm{a}}\end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $a_{\mathrm{b}}{}^{\mathrm{e}}\,a_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{f}}\,f_{{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{f}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}= f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{e}}\,a_{\mathrm{e}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}$ and $\partial_m a_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}= a_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\ell_m^{\mathrm{d}}$. As we discuss below, for the covariance of the equation of motion under the PL $T$-plurality, ${\mathcal F}_A$ needs to transform covariantly. However, even in the particular case $\bar{d}=0$, for example, we find that ${\mathcal F}_A$ does not transform covariantly. Indeed, we have ${\mathcal F}_A=0$ in a duality frame where $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}=0$, while ${\mathcal F}_A$ appears in a frame where $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\neq 0$. Therefore, in order to transform ${\mathcal F}_A$ covariantly, we eliminate the non-covariant term by adding a vector field ${{\bm X}}_M$ as $$\begin{aligned} \partial_M d \ \to \ \partial_M d + {{\bm X}}_M\,,\qquad ({{\bm X}}_M) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ I^m \end{pmatrix},\qquad I^m = \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m \,, \label{eq:mDFT-shift-PL}\end{aligned}$$ which was suggested in [@1810.11446]. This shift is a bit artificial, but without this procedure we need to abandon all Manin triples with non-unimodular dual algebra. In fact, this shift is precisely the modification of DFT equations of motion that reproduces the GSE after removing the dual-coordinate dependence. After this prescription, we obtain the simple flux $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A = 2\,{\mathcal D}_A \bar{d} \,. \end{aligned}$$ In fact, as we see later, ${\mathcal F}_A = 2\,{\mathcal D}_A \bar{d}$ are covariantly transformed under the PL $T$-plurality ${\mathcal F}'_A = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal F}_B$,[^8] and the prescription works well in our examples. Now, let us discuss the covariance of the equations of motion. Since the derivative ${\mathcal D}_A$ generally does not transform covariantly, we assume that ${\mathcal F}_A = 2\,{\mathcal D}_A \bar{d}$ is constant. Since ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ is also constant in PL $T$-dualizable backgrounds, the DFT equations of motion become simple algebraic equations, and . Under the PL $T$-plurality $T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B$, the generalized fluxes are mapped as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}'_{ABC} = C_A{}^D\,C_B{}^E\,C_C{}^F\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} \,,\qquad {\mathcal F}'_A = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal F}_B \,,\end{aligned}$$ by introducing ${{\bm X}}_M$ when the dual algebra is non-unimodular. According to , the untwisted metric $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ is also related covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{AB} = (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we find that the equations of motion in the original and the dual background are covariantly related by the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation $C$. Thus, as long as the original configuration is a DFT solution, the dual background also satisfies the DFT equations of motion. We note that this ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation is totally different from the transformation , which is just a redefinition of $U$, and the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ is invariant. On the other hand, in the case of PL $T$-plurality, $U(x)$ in the original model and $U'(x')$ in the dual model are defined on a different manifold and there is no clear connection between $U(x)$ and $U'(x')$. Only the constant fluxes made out of $U(x)$ and $U'(x')$ are related by a constant ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation, and this non-trivial relation connects the two equations of motion in a covariant manner. Before moving on to the R–R sector, we make a brief comment on the vector field $I^m$. In order to reproduce the (generalized) supergravity from (modified) DFT, we need to choose the standard section $\tilde{\partial}^m =0$. Therefore, when $\bar{d}$ has a dual-coordinate dependence, we need to make an additional field redefinition. Supposing that $\bar{d}$ only has a linear dual-coordinate dependence $\bar{d}=\bar{d}_0(x^m) + d^m\,\tilde{x}_m$, we make the field redefinition $$\begin{aligned} \bar{d}\ \to\ \bar{d}' =\bar{d}_0(x^m) \,,\qquad I^m \ \to \ I'^m = \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m + d^m \,. \label{eq:I-modified}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the dual-coordinate dependence disappears from the background. Note that this is different from the shift and is just a field redefinition. In the following, when we display a (generalized) supergravity solution we always make this redefinition. Let us also make a brief comment on the Killing vector $I^m$. In the case of NATD, the Killing vector $I^m$ is given by , but is apparently different from the formula by the factor $2$. Here, we will roughly sketch how to resolve the discrepancy by using the redefinition . In the case of NATD, $\partial_m {\lvert{\det(v^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert}=0$ and $\partial_m \Phi=0$ are usually satisfied in the original background (under the gauge fixing $x^m=c^m$). Then, we have $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \partial_m \bar{d} &= \partial_m d = -\frac{1}{2}\,\partial_m \ln \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}} = -\frac{1}{2}\,\partial_m \ln {\lvert{\det(r_m^{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} \\ &= \frac{1}{2}\,\partial_m \ln {\lvert{\det a} \rvert} = \frac{1}{2}\, f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\ell^{\mathrm{a}}_m \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Namely, $\bar{d}$ has a linear coordinate dependence along the $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ direction, $$\begin{aligned} v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,\partial_m \bar{d} = \frac{1}{2}\, f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ After performing NATD, this gives a dual-coordinate dependence of $\bar{d}$ in the dual theory, $$\begin{aligned} \bar{d} = \frac{1}{2}\, \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the dual structure constants $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}$ correspond to $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}$ in the original frame. Then, the modified $I^m$ in recovers the formula , $$\begin{aligned} I^m = \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m + d^m = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,\delta_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m \,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ in the dual theory. In a general setup does not work correctly, and we use the results discussed in this section. ### Duality rule for R–R fields Now, let us determine the duality rule for the R–R fields. We will first find the duality rule from a heuristic approach, and then clarify the result in terms of the gauged DFT. In the presence of the R–R fields, the equations of motion for ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ and $d$ are $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}_{MN} = {\mathcal E}_{MN} \,,\qquad {\mathcal S}= 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and since ${\mathcal S}_{MN}$ is transformed covariantly under the PL $T$-duality, the energy–momentum tensor ${\mathcal E}_{MN}$ should also transform covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal E}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal E}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}\,. \end{aligned}$$ The energy–momentum tensor ${\mathcal E}_{MN}$ is a bilinear form of the combination ${\mathcal F}\equiv {\operatorname{e}^{d}} F$ and it does not contain a derivative of ${\mathcal F}$. Therefore, we can covariantly transform ${\mathcal E}_{MN}$ simply by rotating the combination ${\mathcal F}$ covariantly, and this gives the transformation rule for the R–R fields. Under a PL $T$-plurality, ${\mathcal H}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}$ with $h = U' \,C \, U^{-1}$, the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$-covariant transformation rule for a scalar density ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}}$ is $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d^{(h)}}} = \frac{{\lvert{\det(e^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert}}{{\lvert{\det(e'^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert}} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} \,. \label{eq:covariant-dilaton}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the twist matrix has the form $U = R \, \bm{\Pi}$, and the scalar density is invariant under the $\beta$-transformation $\bm{\Pi}$ while it is multiplied by ${\lvert{\det(e^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert}^{-1}$ under the twist $R$. Moreover, the scalar density is invariant under the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation $C$ by the definition of $C_A{}^B$. Thus, ${\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d^{(h)}}}$ in is the covariantly transformed DFT dilaton. On the other hand, let us denote the covariantly transformed R–R polyform as ${\mathcal F}^{(h)}$. By denoting the action of an ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation $h$ on the polyform as $F\to \mathbb{S}_h\,F$,[^9] we have $$\begin{aligned} F^{(h)} = \mathbb{S}'_U\,\mathbb{S}_C\,\mathbb{S}_U^{-1}\, F\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the energy–momentum tensor made of the combination ${\operatorname{e}^{d^{(h)}}} F^{(h)}$ is the expected ${\mathcal E}'_{MN}$. However, importantly, the actual DFT dilaton is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert{\det(a'^{-1})} \rvert}{\lvert{\det(e'^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,[d'-\bar{d}(x')]}} = {\lvert{\det(a^{-1})} \rvert}{\lvert{\det(e^m_{\mathrm{a}})} \rvert} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,[d-\bar{d}(x)]}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and ${\operatorname{e}^{d'}}$ is related to the covariant one ${\operatorname{e}^{d^{(h)}}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{d'}} = \frac{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}}{\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x)}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det a'} \rvert}}{\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x')}}}\,{\operatorname{e}^{d^{(h)}}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if we identify the dual R–R polyform as $$\begin{aligned} F' \equiv \frac{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det a'} \rvert}}{\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x')}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}}{\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x)}}} \, F^{(h)}\,, \label{eq:R-R-T-plurality-rule}\end{aligned}$$ the energy–momentum tensor made from ${\operatorname{e}^{d'}} F' = {\operatorname{e}^{d^{(h)}}} F^{(h)}$ is ${\mathcal E}'_{MN}$. Namely, is the rule for the R–R fields. Now, as ${\mathcal E}_{MN}$ is transformed covariantly, it is already clear that the equations of motion for ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ and $d$ are satisfied in the dual background. However, the equation of motion for the R–R fields is still not clear. To clarify the covariance, let us rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}}' = \mathbb{S}_C \, \hat{{\mathcal F}}\,, \label{eq:PL-RR-transformation}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}} \equiv \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{\bar{d}}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}}}\, \mathbb{S}_{U^{-1}}\, F = \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{d}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det (e_{\mathrm{a}}^m)} \rvert}}}\, \mathbb{S}_{U^{-1}}\, F \,. \end{aligned}$$ Then, we find that the $\hat{{\mathcal F}}$ is precisely the R–R field strength appearing in the gauged DFT or the flux formulation of DFT \[see Eq. \], $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\, \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots{\mathrm{a}}_p}\,\Gamma^{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots{\mathrm{a}}_p}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots{\mathrm{a}}_p}\equiv \Gamma^{[{\mathrm{a}}_1}\,\cdots \Gamma^{{\mathrm{a}}_p]}$ and $(\Gamma^A)\equiv (\Gamma^{{\mathrm{a}}},\,\Gamma_{{\mathrm{a}}})$ satisfy the algebra, $$\begin{aligned} \{\Gamma^A,\,\Gamma^B\} = \eta^{AB} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the so-called Clifford vacuum ${\lvert {0}\rangle}$ is defined by $\Gamma_{{\mathrm{a}}}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}=0$. By using a nilpotent operator $$\begin{aligned} {\setbox0=\hbox{$\nabla$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \nabla \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\nabla$\hfil}} / \fi} = {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} - \frac{1}{2}\,\Gamma^A\,{\mathcal F}_A + \frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC} \qquad ({\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}\equiv \Gamma^A\,{\mathcal D}_A)\,,\end{aligned}$$ the Bianchi identity can be expressed as (see Appendix \[app:DFT\]) $$\begin{aligned} {\setbox0=\hbox{$\nabla$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \nabla \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\nabla$\hfil}} / \fi} {\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = \Bigl({\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} - \frac{1}{2}\,\Gamma^A\,{\mathcal F}_A + \frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\Bigr)\,{\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ As is well known in the democratic formulation [@hep-th/9907132; @hep-th/0103233], the Bianchi identity is equivalent to the equations of motion when the self-duality relation $G_p = (-1)^{\frac{p(p-1)}{2}} * G_{10-p}$ is satisfied. Now, we require the dualizability condition for the R–R fields, $$\begin{aligned} {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}{\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ which will be the same as the proposal of [@1810.11446]. Then, the Bianchi identity or the equation of motion for the R–R fields becomes an algebraic equation: $$\begin{aligned} \Bigl(\frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC} - \frac{1}{2}\,\Gamma^A\,{\mathcal F}_A\Bigr)\,{\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = 0\,. \label{eq:Bianchi-PL}\end{aligned}$$ Note that when the dual algebra is non-unimodular, ${\mathcal F}_A$ should be modified as ${\mathcal F}_A + 2\,U_A{}^M\,{{\bm X}}_M$ as we explained in the discussion of the NS–NS fields. By denoting the spinor representative of the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation by $S_C$, the duality relation becomes simply $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {{\mathcal F}'}\rangle} = S_{C}\, {\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Then, the equation of motion after the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ PL $T$-plurality transformation is $$\begin{aligned} \Bigl(\frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,C_A{}^D\,C_B{}^E\,C_C{}^F\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} - \frac{1}{2}\, \Gamma^A\, C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal F}_B\Bigr)\,S_C\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} = 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ but from the relations $S_C^{-1}\,\Gamma_A\,S_C = C_A{}^B \, \Gamma_B$ and $C_A{}^C\,C_B{}^D\,\eta_{CD}=\eta_{AB}$ this is equivalent to the equation of motion in the original background . In this manner, the equation of motion for the R–R fields is also covariantly transformed. We call the object $\hat{{\mathcal F}}$ the untwisted R–R fields, and once $\hat{{\mathcal F}}'_{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots{\mathrm{a}}_p}$ in the dual background is determined from , we can construct the Page form in the dual background as $$\begin{aligned} F'= {\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x')}} \sqrt{{\lvert{\det a'} \rvert}}\, \mathbb{S}_{U'}\, \hat{{\mathcal F}}' = {\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x')}} \sqrt{{\lvert{\det a'} \rvert}}\, {\operatorname{e}^{-\bm{\Pi}'\vee}} \biggl(\sum_p\frac{1}{p!}\, \hat{{\mathcal F}}'_{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots {\mathrm{a}}_p}\, r'^{{\mathrm{a}}_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge r'^{{\mathrm{a}}_p}\biggr) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\Pi}'\vee \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\Pi'^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\iota_{e'_{\mathrm{a}}}\,\iota_{e'_{\mathrm{a}}}$. ### Spectator fields {#sec:spectator} In the following, we consider more general cases where spectator fields are also included. Namely, we suppose that the original model takes the form $$\begin{aligned} S = -\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int_\Sigma{{\mathrm{d}}}^2\sigma \sqrt{-\gamma}\,(\gamma^{ab}\EPSplus \varepsilon^{ab}) \begin{pmatrix} \partial_a y^\mu & r_i^{\mathrm{a}}\,\partial_a x^i \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & E_{\mu{\mathrm{b}}} \\ E_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} & E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \partial_b y^\nu\\ r_j^{\mathrm{b}}\,\partial_b x^j \end{pmatrix} . \end{aligned}$$ Here, we denote the coordinates as $(x^m)=(y^\mu,\,x^i)$ $(i=1,\dotsc,n)$. By assuming that the background field $(E_{mn})=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} E_{\mu\nu} & E_{\mu{\mathrm{b}}} \\ E_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} & E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ satisfies the condition $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E_{mn}= - \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,E_{mp}\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^p \, v_{\mathrm{c}}^q\,E_{qn} \,,\end{aligned}$$ we can again determine $E_{mn}$ as [@hep-th/9502122; @hep-th/9509095] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{alignedat}{2} E_{\mu\nu} &= \hat{E}_{\mu\nu} + \hat{E}_{\mu{\mathrm{c}}}\,\hat{E}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}\,N_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{e}}}\,\Pi^{{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{f}}}\,\hat{E}_{{\mathrm{f}}\nu}\,,&\qquad E_{\mu{\mathrm{b}}} &= \hat{E}_{\mu{\mathrm{c}}}\,\hat{E}^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}\,N_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{b}}} \,, \\ E_{{\mathrm{a}}\nu} &= N_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{d}}}\,\hat{E}^{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{e}}}\,\hat{E}_{{\mathrm{e}}\nu}\,,&\qquad E_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}&= N_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \,, \end{alignedat} \label{eq:spectators-E}\end{aligned}$$ where $(N_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) \equiv (\hat{E}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}-\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}})^{-1}$. This reduces to when there is no spectator field. Now, an important difference is that $\hat{E}_{mn}$ is not necessarily constant, but can depend on the spectator fields $y^\mu$, $\hat{E}_{mn}=\hat{E}_{mn}(y)$. The dependence should be determined from the DFT equations of motion and is independent of the structure of the Drinfel’d double. In terms of the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$, we can clearly see that the relation is a straightforward generalization of , $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal H}_{MN} = \bigl[U(x)\, \hat{{\mathcal H}}(y)\, U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}(x)\bigr]_{MN}\,, \qquad U(x) \equiv R\, \bm{\Pi}\,, \\ &(R_{M}{}^{B}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\mu^\beta& 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & r_i^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \delta^\mu_\beta & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & e^i_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix} , \qquad (\bm{\Pi}_{A}{}^{B}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\alpha^\beta& 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \delta^\alpha_\beta & 0 \\ 0 & -\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & 0 & \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix}, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $(x^M)=(y^\mu,\,x^i,\,\tilde{y}_\mu,\,\tilde{x}_i)$. The $T$-plurality transformation of is also generalized, in a natural manner, as an ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{AB} = (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB} \,,\qquad (C_{A}{}^{B}) = \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\alpha^\beta& 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \bm{p}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 & \bm{q}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} \\ 0 & 0 & \delta^\alpha_\beta & 0 \\ 0 & \bm{r}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & 0 & \bm{s}^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix}. \label{eq:def-CAB}\end{aligned}$$ The dilaton can also have an additional dependence on the spectators similar to , $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}(y)}} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,{\mathsf{d}}(x)}}\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,{\mathsf{d}}(x)}} \equiv {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}} \, {\lvert{\det(\ell^{\mathrm{a}}_i)} \rvert}\,. \end{aligned}$$ We also suppose that the untwisted R–R fields can depend on the spectator fields $\hat{{\mathcal F}}=\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)$. Then, by defining the fluxes ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ and ${\mathcal F}_A$ from $U_M{}^A(x)$ and ${\mathsf{d}}(x)$, we again obtain $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal F}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}} = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal F}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}} = {\mathcal F}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}} = {\mathcal F}_{\alpha BC} = {\mathcal F}^\alpha{}_{BC} = 0 \,, \\ &({\mathcal F}_A) = ({\mathcal F}_\alpha,\,{\mathcal F}_{\mathrm{a}},\,{\mathcal F}^\alpha,\,{\mathcal F}^{\mathrm{a}}) = (0,\,2\,{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{a}}{\mathsf{d}},\,0,\,2\,{\mathcal D}^{\mathrm{a}}{\mathsf{d}}) \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we again need to perform the shift $\partial^{M}d \to \partial^{M}d + {{\bm X}}^{M}$ when the dual algebra is non-unimodular. The requirement in is automatically satisfied with our twist matrix, and by using the dilaton equation of motion becomes $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\hat{{\mathcal S}} + \frac{1}{12}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} \,\bigl(3\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF}- \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF}\bigr) - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\, {\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal F}_B \\ &- \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal F}^A{}_{BC}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CE}\,{\mathcal D}_D\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AE} + 2\,{\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal D}_B\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB} - 4\,{\mathcal F}_A\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\,{\mathcal D}_B \hat{d} = 0 \,. \end{split} \label{eq:dilaton-EOM-spectator}\end{aligned}$$ By requiring that the untwisted fields $\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}(y),\,\hat{d}(y),\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)\}$ in the original and the dual background are covariantly related by the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB} = (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{AB} \,,\qquad \hat{d}' =\hat{d}\,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal F}}' = \mathbb{S}_C \, \hat{{\mathcal F}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ we can easily see that ${\mathcal D}_C \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}=\partial_C \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}$ and ${\mathcal D}_A \hat{d}=\partial_A \hat{d}$ are also transformed covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal D}'_C \hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{AB}(y) = C_A{}^D\,C_B{}^E\,\partial_C \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{DE}(y) = C_C{}^F\,C_A{}^D\,C_B{}^E\,{\mathcal D}_F \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{DE}(y)\,, \\ &{\mathcal D}'_A \hat{d}(y) = \partial_A \hat{d}(y) = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal D}_B \hat{d}(y) \,,\qquad {\mathcal D}'_A \hat{{\mathcal F}}(y) = \partial_A \hat{{\mathcal F}}(y) = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal D}_B \hat{{\mathcal F}}(y) \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the dilaton equation of motion is satisfied in the dualized background if it is satisfied in the original background. As long as the untwisted R–R field satisfies “the Bianchi identity” ${\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}{\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} = 0$, which is equivalent to ${{\mathrm{d}}}\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)=0$, the equation of motion for the R–R fields is again a simple algebraic equation, $$\begin{aligned} \Bigl(\frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC} - \frac{1}{2}\,\Gamma^A\,{\mathcal F}_A\Bigr)\,{\lvert {{\mathcal F}(y)}\rangle} = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ and its covariance is manifest. The covariance of the equations of motion for the generalized metric ${\mathcal S}_{MN}=0$ can also be shown in a similar manner. Since the computation is a little complicated, the details are discussed in Appendix \[app:DFT\]. PL $T$-plurality for AdSS {#sec:PL-AdS5} ========================= In this section we show an example of the Poisson–Lie $T$-plurality. As already mentioned, the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{d}$ of the Drinfel’d doubles can be realized as a direct sum of two maximally isotropic algebras ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}}$, and $(\mathfrak{d},\,{\mathfrak{g}},\,\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ is called the Manin triple. Following [@math/0202210], we denote the pair simply as $({\mathfrak{g}}\|\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$. The classification of six-dimensional real Drinfel’d doubles was worked out in [@math/0202210], where the following series of Manin triples corresponding to a single Drinfel’d double $\mathfrak{d}$ was found: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1}) \cong (\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1}) \cong (\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{2.i}) \cong (\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{5.ii}) \\ \cong{}&{}(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{5}) \cong (\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0}) \cong (\mathbf{2.i}\|\mathbf{5}) \cong (\mathbf{5.ii}\|\mathbf{6_0})\,. \end{split} \label{eq:chain}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the characters in each slot denote the Bianchi type of the three-dimensional Lie algebra, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \mathbf{1}:&\quad [X_1,\,X_2] = 0\,,\qquad [X_2,\,X_3]=0\,,\qquad [X_3,\,X_1]= 0\,, \\ \mathbf{2.i}:&\quad [X_1,\,X_2] = 0\,,\qquad [X_2,\,X_3]=X_1\,,\qquad [X_3,\,X_1]= 0\,, \\ \mathbf{5}:&\quad [X_1,\,X_2] = -X_2\,,\qquad [X_2,\,X_3]=0\,,\qquad [X_3,\,X_1]= X_3\,, \\ \mathbf{5.ii}:&\quad [X_1,\,X_2] = -X_1 + X_2\,,\qquad [X_2,\,X_3]=X_3\,,\qquad [X_3,\,X_1]= -X_3\,, \\ \mathbf{6_0}:&\quad [X_1,\,X_2] = 0\,,\qquad [X_2,\,X_3]= X_1\,,\qquad [X_3,\,X_1]= -X_2\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Using an ${\text{O}}(3,3)$ transformation $T'_A=C_A{}^B\,T_B$,[^10][^11] the PL $T$-plurality for this chain of Manin triples was studied in [@hep-th/0205245]. However, in [@hep-th/0205245], since the initial background is the flat space (or the Bianchi type V universe) the R–R fields were absent in any of the dual backgrounds. Moreover, there has been an issue in the treatment of the dual-coordinate dependence of the dilaton, known as the dilaton puzzle (see also [@hep-th/0403164; @hep-th/0408126; @hep-th/0601172] for detailed discussion of the issue). Accordingly, the only three backgrounds discussed in [@hep-th/0205245] were $$\begin{aligned} (\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1}) \cong (\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1}) \cong (\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{2.i}) \,.\end{aligned}$$ In this section we identify the ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$ solution as a background with the $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$ symmetry, and write down all of the eight backgrounds associated with the Manin triples given in . For convenience, we summarize the procedure of the PL $T$-plurality. $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix@C=18pt@R=1pt{ \text{Untwisted fields} & & \\ \bigl\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}(y),\,\hat{d}(y),\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)\bigr\} \ar@/^1pc/[r] \ar@/^2pc/[rr] \ar@/^3pc/[rrr]^{{\text{O}}(n,n)\text{ transformation }C} \ar[dddddd]_{\text{twist}}^{T_A} & \bigl\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}'_{AB}(y),\,\hat{d}'(y),\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}'(y)\bigr\} \ar[dddddd]_{\text{twist}}^{T'_A=C'_A{}^B\,T_B} & \bigl\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}''_{AB}(y),\,\hat{d}''(y),\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}''(y)\bigr\} \ar[dddddd]_{\text{twist}}^{T''_A=C''_A{}^B\,T_B} & \cdots \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \bigl\{{\mathcal H}_{MN},\,d,\,F\bigr\} & \bigl\{{\mathcal H}'_{MN},\,d',\,F'\bigr\} & \bigl\{{\mathcal H}''_{MN},\,d'',\,F''\bigr\} & \cdots }\end{aligned}$$ We first prepare the untwisted fields $\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}(y),\,\hat{d}(y),\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)\}$ that satisfy $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal D}_A \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{BC}(y) = \partial_A \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{BC}(y)\,,\qquad {\mathcal D}_A \hat{d}(y) = \partial_A \hat{d}(y) \,,\qquad {\mathcal D}_A \hat{{\mathcal F}}(y) = \partial_A \hat{{\mathcal F}}(y) \,.\end{aligned}$$ They are independent of the structure of the Drinfel’d double and can be chosen freely. Under the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ PL $T$-plurality, they are transformed covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\to (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB}\,,\qquad \hat{d} \to \hat{d}\,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal F}} \to \mathbb{S}_C\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ By using the generators $T_A$ in each frame, we construct the twist matrix $U$ as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &U(x) \equiv R\, \bm{\Pi}\,,\qquad \bm{\Pi}\vee \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\iota_{e_{\mathrm{a}}}\,\iota_{e_{\mathrm{a}}}\,,\qquad \text{Ad}_{g^{-1}} = \begin{pmatrix} \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{c}}& 0 \\ \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{c}}} & \delta^{{\mathrm{a}}}_{\mathrm{c}}\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 \\ 0 & (a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix} , \\ &(R_{M}{}^{B}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\mu^\beta& 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & r_i^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \delta^\mu_\beta & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & e^i_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix} , \qquad (\bm{\Pi}_{A}{}^{B}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \delta_\alpha^\beta& 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}& 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \delta^\alpha_\beta & 0 \\ 0 & -\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} & 0 & \delta^{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{b}}\end{pmatrix}. \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Then, by twisting the untwisted fields, we construct the DFT fields as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal H}_{MN} = \bigl[U(x)\, \hat{{\mathcal H}}(y)\, U^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}(x)\bigr]_{MN}\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}(y)}} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}} \, {\lvert{\det(\ell^{\mathrm{a}}_i)} \rvert}\,,\qquad ({{\bm X}}^M) = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i\,\delta_i^m \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \\ &F = {\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x)}} \sqrt{{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}}\, {\operatorname{e}^{-\bm{\Pi}(x)\vee}} \biggl[\sum_p\frac{1}{p!}\, \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots {\mathrm{a}}_p}(y)\, r^{{\mathrm{a}}_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge r^{{\mathrm{a}}_p}\biggr] \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The function $\bar{d}(x)$ is given in the initial configuration, and after the PL $T$-plurality it is rewritten in the new coordinates determined through $g(x^i)\,\tilde{g}(\tilde{x}_i)=l=g'(x'^i)\,\tilde{g}'(\tilde{x}'_i)$. When $\bar{d}(x)$ has a linear dual-coordinate dependence $d^i\,\tilde{x}_i$, we make a redefinition and absorb the dependence into the Killing vector, $I^i=\frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i+d^i$. $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$: AdSS ------------------------------- We start with the ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$ background (in a non-standard coordinate system): $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + t^2\, \bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 + {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2)\bigr] +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5} \,, \\ G_5 &= \frac{-4{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}}t^3\, {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5} + 4\,\omega_5 \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5} &\equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}r^2 +\sin^2r\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi^2 +\cos^2\xi\sin^2r\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1^2 + \sin^2r\sin^2\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2^2 +\cos^2r\,{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3^2\,, \\ \omega_5 &\equiv \sin^3r \cos r\sin\xi\cos\xi\,{{\mathrm{d}}}r\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\xi\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_1\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}\phi_3\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This background has Killing vectors $$\begin{aligned} v_1 \equiv \partial_1 + x^2\,\partial_2 + x^3\,\partial_3 \,,\qquad v_2 \equiv \partial_2 \,,\qquad v_3 \equiv \partial_3\,,\end{aligned}$$ satisfying the $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$ algebra, $$\begin{aligned} [v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}] = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\qquad f_{12}{}^2 = f_{13}{}^3 = -1\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} E_{mn} = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ We can reconstruct this background by providing the parameterization $$\begin{aligned} l= g\,\tilde{g} \,,\qquad g= {\operatorname{e}^{x^1\,T_1}} {\operatorname{e}^{x^2\,T_2}} {\operatorname{e}^{x^3\,T_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}= {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}_1\,\tilde{T}^1}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}_2\,\tilde{T}^2}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}_3\,\tilde{T}^3}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $(T_A)=(T_{\mathrm{a}},\,\tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}})$ are generators of the Manin triple $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_2 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 - x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_3 \,, \\ &r = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + {\operatorname{e}^{-x^1}} \bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3\bigr) \,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -x^2 & -x^3 \\ 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} \end{pmatrix}} , \qquad \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} = 0\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and they give the twist matrix $U_{M}{}^{A}$. We can easily determine the untwisted metric from the relation $\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{MN}=(U^{-1}\,{\mathcal H}\,U^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{MN}$, and the result is $$\begin{aligned} (\hat{E}_{mn}) = {\mathrm{diag}}\bigl(-\tfrac{1}{z^2},\,\tfrac{t^2}{z^2},\,\tfrac{t^2}{z^2},\,\tfrac{t^2}{z^2},\,\tfrac{1}{z^2},\,1,\,\sin^2 r,\, \sin^2 r\,\cos^2\xi,\, \sin^2 r\,\sin^2 \xi,\, \cos^2 r\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ in the coordinate system $(x^m)= (t, x^1, x^2, x^3, z, r, \xi, \phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3)$. Since the dilaton is absent, $\Phi=0$, the DFT dilaton becomes $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}} = \frac{t^3 {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} \sin^3 r \cos r \sin\xi \cos \xi}{z^5} \,. \end{aligned}$$ We also have ${\lvert{\det(\ell^{\mathrm{a}}_m)} \rvert}=1$, and we can identify $\hat{d}(y)$ and $\bar{d}(x)$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}(y)}}{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}},\quad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}(y)}} \equiv \frac{t^3 \sin^3 r \cos r \sin\xi \cos \xi}{z^5} \,,\quad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}(x)}} \equiv {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} .\end{aligned}$$ From this, we obtain the $(x^1, x^2, x^3, \tilde{x}_1, \tilde{x}_2, \tilde{x}_3)$-components of the single-index flux as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A = (2,0,0,0,0,0) \equiv {\mathcal F}_A^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})} \,.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, from ${\operatorname{e}^{-\bar{d}(x)}} \sqrt{{\lvert{\det a} \rvert}}=1$, the untwisted R–R fields become $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}} \equiv \sum_p\frac{1}{p!}\, \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots {\mathrm{a}}_p}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{{\mathrm{a}}_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^{{\mathrm{a}}_p} = -\frac{4\,t^3\, {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5} + 4\,\omega_5 \,, \end{aligned}$$ which is a function of the spectator fields $(y^\mu)=(t, z, r, \xi, \phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3)$, as expected. Note that if we choose the untwisted fields as $$\begin{aligned} (\hat{E}_{mn}) = {\mathrm{diag}}\bigl(-1,\, t^2,\, t^2 ,\, t^2 ,\,1,\,1,\,1,\, 1,\, 1,\, 1\bigr)\,,\qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}}} = t^3 \,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal F}} = 0\,, \label{eq:NS-NS-untwisted}\end{aligned}$$ the purely NS–NS solutions studied in [@hep-th/0205245] can be recovered. $(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{5})$: Type IIA GSE --------------------------------------- In order to consider the NATD background, we perform a redefinition of generators, $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and give a parameterization, $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g'= {\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}} {\operatorname{e}^{x'^2\,T'_2}} {\operatorname{e}^{x'^3\,T'_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}'= {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2\,\tilde{T}'^2}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Then, from the identification with the original background, $$\begin{aligned} g(x)\,\tilde{g}(\tilde{x}) = l= g'(x')\,\tilde{g}'(\tilde{x}') \,,\end{aligned}$$ we find the following relation between the coordinates: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} x^1 &= \tilde{x}'_1\,,\quad x^2 = \tilde{x}'_2 \,,\quad x^3 = \tilde{x}'_3 \,, \\ \tilde{x}_1 &= x'^1 + x'^2{\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_1}} \tilde{x}'_2 + x'^3{\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_1}} \tilde{x}'_3\,,\quad \tilde{x}_2 = {\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_1}} x'^2 \,,\quad \tilde{x}_3 = {\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_1}} x'^3 \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ From this relation, we can identify $\bar{d}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\tilde{x}'_1}}. \end{aligned}$$ For notational simplicity, in the following we drop the prime. The untwisted fields in this frame become $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &(\hat{E}_{mn}) = {\mathrm{diag}}\bigl(-\tfrac{1}{z^2},\,\tfrac{z^2}{t^2},\,\tfrac{z^2}{t^2},\,\tfrac{z^2}{t^2},\,\tfrac{1}{z^2},\,1,\,\sin^2 r,\, \sin^2 r\,\cos^2\xi,\, \sin^2 r\,\sin^2 \xi,\, \cos^2 r\bigr)\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\hat{d}}} = \frac{t^3 \sin^3 r \cos r \sin\xi \cos \xi}{z^5} \,, \qquad \hat{{\mathcal F}} = -\frac{4\,t^3\, {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5} + 4\,\omega_5\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and we twist them by using the quantities $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \quad r = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\, T_2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2 \,,\qquad v_3 = \partial_3 \,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} ,\qquad \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} = - \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}\,x^{\mathrm{c}}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting metric and the $B$-field are $$\begin{aligned} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{z^2\,\bigl[t^4\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2) + z^4\,(x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2\bigr]}{t^2\,\bigl[t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4\bigr]} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, {\nonumber}\\ &B_2 = \frac{z^4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge \bigl(x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2+x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr)}{t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Since the dual algebra $\mathbf{5}$ is non-unimodular, we need to introduce the Killing vector $$\begin{aligned} I = \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i\,\partial_i = \partial_1\,. \end{aligned}$$ We can check that the flux ${\mathcal F}_A$ is transformed covariantly from the original one, ${\mathcal F}_A^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal F}_A = (0,0,0,2,0,0) = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})} \,,\end{aligned}$$ which ensures that the equations of motion are transformed covariantly. In order to make the background a solution of GSE, we make the redefinition , which gives $$\begin{aligned} \bar{d} = 0\,,\qquad I = \Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i + \tilde{\partial}^i\bar{d}\Bigr)\,\partial_i = 2\,\partial_1 \,. \end{aligned}$$ After this redefinition, the dual geometry becomes $$\begin{aligned} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{z^2\,\bigl[t^4\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2) + z^4\,(x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2\bigr]}{t^2\,\bigl[t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4\bigr]} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, {\nonumber}\\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = \frac{t^2\, \bigl[t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4\bigr]}{z^6}\,,\qquad B_2 = \frac{z^4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge \bigl(x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2+x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr)}{t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4}\,, \\ &G_2 = -\frac{4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,,\qquad G_4 = -\frac{4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge \bigl(x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 + x^3\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr) \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{\bigl[t^4+ (x_2^2+x_3^2)\,z^4\bigr]\,z}\,,\qquad I = 2\, \partial_1\,, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ which is a solution of type IIA GSE. We can explicitly check that this background has the $(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{5})$ symmetry, $$\begin{aligned} [v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}] = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}=0\,,\qquad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} E^{mn} = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,v_{{\mathrm{b}}}^m \,v_{{\mathrm{c}}}^n \,.\end{aligned}$$ A formal $T$-duality along the $x^1$-direction gives a simple solution of type IIB supergravity $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}z^2 + t^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2}{z^2} + \frac{z^2\,\bigl[\bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)^2 + \bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 - x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)^2\bigr]}{t^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ &\Phi = \ln \Bigl(\frac{z^2}{t^2}\Bigr) + 2\,x^1 \,,\qquad G_3 = \frac{4\,t^3 {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} {{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ (6\|1): Type IIA SUGRA --------------------- We next perform the following redefinition of the original $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$ generators: $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ This time, we provide the parameterization $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g' = {\operatorname{e}^{-x'^3\,T'_3}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^2\,T'_2}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}' = {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}}{\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2\,\tilde{T}'^2}}{\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}\,, \end{aligned}$$ and the coordinates are related to the original ones as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} x^1 &= x'^3\,,\quad x^2 = \frac{\tilde{x}'_1 + \tilde{x}'_2}{2}\,,\quad x^3 = \frac{x'^2 - x'^1}{2} \,, \\ \tilde{x}_1 &= \tilde{x}'_3+\frac{(x'^1 + x'^2)\,(\tilde{x}'_1 + \tilde{x}'_2)}{2}\,,\quad \tilde{x}_2 = x'^1 + x'^2 \,,\quad \tilde{x}_3 = \tilde{x}'_2-\tilde{x}'_1 \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Then, in this frame, $\bar{d}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x'^3}}. \end{aligned}$$ Again we remove the prime, and then the $(t,x^1,x^2,x^3,z)$-part of the untwisted metric becomes $$\begin{aligned} (\hat{E}_{mn}) = \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{1}{z^2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{t^2}{4 z^2}+\frac{z^2}{t^2} & \frac{z^2}{t^2}-\frac{t^2}{4 z^2} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{z^2}{t^2}-\frac{t^2}{4 z^2} & \frac{t^2}{4 z^2}+\frac{z^2}{t^2} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{t^2}{z^2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{z^2} \end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain the untwisted R–R fields, it may be useful to decompose the matrix $C$ into products of ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation, $B$-transformation, $T$-dualities, and $\beta$-transformation. In this case, for example, we can use the decomposition $$\begin{aligned} C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the $T$-duality along the $x^2$-direction and the ${\text{GL}}(3)$ transformation give $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}} &= \frac{2\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5} - 4\, ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\wedge \omega_5 \,. \end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain the twist matrix, we compute $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell =({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,T_1 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2+x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &r = (\cosh x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+\sinh x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,T_1 + (\sinh x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+\cosh x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2\,,\qquad v_3 = x^2\,\partial_1 + x^1\,\partial_2 - \partial_3 \,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} \cosh x^3 & -\sinh x^3 & 0 \\ -\sinh x^3 & \cosh x^3 & 0 \\ -x^2 & -x^1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} , \qquad \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} = 0\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the flux ${\mathcal F}_A$ is transformed covariantly, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(0,\,0,\,-2,\,0,\,0,\,0) = C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The background fields are determined as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + t^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}}t^2\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2}{4\,z^2}+\frac{{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}} z^2\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2}{t^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}= \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}} t^2}{z^2}\,, \qquad G_4 = \frac{2 {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}} t^3\, \bigl( {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \bigr)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and this is a solution of type IIA supergravity. (1\|6): Type IIB GSE ------------------- The NATD of the $(\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1})$ background, namely $(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0})$ can be realized by $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ We give the parameterization $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g' = {\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^2\,T'_2}}{\operatorname{e}^{-x'^3\,T'_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}' = {\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}{\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2\,\tilde{T}'^2}}{\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ In order to determine $\bar{d}$, it is enough to identify the coordinate $x^1$, and we find $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\tilde{x}'_3}}. \end{aligned}$$ Note that the appearance of the dual-coordinate dependence was discussed in [@hep-th/0205245], but at that time DFT had not been developed and the interpretation was not clear. We can construct the twist matrix $U$ from $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,T_3 \,,\qquad r = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2\,,\qquad v_3 = - \partial_3 \,. \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} \,, \qquad (\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & -x^2 \\ 0 & 0 & -x^1 \\ x^2 & x^1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}} , \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and the flux ${\mathcal F}_A$ becomes $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-2) = C_A{}^B\,\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the DFT equations of motion are covariantly transformed. Although the dual algebra is unimodular, in order to absorb the dual coordinate dependence in $\bar{d}$, we make a field redefinition , and obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = 1\,,\qquad I = \partial_3\,. \end{aligned}$$ After the redefinition we obtain a solution of type IIB GSE, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5} \\ &\qquad +\frac{t^6\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+4\,t^2\,z^4\,\bigl[({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1-{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+ (x^1 \, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - x^2 \, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2\bigr]}{t^4\,z^2\,\bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] +4\,z^6\,(x^1-x^2)^2}\,, \\ &B_2 = \frac{t^4\, (x^1+x^2) \,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2) - 4\,z^4\,(x^1-x^2)\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1-{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)}{t^4\, \bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] +4\,z^4\,(x^1-x^2)^2} \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,,\qquad I = \partial_3\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = \frac{t^4\,\bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] + 4\, z^4\,(x^1-x^2)^2}{4\,z^4}\,, \qquad G_3 = \frac{2\,t^3\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,, \\ &G_5 =2\,(x^1-x^2)\,\biggl[\frac{8\,t^3\,z^{-1}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{t^4\, \bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] +4\,z^4\,(x^1-x^2)^2} - 2\,\omega_{{\text{S}}^5}\biggr] \,. \end{split} \label{eq:RR-61}\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that the duality $(\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1})\to (\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0})$ is a NATD for traceless structure constants. In the literature, it has been discussed that if the structure constants are traceless, the NATD background satisfies the supergravity equations of motion, but here we obtained a solution of GSE. The consistency is to be clarified in a future study. Of course, the existence of the R–R fields is not important here. As already mentioned, we can obtain a purely NS–NS solution, by starting with the untwisted fields . The $(\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1})$ background is $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = -{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + t^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2 + \frac{1}{4}{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}}t^2\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+ {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}t^{-2}\, ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{T}}^6}\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}= {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}} t^2 \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ while its NATD, namely the $(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0})$ background, is a GSE solution, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = -{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{T}}^6} \\ &\qquad +\frac{t^6\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+4\,t^2\, \bigl[({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1-{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+ (x^1 \, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - x^2 \, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2\bigr]}{t^4\, \bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] +4\, (x^1-x^2)^2}\,, \\ &B_2 = \frac{t^4\, (x^1+x^2) \,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2) - 4\, (x^1-x^2)\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1-{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)}{t^4\, \bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] +4\, (x^1-x^2)^2} \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,,\qquad I = \partial_3\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = \frac{t^4\,\bigl[(x^1+x^2)^2+4\bigr] + 4\, (x^1-x^2)^2}{4} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ It will be interesting to study string theory on these backgrounds in detail. We also note that in the $(\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0})$ background , if we perform a formal $T$-duality along the $x^3$-direction we obtain a solution of type IIA supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} +\frac{z^2\,[{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2-(x^1-x^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3]^2}{t^2} \\ &\qquad\ + \frac{t^2\,[({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2 + 2\,(x^1+x^2)\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 + [(x^1+x^2)^2+4]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2]}{4\,z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^3}} t^2}{z^2}\,,\qquad G_4 = - \frac{2{\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}} t^3 \,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{2.i})$: Type IIB SUGRA ------------------------------------------- In order to obtain the Manin triple $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{2.i})$, we perform the redefinition $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Again we consider the parameterization $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g' = {\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^2\, T'_2}} {\operatorname{e}^{-x'^3\,T'_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}' = {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2\,\tilde{T}'^2}} {\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and from the coordinate transformation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x'^1}}. \end{aligned}$$ The necessary quantities are obtained as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 -x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_2 - ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^3-x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_3 \,, \\ &r = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1 + {\operatorname{e}^{-x^1}} \bigl({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3\bigr) \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1+ x^2\,\partial_2 + x^3\,\partial_3 \,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2 \,,\qquad v_3 = - \partial_3 \,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -x^2 & x^3 \\ 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} \end{pmatrix}} , \qquad (\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{e}^{-x^1}}\sinh x^1 \\ 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{-x^1}}\sinh x^1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and again the flux ${\mathcal F}_A$ is covariantly transformed, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(-2,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0) = C_A{}^B\,\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward computation gives $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + t^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{4 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} t^2\, z^2\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2)}{4{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^2}} t^4 +z^4} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ B_2&= - \frac{2\,z^4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{4{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^1}}t^4 + z^4} \,, \qquad {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} = \frac{4{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^1}}t^4+ z^4}{4\,z^4}\,, \\ G_3 &=-{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} \frac{4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,, \\ G_5 &= - \frac{8{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}}t^3}{z}\,\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}t\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{4{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^1}} t^4 + z^4} + 2\,\omega_{{\text{S}}^5} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and this is a solution of type IIB supergravity. $(\mathbf{2.i}\|\mathbf{5})$: Type IIA SUGRA ------------------------------------------- We next consider the transformation $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}},\end{aligned}$$ and provide the parameterization $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g' = {\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^2\, T'_2}} {\operatorname{e}^{-x'^3\,T'_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}' = {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}} {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2\,\tilde{T}'^2}} {\operatorname{e}^{-\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ The coordinate transformation gives $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{2\,\tilde{x}'_1}}. \end{aligned}$$ Again, we compute $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\bigr)\,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &r = ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr)\,T_1 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\,T_2 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_2 = x^3\, \partial_1 + \partial_2 \,,\qquad v_3 = - \partial_3\,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ - x^3 & 1 & 0 \\ - x^2 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} , \qquad (\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & x^2 & -x^3 \\ -x^2 & 0 & 0 \\ x^3 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}} \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and we can check that the flux is covariantly transformed, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(0,\,0,\,0,\,-2,\,0,\,0) = C_A{}^B\,\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the dual algebra $\mathbf{5}$ is non-unimodular, we have $$\begin{aligned} I = \frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,\partial_m = \partial_1 \,. \end{aligned}$$ We thus expect that this background is a solution of the GSE. However, according to the field redefinition , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = 1\,,\qquad I = \partial_1 - \partial_1 = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ As the result, we obtain a solution of the conventional type IIA supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + \frac{z^2\,\bigl[4\, {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3) + ( x^3 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 + x^2 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2\bigr]}{4\,t^2\,(1+ x_2^2+ x_3^2)} \\ &\quad + \frac{t^2\,\bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2 + ( x^3 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - x^2 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2\bigr]}{z^2\,(1+ x_2^2+ x_3^2)} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ B_2&= \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge ( x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2+ x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)}{1+ x_2^2+ x_3^2} + \frac{(1+2\, x_2^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{2\,(1+ x_2^2+ x_3^2)}\,, \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} &= \frac{t^2\,(1+ x_2^2+ x_3^2)}{z^2}\,,\qquad G_4 = -\frac{4\,t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Namely, even if the dual algebra is non-unimodular, the background can satisfy the usual supergravity equations of motion. This is a remarkable example of such unusual cases. (5.ii\|6): Type IIB GSE ---------------------- We next consider $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}},\end{aligned}$$ and give the parameterization, $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g'= {\operatorname{e}^{x'^1\,T'_1}}{\operatorname{e}^{(x'^2-x'^1)\,T'_2}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^3\,T'_3}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}'= {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}{\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_2 \,\tilde{T}'^2}}{\operatorname{e}^{(\tilde{x}'_1+\tilde{x}'_2)\,\tilde{T}'^1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We then obtain $\bar{d}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,(x'^2-\tilde{x}'_3)}}. \end{aligned}$$ From a straightforward computation, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = {\operatorname{e}^{x^1-x^2}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,T_1+({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2-{\operatorname{e}^{x^1-x^2}}{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_2 +({{\mathrm{d}}}x^3+x^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,T_3 \,, \\ &r = \bigl[{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 +(1-{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\bigr]\,T_1+{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2-{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1)\,T_2 +{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = {\operatorname{e}^{x^2-x^1}} \partial_1 + \partial_2 - x^3\, \partial_3\,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2 - x^3\, \partial_3\,,\qquad v_3 = \partial_3\,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a ={\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} {\operatorname{e}^{x^1-x^2}} & 1-{\operatorname{e}^{x^1-x^2}} & x^3 \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-x^2}} ({\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}-1) & 1+{\operatorname{e}^{-x^2}} (1-{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}) & x^3 \\ 0 & 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{-x^2}} \end{pmatrix}} , \\ &(\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \frac{1-{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}} (2-2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}+{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}})}{2} \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1+{\operatorname{e}^{2 x^2}}-2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1+x^2}}}{2} \\ -\frac{1-{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}} (2-2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}+{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}})}{2} & -\frac{1+{\operatorname{e}^{2 x^2}}-2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1+x^2}}}{2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the twist matrix $U$, and the flux is covariantly transformed $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(2,\,2,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-2) = C_A{}^B\,\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the dual algebra is unimodular, originally we have $I^m=0$. However, due to the dual-coordinate dependence of $\bar{d}$, we make the field redefinition and obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\, x^2}},\qquad I = - \partial_3 \,.\end{aligned}$$ After the redefinition we obtain a solution of type IIB GSE, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5} \\ &+\frac{t^2\,\bigl\{ 4 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^2}} z^4\,({\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2) + [4\,(t^4+z^4) + {\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^2}} z^4]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_2^2\bigr\}}{\Delta^2} \\ &+\frac{4{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} t^2\,z^4\,[{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)^2- {\operatorname{e}^{3\,x^2}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2+2\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2]}{\Delta^2} \,, \\ B_2&= -\frac{2 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^2}} z^2\,\bigl\{2\,t^4\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 -z^4\,(2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}-{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}}-2)\,\bigl[{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 - ({\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}-1)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2\bigr]\bigr\}\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{\Delta^2} \,, \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} &= \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{-4\,x^2}}\Delta^2}{4\,z^4}\,,\qquad I= - \partial_3\,, \qquad G_3 = \frac{4{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^2}} t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,, \\ G_5 &= (2{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}-{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}}-2)\,\Bigl[\frac{8\,t^3 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} z\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x_1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{\Delta^2} - 2 {\operatorname{e}^{-x^2}} \omega_{{\text{S}}^5}\Bigr] \,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which is defined on the region $$\begin{aligned} \Delta^2 &\equiv 4\,t^4\,({\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^2}}+1)\,z^2 + {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^2}} z^6\,(2-2{\operatorname{e}^{x^1}}+{\operatorname{e}^{x^2}})^2 \geq 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ A formal $T$-duality along the $x^3$-direction gives a solution of type IIA supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} +\frac{(t^4+z^4)\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2 + z^4{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^1}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)^2}{t^2\,z^2} \\ &\qquad +z^2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^1}} \frac{2\, ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)- {\operatorname{e}^{x^2}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 -{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 +{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{t^2} \\ &\qquad + z^2 {\operatorname{e}^{x^2}} \frac{({{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 - {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{t^2} + \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^2}} (4\,t^4+{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^2}} z^4)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2}{4\,t^2\,z^2} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, {\nonumber}\\ &{\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}} =\frac{t^2 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,(x^3 - x^2)}}}{z^2}\,,\qquad G_4 = -\frac{4{\operatorname{e}^{x^3 -2\,x^2}} t^3\,{{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ (6\|5.ii): Type IIA SUGRA ------------------------ Finally, we consider the redefinition $$\begin{aligned} T'_A = C_A{}^B\,T_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,,\qquad C = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This time, we consider the parameterization[^12] $$\begin{aligned} l= g'\,\tilde{g}' \,,\qquad g'= {\operatorname{e}^{x'^3\,T'_3}}{\operatorname{e}^{x'^2 \,T'_2}}{\operatorname{e}^{(x'^1+x'^2)\,T'_1}}\,,\qquad \tilde{g}'= {\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_1\,\tilde{T}'^1}}{\operatorname{e}^{(\tilde{x}'_2-\tilde{x}'_1)\,\tilde{T}'^2}}{\operatorname{e}^{\tilde{x}'_3\,\tilde{T}'^3}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,x^1}} = {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,(\tilde{x}'_2-x'^3)}}. \end{aligned}$$ By using $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\ell = ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1+{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2-x^2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,T_1+\bigl[{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2-(x^1+x^2)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr]\,T_2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \,T_3 \,, \\ &r = (\cosh x^3 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 + {\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,T_1+(-\sinh x^3 \,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 + {\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2)\,T_2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\,T_3 \,, \\ &v_1 = \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_2 = \partial_2 - \partial_1 \,,\qquad v_3 = \partial_3 - x^1\,\partial_1 + (x^1+x^2)\, \partial_2 \,, \end{split} \\ \begin{split} &a ={\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} \cosh x^3 & \sinh x^3 & 0 \\ \sinh x^3 & \cosh x^3 & 0 \\ -x^2 & -x^1-x^2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} , \qquad (\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}) = {\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 & x^1 & {\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}}-1 \\ -x^1 & 0 & {\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}}-1 \\ 1 -{\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}} & 1 -{\operatorname{e}^{-x^3}} & 0 \end{pmatrix}}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ we can check the covariance of the flux, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal F}_A)=(0,\,0,\,-2,\,2,\,2,\,0) = C_A{}^B\,\,{\mathcal F}_B^{(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the dual algebra $\mathbf{5.ii}$ is non-unimodular, the Killing vector becomes $$\begin{aligned} I = \frac{1}{2}\, \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{v}_{\mathrm{a}}= - (v_1+v_2) = - \partial_2 \qquad \bigl(\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}1}{}_{\mathrm{b}}= -2 \,,\quad \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}2}{}_{\mathrm{b}}= -2\bigr) \,,\end{aligned}$$ but by absorbing the dual-coordinate dependence of $\bar{d}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\bar{d}}} = {\operatorname{e}^{2\, x^3}},\qquad I^m = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$ Then, after the redefinition, we obtain a solution of type IIA supergravity, $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 &= \frac{-{{\mathrm{d}}}t^2 + {{\mathrm{d}}}z^2}{z^2} + t^2 \,\frac{{\operatorname{e}^{4\,x^3}} {{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 - 2 {\operatorname{e}^{3\,x^3}} ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 + x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1}{z^2\,[2 -2{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}} + (x_1^2+1) {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}]} \\ &\quad +z^2\,\frac{\bigl[(1- {\operatorname{e}^{x^3}})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 +2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 - {\operatorname{e}^{x^3}}x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3\bigr]^2}{4\,t^2\,[2 -2{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}} + (x_1^2+1) {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}]}\,, \\ &\quad +\frac{{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}} t^2\, \bigl[2\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1^2 +4\,x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 + (2\,x_1^2+1)\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x_3^2 \bigr]}{z^2\,[2 -2{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}} + (1+x_1^2) {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}]} + {{\mathrm{d}}}s^2_{{\text{S}}^5}\,, \\ B_2 &=\frac{{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}} x^1\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 + [1+{\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}} (\sinh x^3 -\tfrac{1}{2})]\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 +(2-{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}})\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^2 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3}{2 -2{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}} + (x_1^2+1) {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}}\,, \\ {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,\Phi}}&=\frac{t^2\,\bigl[2-2{\operatorname{e}^{x^3}} + {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}}(x_1^2+1)\bigr]}{z^2}\,, \qquad G_4 = -\frac{4\, t^3 {\operatorname{e}^{2\,x^3}} {{\mathrm{d}}}t \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^3 \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}z}{z^5}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Conclusion and outlook {#sec:conclusion} ====================== Summary of results {#summary-of-results .unnumbered} ------------------ We have discussed two approaches to the non-Abelian $T$-duality. One is the traditional NATD, obtained by integrating out the gauge fields associated with non-Abelian isometries, and the other is the PL $T$-duality/plurality, which is based on the Drinfel’d double. In NATD, a closed-form expression for the duality rules including the R–R fields was explicitly written down only for a certain isometry group, ${\text{SU}}(2)$, but we proposed a general formula by assuming that the isometry group freely acts on the target space. The duality rules, under the setup , are summarized in and . In order to check the formula, we studied many examples, particularly the NATD for non-unimodular isometry groups. For the PL $T$-duality, the treatments of the R–R fields have been discussed in recent papers [@1707.08624; @1810.07763; @1810.11446], but concrete examples have not been well studied. We first considered the case without spectator fields, and translated the known transformation rules for $\{g_{mn},\,B_{mn},\,\Phi\}$ into the rules for the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ and the DFT dilaton $d$. Then, using a result of the gauged DFT, we showed that the equations of motion are transformed covariantly under the PL $T$-plurality (by introducing a Killing vector $I^m$ appropriately). We also introduced the R–R fields, and determined their transformation rule under the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ PL $T$-plurality transformation such that the equations of motion are covariantly transformed. We further considered the case with spectator fields and, requiring some dualizability conditions, we showed that the DFT equations of motion are indeed satisfied even in the presence of spectators. Finally, we studied a concrete example of the PL $T$-plurality. Starting with the ${\text{AdS}}_5\times {\text{S}}^5$ solution, we obtained the following family of solutions. $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix@C=18pt@R=1pt{ {\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5 & \text{type IIA SUGRA} & \text{type IIB SUGRA} & \text{type IIB \textcolor{red}{GSE}} \\ \bigl(\bar{d}=x^1,\ I=0\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=x^3,\ I=0\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=-x^1,\ I=0\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=x^2-\textcolor{red}{\tilde{x}_3},\ I=0\bigr) \\ (\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1}) \ar@{<->}[ddddd]^{\text{NATD}} \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{1}) \ar@{<->}[ddddd]^{\text{NATD}} \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{2.i}) \ar@{<->}[ddddd]^{\text{PL $T$-dual}} \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{5.ii}\|\mathbf{6_0}) \ar@{<->}[ddddd]^{\text{PL $T$-dual}} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ (\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{5}) \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{1}\|\mathbf{6_0}) \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{2.i}\|\mathbf{5}) \ar@{-}[r] & (\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{5.ii}) \\ \text{type IIA \textcolor{red}{GSE}} & \text{type IIB \textcolor{red}{GSE}} & \text{type IIA SUGRA} & \text{type IIA SUGRA} \\ \bigl(\bar{d}=\textcolor{red}{\tilde{x}_1},\ I=\textcolor{red}{\partial_1}\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=\textcolor{red}{\tilde{x}_3},\ I=0\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=\textcolor{blue}{-\tilde{x}_1},\ I=\textcolor{blue}{\partial_1}\bigr) & \bigl(\bar{d}=\textcolor{blue}{\tilde{x}_2}-x^3,\ I=\textcolor{blue}{-\partial_2}\bigr) }\end{aligned}$$ Three of these are solutions of GSE. There are two origins of GSE: one is the Killing vector $I^i=\frac{1}{2}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i$ that appears when the dual algebra is non-unimodular, and the other is the dual-coordinate dependence in $\bar{d}$. In the examples $(\mathbf{2.i}\|\mathbf{5})$ and $(\mathbf{6_0}\|\mathbf{5.ii})$, the two contributions are canceled with each other, and they are solutions of the usual supergravity even though their dual algebras are non-unimodular. In the literature, when $\bar{d}$ has a dual-coordinate dependence, since its interpretation is not clear in string theory or supergravity, such Manin triple was ignored. However, in DFT, we can treat the dual coordinates in the same ways as the physical coordinates, and we can lift the restriction. In this way, the PL $T$-plurality is a solution-generating technique of the DFT, rather than the usual supergravity. Discussion and outlook {#discussion-and-outlook .unnumbered} ---------------------- As we discussed, if we consider a supergravity solution that contains a four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, ${{\mathrm{d}}}s^2 = f^2(y)\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^\mu\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^\nu + \cdots$, we can choose the coordinates such that the $(\mathbf{5}\|\mathbf{1})$ symmetry is manifest. Then, as long as the $B$-field is isometric along the three Killing vectors, we will obtain a family of eight solutions similar to the case of ${\text{AdS}}_5\times{\text{S}}^5$. Moreover, low-dimensional Drinfel’d doubles have already been classified in [@hep-th/0110139; @math/0202209; @math/0202210], and a useful list is given in section 3 of [@math/0202210]. If we have a DFT solution with an isometry algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, we may find a series of Manin triples, $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathfrak{g}}\|\mathbf{1}) \cong ({\mathfrak{g}}'\|{\mathfrak{g}}'') \cong \cdots \,, \end{aligned}$$ and obtain a chain of DFT solutions. We may also start from a background with a $({\mathfrak{g}}\|\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ symmetry. For example, as discussed in [@hep-th/0210095], the Yang–Baxter deformed backgrounds are also PL $T$-dualizable. Indeed, a Yang–Baxter deformed background has the form $$\begin{aligned} E^{mn}=\tilde{g}^{mn} -\beta^{mn}\,,\qquad \beta^{mn} \equiv 2\,\eta\,r^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^m\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^n\qquad (r^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=-r^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ and $r^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ are constant, and ${\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}\tilde{g}_{mn}=0$ and $[v_{\mathrm{a}},\,v_{\mathrm{b}}]=f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}$ are satisfied. Then, we can show that ${\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E^{mn} = \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^m \, v_{\mathrm{c}}^n$ with $\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}= 2\,\eta\,\bigl(r^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{d}}}\,f_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}- r^{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}\,f_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr)$, and this is a dualizable background with the $({\mathfrak{g}}\|\tilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ symmetry. Then, by finding a group element $g(x)$, which realizes the set of Killing vectors $v_{\mathrm{a}}^m$ as the left-invariant vector fields and $\beta^{mn}$ as $\beta^{mn} =e^m_{\mathrm{a}}\,e^n_{\mathrm{b}}\,\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$ \[i.e. $(a^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,b)^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=2\,\eta\,r^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}$\], we can perform the PL $T$-plurality transformations of the Yang–Baxter-deformed background. In this way, from a given solution, we can find new solutions one after another, and the PL $T$-plurality is a useful solution-generating technique. In the traditional approach to NATD, we introduced the generalized Killing vector $(V_{\mathrm{a}}^M)=(v_{\mathrm{a}}^m,\,\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m})$. When the dual components $\tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m}$ are present, we cannot regard the NATD as a particular case of the PL $T$-plurality. Also when the generalized Killing vectors depend on the spectator fields $y^\mu$, we cannot realize them as the left-invariant vector fields. In this sense, the traditional NATD is not completely contained in the PL $T$-plurality discussed here. It is interesting to study whether it is possible to generalize the PL $T$-plurality such that the traditional NATD can be realized as a particular case. In the realm of NATD that is going beyond the PL $T$-plurality, it is not ensured that the dual background is a solution of DFT. By the definition of the NATD, the duality rules for the metric and $B$-field should not be modified, but the transformation rule for the dilaton and $I^m$ may be modified from . It will be an important task to determine the general rule for the dilaton and $I^m$ that is consistent with the DFT equations of motion. Once the modification of the rule for the dilaton is determined, the modification of the rule for the R–R fields (by an overall factor) can also be determined, and then we can check the equation of motion for the R–R fields. In the two approaches studied in this paper, we have assumed that the isometry group acts on the target space freely, or without isotropy. If the assumption is not satisfied, we cannot take a gauge $x^i=c^i$ and we need to consider a more non-trivial gauge fixing. Treatments in such cases are discussed, for example, in [@hep-th/9210021; @hep-th/9709071; @1104.5196; @1301.6755] for the NATD, and in [@hep-th/9602162; @hep-th/9904188; @1105.0162] for the PL $T$-duality. It is an interesting future direction to check whether the DFT equations of motion are covariantly rotated even in such general cases. In the study of the PL $T$-plurality, we have checked the covariance of the flux ${\mathcal F}_A=2\,{\mathcal D}_A\bar{d}$ on a case-by-case basis. The covariance is highly non-trivial but it was indeed transformed covariantly in all of the examples, and we suspect that there is some mechanism to be clarified. To show the covariance of ${\mathcal F}_A$, clear understanding of the (finite) coordinate transformation $(x^i,\,\tilde{x}_i) \to (x'^i,\,\tilde{x}'_i)$ on the Drinfel’d double will be indispensable. The 2$D$ diffeomorphism in DFT$_{\text{WZW}}$ [@1410.6374; @1502.02428; @1509.04176] may be useful for this purpose. Toward non-Abelian $U$-duality {#toward-non-abelian-u-duality .unnumbered} ------------------------------ Another important future direction is an investigation of the non-Abelian $U$-duality. As an attempt toward this, let us first consider an extension of the traditional NATD. As a natural extension of , let us consider the following setup [@Hull:1990ms]: $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} g_{ij}=0\,,\quad \iota_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} F_4 + {{\mathrm{d}}}\hat{v}^{(2)}_{\mathrm{a}}= 0 \,,\quad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} v_{\mathrm{b}}= f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,v_{\mathrm{c}}\,,\quad {\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}} \hat{v}^{(2)}_{{\mathrm{b}}} = f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\hat{v}^{(2)}_{{\mathrm{c}}}\,, \label{eq:M2-setup}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_4 \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}C_3$ is the 4-form field strength in the eleven-dimensional supergravity. The 2-form $\hat{v}^{(2)}_{{\mathrm{a}}}$ is the generalization of the 1-form $\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m}$ appearing in , and the first two relations in are understood as a kind of generalized Killing equations. The remaining two equations are generalizations of the C-brackets between the generalized Killing vectors. We define $\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{(1)} \equiv \iota_{v_{\mathrm{b}}} \hat{v}_{\mathrm{a}}^{(2)}$, and assume the following relation for simplicity: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{v}_{({\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}})}^{(1)} = 0 \,,\qquad \iota_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}\hat{v}_{[{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}]}^{(1)} = \iota_{v_{[{\mathrm{a}}}}\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}]}^{(1)} \,. \label{eq:M2-condition}\end{aligned}$$ We also assume the existence of the 1-forms $\ell^{\mathrm{a}}\equiv \ell^{\mathrm{a}}_i\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^i$ that are dual to $v_{\mathrm{a}}$ ($\iota_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}\ell^{\mathrm{b}}=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{b}}$), and then we find that the action[^13] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} S &= \int_\Sigma \Bigl[\,\frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(g_{ij}\,Dx^i\wedge * Dx^j + 1\bigr) + C_3 + 2\, y_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,F^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge \bigl(\ell^{\mathrm{b}}- A^{\mathrm{b}}\bigr)\,\Bigr] \\ &\quad + \int_\Sigma\Bigl[-{A}^{{\mathrm{a}}}\wedge \hat{v}^{(2)}_{{\mathrm{a}}} + \frac{1}{2}\,{A}^{{\mathrm{a}}}\wedge{A}^{{\mathrm{b}}}\wedge \hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{3!}\,{A}^{{\mathrm{a}}}\wedge{A}^{{\mathrm{b}}}\wedge{A}^{{\mathrm{c}}}\,\iota_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}^{(1)} \Bigr] \,, \end{split} \label{eq:M2-action}\end{aligned}$$ is invariant under $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \delta_\epsilon x^i(\sigma) &= \epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma)\,v_{\mathrm{a}}^i(x)\,,\qquad \delta_\epsilon {A}^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma) = {{\mathrm{d}}}\epsilon^{\mathrm{a}}(\sigma) + f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\,{A}^{\mathrm{b}}(\sigma)\,\epsilon^{\mathrm{c}}(\sigma) \,, \\ \delta_\epsilon y_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} &= \epsilon^{\mathrm{c}}\,\bigl(f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,y_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{b}}} + f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,y_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{d}}}\bigr)\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, by following the approach of [@Duff:1990hn] (see also [@1008.1763]), we have introduced antisymmetric Lagrange multipliers $y_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}=-y_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{a}}}$ that will ensure $F^{\mathrm{a}}=0$. In the Abelian limit we can realize $v_{\mathrm{a}}^i=\delta_{\mathrm{a}}^i$ and $\ell^{\mathrm{a}}=\delta_i^{\mathrm{a}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^i$, and then we can always choose a gauge $x^i=0$. By further assuming $\hat{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}}^{(2)} = - \iota_{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}} C_3$, the action reduces to $$\begin{aligned} S = \int_\Sigma \Bigl[ \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(g_{ij}\,{A}^i\wedge {A}^j + 1\bigr) + \frac{1}{3!}\,C_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}\, {A}^{{\mathrm{a}}}\wedge{A}^{{\mathrm{b}}}\wedge{A}^{{\mathrm{c}}} + {{\mathrm{d}}}y_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\wedge{A}^{\mathrm{a}}\wedge {A}^{\mathrm{b}}\Bigr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ This is precisely the action discussed in [@Duff:1990hn; @1008.1763] and can be regarded as a natural extension. However, unlike the case of the string action, it is not clear how to eliminate the gauge fields ${A}^{\mathrm{a}}$, and at the present time, we do not know how to obtain the dual action. A more promising approach may be the following one based on a generalization of DFT. The $U$-dual version of DFT is known as the exceptional field theory (EFT) [@hep-th/0104081; @hep-th/0307098; @0902.1509; @1008.1763; @1111.0459; @1208.5884; @1206.7045; @1308.1673] and it is actively been studied. In DFT, the generalized coordinates are $(x^M)=(x^m,\,\tilde{x}_m)$ and the dual coordinates $\tilde{x}_m$ are associated with the string winding number. On the other hand, in EFT we introduce the dual coordinates for all of the wrapped branes that are connected by $U$-duality transformations. For example, in M-theory on a $n$-torus we have the M2-brane, the M5-brane, and the Kaluza–Klein monopole, and more exotic branes in general. Correspondingly, we introduce the generalized coordinates as $$\begin{aligned} (x^I)= (x^i,\,y_{i_1i_2},\,y_{i_1\cdots i_5},\,y_{i_1\cdots i_7,\,i},\dotsc) \qquad (i=1,\dotsc,n)\,. \label{eq:M-coordinates}\end{aligned}$$ By understanding that the multiple indices separated by commas are totally antisymmetrized, we can easily see that the number of dimensions of the extended space $x^I$ is the same as the dimension $D$ of a fundamental representation of the $E_{n(n)}$ $U$-duality group: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|} \hline n & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 \\\hline \text{$U$-duality group $E_{n(n)}$} & \text{SL}(5) & {\text{SO}}(5,5) & E_{6(6)} & E_{7(7)} & E_{8(8)} \\\hline \text{dimension $D$} & 10 & 16 & 27 & 56 & 248 \\\hline \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ In such extended space, the generalized metric ${\mathcal M}_{IJ}$ has been constructed in [@1008.1763; @1111.0459], and it contains the bosonic fields, such as the metric $g_{ij}$, and the 3-form and 6-form potentials, $C_{i_1i_2i_3}$ and $C_{i_1\cdots i_6}$. It is a natural generalization of the generalized metric ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$ in DFT. In DFT, the section condition $\eta^{IJ}\,\partial_I\,\partial_J=0$ reduces the doubled space to the physical subspace. The section condition in EFT (for $n\leq 6$) also has a similar form $\eta^{IJ;\,\hat{K}}\,\partial_I\,\partial_J = 0$, where $\eta^{IJ;\,\hat{K}}$ is known as the $\eta$-symbol and it has an additional index $\hat{K}$ transforming in another representation (see [@1708.06342] for the explicit form of the $\eta$-symbol). When all of the fields depend only on the coordinates $x^i$ of , we find $$\begin{aligned} \eta^{IJ;\,\hat{K}}\,\partial_I\,\partial_J = \eta^{ij;\,\hat{K}}\,\partial_i\,\partial_j = 0\qquad \bigl(\because\ \, \eta^{ij;\,\hat{K}}=0\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the section condition is satisfied. This $n$-dimensional solution is called the M-theory section. Another solution, called the type IIB section, was found in [@1311.5109], and in order to discuss the type IIB section, it is convenient to reparameterize the coordinates as[^14] $$\begin{aligned} (x^M) = (x^m,\,y_m^\alpha,\,y_{m_1m_2m_3},\,y^\alpha_{m_1\cdots m_5},\,y_{m_1\cdots m_6,m},\dotsc)\quad (m=1,\dotsc,n-1\,,\ \alpha =1,2)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the dual coordinates are associated with the type IIB branes. If the fields depend only on the $x^m$, the section condition is again satisfied because $\eta^{mn;\,\hat{P}}=0$. Since we cannot introduce any more coordinate dependence, the subspace spanned by $x^m$ is also a maximally isotropic subspace, although it is $(n-1)$ dimensional unlike the M-theory section. In this way, a single EFT can be understood from two viewpoints: M-theory and type IIB theory. One of the key relations in the PL $T$-duality is the self-duality relation, $$\begin{aligned} \eta_{AB}\,\hat{{\mathcal P}}^B = \EPSneg \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB} \, \hat{{\mathcal P}}^B \,,\qquad \hat{{\mathcal P}}(\sigma)= {{\mathrm{d}}}l\,l^{-1} \,. \end{aligned}$$ This is a covariant rewriting of the string equations of motion, but a similar equation for the M2- or M5-brane theory has been discussed in [@1208.1232; @1305.2258] for the $\text{SL}(5)$ and ${\text{SO}}(5,5)$ case, and in [@1712.10316] for higher exceptional groups. For the M$p$-brane ($p=2,5$), it has a similar form $$\begin{aligned} \bm{\eta}_{IJ} \wedge{\mathcal P}^J = \EPSneg {\mathcal M}_{IJ}\,* {\mathcal P}^J \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\eta}_{IJ}$ is some $(p-1)$-form that contains ${{\mathrm{d}}}x^i$ and the field strengths of the worldvolume gauge fields. In the case of the flat torus, the equations of motion give ${{\mathrm{d}}}{\mathcal P}^I=0$ and we find the on-shell expression ${\mathcal P}^I={{\mathrm{d}}}x^I$. On the other hand, by requiring a certain “dualizability condition” on ${\mathcal M}_{IJ}$ appropriately, the equations of motion may lead to ${\mathcal P}={{\mathrm{d}}}l\,l^{-1}$, where $l$ is an element of a certain large group $\mathfrak{E}$ with dimension $D$. The corresponding algebra $\mathfrak{e}$ will be endowed with a bilinear form, corresponding to the $\eta$-symbol. Then, the $U$-dual version of the PL $T$-plurality may be the equivalence between sigma models with $n$- or $(n-1)$-dimensional target spaces that have an isometry algebra $[T_{\mathrm{a}},\,T_{\mathrm{b}}]=f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,T_{\mathrm{c}}$ satisfying $\eta^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}};\,\hat{A}}=0$. The identification of the detailed structure of the group ${\mathcal E}$ and the systematic construction of the twist matrix $U$, whose flux gives the structure constant of $\mathfrak{e}$, are interesting future directions. Note added {#note-added .unnumbered} ---------- After this paper appeared on arXiv, an interesting paper [@1904.00362] appeared, which also discussing NATD from the perspective of the gauged DFT. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- We would like to thank Falk Hassler for elucidating the approach of [@1707.08624; @1810.11446]. We also would like to thank Yolanda Lozano, Jeong-Hyuck Park, Jun-ichi Sakamoto, and Shozo Uehara for helpful discussions and comments. We are also grateful to the organizers and the participants of the workshop “String: T-duality, Integrability and Geometry” held at Tohoku University. This work is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research (C) 18K13540 and (B) 18H01214. Conventions {#app:conventions} =========== The symmetrization and antisymmetrization are normalized as $$\begin{aligned} A_{(m_1\cdots m_n)} \equiv \frac{1}{n!}\,\bigl(A_{m_1\cdots m_n} + \cdots \bigr) \,,\qquad A_{[m_1\cdots m_n]} \equiv \frac{1}{n!}\,\bigl(A_{m_1\cdots m_n} \pm \cdots \bigr) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Our conventions for differential forms are as follows, both for the spacetime and the worldsheet: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &(* \alpha_q)_{m_1\cdots m_{D-q}} =\frac{1}{q!}\,\varepsilon^{n_1\cdots n_q}{}_{m_1\cdots m_{D-q}}\,\alpha_{n_1\cdots n_q} \,,\qquad {{\mathrm{d}}}^{D}x = {{\mathrm{d}}}x^1\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^D \,, \\ &* ({{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_q}) = \frac{1}{(D-q)!}\,\varepsilon^{m_1\cdots m_q}{}_{n_1\cdots n_{D-q}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{n_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^{n_{D-q}} \,, \\ &(\iota_v \alpha_n) = \frac{1}{(n-1)!}\,v^n\,\alpha_{nm_1\cdots m_{n-1}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_{n-1}}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The epsilon tensors on the spacetime and the worldsheet are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon^{01}= \EPSneg \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\gamma} \rvert}}}\,,\qquad \varepsilon_{01}= \EPSpos \sqrt{{\lvert{\gamma} \rvert}} \,, \qquad \varepsilon^{1\cdots D}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}}\,,\qquad \varepsilon_{1\cdots D}= \sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ For the R–R fields, we have the R–R potential in the A-basis $A_{m_1\cdots m_p}$ and the C-basis $C_{m_1\cdots m_p}$ [@hep-th/0103233]. In terms of the polyform, $$\begin{aligned} A \equiv \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\,A_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_p}\,,\qquad C \equiv \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\,C_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^{m_p}\,, \end{aligned}$$ they are related as $$\begin{aligned} A = {\operatorname{e}^{B_2\wedge}} C \,, \qquad C = {\operatorname{e}^{-B_2\wedge}} A\,.\end{aligned}$$ Their field strengths are defined as $$\begin{aligned} F = {{\mathrm{d}}}A \,,\qquad G = {{\mathrm{d}}}C + H_3\wedge C \,, \label{eq:RR-field-strength}\end{aligned}$$ and they are also related as $$\begin{aligned} F = {\operatorname{e}^{B_2\wedge}} G \,, \qquad G = {\operatorname{e}^{-B_2\wedge}} F\,.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, in this paper we call the field strength $F$ the Page form. In our convention, the $G$ satisfies the self-duality relation $$\begin{aligned} * G_p = (-1)^{\frac{p(p+1)}{2}+1} G_{10-p} \,,\qquad G_p = (-1)^{\frac{p(p-1)}{2}} * G_{10-p} \,. \label{eq:RR-self}\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of the Killing vector $I^m$ in the GSE, which satisfies $$\begin{aligned} {\pounds}_I g_{mn} = {\pounds}_I B_2 = {\pounds}_I \Phi = {\pounds}_I F = {\pounds}_I G = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ the relations are modified as $$\begin{aligned} F = {{\mathrm{d}}}A - \iota_I A \,,\qquad G = {{\mathrm{d}}}C + H_3 \wedge C - \iota_I B_2 \wedge C - \iota_I C \,, \label{eq:GSE-F=dA}\end{aligned}$$ and the Bianchi identities, which are equivalent to the equations of motion under , become $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}F - \iota_I F = 0 \,,\qquad {{\mathrm{d}}}G + H_3 \wedge G - \iota_I B_2 \wedge G - \iota_I G = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The GSE for the fields in the NS–NS sector can be summarized as $$\begin{aligned} &R + 4\,D^m \partial_m \Phi - 4\,{\lvert{\partial \Phi} \rvert}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\,{\lvert{H_3} \rvert}^2 - 4\,\bigl(I^m I_m+U^m U_m + 2\,U^m\,\partial_m \Phi - D_m U^m\bigr) =0 \,, {\nonumber}\\ &R_{mn}-\frac{1}{4}\,H_{mpq}\,H_n{}^{pq} + 2 D_m \partial_n \Phi + D_m U_n +D_n U_m = T_{mn} \,, \\ &-\frac{1}{2}\,D^k H_{kmn} + \partial_k\Phi\,H^k{}_{mn} + U^k\,H_{kmn} + D_m I_n - D_n I_m = K_{mn} \,, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_1\equiv U_m\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m$ is defined as $U_1\equiv \iota_I B_2$, and $T_{mn}$ and $K_{mn}$ are $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} T_{mn}&\equiv \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{2\,\Phi}}}{4} \sum_p \Bigl[ \frac{1}{(p-1)!}\, G_{(m}{}^{q_1\cdots q_{p-1}} G_{n) q_1\cdots q_{p-1}} - \frac{1}{2}\,g_{mn}\,{\lvert{G_p} \rvert}^2 \Bigr] \,, \\ K_{mn}&\equiv \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{2\,\Phi}}}{4} \sum_p \frac{1}{(p-2)!}\, G_{q_1\cdots q_{p-2}}\, G_{mn}{}^{q_1\cdots q_{p-2}} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of the Killing vector $(I^m)=(I^i,\,I^z)$, if we perform a formal $T$-duality along the $x^z$-direction, the supergravity fields are transformed as follows [@1703.09213]: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &g'_{ij} = g_{ij} - \frac{g_{iz}\, g_{jz}- B_{iz}\, B_{jz}}{g_{zz}}\,,\qquad g'_{iz} = \frac{B_{iz}}{g_{zz}}\,,\qquad g'_{zz}=\frac{1}{g_{zz}}\,, \\ &B'_{ij} = B_{ij} - \frac{B_{iz}\, g_{jz}- g_{iz}\, B_{jz}}{g_{zz}}\,,\qquad B'_{iz} = \frac{g_{iz}}{g_{zz}} \,, \\ &\Phi' =\Phi + \frac{1}{4}\,\ln\Bigl\lvert \frac{\det (g'_{mn})}{\det (g_{mn})} \Bigr\rvert + I^z z \,,\qquad I'^i = I^i\,,\qquad I'^z = 0 \,, \\ &A'_{i_1\cdots i_{p-1}z} = {\operatorname{e}^{-I^z z}} A_{i_1\cdots i_{p-1}} \,, \qquad A'_{i_1\cdots i_p} = {\operatorname{e}^{-I^z z}} A_{i_1\cdots i_pz} \,, \\ &C'_{i_1\cdots i_{p-1}z} = {\operatorname{e}^{-I^z z}} \Bigl[C_{i_1\cdots i_{p-1}} - (p-1)\,\frac{C_{[i_1\cdots i_{p-2}\|z\|}\, g_{i_{p-1}]z}}{g_{zz}} \Bigr] \,, \\ &C'_{i_1\cdots i_p} = {\operatorname{e}^{-I^z z}} \Bigl[ C_{i_1\cdots i_pz} + p\, C_{[i_1\cdots i_{p-1}}\, B_{i_p]z} + p\,(p-1)\,\frac{C_{[i_1\cdots i_{p-2}\|z\|}\, B_{i_{p-1}\|z\|}\, g_{i_p]z}}{g_{zz}} \Bigr] \,. \end{split} \label{eq:T-duality-rule}\end{aligned}$$ Technical details of DFT {#app:DFT} ======================== In this appendix, we explain the technical details of (gauged) DFT and show the covariance of the DFT equations of motion under the PL $T$-plurality with spectator fields. NS–NS sector {#nsns-sector-1 .unnumbered} ------------ For convenience, let us introduce the double vielbein $(V_{\hat{A}}{}^M)\equiv (V_a{}^M,\,V_{\bar{a}}{}^M)$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} = V_M{}^{\hat{A}}\,V_N{}^{\hat{B}}\,{\mathcal H}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}} \,,\qquad \eta_{MN} = V_M{}^{\hat{A}}\,V_N{}^{\hat{B}}\,\eta_{\hat{A}\hat{B}} \,,\qquad V_M{}^{\hat{A}} \,V_{\hat{A}}{}^M = \delta_M^N\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_M{}^{\hat{A}}$ is an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix and we have defined $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal H}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}}) = \begin{pmatrix} \eta_{ab} & 0 \\ 0 & \eta_{\bar{a}\bar{b}} \end{pmatrix},\qquad (\eta_{\hat{A}\hat{B}}) = \begin{pmatrix} \eta_{ab} & 0 \\ 0 & -\eta_{\bar{a}\bar{b}} \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and $(\eta_{ab})\equiv(\eta_{\bar{a}\bar{b}})\equiv{\mathrm{diag}}(-1,1,\dotsc,1)$. They can be parameterized as $$\begin{aligned} (V_a{}^M) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix} e_a^m \\ (g+B)_{mn}\,e_a^n \end{pmatrix} \,,\qquad (V_{\bar{a}}{}^M) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix} e_{\bar{a}}^m \\ (-g+B)_{mn}\,e_{\bar{a}}^n \end{pmatrix} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $e_a^m=e_{\bar{a}}^m$ is the vielbein satisfying $g_{mn}=e_m^a\,e_n^b\,\eta_{ab}=e_m^{\bar{a}}\,e_n^{\bar{b}}\,\eta_{\bar{a}\bar{b}}$. The equations of motion for the DFT dilaton and the generalized metric are $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal R}&\equiv -2\,{\bar{P}}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}\, \bigl(2\,\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}} - \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}}\bigr) - \frac{1}{3}\,{\bar{P}}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}\hat{E}\hat{F}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}\hat{E}\hat{F}} = 0\,, \\ {\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &\equiv -4\,{\bar{P}}^{\hat{D}[\hat{A}}\, \bm{{\mathcal D}}^{\hat{B}]} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}} + 2\,\bigl(\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}}-\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{D}} \bigr)\,\check{\bm{{\mathcal F}}}^{\hat{D}[\hat{A}\hat{B}]} - 2\,\check{\bm{{\mathcal F}}}^{\hat{C}\hat{D}[\hat{A}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{C}\hat{D}}{}^{\hat{B}]} = 0\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}}\equiv V_{\hat{A}}{}^M\,\partial_M$ and $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}$ and $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} \equiv 3\,\bm{\Omega}_{[\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}]}\,, \qquad \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}} \equiv \bm{\Omega}^{\hat{B}}{}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}} + 2\, \bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} d \,, \qquad \bm{\Omega}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} \equiv -\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} V_{\hat{B}}{}^M\, V_{M\hat{C}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $\check{\bm{{\mathcal F}}}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}$ is defined similarly to . We can show that ${\mathcal R}={\mathcal S}$ under the section condition, but the equivalence of ${\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}=0$ and ${\mathcal S}_{MN}=0$ is non-trivial. To see the equivalence, we show $$\begin{aligned} V^{\bar{a} M}\,V^{bN}\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} = e^{\bar{a}m}\,e^{bm}\, s_{mn} \,,\qquad V^{a M}\,V^{bN}\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} = 0 = V^{\bar{a} M}\,V^{\bar{b}N}\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Under the section condition, we can also find $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal G}^{\bar{a}b} = V^{\bar{a} M}\,V^{bN}\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} \,,\qquad {\mathcal G}^{ab}=0 = {\mathcal G}^{\bar{a}\bar{b}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and they clearly show the equivalence of ${\mathcal G}^{AB}=0$ and ${\mathcal S}_{MN}=0$. By using the identities [@1304.1472] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} {\mathcal Z}&\equiv \bm{{\mathcal D}}^{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}} - \frac{1}{2}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{A}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}} + \frac{1}{12}\, \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} = 0\,, \\ {\mathcal Z}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &\equiv 2\,\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{[\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}]} + \bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{C}\hat{A}\hat{B}} - \bm{{\mathcal D}}^{\hat{C}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{C}\hat{A}\hat{B}} = 0\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which hold under the section condition, we can simplify the expressions for ${\mathcal R}$ and ${\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal R}&= {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}\, \bigl(2\,\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}} - \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}}\bigr) {\nonumber}\\ &\quad + \frac{1}{12}\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{D}}\,\bigl(3\,\eta^{\hat{B}\hat{E}}\,\eta^{\hat{C}\hat{F}} - {\mathcal H}^{\hat{B}\hat{E}}\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{C}\hat{F}}\bigr) \,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}\hat{E}\hat{F}} \,, \label{eq:cR-total} \\ {\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &= 2\,{\mathcal H}^{\hat{D}[\hat{A}}\, \bm{{\mathcal D}}^{\hat{B}]} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}} -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal H}^{\hat{D}\hat{E}}\,(\eta^{\hat{A}\hat{F}}\,\eta^{\hat{B}\hat{G}}-{\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{F}}\,{\mathcal H}^{\hat{B}\hat{G}})\,\bigl(\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}}-\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{D}}\bigr)\, \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{E}\hat{F}\hat{G}} {\nonumber}\\ &\quad -{\mathcal H}_{\hat{E}}{}^{[\hat{A}}\,\bigl(\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}}-\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{D}}\bigr)\, \bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{B]}\hat{D}\hat{E}} +\frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{\hat{C}\hat{E}}\,\eta^{\hat{D}\hat{F}} - {\mathcal H}^{\hat{C}\hat{E}}\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{D}\hat{F}}\bigr)\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{G}[\hat{A}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{C}\hat{D}}{}^{\hat{B}]}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{E}\hat{F}\hat{G}} \,. \label{eq:cG-total}\end{aligned}$$ As a side remark, we note that the equations of motion ${\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}=0$ can also be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{{\mathcal G}}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &\equiv {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}}{}_{\hat{C}}\,{\mathcal G}^{\hat{C}\hat{B}} {\nonumber}\\ &= \bar{P}^{(\hat{A}\hat{B})\hat{C}\hat{D}}\,\bigl(\bar{P}^{\hat{E}\hat{F}\hat{G}\hat{H}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{C}\hat{E}\hat{F}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}\hat{G}\hat{H}} + 2\, \bm{{\mathcal D}}_{(\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D})}\bigr) +2\,\bar{P}^{\hat{C}\hat{D}\hat{E}(\hat{A}}\,\bigl(\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{E}}-\bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{E}}\bigr)\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{B})}{}_{\hat{C}\hat{D}} {\nonumber}\\ &\quad - P^{[\hat{A}\hat{B}]\hat{C}\hat{D}}\, \bigl[\bigl(\bm{{\mathcal F}}^{\hat{E}}-\bm{{\mathcal D}}^{\hat{E}}\bigr)\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{E}\hat{C}\hat{D}} +2\, \bm{{\mathcal D}}_{[\hat{C}}\,\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}]} \bigr] = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the projectors $$\begin{aligned} P^{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{\hat{A}\hat{C}}\,\eta^{\hat{B}\hat{D}} + {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{C}}\,{\mathcal H}^{\hat{B}\hat{D}}\bigr)\,,\qquad \bar{P}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,\bigl(\eta^{\hat{A}\hat{C}}\,\eta^{\hat{B}\hat{D}} - {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{C}}\,{\mathcal H}^{\hat{B}\hat{D}}\bigr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us decompose the double vielbein and the DFT dilaton as $$\begin{aligned} V_M{}^{\hat{A}} = U_M{}^B(x^I)\,\hat{V}_B{}^{\hat{A}}(y^\mu)\,,\qquad d=\hat{d}(y^\mu) + {\mathsf{d}}(x^I)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the twist matrix $U_M{}^A$ is an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ matrix and the untwisted metric is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}(y) \equiv \hat{V}_A{}^{\hat{C}}(y)\,\hat{V}_B{}^{\hat{D}}(y)\,{\mathcal H}_{\hat{C}\hat{D}}\,. \label{eq:untwisted-vielbein}\end{aligned}$$ Then, by requiring $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal D}_A \hat{V}_B{}^{\hat{C}} = \partial_A \hat{V}_B{}^{\hat{C}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal D}_A \hat{d} = \partial_A \hat{d} \qquad \bigl({\mathcal D}_A\equiv U_A{}^M\,\partial_M\bigr)\,, \label{eq:untwisted-condition}\end{aligned}$$ the generalized fluxes can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}} &= \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}(y) + \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^{B}(y) \,{\mathcal F}_{B}\,, \\ \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} &= \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}(y) + \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^{D}(y)\,\hat{V}_{\hat{B}}{}^{E}(y)\,\hat{V}_{\hat{C}}{}^{F}(y)\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF}\,, \end{split} \label{eq:fluxes-decomp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}(y)$ and $\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}(y)$ are the generalized fluxes associated with $\{\hat{V}_A{}^{\hat{B}},\,\hat{d}\}$, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} \equiv 3\,\hat{\Omega}_{[\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}]}\,, \qquad \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}} \equiv \hat{\Omega}^{\hat{B}}{}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}} + 2\, \hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \hat{d} \,, \qquad \hat{\Omega}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}} \equiv -\hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \hat{V}_{\hat{B}}{}^D\, \hat{V}_{D\hat{C}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{{\mathcal D}}_A \equiv \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^{B}\,\partial_B$. Then, the generalized Ricci scalar can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal R}&= \hat{{\mathcal R}} + \frac{1}{12}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AD}\,\bigl(3\,\eta^{BE}\,\eta^{CF}-\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BE}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CF} \bigr) \,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF} - \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\, {\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal F}_B {\nonumber}\\ &\quad - \frac{1}{2}\, {\mathcal F}^A{}_{BC}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{BD}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{CE} \, {\mathcal D}_B \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AE} + 2\,{\mathcal F}_A\,{\mathcal D}_B \hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB} - 4\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}^{AB}\,{\mathcal F}_A\, {\mathcal D}_B\hat{d} \,. \label{eq:cR-decomp}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have assumed that ${\mathcal F}_A$ and ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$ are constant and have used ${\mathcal F}^{A}{}_{DE}\,\partial_A \hat{E}_{\hat{B}}{}^C(y)=0$, which is satisfied under our setup ${\mathcal F}^{\alpha}{}_{BC}=0$. In addition, $\hat{{\mathcal R}}$ is the generalized Ricci scalar associated with the untwisted fields $\{\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB},\,\hat{d}\}$, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal R}} &\equiv {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}\, \bigl(2\,\hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}} - \hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}}\bigr) - \frac{1}{12}\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{A}\hat{D}}\,\bigl({\mathcal H}^{\hat{B}\hat{E}}\, {\mathcal H}^{\hat{C}\hat{F}} - 3\,\eta^{\hat{B}\hat{E}}\,\eta^{\hat{C}\hat{F}}\bigr) \,\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}\,\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{D}\hat{E}\hat{F}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us show the covariance of the equations of motion under the ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ PL $T$-plurality transformation, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\to (C\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}\,C^{{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})_{AB}\,,\quad \hat{d} \to \hat{d}\,,\quad {\mathcal F}_A \to (C\,{\mathcal F})_A\,,\quad {\mathcal F}_{ABC} \to C_A{}^D\,C_B{}^E\,C_C{}^F\,{\mathcal F}_{DEF}\,. \end{aligned}$$ From the relation , the first rule implies the following rule for the untwisted vielbein: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{V}_A{}^{\hat{B}}\to C_A{}^C\,\hat{V}_C{}^{\hat{B}}\,,\qquad \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^B \to \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^C\,(C^{-1})_C{}^B\,. \end{aligned}$$ Since the untwisted fields satisfy , we can show for an arbitrary untwisted field $g(y)$ $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal D}}'_{\hat{A}} g'(y) = \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^B\,(C^{-1})_B{}^C\,\partial_C g'(y) = \hat{V}_{\hat{A}}{}^B\,\partial_B g'(y) = \hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} g'(y)\,, \label{eq:cD-invariant}\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}(y)$ and $\hat{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}(y)$ are invariant under the PL $T$-plurality transformation. Then, from , the fluxes $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}$ and $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}$ are also invariant, $$\begin{aligned} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{A}} = \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}\,,\qquad \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}=\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}\,. \label{eq:bmF-invariant}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, according to the constancy of ${\mathcal F}_A$ and ${\mathcal F}_{ABC}$, $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}}$ and $\bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{A}\hat{B}\hat{C}}$ depends only on the spectator fields, and from , , and we have $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \bm{{\mathcal D}}'_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}} &= \hat{{\mathcal D}}'_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}} = \hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}} = \bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}} \,, \\ \bm{{\mathcal D}}'_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} &= \hat{{\mathcal D}}'_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} = \hat{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}'_{\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} = \bm{{\mathcal D}}_{\hat{A}} \bm{{\mathcal F}}_{\hat{B}\hat{C}\hat{D}} \,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Then, as is clear from and , ${\mathcal R}$ and ${\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}$ are also invariant, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal R}' ={\mathcal R}\,,\qquad {\mathcal G}'^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}={\mathcal G}^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if we define the quantity $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal G}^{AB} \equiv \hat{V}_{\hat{C}}{}^A\,\hat{V}_{\hat{D}}{}^B\,{\mathcal G}^{\hat{C}\hat{D}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ we can clearly see that it transforms as ${\mathcal G}^{AB} \to (C^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}}\,{\mathcal G}\,C^{-1})^{AB}=C^A{}_C\,{\mathcal G}^{CD}\,C_D{}^B$. This is precisely the ${\mathcal G}^{AB}$ discussed in when the untwisted fields are constant. In order to show the covariance of $S_{MN}$, it is convenient to use the relation $$\begin{aligned} \hat{V}^{\bar{a} C}\,V^{b D}\,U_C{}^M\,U_D{}^N\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} = {\mathcal G}^{\bar{a}b} = {\mathcal G}'^{\bar{a}b} = \hat{V}'^{\bar{a} C}\,V'^{b D}\,U'_C{}^M\,U'_D{}^N\,{\mathcal S}'_{MN} \,.\end{aligned}$$ From $\hat{V}'^{\bar{a} C}=\hat{V}^{\bar{a} D}\,(C^{-1})_D{}^C$, we find that $$\begin{aligned} U_A{}^M\,U_B{}^N\,{\mathcal S}_{MN} = (C^{-1})_A{}^C\,(C^{-1})_B{}^D\,U'_C{}^M\,U'_D{}^N\,{\mathcal S}'_{MN}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Namely, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal S}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal S}\,h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad h_M{}^N \equiv U'_M{}^A\,C_A{}^B\,U_B{}^N \,. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the generalized Ricci tensor transforms covariantly in the same manner as ${\mathcal H}_{MN}$. R–R sector {#rr-sector .unnumbered} ---------- The R–R fields in the approach of [@1107.0008] are defined as $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\, F_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,\Gamma^{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}\,,\qquad \Gamma^{m_1\cdots m_p}\equiv \Gamma^{[m_1}\,\cdots \Gamma^{m_p]}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the gamma matrix $(\Gamma^M)\equiv (\Gamma^m,\,\Gamma_m)$ is real and satisfies $(\Gamma^M)^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}= \Gamma_M$ and $$\begin{aligned} \{\Gamma^M,\,\Gamma^N\} = \eta^{MN} \qquad \bigl(\ \Leftrightarrow \{\Gamma^m,\,\Gamma_n\} = \delta^m_n\,,\quad \{\Gamma^m,\,\Gamma^n\} = 0 = \{\Gamma_m,\,\Gamma_n\}\ \bigr) \,. \end{aligned}$$ By considering $\Gamma^m$ and $\Gamma_n$ as the creation and annihilation operator, we define the Clifford vacuum ${\lvert {0}\rangle}$ as $\Gamma_m\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}=0$ that is normalized as $\langle 0\vert 0\rangle = 1$ where ${\langle {0} \rvert}\equiv {\lvert {0}\rangle}^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}$. We define the charge conjugation matrix as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal C}\equiv (\Gamma^0\pm \Gamma_0) \cdots (\Gamma^{D-1}\pm \Gamma_{D-1})\qquad (D:\text{even/odd})\,, \\ &{\mathcal C}\,\Gamma^A\,{\mathcal C}^{-1} = -(\Gamma^A)^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,,\qquad {\mathcal C}^{-1}= (-1)^{\frac{D(D+1)}{2}}{\mathcal C}= {\mathcal C}^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned} {\langle {F} \rvert} \equiv ({\lvert {F}\rangle})^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}= \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\, F_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{\langle {0} \rvert}\,(\Gamma^{m_p})^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\cdots (\Gamma^{m_1})^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,,\qquad \overline{{\langle {F} \rvert}} \equiv {\langle {F} \rvert}\,{\mathcal C}^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In type IIA/IIB theory, the R–R field strength satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma^{11}\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} = \pm {\lvert {F}\rangle} \qquad (\text{type IIA/IIB})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the chirality operator is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma^{11} \equiv (-1)^{N_F}\,,\qquad N_F\equiv \Gamma^m\,\Gamma_m \,. \end{aligned}$$ The Bianchi identity is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = 0\,,\qquad {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} \equiv \Gamma^M\,\partial_M\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the nilpotency ${\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}^2 =0$ is ensured by the section condition. The R–R potential (in the A-basis) is defined through $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} {\lvert {A}\rangle} \,,\qquad {\lvert {A}\rangle} = \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\, A_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,\Gamma^{m_1\cdots m_p}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and in terms of differential form we have[^15] $$\begin{aligned} F = \bm{d} A \,,\qquad \bm{d} \equiv {{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge \partial_m + \iota_m\,\tilde{\partial}^m\,. \label{eq:bmd-def}\end{aligned}$$ Under an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ transformation, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal H}_{MN} \to {\mathcal H}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal H}\,h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN} \,,\end{aligned}$$ the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinors, ${\lvert {F}\rangle}$ and ${\lvert {A}\rangle}$, transform as $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {F}\rangle} \to {\lvert {F'}\rangle} = S_h\,{\lvert {F}\rangle}\,,\qquad {\lvert {A}\rangle} \to {\lvert {A'}\rangle} = S_h\,{\lvert {A}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $S_h$ is defined through $$\begin{aligned} S_h\,\Gamma_M\,S_h^{-1} = (h^{-1})_M{}^N \, \Gamma_N \,. \end{aligned}$$ We also define the corresponding operation $\mathbb{S}_h$ acting on the polyform $F$ as $$\begin{aligned} S_h\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\lvert {\mathbb{S}_h\,F}\rangle}\,. \end{aligned}$$ The concrete expressions of $S_h$ and $\mathbb{S}_h$ for the ${\text{GL}}(D)$-, $B$-, and $\beta$-transformation are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {2} &S_{h_M} = {\operatorname{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\rho_m{}^n\,[\Gamma^m,\,\Gamma_n]}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det M} \rvert}}}\,{\operatorname{e}^{\rho_m{}^n\,\Gamma^m\,\Gamma_n}} \qquad \bigl(\rho \equiv \ln M \bigr) \\ &\qquad\! \leftrightarrow\ h_M = \begin{pmatrix} M &0 \\ 0& M^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}} \end{pmatrix} \ \leftrightarrow\ \mathbb{S}_{h_M} \, F \equiv F^{(M)} \quad \bigl(F^{(M)}_{m_1\cdots m_p} \equiv M_{m_1}{}^{n_1}\cdots M_{m_p}{}^{n_p}\,F_{n_1\cdots n_p}\bigr) \,, {\nonumber}\\ &S_{h_\omega} = {\operatorname{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\omega_{mn}\,\Gamma^{mn}}} \ \leftrightarrow\ h_\omega = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_d & \omega \\ 0& \bm{1}_d \end{pmatrix} \ \leftrightarrow\ \mathbb{S}_{h_\omega} = {\operatorname{e}^{(\frac{1}{2}\,\omega_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^m\wedge{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n) \wedge}}\,, \\ &S_{h_\chi} = {\operatorname{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\chi^{mn}\,\Gamma_{mn}}} \ \leftrightarrow\ h_\chi = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_d & 0 \\ \chi & \bm{1}_d \end{pmatrix} \ \leftrightarrow\ \mathbb{S}_{h_\chi} = {\operatorname{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\chi^{mn}\,\iota_m\iota_n}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ The factorized $T$-duality along the $x^z$-direction is generated by $$\begin{aligned} S_{h_z} = \bigl(\Gamma^z - \Gamma_z\bigr)\,\Gamma^{11} \ &\leftrightarrow \ h_z = \begin{pmatrix} \bm{1}_d-e_z & e_z \\ e_z & \bm{1}_d-e_z \end{pmatrix} {\nonumber}\\ &\leftrightarrow \ \mathbb{S}_{h_z}\, F = F\, \wedge {{\mathrm{d}}}x^z + F \vee {{\mathrm{d}}}x^z \,. \end{aligned}$$ In fact, the R–R field ${\lvert {F}\rangle}$ is as an ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor density with weight $1/2$.[^16] Correspondingly, under the ${\text{GL}}(D)$ transformation, the above $S_{h_M}$ needs to be corrected as $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{S}_{h_M}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle} \equiv \sqrt{{\lvert{\det M} \rvert}}\, S_{h_M}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\lvert {\mathbb{S}_{h_M}F}\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ when acting on the ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor density. We can absorb the extra factor $\sqrt{{\lvert{\det M} \rvert}}$ into the DFT dilaton by considering a weightless ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinor, ${\lvert {{\mathcal F}}\rangle} \equiv {\operatorname{e}^{d}}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle}$. For later convenience, we define $S_{\bm{g}}$ and ${\mathcal K}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &S_{\bm{g}}\,\Gamma_M\, S_{\bm{g}}^{-1} = -\bm{g}_M{}^N \, \Gamma_N \,,\qquad (\bm{g}_{MN})\equiv \begin{pmatrix} g_{mn} & 0 \\ 0 & g^{mn} \end{pmatrix}, \\ &{\mathcal K}\,\Gamma_M\, {\mathcal K}^{-1} = - {\mathcal H}_M{}^N\, \Gamma_N \,,\qquad {\mathcal K}= {\operatorname{e}^{\bm{B}}} S_{\bm{g}} {\operatorname{e}^{-\bm{B}}}\,, \qquad \bm{B} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\,B_{mn}\,\Gamma^{mn}\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ By using the property $S_{\bm{g}}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}=\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle}$, we can show that $$\begin{aligned} \overline{{\langle {\alpha} \rvert}}\,S_{\bm{g}}\,{\lvert {\beta}\rangle} = -\sqrt{{\lvert{g} \rvert}}\,\sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\,g^{m_1n_1}\cdots g^{m_pn_p}\,\alpha_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,\beta_{n_1\cdots n_p} = \overline{{\langle {\beta} \rvert}}\,S_{\bm{g}}\,{\lvert {\alpha}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for ${\text{O}}(D,D)$ spinors ${\lvert {\alpha}\rangle}$ and ${\lvert {\beta}\rangle}$. Moreover, the self-duality relation can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\mathcal K}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle} \,. \label{eq:self-duality}\end{aligned}$$ We also define the correspondent of ${\mathcal K}$ for the untwisted metric as $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal K}= S_U\,\hat{{\mathcal K}}\, S_U^{-1} \,, \qquad \hat{{\mathcal K}}\,\Gamma_A\, \hat{{\mathcal K}}^{-1} = -\hat{{\mathcal H}}_A{}^B \, \Gamma_B \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_A\equiv U_A{}^M\, S_{U}^{-1}\,\Gamma_M\,S_U=\delta_A^M\,\Gamma_M$. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian in type II DFT is $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal L}= {\operatorname{e}^{-2\,d}} {\mathcal S}+ \frac{1}{4}\,\overline{{\langle {F} \rvert}}\, {\mathcal K}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the equations of motion for $\{{\mathcal H}_{MN},\,d,\,{\lvert {A}\rangle}\}$ are summarized as $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &{\mathcal S}_{MN} = {\mathcal E}_{MN}\,,\qquad {\mathcal S}=0\,,\qquad {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}\,{\mathcal K}\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} = 0\,, \\ &{\mathcal E}_{MN} \equiv -\frac{1}{4} {\operatorname{e}^{2\,d}} \Bigl[\overline{{\langle {F} \rvert}} \,\Gamma_{(M}\,{\mathcal K}\,\Gamma_{N)}\, {\lvert {F}\rangle} + \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal H}_{MN}\,\overline{{\langle {F} \rvert}}\,{\mathcal K}\,{\lvert {F}\rangle}\Bigr]\,. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Under the self-duality relation , the equation of motion for the R–R field ${\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}\,{\mathcal K}\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} = 0$ is precisely the Bianchi identity ${\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi}\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} = 0$. In the gauged DFT, we consider the reduction ansatz (see [@1109.4280; @1304.1472; @1705.08181; @1706.08883]), $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\operatorname{e}^{-{\mathsf{d}}(x^I)}}S_{U(x^I)} {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and assume that ${\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)}\rangle}$ satisfies the condition ${\mathcal D}_A {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)}\rangle} = \partial_A {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}(y)}\rangle}$, similar to . In the case of the twist matrix $U = R \, \bm{\Pi}$, ${\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle}$ is explicitly given by $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} &= {\operatorname{e}^{{\mathsf{d}}}} S_{\bm{\Pi}^{-1}} S_{R^{-1}} {\lvert {F}\rangle} {\nonumber}\\ &= \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{{\mathsf{d}}}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det(e_{\mathrm{a}}^m)} \rvert}}}\, {\operatorname{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,\Gamma_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}}} \sum_p \frac{1}{p!}\, e_{{\mathrm{a}}_1}^{m_1}\cdots e_{{\mathrm{a}}_p}^{m_p}\,F_{m_1\cdots m_p}\,\Gamma^{{\mathrm{a}}_1\cdots {\mathrm{a}}_p}\,{\lvert {0}\rangle} \,.\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the differential form, this reads as $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal F}} = \frac{{\operatorname{e}^{{\mathsf{d}}}}}{\sqrt{{\lvert{\det(e_{\mathrm{a}}^m)} \rvert}}}\,\mathbb{S}_{U^{-1}}\,F\,. \label{eq:cF-hat-form}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the untwisted field, the self-duality relation can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} = \hat{{\mathcal K}}\, {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We can clearly see that this relation is preserved under the PL $T$-plurality transformation $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal K}} \to S_{C} \,\hat{{\mathcal K}}\,S_{C^{-1}}\,,\qquad {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} \to S_C\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle}\,. \label{eq:T-plurality-RR}\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us show the covariance of the Bianchi identity. From the reduction ansatz, we have $$\begin{aligned} &0= {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} {\lvert {F}\rangle} = {\operatorname{e}^{-{\mathsf{d}}}} S_{U} \, \bigl({\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} - \Gamma^A\, {\mathcal D}_A {\mathsf{d}}+ S_{U}^{-1} \, {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} S_{U} \bigr)\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} {\nonumber}\\ &\Leftrightarrow\ \Bigl({\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} - \frac{1}{2}\, \Gamma^A\, {\mathcal F}_A + \frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC} \Bigr)\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} = 0 \,, \label{eq:BI}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the identity $$\begin{aligned} S_{U}^{-1} \, {\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} S_{U} = \frac{1}{3!}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC}\,\Gamma^{ABC} - \frac{1}{2}\,\Omega^B{}_{AB}\,\Gamma^A\,.\end{aligned}$$ We require “the Bianchi identity” for the untwisted field ${\setbox0=\hbox{$\partial$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} \partial \else\rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$\partial$\hfil}} / \fi} {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} = 0$, and then the Bianchi identity becomes an algebraic relation $$\begin{aligned} \Bigl(\frac{1}{3!}\,\Gamma^{ABC}\,{\mathcal F}_{ABC} - \frac{1}{2}\, \Gamma^A\, {\mathcal F}_A\Bigr)\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ This is manifestly covariant under the PL $T$-plurality transformation. Since the Bianchi identity and the self-duality relation are covariantly transformed, the equation of motion for the R–R field is also satisfied in the dualized background. Finally, we show the covariance of the energy–momentum tensor. To this end, we define $$\begin{aligned} \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{AB} \equiv U_A{}^M \,\,U_B{}^N\, {\mathcal E}_{MN} = -\frac{1}{4}{\operatorname{e}^{2\,\hat{d}}}\,\Bigl[\overline{{\langle {\hat{{\mathcal F}}} \rvert}} \,\Gamma_{(A} \,\hat{{\mathcal K}}\,\Gamma_{B)} \, {\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle} + \frac{1}{2}\,\hat{{\mathcal H}}_{AB}\,\overline{{\langle {\hat{{\mathcal F}}} \rvert}}\,\hat{{\mathcal K}}\,{\lvert {\hat{{\mathcal F}}}\rangle}\Bigr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Under the PL $T$-plurality , we can easily show that $$\begin{aligned} U'_A{}^M\,U'_B{}^N\,{\mathcal E}'_{MN} = \hat{{\mathcal E}}'_{AB} = C_A{}^C\,C_B{}^D \,\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{CD} = C_A{}^C\,C_B{}^D \,U_C{}^M\,U_D{}^N\, {\mathcal E}_{MN}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and, similar to the generalized Ricci tensor, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal E}'_{MN} = (h\,{\mathcal E}\,h^{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}})_{MN}\,,\qquad h_M{}^N \equiv U'_M{}^A\,C_A{}^B\,U_B{}^N \,. \end{aligned}$$ This complete the proof of the covariance of the equations of motion. [99]{} K. Kikkawa and M. Yamasaki, “Casimir Effects in Superstring Theories,” Phys. Lett. [149B]{}, 357 (1984). N. Sakai and I. Senda, “Vacuum Energies of String Compactified on Torus,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [75]{}, 692 (1986) Erratum: \[Prog. Theor. Phys. [77]{}, 773 (1987)\]. V. P. Nair, A. D. Shapere, A. Strominger and F. Wilczek, “Compactification of the Twisted Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B [287]{}, 402 (1987). P. H. Ginsparg and C. Vafa, “Toroidal Compactification of Nonsupersymmetric Heterotic Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B [289]{}, 414 (1987). A. Giveon, E. Rabinovici and G. Veneziano, “Duality in String Background Space,” Nucl. Phys. B [322]{}, 167 (1989). A. D. Shapere and F. Wilczek, “Selfdual Models with Theta Terms,” Nucl. Phys. B [320]{}, 669 (1989). T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett. B [194]{}, 59 (1987). T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma Models,” Phys. Lett. B [201]{}, 466 (1988). S. Cecotti, S. Ferrara and L. Girardello, “Hidden Noncompact Symmetries in String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [308]{}, 436 (1988). M. J. Duff, “Duality Rotations in String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [335]{}, 610 (1990). M. Rocek and E. P. Verlinde, “Duality, quotients, and currents,” Nucl. Phys. B [373]{}, 630 (1992) \[hep-th/9110053\]. E. Alvarez, L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. L. F. Barbon and Y. Lozano, “Some global aspects of duality in string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [415]{}, 71 (1994) \[hep-th/9309039\]. E. Bergshoeff, C. M. Hull and T. Ortin, “Duality in the type II superstring effective action,” Nucl. Phys. B [451]{}, 547 (1995) \[hep-th/9504081\]. S. F. Hassan, “T Duality and nonlocal supersymmetries,” Nucl. Phys. B [460]{}, 362 (1996) \[hep-th/9504148\]. E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M. B. Green, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, “Duality of type II 7 branes and 8 branes,” Nucl. Phys. B [470]{}, 113 (1996) \[hep-th/9601150\]. S. F. Hassan, “T duality, space-time spinors and RR fields in curved backgrounds,” Nucl. Phys. B [568]{}, 145 (2000) \[hep-th/9907152\]. A. Giveon, M. Porrati and E. Rabinovici, “Target space duality in string theory,” Phys. Rept. [244]{}, 77 (1994) \[hep-th/9401139\]. E. Alvarez, L. Alvarez-Gaume and Y. Lozano, “An Introduction to T duality in string theory,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [41]{}, 1 (1995) \[hep-th/9410237\]. X. C. de la Ossa and F. Quevedo, “Duality symmetries from nonAbelian isometries in string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [403]{}, 377 (1993) \[hep-th/9210021\]. B. E. Fridling and A. Jevicki, “Dual Representations and Ultraviolet Divergences in Nonlinear $\sigma$ Models,” Phys. Lett. [134B]{}, 70 (1984). E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Quantum Equivalence of Dual Field Theories,” Annals Phys. [162]{}, 31 (1985). A. Giveon and M. Rocek, “On nonAbelian duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [421]{}, 173 (1994) \[hep-th/9308154\]. M. Gasperini, R. Ricci and G. Veneziano, “A Problem with nonAbelian duality?,” Phys. Lett. B [319]{}, 438 (1993) \[hep-th/9308112\]. K. Sfetsos, “Gauged WZW models and nonAbelian duality,” Phys. Rev. D [50]{}, 2784 (1994) \[hep-th/9402031\]. E. Alvarez, L. Alvarez-Gaume and Y. Lozano, “On nonAbelian duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [424]{}, 155 (1994) \[hep-th/9403155\]. K. Sfetsos and A. A. Tseytlin, “Four-dimensional plane wave string solutions with coset CFT description,” Nucl. Phys. B [427]{}, 245 (1994) \[hep-th/9404063\]. E. Kiritsis and N. A. Obers, “A New duality symmetry in string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [334]{}, 67 (1994) \[hep-th/9406082\]. S. Elitzur, A. Giveon, E. Rabinovici, A. Schwimmer and G. Veneziano, “Remarks on nonAbelian duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [435]{}, 147 (1995) \[hep-th/9409011\]. E. Tyurin, “On conformal properties of the dualized sigma models,” Phys. Lett. B [348]{}, 386 (1995) \[hep-th/9411242\]. I. Bakas and K. Sfetsos, “T duality and world sheet supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B [349]{}, 448 (1995) \[hep-th/9502065\]. Y. Lozano, “NonAbelian duality and canonical transformations,” Phys. Lett. B [355]{}, 165 (1995) \[hep-th/9503045\]. E. Tyurin, “NonAbelian axial - vector duality: A Geometric description,” Phys. Lett. B [364]{}, 157 (1995) \[hep-th/9507014\]. S. F. Hewson, “The NonAbelian target space duals of Taub - NUT space,” Class. Quant. Grav. [13]{}, 1739 (1996) \[hep-th/9510092\]. K. Sfetsos, “NonAbelian duality, parafermions and supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D [54]{}, 1682 (1996) \[hep-th/9602179\]. E. Plauschinn, “On T-duality transformations for the three-sphere,” Nucl. Phys. B [893]{}, 257 (2015) \[arXiv:1408.1715 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Fraser, D. Manolopoulos and K. Sfetsos, “Non-Abelian T-duality and Modular Invariance,” Nucl. Phys. B [934]{}, 498 (2018) \[arXiv:1805.03657 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “Dual nonAbelian duality and the Drinfeld double,” Phys. Lett. B [351]{}, 455 (1995) \[hep-th/9502122\]. C. Klimcik, “Poisson-Lie T duality,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [46]{}, 116 (1996) \[hep-th/9509095\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “Poisson-Lie T duality and loop groups of Drinfeld doubles,” Phys. Lett. B [372]{}, 65 (1996) \[hep-th/9512040\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “NonAbelian momentum winding exchange,” Phys. Lett. B [383]{}, 281 (1996) \[hep-th/9605212\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “Dressing cosets,” Phys. Lett. B [381]{}, 56 (1996) \[hep-th/9602162\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “T duality and the moment map,” hep-th/9610198. K. Sfetsos, “Poisson-Lie T duality and supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [56B]{}, 302 (1997) \[hep-th/9611199\]. K. Sfetsos, “Canonical equivalence of nonisometric sigma models and Poisson-Lie T duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [517]{}, 549 (1998) \[hep-th/9710163\]. K. Sfetsos, “Duality invariant class of two-dimensional field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [561]{}, 316 (1999) \[hep-th/9904188\]. A. Bossard and N. Mohammedi, “Poisson-Lie duality in the string effective action,” Nucl. Phys. B [619]{}, 128 (2001) \[hep-th/0106211\]. R. Squellari, “Dressing cosets revisited,” Nucl. Phys. B [853]{}, 379 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.0162 \[hep-th\]\]. M. A. Lledo and V. S. Varadarajan, “SU(2) Poisson-Lie T duality,” Lett. Math. Phys. [45]{}, 247 (1998) \[hep-th/9803175\]. M. A. Jafarizadeh and A. Rezaei-Aghdam, “Poisson Lie T duality and Bianchi type algebras,” Phys. Lett. B [458]{}, 477 (1999) \[hep-th/9903152\]. C. Klimcik, “Yang-Baxter sigma models and dS/AdS T duality,” JHEP [0212]{}, 051 (2002) \[hep-th/0210095\]. L. Hlavaty and I. Petr, “New solvable sigma models in plane–parallel wave background,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [29]{}, 1450009 (2014) \[arXiv:1308.0153 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Hlavaty and L. Snobl, “Classification of Poisson-Lie T-dual models with two-dimensional targets,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [17]{}, 429 (2002) \[hep-th/0110139\]. L. Hlavaty and L. Snobl, “Classification of 6-dimensional manin triples,” math/0202209 \[math-qa\]. L. Snobl and L. Hlavaty, “Classification of six-dimensional real Drinfeld doubles,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [17]{}, 4043 (2002) \[math/0202210 \[math-qa\]\]. R. Von Unge, “Poisson Lie T plurality,” JHEP [0207]{}, 014 (2002) \[hep-th/0205245\]. L. Hlavaty and L. Snobl, “Poisson-Lie T plurality of three-dimensional conformally invariant sigma models,” JHEP [0405]{}, 010 (2004) \[hep-th/0403164\]. L. Hlavaty and L. Snobl, “Poisson-Lie T-plurality of three-dimensional conformally invariant sigma models. II. Nondiagonal metrics and dilaton puzzle,” JHEP [0410]{}, 045 (2004) \[hep-th/0408126\]. L. Hlavaty, “Dilatons in curved backgrounds by the Poisson-Lie transformation,” hep-th/0601172. L. Hlavaty, J. Hybl and M. Turek, “Classical solutions of sigma models in curved backgrounds by the Poisson-Lie T-plurality,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [22]{}, 1039 (2007) \[hep-th/0608069\]. L. Hlavaty and M. Turek, “Nonabelian dualization of plane wave backgrounds,” J. Mod. Phys. [3]{}, 1088 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.5939 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Hlavaty and L. Snobl, “Poisson-Lie T-plurality as canonical transformation,” Nucl. Phys. B [768]{}, 209 (2007) \[hep-th/0608133\]. L. Hlavatý and I. Petr, “Poisson-Lie T-plurality revisited. Is T-duality unique?,” JHEP [1904]{}, 157 (2019) \[arXiv:1811.12235 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Y. Alekseev, C. Klimcik and A. A. Tseytlin, “Quantum Poisson-Lie T duality and WZNW model,” Nucl. Phys. B [458]{}, 430 (1996) \[hep-th/9509123\]. E. Tyurin and R. von Unge, “Poisson-lie T duality: The Path integral derivation,” Phys. Lett. B [382]{}, 233 (1996) \[hep-th/9512025\]. K. Sfetsos, “Poisson-Lie T duality beyond the classical level and the renormalization group,” Phys. Lett. B [432]{}, 365 (1998) \[hep-th/9803019\]. C. Klimcik and G. Valent, “One loop renormalizability of all 2-D dimensional Poisson-Lie sigma models,” Phys. Lett. B [565]{}, 237 (2003) \[hep-th/0304053\]. G. Valent, C. Klimcik and R. Squellari, “One loop renormalizability of the Poisson-Lie sigma models,” Phys. Lett. B [678]{}, 143 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.1459 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sfetsos and K. Siampos, “Quantum equivalence in Poisson-Lie T-duality,” JHEP [0906]{}, 082 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4248 \[hep-th\]\]. S. D. Avramis, J. P. Derendinger and N. Prezas, “Conformal chiral boson models on twisted doubled tori and non-geometric string vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B [827]{}, 281 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.0431 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sfetsos, K. Siampos and D. C. Thompson, “Renormalization of Lorentz non-invariant actions and manifest T-duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [827]{}, 545 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.1345 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Hlavaty, J. Navratil and L. Snobl, “On renormalization of Poisson-Lie T-plural sigma models,” Acta Polytech. [53]{}, no. 5, 433 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.5936 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sfetsos and D. C. Thompson, “On non-abelian T-dual geometries with Ramond fluxes,” Nucl. Phys. B [846]{}, 21 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.1320 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, E. O Colgain, K. Sfetsos and D. C. Thompson, “Non-abelian T-duality, Ramond Fields and Coset Geometries,” JHEP [1106]{}, 106 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.5196 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Itsios, Y. Lozano, E. O Colgain and K. Sfetsos, “Non-Abelian T-duality and consistent truncations in type-II supergravity,” JHEP [1208]{}, 132 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.2274 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, E. Ó Colgáin, D. Rodríguez-Gómez and K. Sfetsos, “Supersymmetric $AdS_6$ via T Duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [110]{}, no. 23, 231601 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.1043 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Itsios, C. Nunez, K. Sfetsos and D. C. Thompson, “On Non-Abelian T-Duality and new N=1 backgrounds,” Phys. Lett. B [721]{}, 342 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.4840 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Itsios, C. Nunez, K. Sfetsos and D. C. Thompson, “Non-Abelian T-duality and the AdS/CFT correspondence:new N=1 backgrounds,” Nucl. Phys. B [873]{}, 1 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.6755 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Jeong, O. Kelekci and E. O Colgain, “An alternative IIB embedding of F(4) gauged supergravity,” JHEP [1305]{}, 079 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.2105 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Barranco, J. Gaillard, N. T. Macpherson, C. Núñez and D. C. Thompson, “G-structures and Flavouring non-Abelian T-duality,” JHEP [1308]{}, 018 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.7229 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Gevorgyan and G. Sarkissian, “Defects, Non-abelian T-duality, and the Fourier-Mukai transform of the Ramond-Ramond fields,” JHEP [1403]{}, 035 (2014) \[arXiv:1310.1264 \[hep-th\]\]. N. T. Macpherson, “Non-Abelian T-duality, $G_2$-structure rotation and holographic duals of $N=1$ Chern-Simons theories,” JHEP [1311]{}, 137 (2013) \[arXiv:1310.1609 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, E. Ó Colgáin and D. Rodríguez-Gómez, “Hints of 5d Fixed Point Theories from Non-Abelian T-duality,” JHEP [1405]{}, 009 (2014) \[arXiv:1311.4842 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Gaillard, N. T. Macpherson, C. Núñez and D. C. Thompson, “Dualising the Baryonic Branch: Dynamic SU(2) and confining backgrounds in IIA,” Nucl. Phys. B [884]{}, 696 (2014) \[arXiv:1312.4945 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Caceres, N. T. Macpherson and C. Núñez, “New Type IIB Backgrounds and Aspects of Their Field Theory Duals,” JHEP [1408]{}, 107 (2014) \[arXiv:1402.3294 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano and N. T. Macpherson, “A new AdS$_{4}$/CFT$_{3}$ dual with extended SUSY and a spectral flow,” JHEP [1411]{}, 115 (2014) \[arXiv:1408.0912 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sfetsos and D. C. Thompson, “New ${\cal N} = 1$ supersymmetric $AdS_5$ backgrounds in Type IIA supergravity,” JHEP [1411]{}, 006 (2014) \[arXiv:1408.6545 \[hep-th\]\]. Ö. Kelekci, Y. Lozano, N. T. Macpherson and E. Ó. Colgáin, “Supersymmetry and non-Abelian T-duality in type II supergravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. [32]{}, no. 3, 035014 (2015) \[arXiv:1409.7406 \[hep-th\]\]. N. T. Macpherson, C. Núñez, L. A. Pando Zayas, V. G. J. Rodgers and C. A. Whiting, “Type IIB supergravity solutions with AdS$_{5}$ from Abelian and non-Abelian T dualities,” JHEP [1502]{}, 040 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.2650 \[hep-th\]\]. K. S. Kooner and S. Zacarías, “Non-Abelian T-Dualizing the Resolved Conifold with Regular and Fractional D3-Branes,” JHEP [1508]{}, 143 (2015) \[arXiv:1411.7433 \[hep-th\]\]. T. R. Araujo and H. Nastase, “$\mathcal{N}=1$ SUSY backgrounds with an AdS factor from non-Abelian T duality,” Phys. Rev. D [91]{}, no. 12, 126015 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.00553 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Bea, J. D. Edelstein, G. Itsios, K. S. Kooner, C. Nunez, D. Schofield and J. A. Sierra-Garcia, “Compactifications of the Klebanov-Witten CFT and new AdS$_{3}$ backgrounds,” JHEP [1505]{}, 062 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.07527 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, N. T. Macpherson, J. Montero and E. Ó. Colgáin, “New $AdS_3 \times S^2$ T-duals with $ \mathcal{N}=\left(0,4\right) $ supersymmetry,” JHEP [1508]{}, 121 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.02659 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, N. T. Macpherson and J. Montero, “A $ \mathcal{N}=2 $ supersymmetric AdS$_{4}$ solution in M-theory with purely magnetic flux,” JHEP [1510]{}, 004 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.02660 \[hep-th\]\]. T. R. Araujo and H. Nastase, “Non-Abelian T-duality for nonrelativistic holographic duals,” JHEP [1511]{}, 203 (2015) \[arXiv:1508.06568 \[hep-th\]\]. N. T. Macpherson, C. Nunez, D. C. Thompson and S. Zacarias, “Holographic Flows in non-Abelian T-dual Geometries,” JHEP [1511]{}, 212 (2015) \[arXiv:1509.04286 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Dimov, S. Mladenov, R. C. Rashkov and T. Vetsov, “Non-abelian T-duality of Pilch-Warner background,” Fortsch. Phys. [64]{}, 657 (2016) \[arXiv:1511.00269 \[hep-th\]\]. L. A. Pando Zayas, V. G. J. Rodgers and C. A. Whiting, “Supergravity solutions with AdS$_{4}$ from non-Abelian T-dualities,” JHEP [1602]{}, 061 (2016) \[arXiv:1511.05991 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, N. T. Macpherson, J. Montero and C. Nunez, “Three-dimensional $ \mathcal{N}=4 $ linear quivers and non-Abelian T-duals,” JHEP [1611]{}, 133 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.09061 \[hep-th\]\]. L. A. Pando Zayas, D. Tsimpis and C. A. Whiting, “Supersymmetric IIB background with AdS$_4$ vacua from massive IIA supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D [96]{}, no. 4, 046013 (2017) \[arXiv:1701.01643 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Lozano, C. Nunez and S. Zacarias, “BMN Vacua, Superstars and Non-Abelian T-duality,” JHEP [1709]{}, 000 (2017) \[arXiv:1703.00417 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Borsato and L. Wulff, “Non-abelian T-duality and Yang-Baxter deformations of Green-Schwarz strings,” JHEP [1808]{}, 027 (2018) \[arXiv:1806.04083 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Hoare and A. A. Tseytlin, “Homogeneous Yang-Baxter deformations as non-abelian duals of the AdS$_5$ sigma-model,” J. Phys. A [49]{}, no. 49, 494001 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.02550 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Borsato and L. Wulff, “Integrable Deformations of $T$-Dual $\sigma$ Models,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [117]{}, no. 25, 251602 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.09834 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Hoare and D. C. Thompson, “Marginal and non-commutative deformations via non-abelian T-duality,” JHEP [1702]{}, 059 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.08020 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Borsato and L. Wulff, “On non-abelian T-duality and deformations of supercoset string sigma-models,” JHEP [1710]{}, 024 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.10169 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimcik, “$\eta$ and $\lambda$ deformations as E-models,” Nucl. Phys. B [900]{}, 259 (2015) \[arXiv:1508.05832 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Vicedo, “Deformed integrable $\sigma$-models, classical R-matrices and classical exchange algebra on Drinfel’d doubles,” J. Phys. A [48]{}, no. 35, 355203 (2015) \[arXiv:1504.06303 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Hoare and A. A. Tseytlin, “On integrable deformations of superstring sigma models related to $AdS_n \times S^n$ supercosets,” Nucl. Phys. B [897]{}, 448 (2015) \[arXiv:1504.07213 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sfetsos, K. Siampos and D. C. Thompson, “Generalised integrable $\lambda$- and $\eta$-deformations and their relation,” Nucl. Phys. B [899]{}, 489 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.05784 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimčík, “Poisson–Lie T-duals of the bi-Yang–Baxter models,” Phys. Lett. B [760]{}, 345 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.03016 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimcik, “Yang-Baxter $\sigma$-model with WZNW term as ${ \mathcal E}$-model,” Phys. Lett. B [772]{}, 725 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.08912 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimčík, “Affine Poisson and affine quasi-Poisson T-duality,” Nucl. Phys. B [939]{}, 191 (2019) \[arXiv:1809.01614 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimčík, “Dressing cosets and multi-parametric integrable deformations,” JHEP [1907]{}, 176 (2019) \[arXiv:1903.00439 \[hep-th\]\]. W. Siegel, “Two vierbein formalism for string inspired axionic gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [47]{}, 5453 (1993) \[hep-th/9302036\]. W. Siegel, “Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings,” Phys. Rev. D [48]{}, 2826 (1993) \[hep-th/9305073\]. W. Siegel, “Manifest duality in low-energy superstrings,” hep-th/9308133. C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory,” JHEP [0909]{}, 099 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4664 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “The Gauge algebra of double field theory and Courant brackets,” JHEP [0909]{}, 090 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.1792 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Background independent action for double field theory,” JHEP [1007]{}, 016 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.5027 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Generalized metric formulation of double field theory,” JHEP [1008]{}, 008 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.4823 \[hep-th\]\]. P. West, “$E_{11}$, generalised space-time and IIA string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [696]{}, 403 (2011) \[arXiv:1009.2624 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Jeon, K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Differential geometry with a projection: Application to double field theory,” JHEP [1104]{}, 014 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.1324 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm and S. K. Kwak, “Frame-like Geometry of Double Field Theory,” J. Phys. A [44]{}, 085404 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.4101 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Rocen and P. West, “E11, generalised space-time and IIA string theory: the R-R sector,” arXiv:1012.2744 \[hep-th\]. I. Jeon, K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Stringy differential geometry, beyond Riemann,” Phys. Rev. D [84]{}, 044022 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.6294 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm, S. K. Kwak and B. Zwiebach, “Unification of Type II Strings and T-duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [107]{}, 171603 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.5452 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm, S. K. Kwak and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory of Type II Strings,” JHEP [1109]{}, 013 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.0008 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm and S. K. Kwak, “Massive Type II in Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1111]{}, 086 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.4937 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “On the Riemann Tensor in Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1205]{}, 126 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.5296 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Jeon, K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Ramond-Ramond Cohomology and O(D,D) T-duality,” JHEP [1209]{}, 079 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.3478 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Large Gauge Transformations in Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1302]{}, 075 (2013) \[arXiv:1207.4198 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Jeon, K. Lee, J. H. Park and Y. Suh, “Stringy Unification of Type IIA and IIB Supergravities under N=2 D=10 Supersymmetric Double Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B [723]{}, 245 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.5078 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Aldazabal, W. Baron, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “The effective action of Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1111]{}, 052 (2011) Erratum: \[JHEP [1111]{}, 109 (2011)\] \[arXiv:1109.0290 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Geissbuhler, “Double Field Theory and N=4 Gauged Supergravity,” JHEP [1111]{}, 116 (2011) \[arXiv:1109.4280 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Grana and D. Marques, “Gauged Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1204]{}, 020 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.2924 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Geissbuhler, D. Marques, C. Nunez and V. Penas, “Exploring Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1306]{}, 101 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.1472 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Blumenhagen, F. Hassler and D. Lüst, “Double Field Theory on Group Manifolds,” JHEP [1502]{}, 001 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.6374 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Blumenhagen, P. du Bosque, F. Hassler and D. Lust, “Generalized Metric Formulation of Double Field Theory on Group Manifolds,” JHEP [1508]{}, 056 (2015) \[arXiv:1502.02428 \[hep-th\]\]. P. du Bosque, F. Hassler and D. Lust, “Flux Formulation of DFT on Group Manifolds and Generalized Scherk-Schwarz Compactifications,” JHEP [1602]{}, 039 (2016) \[arXiv:1509.04176 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Hassler, “Poisson-Lie T-Duality in Double Field Theory,” arXiv:1707.08624 \[hep-th\]. S. Demulder, F. Hassler and D. C. Thompson, “Doubled aspects of generalised dualities and integrable deformations,” JHEP [1902]{}, 189 (2019) \[arXiv:1810.11446 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Lüst and D. Osten, “Generalised fluxes, Yang-Baxter deformations and the O(d,d) structure of non-abelian T-duality,” JHEP [1805]{}, 165 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.03971 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Jurco and J. Vysoky, “Poisson–Lie T-duality of string effective actions: A new approach to the dilaton puzzle,” J. Geom. Phys. [130]{}, 1 (2018) \[arXiv:1708.04079 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Ševera and F. Valach, “Courant algebroids, Poisson-Lie T-duality, and type II supergravities,” arXiv:1810.07763 \[math.DG\]. J. J. Fernandez-Melgarejo, J. Sakamoto, Y. Sakatani and K. Yoshida, “$T$-folds from Yang-Baxter deformations,” JHEP [1712]{}, 108 (2017) \[arXiv:1710.06849 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Hong, Y. Kim and E. Ó. Colgáin, “On non-Abelian T-duality for non-semisimple groups,” Eur. Phys. J. C [78]{}, no. 12, 1025 (2018) \[arXiv:1801.09567 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Arutyunov, S. Frolov, B. Hoare, R. Roiban and A. A. Tseytlin, “Scale invariance of the $\eta$-deformed $AdS_5\times S^5$ superstring, T-duality and modified type II equations,” Nucl. Phys. B [903]{}, 262 (2016) \[arXiv:1511.05795 \[hep-th\]\]. A. A. Tseytlin and L. Wulff, “Kappa-symmetry of superstring sigma model and generalized 10d supergravity equations,” JHEP [1606]{}, 174 (2016) \[arXiv:1605.04884 \[hep-th\]\]. C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, “Finiteness and Conformal Invariance in Nonlinear $\sigma$ Models,” Nucl. Phys. B [274]{}, 349 (1986). J. J. Fernández-Melgarejo, J. Sakamoto, Y. Sakatani and K. Yoshida, “Weyl invariance of string theories in generalized supergravity backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [122]{}, no. 11, 111602 (2019) \[arXiv:1811.10600 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Sakamoto, Y. Sakatani and K. Yoshida, “Weyl invariance for generalized supergravity backgrounds from the doubled formalism,” PTEP [2017]{}, no. 5, 053B07 (2017) \[arXiv:1703.09213 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Hoare and A. A. Tseytlin, “Type IIB supergravity solution for the T-dual of the $\eta$-deformed AdS$_{5} \times$ S$^{5}$ superstring,” JHEP [1510]{}, 060 (2015) \[arXiv:1508.01150 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Sakatani, S. Uehara and K. Yoshida, “Generalized gravity from modified DFT,” JHEP [1704]{}, 123 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.05856 \[hep-th\]\]. J. H. Park, S. J. Rey, W. Rim and Y. Sakatani, “O(D, D) covariant Noether currents and global charges in double field theory,” JHEP [1511]{}, 131 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.07545 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Sakamoto and Y. Sakatani, “Local $\beta$-deformations and Yang-Baxter sigma model,” JHEP [1806]{}, 147 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.05903 \[hep-th\]\]. C. M. Hull and B. J. Spence, “The Gauged Nonlinear $\sigma$ Model With [Wess-Zumino]{} Term,” Phys. Lett. B [232]{}, 204 (1989). C. M. Hull and B. J. Spence, “The Geometry of the gauged sigma model with Wess-Zumino term,” Nucl. Phys. B [353]{}, 379 (1991). T. Kugo and B. Zwiebach, “Target space duality as a symmetry of string field theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [87]{}, 801 (1992) \[hep-th/9201040\]. P. C. West, “$E_{11}$ and M theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. [18]{}, 4443 (2001) \[hep-th/0104081\]. P. C. West, “$E_{11}$, SL(32) and central charges,” Phys. Lett. B [575]{}, 333 (2003) \[hep-th/0307098\]. M. Fukuma, T. Oota and H. Tanaka, “Comments on T dualities of Ramond-Ramond potentials on tori,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [103]{}, 425 (2000) \[hep-th/9907132\]. S. F. Hassan, “SO(d,d) transformations of Ramond-Ramond fields and space-time spinors,” Nucl. Phys. B [583]{}, 431 (2000) \[hep-th/9912236\]. S. F. Hassan, “Supersymmetry and the systematics of T duality rotations in type II superstring theories,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [102]{}, 77 (2001) \[hep-th/0103149\]. E. Bergshoeff, R. Kallosh, T. Ortin, D. Roest and A. Van Proeyen, “New formulations of D = 10 supersymmetry and D8 - O8 domain walls,” Class. Quant. Grav. [18]{}, 3359 (2001) \[hep-th/0103233\]. L. Wulff, “Trivial solutions of generalized supergravity vs non-abelian T-duality anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B [781]{}, 417 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.07391 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Borsato and L. Wulff, “Marginal deformations of WZW models and the classical Yang-Baxter equation,” J. Phys. A [52]{}, no. 22, 225401 (2019) \[arXiv:1812.07287 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Lee and J. H. Park, “Covariant action for a string in “doubled yet gauged” spacetime,” Nucl. Phys. B [880]{}, 134 (2014) \[arXiv:1307.8377 \[hep-th\]\]. S. M. Ko, C. Melby-Thompson, R. Meyer and J. H. Park, “Dynamics of Perturbations in Double Field Theory & Non-Relativistic String Theory,” JHEP [1512]{}, 144 (2015) \[arXiv:1508.01121 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Morand and J. H. Park, “Classification of non-Riemannian doubled-yet-gauged spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. C [77]{}, no. 10, 685 (2017) Erratum: \[Eur. Phys. J. C [78]{}, no. 11, 901 (2018)\] \[arXiv:1707.03713 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Cho, K. Morand and J. H. Park, “Kaluza-Klein reduction on a maximally non-Riemannian space is moduli-free,” Phys. Lett. B [793]{}, 65 (2019) \[arXiv:1808.10605 \[hep-th\]\]. D. S. Berman, C. D. A. Blair and R. Otsuki, “Non-Riemannian geometry of M-theory,” JHEP [1907]{}, 175 (2019) \[arXiv:1902.01867 \[hep-th\]\]. A. A. Tseytlin, “Duality Symmetric Formulation of String World Sheet Dynamics,” Phys. Lett. B [242]{}, 163 (1990). A. A. Tseytlin, “Duality symmetric closed string theory and interacting chiral scalars,” Nucl. Phys. B [350]{}, 395 (1991). C. M. Hull, “A Geometry for non-geometric string backgrounds,” JHEP [0510]{}, 065 (2005) \[hep-th/0406102\]. C. M. Hull, “Doubled Geometry and T-Folds,” JHEP [0707]{}, 080 (2007) \[hep-th/0605149\]. N. B. Copland, “A Double Sigma Model for Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1204]{}, 044 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.1828 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Klimcik and P. Severa, “Open strings and D-branes in WZNW model,” Nucl. Phys. B [488]{}, 653 (1997) \[hep-th/9609112\]. C. M. Hull and R. A. Reid-Edwards, “Non-geometric backgrounds, doubled geometry and generalised T-duality,” JHEP [0909]{}, 014 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.4032 \[hep-th\]\]. R. A. Reid-Edwards, “Bi-Algebras, Generalised Geometry and T-Duality,” arXiv:1001.2479 \[hep-th\]. N. Mohammedi, “NonAbelian duality based on nonsemisimple isometry groups,” Phys. Lett. B [414]{}, 104 (1997) \[hep-th/9709071\]. M. J. Duff and J. X. Lu, “Duality Rotations in Membrane Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [347]{}, 394 (1990). D. S. Berman and M. J. Perry, “Generalized Geometry and M theory,” JHEP [1106]{}, 074 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.1763 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Hillmann, “$E_{7(7)}$ and d=11 supergravity,” arXiv:0902.1509 \[hep-th\]. D. S. Berman, H. Godazgar, M. J. Perry and P. West, “Duality Invariant Actions and Generalised Geometry,” JHEP [1202]{}, 108 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.0459 \[hep-th\]\]. D. S. Berman, M. Cederwall, A. Kleinschmidt and D. C. Thompson, “The gauge structure of generalised diffeomorphisms,” JHEP [1301]{}, 064 (2013) \[arXiv:1208.5884 \[hep-th\]\]. P. West, “E11, generalised space-time and equations of motion in four dimensions,” JHEP [1212]{}, 068 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.7045 \[hep-th\]\]. O. Hohm and H. Samtleben, “Exceptional Form of D=11 Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [111]{}, 231601 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.1673 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “$\eta$-symbols in exceptional field theory,” PTEP [2017]{}, no. 11, 113B01 (2017) \[arXiv:1708.06342 \[hep-th\]\]. C. D. A. Blair, E. Malek and J. H. Park, “M-theory and Type IIB from a Duality Manifest Action,” JHEP [1401]{}, 172 (2014) \[arXiv:1311.5109 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “Connecting M-theory and type IIB parameterizations in Exceptional Field Theory,” PTEP [2017]{}, no. 4, 043B05 (2017) \[arXiv:1701.07819 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Hatsuda and K. Kamimura, “SL(5) duality from canonical M2-brane,” JHEP [1211]{}, 001 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.1232 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Hatsuda and K. Kamimura, “M5 algebra and SO(5,5) duality,” JHEP [1306]{}, 095 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.2258 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Sakatani and S. Uehara, “Exceptional M-brane sigma models and $\eta$-symbols,” PTEP [2018]{}, no. 3, 033B05 (2018) \[arXiv:1712.10316 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Catal-Ozer, “Non-Abelian T-duality as a Transformation in Double Field Theory,” JHEP [1908]{}, 115 (2019) \[arXiv:1904.00362 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Catal-Ozer, “Duality Twisted Reductions of Double Field Theory of Type II Strings,” JHEP [1709]{}, 044 (2017) \[arXiv:1705.08181 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Catal-Ozer, “Massive deformations of Type IIA theory within double field theory,” JHEP [1802]{}, 179 (2018) \[arXiv:1706.08883 \[hep-th\]\]. [^1]: They are summarized as ${\mathcal G}_{MN}\equiv {\mathcal S}_{MN}-\frac{1}{2}\,{\mathcal S}\,{\mathcal H}_{MN} =0$. Here, the generalized Einstein tensor ${\mathcal G}_{MN}$ satisfies the Bianchi identity $\nabla^M {\mathcal G}_{MN}=0$ [@1507.07545], where $\nabla_M$ is the covariant derivative for the connection $\Gamma_{MNP}$. [^2]: We can easily show $f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{a}}}+f_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{a}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{b}}}=0$ and then the last condition can be expressed as $f_{[{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{d}}\,c_{{\mathrm{c}}]{\mathrm{d}}} = 0$. We can further rewrite the same condition as $\frac{1}{3}\,\iota_{v_{{\mathrm{a}}}}\iota_{v_{{\mathrm{b}}}}\iota_{v_{{\mathrm{c}}}}H_3 + \iota_{v_{[{\mathrm{a}}}}\,f_{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}]}{}^{{\mathrm{d}}}\,\hat{v}_{\mathrm{d}}=0$, which was used in [@1408.1715]. [^3]: They can also be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{a}}} - (c_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}} - f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{x}_{{\mathrm{c}}}) \, {A}^{\mathrm{b}}= v_{{\mathrm{a}}}^m\,\bigl(\EPSneg g_{mn}\, *D x^n + B_{mn}\,D x^n\bigr) + \tilde{v}_{{\mathrm{a}}m}\,D x^m\,,\end{aligned}$$ and reduce to the standard self-duality relation when $\tilde{v}_{\mathrm{a}}=0$ and $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}=0$. [^4]: Note that the invertibility is not ensured even in the Abelian case $f_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}{}^{{\mathrm{c}}}=0$. [^5]: According to [@1812.07287], a solution of GSE is a trivial solution (namely, it also satisfies the supergravity equations of motion with $I=0$) only when $\tilde{K}^m\equiv I^n\,B_{np}\,g^{pm}$ satisfies ${\pounds}_{\tilde{K}}g_{mn}=0$, ${\pounds}_{\tilde{K}}\Phi +(I+\tilde{K})^2 =0$, and ${{\mathrm{d}}}I_1 +\iota_{\tilde{K}}H_3 = 0$ ($I_1\equiv I^m\,g_{mn}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^n$), but they are not satisfied here. [^6]: For example, when $E_{mn}$ is invertible, we can easily check an equivalent expression ${\pounds}_{v_{\mathrm{a}}}E^{mn}= \tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{c}}}{}_{\mathrm{a}}\,v_{\mathrm{b}}^m \, v_{\mathrm{c}}^m$ by using the rewriting and $v_{\mathrm{c}}^m\,\partial_m\Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}= - (a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{a}}{}_{\mathrm{d}}\,(a^{-{{\mathpalette{\raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}})^{\mathrm{b}}{}_{\mathrm{e}}\,\tilde{f}^{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{e}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}$, which can be derived from (see [@hep-th/9710163]). [^7]: If we expand the right-invariant form as $\hat{{\mathcal P}} = {\mathcal P}^A{}_M\,{{\mathrm{d}}}x^M\,T_A$, we find that ${\mathcal P}^A{}_M$ is not an ${\text{O}}(n,n)$ matrix: $$\begin{aligned} ({\mathcal P}^A{}_M) = \begin{pmatrix} r^{\mathrm{a}}_m & \Pi^{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{b}}}\,a_{\mathrm{b}}{}^{\mathrm{c}}\,\tilde{r}_{\mathrm{c}}^m \\ 0 & a_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{b}}\,\tilde{r}_{\mathrm{b}}^m \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ [^8]: This is non-trivial, because in general the derivative ${\mathcal D}_A$ does not transform covariantly, ${\mathcal D}'_A \neq C_A{}^B\,{\mathcal D}_B$, which can be checked by performing the coordinate transformation $x'^M=x'^M(x)$ through . Therefore, at the present time, the covariance of ${\mathcal F}_A$ needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis. Of course, when $\bar{d}$ is constant, the covariance is manifest because ${\mathcal F}_A=0$ and ${\mathcal F}'_A=0$. [^9]: An explicit form of the operation $\mathbb{S}_h$ is given in Appendix \[app:DFT\]. [^10]: As pointed out in [@1811.12235], the matrix $C$ which connects two Manin triples may not be unique, and a different choice of $C$ may give a different background. We will use the matrices $C$ that are given in [@math/0202210]. [^11]: Originally, the indices $A,B$ in $T_A$ and $C_A{}^B$ run from $1$ to $2\,n$ ($n=3$ here), but we extend the matrix $C_A{}^B$ as in ; $T_A$ should then be understood as $(T_A)=(T_\alpha, T_{\mathrm{a}}, \tilde{T}^\alpha, \tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}})=(0, T_{\mathrm{a}}, 0, \tilde{T}^{\mathrm{a}})$. [^12]: We note that, in general, the parameterization should be carefully chosen such that the resulting twist matrix $U$ does not break the section condition. [^13]: In the string action , by adding a total-derivative term the Lagrangian multiplier was introduced with derivative ${{\mathrm{d}}}\tilde{x}_{\mathrm{a}}$ (see [@hep-th/9308154] for the Abelian case), but here we only discuss the classical equations of motion without investigating such a total-derivative term. [^14]: The explicit relation between $x^I$ and $x^M$ was determined in [@1701.07819]. [^15]: In GSE, the R–R fields have the dual-coordinate dependence as $A={\operatorname{e}^{-I^m\,\tilde{x}_m}}\bar{A}(x^m)$ and $F={\operatorname{e}^{-I^m\,\tilde{x}_m}}\bar{F}(x^m)$, and the relation $F=\bm{d}A$ reproduces $\bar{F}= {\operatorname{e}^{I^m\,\tilde{x}_m}}\bm{d}A = {{\mathrm{d}}}\bar{A}-\iota_I\bar{A}$. By considering $\{\bar{A},\,\bar{F}\}$ as the dynamical fields, we obtain the relation . See [@1703.09213] for more detail. [^16]: This can also be observed from the definition of the generalized Lie derivative $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\pounds}}_V {\lvert {F}\rangle} = \bigl(V^M\,\partial_M + \partial_M V_N \,\Gamma^{MN}\bigr)\,{\lvert {F}\rangle} + \frac{1}{2}\,\partial_M V^M \,{\lvert {F}\rangle}\,.\end{aligned}$$	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'A. S. Volostnov' title: 'On some double sums with multiplicative characters [^1] ' --- Annotation. [ We obtain a new upper bound for binary sums with multiplicative characters over variables belong to some sets, having small additive doubling. ]{} Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Let $p$ be a prime number, $\F_p$ be the prime field and $\chi$ be a nontrivial multiplicative character modulo $p$. In the paper we consider a problem of obtaining good upper bounds for the exponential sum $$\label{f:def_sum} \sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b) \,,$$ where $A,B$ are arbitrary subsets of the field $\F_p$. Exponential sums of such a type were studied by various authors, see e.g. [@Chang]–[@Kar2]. There is a well–known hypothesis on sums (\[f:def\_sum\]) which is called the graph Paley conjecture, see the history of the question in [@Chang] or [@Shkr_res], for example. Let $\delta>0$ be a real number, $A,B\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ be arbitrary sets with ${\left\| {A} \right\|}>p^{\delta}$ and ${\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^\delta$. Then there exists a number $\tau=\tau(\delta)$ such that for any sufficiently large prime number $p$ and all nontrivial characters $\chi$ the following holds $${\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}<p^{-\tau}{\left\| {A} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|} \,. \label{Paley}$$ Let us say a few words about the name of the hypothesis. The Paley graph is the graph $G(V,E)$ with the vertex set $V=\mathbb{F}_p$ and the set of edges $E$ such that $(a,b)\in E$ iff $a-b$ is a quadratic residue. To make the graph non–oriented we assume that $p\equiv1\pmod 4$. Under these conditions if one puts $B=-A$ in (\[Paley\]) and takes $\chi$ equal to the Legendre symbol then an interesting statement would follow, namely the size of the maximal clique in the Paley graph (as well as its independent number) grows slowly than $p^\delta$ for any positive $\delta$. Unfortunately, at the moment we know few facts about the hypothesis. An affirmative answer was obtained just in the situation ${\left\| {A} \right\|}>p^{\frac12+\delta}$, ${\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^{\delta}$, see [@Kar]—[@Kar2]. Even in the case ${\left\| {A} \right\|}\sim{\left\| {B} \right\|}\sim p^{\frac12}$ inequality (\[Paley\]) is unknown, see [@Kar2]. However, nontrivial bounds of sum (\[f:def\_sum\]) can be obtained for structural sets $A$ and $B$ with weaker restrictions for the sizes of the sets, see [@Chang], [@FI], [@Kar]. Thus, in paper [@Chang] Mei–Chu Chang proved such an estimate provided one of the sets $A$ or $B$ has small sumset. Recall that the [sumset]{} of two sets $X, Y \subseteq \mathbb{F}_p$ is the set $$X+Y = {\left\{ {x+y\,:\,x\in X, y\in Y} \right\}} \,.$$ Let $A,\,B\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ be arbitrary sets, $\chi$ be a nontrivial multiplicative character modulo $p$ and $K,\delta$ be positive numbers with $$\begin{gathered} {\left\| {A} \right\|}>p^{\frac49+\delta},\\ {\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^{\frac49+\delta},\\ {\left\| {B+B} \right\|}<K\|B\| \,.\end{gathered}$$ Then there exists $\tau=\tau(\delta, K)>0$ such that the inequality $${\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}<p^{-\tau}{\left\| {A} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}$$ holds for all $p>p(\delta, K)$. \[t:Chang\] In paper [@Shkr_Vol] Chang’s assumption ${\left\| {A} \right\|}>p^{\frac49+\delta},{\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^{\frac49+\delta}$ was refined. Let $A,\,B\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ be sets and $K,L,\delta > 0$ be numbers with $$\begin{gathered} {\left\| {A} \right\|}>p^{\frac{12}{31}+\delta},\\ {\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^{\frac{12}{31}+\delta},\\ {\left\| {A+A} \right\|}<K{\left\| {A} \right\|},\\ {\left\| {A+B} \right\|}<L{\left\| {B} \right\|}.\end{gathered}$$ Then for any nontrivial multiplicative character $\chi$ modulo $p$ one has $${\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}\ll\sqrt{\frac{L\log 2K}{\delta\log p}} \cdot {\left\| {A} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}$$ provided $p>p(\delta, K, L)$. In our paper we improve previous results and prove the following theorem. \[main\_theorem\] Let $A,\,B\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ be sets and $K,L,\delta > 0$ be numbers with $$\begin{gathered} \label{0}{\left\| {A} \right\|},{\left\| {B} \right\|}>p^{\frac13+\delta},\\ \label{1}{\left\| {A+A} \right\|}<K\|A\|,\\ \label{-1}{\left\| {B+B} \right\|}<L{\left\| {B} \right\|}.\end{gathered}$$ Then there exists $\tau=\tau(\delta, K)=\delta^2(\log 2K)^{-3+o(1)}$ such that the inequality $${\left\| {\sum_{\substack{a\in A,\,b\in B}}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}<p^{-\tau}{\left\| {A} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}$$ holds for all $p>p(\delta, K, L)$. Here $\chi$ is a nontrivial multiplicative character modulo $p$. It is interesting that our new approach does not allow to improve any bound for the ternary character sum from [@Shkr_Vol]. Definitions and notation {#definitions-and-notation .unnumbered} ======================== Recall that the (Minkowski) [sumset]{} of two sets $A$ and $B$ from the field $\mathbb{F}_p$ is the set $$A+B = {\left\{ {a+b\,:\,a\in A, b\in B} \right\}} \,.$$ In a similar way one can define the [difference]{} of two sets $A$ and $B$ as $$A-B = {\left\{ {a-b\,:\,a\in A, b\in B} \right\}};$$ Also for an arbitrary $g\in \mathbb{F}_p$ by $g+A$ denote the sumset ${\left\{ {g} \right\}}+A$. Besides, we denote $$[a,b]={\left\{ {i\in\mathbb{Z}\,:\,a{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}b} \right\}} \,.$$ Also we will use the [third moment of convolution]{} of set $A$, see [@Schoen_shkr] $$\E^{\times}_3(A) = {\left\| {{\left\{ {(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_1',a_2',a_3')\in A^6\,:\,a_1/a_1'=a_2/a_2'=a_3/a_3'} \right\}}} \right\|} \,.$$ [Generalized arithmetic progression of dimension $d$]{} is a set $P\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ of the form $$P=a_0+{\left\{ {\sum_{j=1}^dx_ja_j\,:\,x_j\in{\left[ {0,H_j-1} \right]}} \right\}} \,,\label{representation}$$ where $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_d$ are some elements from $\mathbb{F}_p$; $P$ is said to be [proper]{} if all of the sums in (\[representation\]) are distinct (in the case ${\left\| {P} \right\|}=\prod_{j=1}^d H_j$). For any set $A\subseteq \mathbb{F}_p$ such that ${\left\| {A+A} \right\|}{\leqslant}K{\left\| {A} \right\|}$ there is a generalized arithmetic progression $P$ of dimension $d$ containing $A$ such that $d{\leqslant}C(K)$ and ${\left\| {P} \right\|}{\leqslant}e^{C(K)}{\left\| {A} \right\|}$. Here $C(K) >0$ is a constant which depends on $K$ only but not on the set $A$. It is known that the constant $C(K)$ can be taken equal $C(K) = (\log 2K)^{3+o(1)}$, see [@Sanders_survey]. Also let us remind that a multiplicative character $\chi$ modulo $p$ is a homomorphism from $\mathbb{F}^{}_p$ into the unit circle of the complex plane. The character $\chi_0\equiv1$ is called trivial and the conjugate to a character $\chi(x)$ is the character $\overline{\chi}(x)=\overline{\chi(x)}=\chi(x^{-1})$. The order of a character $\chi$ is the least positive integer $d$ such that $\chi^d=\chi_0$. One can read about properties of multiplicative characters in [@Stepanov] or [@IK]. We need a variant of André Weil’s result (see Theorem 11.23 in [@IK]). Let $\chi$ be a nontrivial multiplicative character modulo $p$ of order $d$. Suppose that a polynomial $f$ has $m$ distinct roots and there is no polynomial $g$ such that $f=g^d$. Then $${\left\| {\sum_{x\in\mathbb{F}_p}\chi{\left( {f(x)} \right)}} \right\|}{\leqslant}(m-1)\sqrt p \,.$$ Also we will use the Hölder inequality. For any positive $p$ and $q$ such that $\frac1p+\frac1q=1$ one has $${\left\| {\sum_{k=1}^{n} x_ky_k} \right\|}{\leqslant}{\left( {\sum_{k=1}^n{\left\| {x_k} \right\|}^p} \right)}^{\frac1p}{\left( {\sum_{k=1}^n{\left\| {y_k} \right\|}^q} \right)}^{\frac1q} \,.$$ In particular, we have the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality $${\left( {\sum_{k=1}^{n}x_ky_k} \right)}^2{\leqslant}{\left( {\sum_{k=1}^nx_k^2} \right)}{\left( {\sum_{k=1}^ny_k^2} \right)} \,.$$ Some preliminary lemmas {#some-preliminary-lemmas .unnumbered} ======================= In paper [@Shkr2] the following result was proved. \[third\_energy\] Let $A\subset\F_p$. Suppose that $\|A\|^{11}\|A+A\|{\leqslant}p^8$. Then $$\E^{\times}_3(A)\ll\frac{\|A+A\|^{15/4}}{\|A\|^{3/4}}\log{\|A\|}.$$ \[system\_solution\] Suppose that $A,\,B\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ are any sets and $K,L$ are positive numbers such that $$\begin{gathered} {\left\| {A} \right\|},{\left\| {B} \right\|} < \sqrt p,\\ {\left\| {A+A} \right\|}<K\|A\|,\\ {\left\| {B+B} \right\|}<L{\left\| {B} \right\|}.\end{gathered}$$ Then the system of equations $$\begin{cases} \frac{b_1}a=\frac{b_1'}{a'}\\ \frac{b_2}a=\frac{b_2'}{a'} \end{cases} \label{system}$$ has $$\label{f:bound_E^t_3} O(K^{5/4}L^{5/2}\|A\|\|B\|^2\log p + \|A\|^2 \|B\|)$$ solutions in the variables $(a,a',b_1,b_1',b_2,b_2')\in A^2\times B^4$. Clearly, the number of trivial solutions, where $b_1=b_1'=b_2=b_2'=0$ and $a_1,a_2\in A$ are any numbers does not exceed ${\left\| {A} \right\|}^2$. Moreover the number of solutions, where $b_1=b_1'=0$ and $b_2'=\frac{a'b_2}{a}$ does not exceed ${\left\| {A} \right\|}^2{\left\| {B} \right\|}$ and this gives us the second term in (\[f:bound\_E\^t\_3\]). Below we will assume that all numerators in (\[system\]) are nonzero. For any $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p$ put $$\begin{gathered} f(\lambda) = {\left\| {{\left\{ {(a,a')\in A^2\,:\,\lambda = \frac a{a'}} \right\}}} \right\|} \,,\\ g(\lambda) = {\left\| {{\left\{ {(b,b')\in B^2\,:\,\lambda = \frac b{b'}} \right\}}} \right\|} \,.\end{gathered}$$ Further, the systems of the equations (\[system\]) can be rewritten in an equivalent form, namely, $$\frac{a}{a'}=\frac{b_1}{b_1'}=\frac{b_2}{b_2'} \,.$$ Whence the number of its solutions equals $\sum\limits_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}f(\lambda)g(\lambda)^2$. Estimating this sum by the Hölder inequality and applying Theorem \[third\_energy\], we complete the proof of the Lemma $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}f(\lambda)g(\lambda)^2{\leqslant}{\left( {\sum_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}f(\lambda)^3} \right)}^{\frac13}{\left( {\sum_{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_p}g(\lambda)^3} \right)}^{\frac23}=(\E^{\times}_3(A))^{\frac13}(\E^{\times}_3(B))^{\frac23}\ll\\ \ll\left(\frac{\|A+A\|^{15/4}}{\|A\|^{3/4}}\log{\|A\|}\right)^{\frac13}\left(\frac{\|B+B\|^{15/4}}{\|B\|^{3/4}}\log{\|B\|}\right)^{\frac23}{\leqslant}K^{5/4}L^{5/2}\|A\|\|B\|^2\log p.\end{gathered}$$ The conditions of Theorem \[third\_energy\] are met, as $\|A\|^{11}\|A+A\|{\leqslant}p^{\frac{11}2+1}{\leqslant}p^8$ and $\|B\|^{11}\|B+B\|{\leqslant}p^{\frac{11}2+1}{\leqslant}p^8$. Weil’s Theorem implies the following result, see Lemma 14 in paper [@Shkr_Vol]. \[davenport\] For any nontrivial character $\chi$, an arbitrary set $I\subset\mathbb{F}_p$ and a positive integer $r$ one has $$\sum_{u_1,u_2\in \mathbb{F}_p}{\left\| {\sum_{t\in I}\chi(u_1+t)\overline{\chi}(u_2+t)} \right\|}^{2r}< p^2{\left\| {I} \right\|}^rr^{2r}+4r^2p{\left\| {I} \right\|}^{2r} \,.$$ The proof of the main result {#the-proof-of-the-main-result .unnumbered} ============================ The beginning of the proof is similar to the arguments from [@Shkr_Vol]. We will assume that $\|A\|, \|B\| < \sqrt{p}$. According the Freiman structural theorem on sets with small doubling there is a generalized arithmetic progression $A_1=a_0+P\subseteq \mathbb{F}_p$ of the dimension $d$, where $$P={\left\{ {\sum_{j=1}^dx_ja_j\,:\,x_j\in{\left[ {0,H_j-1} \right]}} \right\}}$$ such that $$A\subset A_1$$ $$d{\leqslant}C(K)$$ $${\left\| {A_1} \right\|}<e^{C(K)}{\left\| {A} \right\|} \,.$$ Put $$\alpha=\frac{3\delta}{4d},\quad $$ r=1.$$ Take the interval $I={\left[ {1,p^\alpha} \right]}$ and the generalized progression $A_0$ of the dimension $d$ defined as $$A_0={\left\{ {\sum_{j=1}^dx_ja_j\,:\,x_j\in{\left[ {0,p^{-2\alpha}H_j} \right]}} \right\}} \,.$$ Clearly, $${\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\geqslant}p^{-2d\alpha}{\left\| {A_1} \right\|}{\geqslant}p^{-2d\alpha}{\left\| {A} \right\|} \label{2}$$ and $${\left\| {A_0+A_0} \right\|}{\leqslant}2^d{\left\| {A_0} \right\|} \,. \label{A0+A0}$$ Because $A_0I\subseteq {\left\{ {\sum\limits_{j=1}^dx_ja_j\,:\,x_j\in{\left[ {0,p^{-\alpha}H_j} \right]}} \right\}}$ and hence $$A-A_0I \subseteq {\left\{ {\sum\limits_{j=1}^dx_ja_j\,:\,x_j\in{\left[ {-p^{-\alpha} H_j, H_j} \right]}} \right\}}$$ we, clearly, get $$\label{A-A_0I} {\left\| {A-A_0I} \right\|}{\leqslant}{\left( {1+p^{-\alpha}} \right)}^d{\left\| {A_1} \right\|}{\leqslant}e^{C(K)}{\left( {1+p^{-\alpha}} \right)}^d{\left\| {A} \right\|}{\leqslant}e^{C(K)}2^d{\left\| {A} \right\|} \,.$$ Let us fix $x\in A_0, y\in I$ and estimate the sum $$\begin{gathered} {\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}{\leqslant}\sum_{a\in A}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}=\\ =\sum_{a\in A-xy}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B}\chi(a+b+xy)} \right\|}{\leqslant}\sum_{a\in A-A_0I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B}\chi(a+b+xy)} \right\|}.\label{9}\end{gathered}$$ The numbers $x\in A_0$, $y\in I$ can be taken in such a way that the last sum in (\[9\]) does not exceed the mean, whence $${\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,\, b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}{\leqslant}\frac1{{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {I} \right\|}}\sum_{\substack{a\in A-A_0I,\\ x\in A_0,\, y\in I}}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B}\chi(a+b+xy)} \right\|}. \label{rand}$$ Now having any fixed $a\in A-A_0I$, let us estimate the sum $$\sum_{x\in A_0,\, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B}\chi(a+b+xy)} \right\|}=\sum_{x\in A_0,\, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B_a}\chi(b+xy)} \right\|} \,.$$ Here we have denoted $B_a=a+B$. By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we get $$\begin{gathered} {\left( {\sum_{x\in A_0,\, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B_a}\chi(b+xy)} \right\|}} \right)}^2{\leqslant}\\ {\leqslant}{\left( {\sum_{x\in A_0,\, y\in I}1} \right)}{\left( {\sum_{x\in A_0,\, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B_a}\chi(b+xy)} \right\|}^2} \right)}=\\ ={\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {I} \right\|}{\left( {\sum_{\substack{x\in A_0,\, y\in I,\\ b_1,\, b_2\in B_a}}\chi(b_1+xy)\overline{\chi}(b_2+xy)} \right)}. \label{kbsh}\end{gathered}$$ For any pair $(u_1,u_2)\in\mathbb{F}^2_p$ put $$\nu(u_1,u_2)={\left\| {{\left\{ {(b_1,b_2,x)\in B_a^2\times A_0\,:\,\frac{b_1}x=u_1 \mbox{ и } \frac{b_2}x=u_2} \right\}}} \right\|} \,.$$ Then for any $x\neq 0$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{\substack{x\in A_0,\, y\in I,\\ b_1,b_2\in B_a}}\chi(b_1+xy)\overline{\chi}(b_2+xy)=\\ =\sum_{\substack{x\in A_0,\, y\in I,\\ b_1,b_2\in B_a}}\chi(b_1x^{-1}+y)\overline{\chi}(b_2x^{-1}+y)=\\ =\sum_{u_1,u_2\in\mathbb{F}_p^2}\nu(u_1,u_2)\sum_{y\in I}\chi(u_1+y)\overline{\chi}(u_2+y){\leqslant}\\ {\leqslant}{\left( {\sum_{u_1,u_2}\nu(u_1,u_2)} \right)}^{1-\frac1r} {\left( {\sum_{u_1,u_2}\nu(u_1,u_2)^2} \right)}^{\frac{1}{2r}} \times\\ \times {\left( {\sum_{u_1,u_2}{\left\| {\sum_{t\in I}\chi(u_1+t)\overline{\chi}(u_2+t)} \right\|}^{2r}} \right)}^{\frac1{2r}}. \label{main_esteem}\end{gathered}$$ The inequality in (\[main\_esteem\]) follows from the Hölder inequality and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. By Lemma \[davenport\] $$\begin{gathered} {\left( {\sum_{u_1,u_2}{\left\| {\sum_{t\in I}\chi(u_1+t)\overline{\chi}(u_2+t)} \right\|}^{2r}} \right)}^{\frac1{2r}}<{\left( {p^2{\left\| {I} \right\|}^rr^{2r}+4r^2p{\left\| {I} \right\|}^{2r}} \right)}^{\frac1{2r}}{\leqslant}\\ {\leqslant}r{\left\| {I} \right\|}^{\frac12}p^{\frac1r}+(2r)^{\frac1r}p^{\frac1{2r}}{\left\| {I} \right\|}{\leqslant}2rp^{\frac1{2r}}{\left\| {I} \right\|}\,.\label{3.22}\end{gathered}$$ The last inequality takes place because ${\left\| {I} \right\|}{\geqslant}p^{\frac1{r}}$ and $r{\geqslant}2$. Further note that $$\sum_{u_1,u_2\in \mathbb{F}_p}\nu(u_1,u_2)={\left\| {B} \right\|}^2{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}, \label{3.19}$$ and by Lemma \[system\_solution\], combining with inequalities (\[0\]), (\[1\]), (\[-1\]), (\[2\]) and (\[A0+A0\]), we obtain $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{u_1,u_2\in \mathbb{F}_p}\nu(u_1,u_2)^2=\\ ={\left\| {{\left\{ {(x,x',b_1,b_1',b_2,b_2')\in A_0^2\times B_a^4\,:\,\frac{b_i}x=\frac{b'_i}{x'}\text{ для $i=1,2$}} \right\}}} \right\|}\ll\\ \ll 2^{\frac{5d}4}L^{\frac52}{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {B_a} \right\|}^{2}\log p + \|A_0\|^2 \|B_a\| \ll\\ \ll {\left( {{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}^2} \right)}^{2}{\left( {2^{\frac{5d}4}L^{\frac52}{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}^{-1}{\left\| {B} \right\|}^{-2}\log p + {\left\| {B} \right\|}^{-3}} \right)}\ll\\ \ll{\left( {{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}^2} \right)}^{2}2^{\frac{5d}4}L^{\frac52}p^{2d\alpha-3{\left( {\frac13+\delta} \right)}}\log p=\\ = {\left( {{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}^2} \right)}^{2}2^{\frac{5d}4}L^{\frac52}p^{2d\alpha-3\delta-1}\log p \,. \label{3.20}\end{gathered}$$ Using estimates (\[kbsh\])—(\[3.20\]), we see that $${\left( {\sum_{x\in A_0, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B_a}\chi(b+xy)} \right\|}} \right)}^2\ll{\left( {{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {I} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}} \right)}^2r2^{\frac {5d}{8r}} L^{\frac{5}{4r}}p^{\frac{d\alpha}{r}-\frac{3\delta}{2r}}\log^{\frac1{2r}} p \,.$$ Because $\alpha = \frac{3\delta}{4 d}$ and hence $r{\geqslant}\frac1\alpha = \frac{4d}{3\delta}$ and $r{\leqslant}\frac1\alpha+1=\frac{4d+3\delta}{3\delta}{\leqslant}\frac{5d}{3\delta}$, we obtain further $${\left( {\sum_{x\in A_0, y\in I}{\left\| {\sum_{b\in B_a}\chi(b+xy)} \right\|}} \right)}^2 \ll{\left( {{\left\| {A_0} \right\|}{\left\| {I} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}} \right)}^2\frac d\delta L^{\frac{15\delta}{16d}}p^{-\frac{3\delta}{4r}}\log^{\frac1{2r}} p \,. \label{3.24}$$ Bound (\[3.24\]) takes place for any $a$ and thus inequalities (\[A-A\_0I\]), (\[rand\]) imply $$\begin{gathered} {\left\| {\sum_{a\in A,b\in B}\chi(a+b)} \right\|}\ll \sqrt{\frac d\delta} L^{\frac{15\delta}{32}}p^{-\frac{3\delta}{8r}}{\left\| {A-A_0I} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}\log^{\frac1{4r}} p\ll\\ \ll \sqrt{\frac d\delta} L^{\frac{15\delta}{32d}}2^de^{C(K)}p^{-\frac{9\delta^2}{40d}}{\left\| {A} \right\|}{\left\| {B} \right\|}\log^{\frac1{4r}} p \,. \label{final_inequality}\end{gathered}$$ The theorem follows from (\[final\_inequality\]) if one takes $\tau=\frac{\delta^2}{100 C(K)}$, for example. From inequality (\[final\_inequality\]) it is easy to find the quantity $p(\delta, K,L)$ in a precise way. Indeed, it is enough to choose $p$ such that $\log p \gg \frac{C^2(K)}{\delta^2}$, $\log p \gg \frac{C(K)}{\delta^2}\log{\frac1\delta}$ and $\log p \gg \frac{C(K) \log L }{\delta}$. It shows that we have subexponential dependence of the constants $K, L$ on $p$ in our theorem. \[p(d,K,L)\] [99]{} Duke Math. J. [145]{}:3 (2008), 409–442. Publ. Math. Debrecen, [2]{} (1952), 252–265. Soviet Math. Dokl., [44]{}:1 (1992), 145–148. Soviet Math. Dokl., [11]{} (1970), 235–236. Russ. Math. Surv., [63]{}:4 (2008), 43–92. Acta Arith., [164]{}:3 (2014), 221–244. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 2017, Vol. 296, pp. 265–279. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [119]{}, No 2, (1993), 265–372. J. of Number Theory, [133]{}:1693-1737, 2013. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), [50*]{}:1 (2013), 93–127. M.: Nauka, 1991. AMS Colloqium Publications, Vol 53 (2004). arxiv.org/abs/1702.01003. [A.S. Volostnov\ Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences,\ ul. Gubkina, 8, Moscow, Russia, 119991.]{}\ [[email protected]]{} [^1]: This work was supported by grant Russian Scientific Foundation RSF 14–11–00433.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics calculations of surfaces of Lennard-Jones systems often indicate, apart from a gradual disordering of the surface called surface melting, the presence of a phase transition at the surface, but cannot determine the nature of the transition. In the present paper, we provide for a link between the continuous Lennard-Jones system and a lattice model. We apply the method for the (001) surface of a Lennard-Jones fcc structure pertaining to Argon. The corresponding lattice model is a Body Centered Solid on Solid model with an extended range of interaction, showing in principle rough, flat and disordered flat phases. We observe that entropy effects considerably lower the strength of the effective couplings between the atoms. The Argon (001) face is shown to exhibit a phase transition at $T=70.5 \pm 0.5$ K, and we identify this transition as roughening. The roughening temperature is in good correspondence with experimental results for Argon.' address: \| Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Nijmegen,\ Toernooiveld, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands author: - 'Paul J. M. Bastiaansen[@paul] and Hubert J. F. Knops' title: 'Is surface melting a surface phase transition?' --- Introduction and motivation =========================== Surface melting, in particular of simple Lennard-Jones systems like Argon, is well understood as the wetting of the solid by its own melt. A liquid-like layer appears between the solid and the vapor, and the thickness of this layer increases with temperature. Theoretically, the phenomenon is described with a Landau theory[@Lipowsky82] and, more recently, using a Density Functional approach.[@Lowen94] It is clear that the atoms in the liquid-like layer between the bulk and the vapor are influenced by the presence of the underlying crystal. Therefore, the layer should be regarded as a quasi-liquid exhibiting properties that are intermediate between those of the solid and the bulk liquid. To decide upon surface melting in Molecular Dynamics calculations, one usually considers the behavior of an appropriate quantity like, e.g., the parallel integrated density $$\rho(z) = \int\text{d}x\text{d}y \; \rho({\bf r}) ,$$ where $z$ is the direction transversal to the interface, and $$\rho({\bf r}) = \sum_j \delta ({\bf r} - {\bf r}_j)$$ with $j$ running over all particle positions ${\bf r}_j$. This $\rho(z)$ shows sharp peaks in the bulk, while in the case of surface melting the peaks broaden when $z$ approaches the interface. The onset of the quasi-liquid layer then can be defined, more or less arbitrarily, by a suitable broadening of the peaks. In the case of complete surface melting, the thickness $l$ of the quasi-liquid layer diverges as the temperature approaches the triple point temperature $T_3$ of the bulk. As follows from the wetting theory in the case of Lennard-Jones systems, the thickness of the layer increases with temperature as a power law, and this is experimentally confirmed.[@Zhu86] The wetting theory concentrates on this parameter $\rho(z)$ but cannot give information concerning the atomic structure in the few top layers when the triple point $T_3$ is approached. Specifically, one could ask whether the top layer does exhibit a genuine surface phase transition at a temperature $T_c < T_3$. It is possible that the phenomenon of surface melting is a gradual process of the thickening of the quasi-liquid layer, with no surface phase transition at all. But since the wetting theory fails to detect a genuine two-dimensional transition, it could well be that surface melting is accompanied by a surface phase transition which takes place at a temperature lower than the triple point temperature. Such a transition could either be a roughening transition, involving the transversal degrees of freedom, or a two-dimensional ‘melting’ transition involving the in-plane degrees of freedom. The connection between surface melting and possible surface phase transitions is as yet not understood. One of the difficulties in addressing this question is the definition of a suitable order parameter. Clearly, the parallel integrated density cannot be an order parameter. Van der Eerden [et al.]{}[@Eerden90; @Eerden92; @Eerden93] proposed the surface shear modulus as an order parameter for a surface phase transition accompanying surface melting. In a Monte Carlo simulation of the (001) face of a Lennard-Jones fcc structure, they found indications for such a transition, but, as is in general the case with such calculations, no information regarding the nature of this transition was obtained. It is this question we want to address in this paper. At the outset it should be clear that a ‘melting’ transition associated with the lateral degrees of freedom of the top layer cannot be a two-dimensional melting transition of the Nelson-Halperin-Young type.[@Halperin78; @Nelson79; @Young79; @Strandburg88] This is because the bulk under the top layer provides a substrate potential which is commensurate to the top layer. Such a potential is known[@Halperin78; @Jose77] to be relevant in the renormalization group sense. It is therefore more appropriate to adopt a lattice model, with the lattice dictated by the substrate. Judging from the Monte Carlo data from simulations on Lennard-Jones interfaces well below the triple point,[@Eerden92; @Eerden93; @Broughton83b] neglecting overhangs and vacancies is not a serious approximation. Accepting this approximation, one arrives at a Solid On Solid (SOS) model. It is by now well known that, if one allows for more than nearest neighbor interactions, the phase diagram of these SOS models can be very rich.[@Bernasconi93] Possible phase transitions include roughening,[@Nolden87] preroughening,[@DenNijs87] and deconstruction.[@Villain88] The preroughening and deconstruction transitions are from a flat or reconstructed phase into a so-called Disordered Flat (DOF) phase, in which the surface is disordered but remains flat on average. Typically such a transition can occur when the next nearest neighbor couplings become strong as compared to the nearest neighbor couplings. The couplings in the lattice model are effective couplings to be calculated from the original continuous Lennard-Jones system. In the context of lattice models, one usually just estimates the values of the couplings, e.g. by counting the ‘broken bonds’. In deriving a lattice model from the continuous Lennard-Jones system, however, one should integrate the continuous degrees of freedom, thereby obtaining effective couplings which typically contain a gain term due to the increased potential energy (the broken bond), but also a loss term due to an increase of entropy, since a particle in a cell adjacent to a vacant cell has more freedom to move. This effect lowers in particular the strength of the nearest neighbor coupling. It is the goal of the present work to actually calculate the effective couplings for a lattice model, pertaining to the (001) surface of a Lennard-Jones fcc structure, and to analyze this model. In this way we can determine the nature of a possible transition at this interface, which is not feasible with Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics calculations. We use a Lennard-Jones potential appropriate for Argon, calculate the effective couplings of the corresponding lattice model by integrating the continuous degrees of freedom of the Lennard-Jones system, and analyze the resulting SOS model.\ This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[outline\] we describe the method used to arrive at the lattice model, starting from the Lennard-Jones system. In Sec. \[stepenergies\] we carry out the calculations and present the results. In Sec. \[latticemodel\] we give a description of the SOS model that pertains to the (001) interface and present the phase diagram of the model. We end with a conclusion. Several checks, validating the approximations and testing the procedures, are addressed in the Appendix. Outline of the method {#outline} ===================== Deriving the lattice model from the continuous Lennard-Jones system requires a number of steps. First we have to establish a cell description of the surface. We notice from the simulations of Broughton and Gilmer[@Broughton86] that there is a considerable range of temperatures up to about 75 K where the top layer of the (001) face shows already an irregular pattern while the atoms in all other layers are close to their average positions and still behave as bulk atoms. Note that the triple point of Argon found by Broughton and Gilmer is at $T_3=82.7$ K (compared to the experimental value[@Flubacher61] of $T_3 = 83.810$ K). Concentrating on a temperature range up to $T=75$ K, it is a good approximation to neglect correlations between the top layer and the bulk, thus treating the bulk in a mean field manner. We use Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the average bulk lattice distance $a(T)$ as a function of temperature. This distance $a(T)$ then defines the cell dimensions of the surface cells. For the (001) face, these cells are rectangular blocks with dimension $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2}\;a(T)$ centered around the average atom position. The height of the cell is chosen such that the average potential at the top of the cell is negligible. As the substrate potential is caused by layers under the surface which, as follows from the calculations of Broughton and Gilmer, behave as bulk layers, we can calculate the substrate potential, present in the cells, in a bulk simulation. Having defined the cells with the substrate potential, we can evaluate the effective (temperature dependent) couplings in the lattice model, arising from the continuous Lennard-Jones system. Therefore we choose several different surface configurations with some cells occupied and some empty, and calculate the corresponding free energies by integrating the continuous degrees of freedom of the atoms in their cells. Comparing this free energy with the free energy of the fully occupied surface, we arrive at a lattice model of the (001) surface, with the only degrees of freedom left being discrete and describing whether or not an atom is present on its site. In this way one can arrive in principle at an exact representation of the continuous system as a lattice model, but in practice one only considers effective couplings extending over a limited range. Instead of sticking to the language of atom-atom couplings, we will express the energy of a configuration in terms of elementary step and kink configurations at the surface. Limiting the range of the couplings to the next-nearest neighbor distance, the four elementary step and kink configurations are those depicted in Fig. \[vertices\]. We calculate the free energies of nine different surface configurations and express the free energies as good as possible in terms of the vertex free energies $F_1$ to $F_4$. The accuracy of this match gives an estimate of the error in neglecting couplings with a range beyond the next-nearest neighbor distance. The nine different configurations are chosen to fit on a strip of $3\times\infty$ cells which is periodically repeated. This makes it possible to find their surface free energies by a transfer matrix method. The final step in the procedure is to analyze the resulting SOS model. Actually the appropriate SOS model for a (001) face of an fcc structure is the Body Centered Solid On Solid (BCSOS) model, which is directly related to the six vertex model[@VanBeijeren77] with an extended range of the interactions. A section of the phase diagram of this model has recently been investigated by us[@Wij95] showing that the inclusion of next nearest neighbor interactions indeed is capable of stabilizing a DOF phase. We use the same method as described in this reference to explore the occurrence of a two-dimensional phase transition along the temperature path from 50 K up to 75 K in the phase diagram. Effective step energies {#stepenergies} ======================= We derive the BCSOS model from the continuous Lennard-Jones system by calculating the (temperature dependent) effective step energies $F_1$ to $F_4$ from Fig. \[vertices\]. The system under study is a Lennard-Jones fcc structure pertaining to Argon. The precise potential we use is the same as that used in Ref. , $$V(r) = 4.569 \varepsilon \left[ \left( \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) ^ {-12} - \left( \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) ^ {-6 } \right] \exp\left( \frac{0.25\sigma}{r-2.5\sigma} \right) \text{~~for~~} r < 2.5 \sigma, \label{LJ}$$ and vanishes for $r \geq 2.5\sigma$. To model Argon, the following values are used: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\varepsilon}{k} &= 119.8~\text{K} \\ \sigma &= 0.33~\text{nm}.\end{aligned}$$ These values define the scale of our calculations, and can be used to transfer the numerical results in terms of reduced units. As our calculations particularly pertain to Argon, we choose to express the results in terms of SI units. Bulk simulations, used for establishing the cell description of the surface, are treated in Sec. \[bulksim\]. In Sec. \[transfermatrix\], we use a transfer matrix method to calculate the effective step free energies. Results are presented in Sec. \[results\] Bulk simulations {#bulksim} ---------------- This section deals with computing the effective substrate potential to which the surface atoms are subject. The substrate potential arises from the bulk. The main assumption regarding this section is that there are only two types of atoms: bulk atoms and surface atoms. Surface atoms are those in the top layer; the remainder are bulk atoms. The assumption is that atoms close to the surface are not affected by the surface; the substrate potential in the surface layer thus is dictated exclusively by the behavior of the bulk and can be determined in a bulk simulation. Therefore we define a bulk system, consisting of 972 atoms in an fcc configuration with periodic boundary conditions in every direction. It is oriented such that a (001) layer of the configuration lies horizontally. We choose one (001) layer of atoms from this configuration. The substrate potential at a certain point in this layer now arises from all atoms [under]{} this layer. Extracting the desired potential pattern consists of three steps: first we have to compute the equilibrium volumes of the system at several temperatures and fixed external pressure. In a next simulation, we fix this equilibrium volume and compute the average positions of each of the atoms. These average positions together with the equilibrium lattice parameter determines the cells corresponding to each of the atoms. These cells are rectangular blocks, and the center of the cell is the averaged position of the corresponding atom. We can now rerun the second simulation (i.e. generating the same configurations), but now with the average atom positions known beforehand. In the cells, we compute the average substrate potential pattern arising from all atoms [under]{} the layer where the cell is part of. As, due to translational invariance, all cells are equivalent, we can average all measured potential patterns, thus giving rise to one average pattern in a cell. This pattern is the desired substrate potential. We do calculations in the temperature range of 50 to 75 K, still well below the triple point of Argon. We will use an external pressure $P=0$ for our simulations, which is, strictly spoken, not correct, as we do have to consider the system in equilibrium with its vapor. The vapor pressure, however, will be very low, and the properties of a solid are relatively insensitive to pressure. We regard choosing $P=0$ as a good approximation. The results of the volume calculations, expressed as nearest neighbor distances and compared to those of Broughton and Gilmer,[@Broughton83a] are shown in Fig. \[nndistances\] and show a close correspondence. The thermal cubic coefficient of expansion $\alpha$ is given by $$\alpha = \frac{1}{V} \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial T} \right)_P.$$ We find at $T=60$ K a value of $\alpha = 2.15\times 10^{-3}\text{~K}^{-1}$, as compared to the result of Broughton and Gilmer[@Broughton83a] calculated from their polynomial fit of the nearest neighbor distance, $\alpha = 2.04\times 10^{-3}\text{~K}^{-1}$, and the result of Van der Eerden [et al.]{},[@Eerden93] $\alpha = 1.95\times 10^{-3}\text{~K}^{-1}$. Note that Broughton and Gilmer use a slightly different Lennard-Jones potential. Having carried out the volume measurements, we can start measuring the potential pattern. We perform the simulations with a fixed volume $V$, and fix this volume at its equilibrium value as described above. In the first simulation, we calculate the average position of all atoms to determine the centers of the cells. During the simulation, we store the generated configurations which we used for measurements, in order to use them again in the next simulation. Then we define in every cell a fine grid consisting of $21 \times 21 \times 21$ points, at which we measure the average potential. In course of our simulations, it turned out that we had to extend the grid above the cell, because we wanted to measure the potential up to a height where it becomes negligible. The defined grid therefore has a height of 3/2 of the height of the bulk cell. In the simulation, we use the already stored configurations. We measure the substrate potential in each of the 9261 points of the grid, and average over all cells. During the simulation, we have to check whether the cell picture makes sense. It does, provided the atoms remain in their cell during the simulation. We check this for all atoms, and it turns out that not a single atom moves out of its cell. As expected, the fluctuations in the potential are relatively large, which means that we have to simulate long. We used 800 measurements, with 3000 generated configurations between each measurement. Transfer matrix calculations {#transfermatrix} ---------------------------- The first step in our procedure, the determination of the substrate potential pattern, has now been carried out. We will use this potential pattern as a mean field, to which the surface atoms are subject. However, we have to check whether this mean field approximation makes sense, and indeed will do so using different methods. The checks will be treated in the Appendix. Our task is to integrate the continuous degrees of freedom of the surface atoms in their cells. We will do this using a transfer matrix calculation, which, in principle, gives exact results. We have, however, to discretize as a continuous integration is not possible. If we choose a surface in which one row consists of $N$ cells with $L$ grid points per cell, the dimension of the transfer matrix is $L^N \times L^N$. The boundary conditions are periodic: the row is closed at the ends. The substrate potential pattern consists of 9261 points, which means that now $L=9261$. This yields a much too large dimension of the transfer matrix. Therefore, we have to reduce drastically the number of points $L$. We choose $L=25$ and $N=3$, yielding a linear dimension of the transfer matrix $L^N=15625$. We will distribute the 25 points in the cell as efficiently as possible, by choosing the grid points unevenly distributed in the cell and making the pattern two-dimensional. Both approximations, reducing the number of points and making the grid two-dimensional, will be validated. The Hamiltonian of our surface system is $$H = \sum_i V_{\text{subs}}( {\bf r}_i ) + \sum_{i,j} V_{\text{LJ}}( \|{\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j\| ),$$ where the indices run over all particles, $V_{\text{subs}}$ is the substrate potential and $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is the Lennard-Jones potential from Eq. (\[LJ\]). $V_{\text{LJ}}$ is cut off such that only nearest and next nearest neighbors interact; otherwise the transfer matrix dimension increases. Making the grid two-dimensional means that we ignore the dependence of $V_{\text{LJ}}( \|{\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j\| )$ on $z_i$ and $z_j$. The $z$ integration can then be done directly in the partition function. This is done by just adding all potential patterns with different $z$ coordinates, and multiplying the corresponding Boltzmann weights by the height of the grid. Then we choose the $L=25$ grid points as efficiently as possible. The idea is as follows: the lower the Boltzmann weight in a certain point of the cell, the less relevant is the corresponding area in the partition function, so the distribution can be less dense in that area. On the other hand, points have to be dense in those areas where the Boltzmann weights are high. Grosso modo this means that the distribution of points should be more dense in the center of the cell and less dense towards the edges. We choose the location of the points according to Fig. \[pointdistr\]. The figure depicts the two-dimensional cell with 25 points, each point being in its corresponding domain. The points are in the middle (the ‘center of mass’) of their domain. The domains are defined by the three variables $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\phi$. We choose the grid points as in the figure, and we assign a Boltzmann weight to each of the domains. Consider one domain with the original (dense) grid points being in it. To obtain the correct Boltzmann weight, we first determine the average potential $V$ in that domain, calculate the corresponding Boltzmann weight $W=\exp (-V)$ and multiply this with the area of the domain. This is the Boltzmann weight we are going to use in the transfer matrix calculation. To obtain the most efficient distribution of points, we fix the variables $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\phi$ such that the Boltzmann weights multiplied by their corresponding area, are (almost) equal to each other. A lower Boltzmann weight then automatically corresponds to a larger domain, and the resulting weights are equally relevant. Theoretically, they are all exactly equal so we could leave them out, but in practice we do not succeed in fixing the parameters such that the weights are exactly equal, so we choose to leave them where they are. The calculated coordinates of the 25 grid points, together with the associated Boltzmann weights, are used as input for the transfer matrix calculations. We calculate the free energy of several different surface configurations, each consisting of occupied and empty cells. We choose them such as to have much variety in the configurations, and we choose them overcomplete for determining the vertex free energies $F_1$ to $F_4$ from Fig. \[vertices\]. The configurations we choose are depicted in Fig. \[confs\], where the pictures are understood to extend to infinity at the right and left ends. The ‘rows’ of the transfer matrix are depicted vertically; the direction of transfer is horizontal. We have to define a different transfer matrix for each different pair of rows; transferring from a row with, say, three occupied cells to a row with two occupied cells corresponds to a transfer matrix with dimension $25^3 \times 25^2$. Let us define the different transfer matrices by, for example, $T(110\|111)$, where the digits refer to the cells. A digit 0 indicates that the corresponding cell is empty, a 1 that it is occupied. So $T(110\|111)$ is the transfer matrix between a left row having its lower two cells occupied, and a right row having all cells occupied. Note that none of the transfer matrices is symmetric and that most of them are not even square matrices. First we calculate the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_{\text{max}}$ and the corresponding left and right eigenvectors $\langle\psi\|$ and $\|\psi\rangle$ of the ‘full’ transfer matrix $T(111\|111)$. The free energy of one particle in a fully occupied surface is $F=-\frac{1}{3}\ln \lambda_{\text{max}}$. Now the partition function of, say, configuration number 9 in Fig. \[confs\] is $$Z = \frac{1}{\lambda_{\text{max}}^2} \; \langle\psi\| \; T(111\|101) \: T(101\|010) \: T(010\|111) \; \|\psi\rangle .$$ The eigenvectors are normalized as $\langle\psi\|\psi\rangle=1$. Note that we divide by $\lambda_{\text{max}}^2$, because we want to subtract the free energy of a fully occupied surface consisting of precisely as many atoms as configuration number 9. Similar expressions are used for the other surface configurations. By calculating $F=-\ln Z$ we now have the free energies of all different surface configurations. We want to express those free energies in terms of step configurations at the surface. The step configurations we use are those possible at a vertex (the meeting point of four cells) and are depicted in Fig. \[vertices\]. The fifth possible vertex is the vertex with no steps; it carries free energy 0. The nine free energies of the surface configurations of Fig. \[confs\] are redundant for determining the values of the free energies $F_1$ to $F_4$. We calculate $F_j$ using a best fit method. Re-expressing the free energies of the nine surface configurations in terms of these vertex free energies indicates the quality of the fit. Ideally, the $F_j$ obey the following equation $$\sum_{j=1}^{4} T_{ij} F_j = A_i \label{fit}$$ where $A_i, i=1\ldots 9$ is the free energy of surface configuration number $i$ and $T_{ij}$ expresses the number of times vertex $j$ appears in configuration number $i$, that is $$\tilde{T} = \pmatrix{ 6&8&8&6&6&2&4&4&2 \cr 0&2&2&4&0&4&4&2&0 \cr 0&2&2&0&4&4&4&4&4 \cr 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&1&2 } .$$ As argued before, the nine surface configurations are redundant for determining the free energies $F_j$, so Eq. (\[fit\]) will have no solution. We will determine the $F_j$ from this equation by introducing an error vector $\varepsilon_i, i=1\ldots 9$ by $$\sum_{j=1}^{4} \frac{T_{ij}F_j}{A_i} = 1 + \varepsilon_i .$$ The components of $\varepsilon_i$ describe the relative error of expressing the free energy of configuration number $i$ in terms of the vertex free energies $F_j$. Minimizing $\|\bbox{\varepsilon}\|^2$ with respect to the vertex energies by solving $$\frac{\partial \|\bbox{\varepsilon}\|^2}{\partial F_j} = 0$$ yields the best values for $F_j$. Results ------- The resulting values for $F_1$ to $F_4$ are plotted in Fig. \[freeenergies\]. It turns out that expressing the surface free energies in terms of only these elementary configurations works well; the average percentual difference between the actual free energy and the free energy in terms of the $F_j$ is about 1.2%, the maximum difference is 2.5%. In lattice models, one usually estimates the interaction parameters by the energy of a broken bond. This energy is, in our case, the value of the Lennard-Jones potential at the equilibrium distance. One thus neglects the entropy gain that corresponds to the increased freedom of the moving atom. To see the strength of this effect, we choose one of the surface configurations, say configuration number 7, and plot its energy calculated from the broken bonds together with the actual free energy which results from our transfer matrix calculations. The plot is shown in Fig. \[conf7\]. There turns out to be a considerable difference in the actual free energy and the energy calculated by counting the broken bonds. This difference is precisely the entropy which the atoms gain by moving in the cell, and, as expected, it increases with temperature. To visualize the quality of the fit method described above, we also plot (in Fig. \[conf7\]) the free energy of the configuration, but now re-expressed in terms of the vertex free energies $F_j$ from Fig. \[vertices\]. We see from the figure that expressing the free energy of the configuration in terms of the vertex energies is appropriate. We conclude that it is sufficient to consider only the vertex configurations 1 to 4, and that we do not need to consider more complex step configurations. Finally, we want to check an hypothesis. We expected that the decrease in free energy of the surface with increasing temperature is mainly due to the increasing lattice parameter, and that it has little to do with the changing substrate potential pattern. Cell dimensions increase with temperature, which means that the atoms gain freedom and therefore entropy, while the potential pattern flattens a little but remains more or less the same. We can check this hypothesis by scaling the potential pattern at $T=50$ K to the cell dimensions at $T=70$ K, and calculating the free energies of the surface configurations. The results are tabulated in table \[checktable\]. We conclude that the increase of free energy with temperature can be explained for 98% by the increasing cell dimensions, and for roughly 2% by the flattening of the potential pattern. This confirms our hypothesis. The lattice model {#latticemodel} ================= We will now briefly discuss the lattice model following from our calculations. The model pertains to the (001) surface of an fcc crystal, which means that neighboring atoms always differ $\pm\frac{1}{2}a$ in height. A typical surface configuration is depicted in Fig. \[surface\]. The resulting lattice model is a BCSOS model, which can be mapped on a six vertex model.[@VanBeijeren77] Consider a square lattice, where an arrow is placed on each of the bonds satisfying the so-called ice rule, which states that the number of incoming arrows at each vertex equals the number of outgoing arrows. The six possible arrow combinations at a vertex are depicted in Fig. \[6vertex\]. The rule for assigning heights to the lattice sites is that, when looking in the direction of an arrow, the higher atom is on the right. Fixing then the height of one of the sites, a vertex configuration is uniquely mapped onto a surface height configuration. The ice rule guarantees that the mapping is single valued. The six vertex model in its original formulation assigns an energy to each of the six vertices, and has been completely solved.[@Baxter82] In our case, using the configurations and energies of Fig. \[vertices\], we have to take into account interactions between the vertices, which means that there is no exact solution of our model present. The energies which we assign to vertex configurations are visualized in Fig. \[loops\], and result in a four-vertex interaction. Compare this figure to Fig. \[vertices\]. The model can be analyzed with transfer matrix calculations and standard analysis of Finite Size Scaling.[@Nightinale82] In another paper,[@Wij95] we analyze a section of the phase diagram of this BCSOS model and show that it contains in particular both a rough and a DOF phase. For a detailed account of the calculations we refer to this reference. Here, we apply the same method to determine the behavior of the Argon (001) surface, following from the values of the $F_j$ in Fig. \[freeenergies\], but average the free energies $F_2$ and $F_3$ applying to inside and outside corners. Inequality of $F_2$ and $F_3$ breaks the particle-hole symmetry and cannot be present for a two body potential. The broken symmetry is present here because of entropy effects, which introduce effective many-body couplings. The effect will be to smear out the transition[@DenNijs90] but we neglect the difference here and use $(F_2+F_3)/2$. Our Finite Size Scaling analysis shows that the model exhibits a roughening transition at $T=70.5 \pm 0.5$ K. Below this temperature, the surface is flat on average, with only now and then islands bounded by up or down steps. At higher temperatures, these islands start to grow, eventually diverging at the roughening temperature, where the step free energy vanishes. In the more general analysis of the phase diagram of this BCSOS model, we assigned a Boltzmann weight $W$ to a broken next nearest neighbor bond and a weight $K$ to a broken third nearest neighbor bond. Note that nearest neighbors always differ $\pm\frac{1}{2}a$ in height. The phase diagram of the model is depicted in Fig. \[phase\]. In terms of $W$ and $K$, the $F_j$ would be $$\begin{aligned} \beta F_1 &=& -\ln( WK^2 ) \\ \beta F_2 &=& -\ln( WK ) \\ \beta F_3 &=& -\ln( WK ) \\ \beta F_4 &=& -\ln( W^2 ) .\end{aligned}$$ The values of $F_j$ that follow from our calculations of course can not be exactly expressed in terms of $W$ and $K$; we would need a higher dimensional parameter space. However, the phase diagram gives an indication of where the Argon (001) surface is located with respect to the DOF and the rough phase. The dotted line in the phase diagram roughly corresponds to this location.\ We stress that in this way we are actually able to predict a surface phase transition of a continuous Lennard-Jones system, and to identify this transition as roughening, whereas determination of the nature of the transition is not possible in direct Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics calculations on the continuous system. Zhu and Dash[@Zhu86] performed heat capacity measurements on thick Argon films adsorbed on graphite. They observed, apart from surface melting, weak, rounded anomalies at $T=68$ K, which they identified tentatively as roughening. Roughening is accompanied by a small peak in the heat capacity, which lies somewhat below the actual roughening temperature $T_{\text{R}}$. Our value $T_{\text{R}} =70.5 \pm 0.5$ K is in good agreement with the peak in the heat capacity at $T=68$ K. Van der Eerden [et al.]{}[@Eerden93] performed Monte Carlo simulations on the (001) face of a Lennard-Jones fcc structure, and observed the vanishing of the surface shear modulus at $T=64\pm 2$ K. Regarding the difficulties in determining this temperature, due to the fact that the way in which the shear modulus vanishes is not known, and judging from their figures, we find the roughening temperature $T_{\text{R}}$ as found by us in correspondence with their findings. Conclusions =========== We studied the (001) face of a Lennard-Jones fcc structure, particularly pertaining to Argon. Direct Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics simulations of such systems do indicate the presence of surface phase transitions, but cannot unambiguously determine the nature of such a transition; the appropriate way to do so is to use a discrete lattice model. Therefore we provided for a link between the continuous Lennard-Jones system and the corresponding lattice model, which is, in this case, a BCSOS model. We describe a method to calculate the effective interaction constants in the lattice model, arising from the Lennard-Jones interaction, and carried out the calculations for (001) surface. We observed that entropy effects, arising from the gain in freedom of an atom adjacent to a vacancy, considerably lower the interaction constants. The BCSOS model is shown to exhibit a roughening transition at $T=70.5 \pm 0.5$ K, which is in good agreement with experimental results for Argon. Several checks on the approximations used for the calculations are dealt with in the Appendix. We note that the approximations allow for an estimate of their accuracy. In this way one can, when more accurate numerical data are required, give a quantitative estimate of the effect of the approximations and build in corrections. The method described in this paper can be applied to other systems and other surfaces as well. For the (110) surface of an fcc structure, the same BCSOS model applies, albeit with different values of the couplings. We stress that the phase diagram of the BCSOS model shows, apart from a flat and a rough phase, also a Disordered Flat phase. It may be possible, applying the method for the (110) surface, to determine a preroughening transition from the flat into the Disordered Flat phase.\ In the case of the (001) face of a fcc Lennard-Jones system, surface melting, a disordering of the surface layers judged from correlation functions, layer occupation etc., is shown to be accompanied by a genuine surface phase transition, which is a roughening transition in this particular case. A precise, atomic-scale definition of surface melting is required to further examine the interplay between the disordering process and the possibility of surface phase transitions. We thank Jan van der Eerden for discussions and for providing the program [simlib]{}, used to carry out the Monte Carlo simulations. {#section .unnumbered} Several additional calculations, validating the approximations we made, have been performed and will be treated in this Appendix. The most important approximations arise from the transition from three dimensional to two dimensional, and from the reduction of the number of points in a cell. Free energy of the bulk ----------------------- First we want a general check on all approximations. The method we followed for calculating the surface free energies, including all approximations, can also be used for calculating the free energy of the bulk and consequently the vapor pressure, which can be compared with experimental values for Argon. We do this as follows. Consider a (001) layer in the bulk. This layer is subject to two substrate potential patterns as calculated in Sec. \[bulksim\]; one from below, and one from above. These two potential patterns are exactly those we calculated already. Using those two patterns as the potential pattern in a bulk (001) layer, we can apply the transfer matrix to obtain the bulk free energy. The bulk free energy is then obtained using all approximations we used for calculating the surface free energy, that is, treating the potential pattern in a mean field approximation, treating the cells as two-dimensional and drastically reducing the number of grid points in the cell. The full partition function of the bulk system consisting of $N$ atoms is $$Z_{\text{bulk}} = \frac{1}{h^{3N}} \int d^3\bbox{p}_j \exp\left( -\frac{\beta\bbox{p}^2}{2m} \right) \;Z_{\text{conf}}, \label{partfunc}$$ where $h$ is Planck’s constant. Note that we do not need correct Boltzmann counting; the particles can be identified by their cells. The first part of this expression is the trivial kinetic part of the energy, the second part is the configurational part which equals $$Z_{\text{conf}} = \lambda_{\text{max}}^{N/3},$$ where $\lambda_{\text{max}}$ is the largest eigenvalue of the transfer matrix with the bulk potential pattern. Note that this eigenvector pertains two a row with three atoms in it; hence the factor $N/3$. Note also that $\lambda_{\text{max}}^{1/3}$ has the dimension of a volume. The kinetic part of Eq. (\[partfunc\]) is easily integrated. Substituting the appropriate values (Argon has a mass of 39.948 atomic units), gives the Helmholtz free energy which equals the Gibbs free energy $G$ because $P=0$, so $$\frac{\beta G}{N} = -\frac{3}{2} \ln \left( \frac{2\pi m}{\beta h^2} \right) -\frac{1}{3} \ln \lambda_{\text{max}} .$$ The Gibbs free energy per particle equals the chemical potential $\mu$. The vapor, being very sparse, behaves as an ideal gas and has a chemical potential $\mu$, $$\beta\mu = \ln ( \lambda^3 \beta P ) ,$$ where $P$ is the vapor pressure and $\lambda$ the thermal wavelength, $$\lambda = \sqrt{\frac{h^2\beta}{2\pi m}}.$$ We plot the Gibbs free energy together with the experimental values,[@handbook] calculated from the vapor pressure, in Fig. \[gibbs2\]. Regarding the fact that all approximations are present in the plot, the correspondence is remarkable. Cluster calculations -------------------- We will now check the error arising from going from a three dimensional, dense grid of points to a two dimensional grid consisting of 25 points in the cells. We use a cluster calculation of a small configuration of particles at the surface. In this configuration, we fix all particles at their equilibrium positions, except for one. This particle is moving through its cell in the field of the others. We choose the two configurations depicted in Fig. \[cluster\]; in Fig. \[cluster\](a) all cells are occupied, in Fig. \[cluster\](b) there is a step present. The central particle in both of the figures is the particle that moves. We calculate the free energy of both configurations in two ways: the first using the full three dimensional potential pattern consisting of $21 \times 21 \times 21$ points. In the second calculation, the pattern is first averaged over its vertical coordinate, thus consisting of $21 \times 21$ points. To obtain an indication of the step free energy, we divide the potential by two, as it should in a cluster calculation. Results are plotted in Fig. \[clusterfig\], showing that the averaging hardly has any effect. Note that the difference between the two plots (a) and (b) indicates the step free energy. Compare this with the step free energies plotted in Fig. \[freeenergies\], notably the values for $F_1$. It follows that a cluster calculation still overestimates the step energy. Next we test the effect of sparsing the grid. We calculate the free energy of the configuration in Fig. \[cluster\](a), but now using the transfer matrix with the grid consisting of 25 points. For comparison, we plot the results together with the exact calculation. The plot is shown in Fig. \[clustrans\], showing that sparsing the grid is a reasonable approximation. Note that we used the full potential in this calculation, whereas the calculation from Fig. \[clusterfig\] is done with the potential divided by two.\ We conclude, from both checks, that within a reasonable accuracy, the approximations used are valid. e-mail [[email protected]]{}. R. Lipowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [49]{}, 1575 (192); R. Lipowsky and W. Speth, Phys. Rev. B [28]{}, 3983 (1983). For a review, see H. Löwen, Phys. Rep. [237]{}, 249 (1994). D. Zhu and J. G. Dash, Phys. Rev. Lett. [57]{}, 2959 (1986). J. P. van der Eerden, A. Roos, and J. M. van der Veer, J. Cryst. Growth [99]{}, 77 (1990). J. P. van der Eerden, H. J. F. Knops, and A. Roos, J. Chem. Phys. [96]{}, 714 (1992). J. P. van der Eerden, T. H. M. van den Berg, J. Huinink, and H. J. F. Knops, J. Cryst. Growth [128]{}, 57 (1993). B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [41]{}, 121 (1978); E [41]{} 519 (1978). D. R. Nelson and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [19]{}, 2457 (1979). A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [19]{}, 1855 (1979). For a review, see K. J. Strandburg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [60]{}, 161 (1988). J. V. José, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B [16]{}, 1217 (1977). J. Q. Broughton and G. H. Gilmer, J. Chem. Phys. [79]{}, 5105, (1983); [79]{}, 5119 (1983). M. Bernasconi and E. Tosatti, Surf. Sci. Rep. [17]{}, 363 (1993). H. van Beijeren and I. Nolden, in [Structure and Dynamics of Surfaces II]{}, edited by W. Schommers and P. Von Blanckenhagen (Springer, Heidelberg, 1987). K. Rommelse and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [59]{}, 2578 (1987); M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, Phys. Rev. B [40]{}, 4709 (1987). J. Villain and I. Vilfan, Surf. Sci. [199]{}, 165 (1988); I. Vilfan and J. Villain, Surf. Sci. [257]{}, 368 (1991). J. Q. Broughton and G. H. Gilmer, J. Chem. Phys. [84]{}, 5749 (1986). P. Flubacher, A. J. Leadbetter, and J. A. Morrison, Proc. Phys. Soc. London [78]{}, 1449 (1961). H. van Beijeren, Phys. Rev. Lett. [38]{}, 993 (1977). P. J. M. Bastiaansen and H. J. F. Knops, Phys. Rev. B (to be published). J. Q. Broughton and G. H. Gilmer, J. Chem. Phys. [79]{}, 5095 (1983). See, e.g., R. J. Baxter, [Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1982). See, e.g., P. Nightingale, J. Appl. Phys. [53]{}, 7927 (1982). M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [64]{}, 435 (1990). Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 62nd edition, Eds. R. C. Weast and M. J. Astle, CRC Press Florida (1981-1982). --------------- -------- ------------- ------------- ------ Vertex number 50 K 70 K actual 70 K scaled % 1 1.4180 0.8133 0.8219 98.6 2 1.1322 0.6314 0.6390 98.5 3 0.9814 0.5048 0.5130 98.3 4 1.6028 0.7848 0.8018 97.9 --------------- -------- ------------- ------------- ------ : Comparison of the vertex free energies $F_j$ in units of $kT$ at $T=50$ K and $T=70$ K. The second and third columns show the actual free energies of the vertices 1 to 4. In the fourth column, the same free energies are calculated, but now using the potential pattern at $T=50$ K scaled to the cell dimensions of $T=70$ K. The last column shows the relative contribution of the increased cell dimensions to the total effect. It follows that the decrease of free energy with increasing temperature is for roughly 98% due to the increasing cell dimensions, and for 2% to the flattening potential pattern.[]{data-label="checktable"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite, transitive graph, and consider Bernoulli bond percolation on $G$. In recent work, we conjectured that if $G$ is nonamenable then the matrix of critical connection probabilities $T_{p_c}(u,v)=\P_{p_c}(u\leftrightarrow v)$ is bounded as an operator $T_{p_c}:L^2(V)\to L^2(V)$ and proved that this conjecture holds for several classes of graphs, including all transitive, nonamenable, Gromov hyperbolic graphs. In notation, the conjecture states that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, where for each $q\in [1,\infty]$ we define $p_{q\to q}$ to be the supremal value of $p$ for which the operator norm $\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}$ is finite. We also noted in that work that the conjecture implies two older conjectures, namely that percolation on transitive nonamenable graphs always has a nontrivial nonuniqueness phase, and that critical percolation on the same class of graphs has mean-field critical behaviour. In this paper we further investigate the consequences of the $L^2$ boundedness conjecture. In particular, we prove that the following hold for all transitive graphs: i) The two-point function decays exponentially in the distance for all $p<p_{2\to 2}$; ii) If $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, then the critical exponent governing the extrinsic diameter of a critical cluster is $1$; iii) Below $p_{2\to 2}$, percolation is “ballistic" in the sense that the intrinsic (a.k.a. chemical) distance between two points is exponentially unlikely to be much larger than their extrinsic distance; iv) If $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, then $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \asymp (q-1)^{-1}$ and $p_{q\to q}-p_c \asymp q-1$ as $q\downarrow 1$. v) If $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, then various ‘multiple-arm’ events have probabilities comparable to the upper bound given by the BK inequality. In particular, the probability that the origin is a trifurcation point is of order $(p-p_c)^3$ as $p \downarrow p_c$. All of these results are new even in the Gromov hyperbolic case. Finally, we apply these results together with duality arguments to compute the critical exponents governing the geometry of intrinsic geodesics at the uniqueness threshold of percolation in the hyperbolic plane. author: - 'Tom Hutchcroft[^1]' title: The $L^2$ boundedness condition in nonamenable percolation --- Introduction ============ Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite graph and let $p\in [0,1]$. In Bernoulli bond percolation, we independently declare each edge of $G$ to either be open or closed, with probability $p$ of being open, and let $G[p]$ be the subgraph of $G$ formed by deleting every closed edge and retaining every open edge. The connected components of $G[p]$ are referred to as clusters. We are particularly interested in phase transitions, which occur when qualitative features of $G[p]$ change abruptly as $p$ is varied through some critical value. The two most interesting such phase transitions occur at the critical probability, which is defined to be $$p_c=p_c(G)=\inf\bigl\{p\in [0,1]: G[p] \text{ has an infinite cluster a.s.}\bigr\},$$ and the uniqueness threshold, which is defined to be $$p_u=p_u(G)=\inf\bigl\{p\in [0,1]: G[p] \text{ has a unique infinite cluster a.s.}\bigr\}.$$ Many of the most interesting questions in percolation theory concern the behaviour of percolation at and near these critical values. Historically, percolation was studied primarily on Euclidean lattices such as the hypercubic lattice $\Z^d$. In this case, Aizenman, Kesten, and Newman [@MR901151] proved that there is at most one infinite cluster and hence that $p_c=p_u$. An alternative proof of the same fact was later found by Burton and Keane [@burton1989density]. In their celebrated paper [@bperc96], Benjamini and Schramm proposed a systematic study of percolation on general quasi-transitive graphs, that is, graphs for which the action of the automorphism group on the vertex set has at most finitely many orbits. (In other words, graphs for which ‘there are only finitely many different types of vertices’.) They made the following conjecture. \[conj:pcpu\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph. Then $p_c(G)<p_u(G)$ if and only if $G$ is nonamenable. Here, a graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to be nonamenable if there exists a positive constant $c$ such that $\|\partial_E K\| \geq c \sum_{v\in K} \deg(v)$ for every finite set of vertices $K$ in $G$, where $\partial_E K$ denotes the set of edges with one endpoint in $K$ and one in $V\setminus K$. Both proofs of uniqueness in $\Z^d$ can be generalized to show that $p_c(G)=p_u(G)$ for every amenable quasi-transitive graph, so that only the ‘if’ direction of \[conj:pcpu\] is open. While various special cases of \[conj:pcpu\] have now been verified [@MR1756965; @Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc; @1804.10191; @MR1833805; @BS00; @MR1614583; @MR2221157; @MR3009109], it remains completely open in general. We refer the reader to [@grimmett2010percolation; @1707.00520; @heydenreich2015progress] for background on percolation, and to [@Haggstrom06] and the introduction of [@1804.10191] for a survey of progress on \[conj:pcpu\] and related problems. \[conj:pcpu\] is closely related to understanding critical exponents in percolation on nonamenable graphs. It is strongly believed that critical percolation on nonamenable transitive graphs has mean-field behaviour. Roughly speaking, this means that critical percolation on a nonamenable transitive graph should behave similarly to critical branching random walk on the same graph. In particular, one expects that various critical exponents exist and take the same value as on a $3$-regular tree, so that for example we expect that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf E}_p\|K_v\| &\asymp (p_c-p)^{-1} &p &\uparrow p_c, \label{exponent:gamma} \\ {\mathbf P}_{p}\left(\|K_v\|=\infty\right) &\asymp p-p_c &p &\downarrow p_c, \text{ and} \label{exponent:theta} \\ {\mathbf P}_{p_c}\left( \|K_v\| \geq n\right) & \asymp n^{-1/2} &n&\uparrow \infty, \label{exponent:volume}\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is a vertex, $K_v$ is the cluster of $v$, and we write $\asymp$ to denote an equality that holds up to positive multiplicative constants in the vicinity of the relevant limit point. A well-known signifier of mean-field behaviour is the triangle condition, which is said to hold if $$\nabla_{p_c}(v) := \sum_{u,w}{\mathbf P}_p(v \leftrightarrow u){\mathbf P}_p(u \leftrightarrow w){\mathbf P}_p(w \leftrightarrow v) < \infty$$ for every vertex $v$ of $G$. The triangle condition was introduced by Aizenman and Newman [@MR762034], and has subsequently been shown to imply that various exponents exist and take their mean-field values [@MR762034; @MR1127713; @MR923855; @MR2551766; @MR2748397; @Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc]. In particular, if $G$ is a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph that satisfies the triangle condition then the estimates , , and all hold for every vertex $v$ of $G$. (The lower bounds of , , and hold on every quasi-transitive graph [@aizenman1987sharpness; @MR762034].) See [@grimmett2010percolation Chapter 10] and [@Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc Section 7] for an overview of the relevant literature. The following conjecture is widely believed. \[conj:triangle\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph. Then $\nabla_{p_c}(v)<\infty$ for every $v\in V$. As with \[conj:pcpu\], this conjecture is known to hold in a variety of special cases [@MR1756965; @Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc; @1804.10191; @MR1833805; @BS00; @MR1614583; @kozma2011percolation] but remains completely open in general. Some much weaker unconditional results on the critical behaviour of percolation in the nonamenable setting have however been recently been obtained in [@hutchcroft2018locality]. In the Euclidean context, the triangle condition is believed to hold on $\Z^d$ if and only if $d>6$, and was proven to hold for large $d$ in the milestone work of Hara and Slade [@MR1043524]. The record is now held by Fitzner and van der Hofstad [@fitzner2015nearest], who proved that it holds for all $d \geq 11$. It is reasonable to conjecture that the triangle condition holds on every transitive graph of at least seven dimensional volume growth; nonamenability should be greatly surplus to requirements. In our recent work [@1804.10191], we made the following strong quantitative conjecture which implies both \[conj:pcpu,conj:triangle\]. Let $\tau_p(u,v)$ be the probability that $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G[p]$, which is known as the two-point function. Given a non-negative matrix $M\in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$ indexed by the vertices of $G$ and $p,q\in [1,\infty]$, we define $\\|M\\|_{p\to q}:=\sup\{ \\|Mf\\|_q / \\|f\\|_p : f \in L^p(V), f(v) \geq 0$ $\forall v\in V \}$, i.e., the norm of $M$ as an operator from $L^p(V)$ to $L^q(V)$. Let $T_p\in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$ be the two-point matrix defined by $T_p(u,v)=\tau_p(u,v)$, and define the critical values $$p_{q\to q}=p_{q\to q}(G) = \sup\bigl\{ p\in [0,1] : \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} <\infty\bigr\}.$$ It is easily seen that $\\|T_p\\|_{1\to 1}=\\|T_p\\|_{\infty\to \infty} = \sup_{v\in V} \sum_{u\in V} \tau_p(v,u)=\sup_{v\in V} {\mathbf E}_p \|K_v\|$, and therefore by sharpness of the phase transition [@aizenman1987sharpness; @duminil2015new] that $p_c(G)=p_{1\to 1}(G)=p_{\infty\to\infty}(G)$ for every quasi-transitive graph $G$. \[conj:pcp22\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph. Then $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$. It is shown in [@1804.10191] that \[conj:pcp22\] is implied by the weaker statement that $\\| T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2} <\infty$, and implies the stronger statement that $p_c(G)<p_{q\to q}(G)$ for every $q\in (1,\infty)$; a quantitative version of this fact is given in \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]. As a heuristic justification of \[conj:pcp22\], we note that if $G$ is a quasi-transitive graph then the the two-point function of the critical branching random walk on $G$ (which coincides with the simple random walk Greens function) is bounded as an operator on $L^2(V)$ if and only if $G$ is nonamenable [@Woess Theorem 10.3]. Thus, \[conj:pcp22\] is predicted by the general philosophy that, in the high-dimensional context, critical percolation should behave similarly to critical branching random walk. \[conj:pcp22\] is known to hold in most of the special cases in which either \[conj:pcpu\] or \[conj:triangle\] had been established. Indeed, the proofs that $p_c<p_u$ holds under various perturbative assumptions such as small spectral radius [@MR1756965], large Cheeger constant [@MR1833805], or high girth [@MR3005730] also implicitly yield the stronger claim that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ under the same assumptions. In particular, it can be deduced from the work of Pak and Smirnova-Nagnibeda [@MR1756965] that every finitely generated nonamenable group has a Cayley graph for which $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, which lends very strong evidence that the conjecture is true in general. As for non-perturbative results, it is now know that \[conj:pcp22\] holds under the additional assumption that $G$ is either Gromov hyperbolic [@1804.10191] or has a quasi-transitive nonunimodular subgroup of automorphisms [@Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc]. The latter condition holds, for example, if $G=T_k \times H$ is the Cartesian product of a regular tree of degree $k\geq 3$ with a quasi-transitive graph $H$. A notable exception is given by groups of cost $>1$, which are known to have $p_c<p_u$ [@MR2221157; @MR3009109] but are not known to have $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ or to satisfy the triangle condition at $p_c$. (As a modest first step in this direction, one could try to prove $p_c<p_{2\to2}$ for infinitely-ended transitive graphs.) In this paper, we further explore the consequences of \[conj:pcp22\]. We find in particular that \[conj:pcp22\] has various very strong consequences that are not known to follow from \[conj:pcpu\] or \[conj:triangle\] alone. Our results can briefly be summarized as follows: 1. \[thm:p2to2pexp\]: If $p<p_{2\to 2}$, then the two-point function $\tau_p(u,v)$ is exponentially small in the graph distance $d(u,v)$. Thus, if $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ then this property holds for both critical and slightly supercritical percolation. 2. \[thm:ext\_radius\]: If $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, then the critical exponent governing the extrinsic radius of clusters is $1$. That is, the probability that the cluster of the origin in $G[p_c]$ reaches distance at least $n$ in $G$ is of order $n^{-1}$. This is not known to follow from the triangle condition even under the assumption of nonamenability. 3. \[thm:ballistic\]: If $p<p_{2\to 2}$, then the clusters of $G[p]$ are ‘ballistic’ in the following sense: For any two vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$, conditioned on $u$ and $v$ being connected in $G[p]$, the intrinsic distance $d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)$ between $u$ and $v$ in $G[p]$ is exponentially unlikely to be much longer than $d(u,v)$. Moreover, for fixed $u$, the random variable $\sup \{ d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) / d(u,v) : v \leftrightarrow u\}$ has an exponential tail. 4. \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]: If $p_c<p_{2\to2}$, then we have the asymptotic estimates $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \asymp (q-1)^{-1}$ and $p_{q\to q}-p_c \asymp q-1$ as $q\downarrow 1$. This can be used to deduce various strong quantitative estimates on critical and slightly supercritical percolation. 5. \[thm:multibody,thm:multiarm\]: If $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ then the probabilities of various ‘multiple arm’ events are of the same order as the upper bound given by the BK inequality. In particular, we deduce that if $G$ is transitive then the probability that the origin is a trifurcation point is of order $(p-p_c)^3$ as $p\downarrow p_c$ (\[cor:furcations\]). Finally, we apply some of the results above together with duality arguments to study the critical behaviour of percolation at the uniqueness threshold $p_u$ on nonamenable, quasi-transitive, simply connected planar maps (e.g. tesselations of the hyperbolic plane), which are always Gromov hyperbolic [@MR3658330] and hence have $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ by the results of [@1804.10191]. In particular, we prove the following. 1. If $G$ is a nonamenable quasi-transitive simply connected planar map, then the probability that two neighbouring vertices are connected in $G[p_u]$ but have intrinsic distance at least $n$ is of order $n^{-1}$ (excluding pairs of vertices for which there are local obstructions that make the probability trivially equal to zero). We have organized the paper textbook-style into several short sections, each of which contains a complete treatment of one or more of the topics above. We will assume that the reader is familiar with Fekete’s subadditive lemma, the Harris-FKG inequality, the BK inequality, Reimer’s inequality, and Russo’s formula, referring them to [@grimmett2010percolation Chapter 2] otherwise. Exponential decay of the two-point function {#sec:extrinsic_decay} =========================================== In this section we study the consequences of the $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ condition for the decay of the two-point function. Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph. We say that $G$ has exponential connectivity decay at $p$ if the quantity $$\xi_p := -\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log \sup\Bigl\{\tau_p(u,v) : d(u,v)\geq n\Bigr\}$$ is positive. That is, $\xi_p$ is maximal such that for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $C_{p,{\varepsilon}}<\infty$ such that $$\tau_{p}(u,v) \leq C_{p,{\varepsilon}} \exp\Bigl[- (\xi_p -{\varepsilon})\cdot d(u,v)\Bigr]$$ for all vertices $u$ and $v$ in $G$. Following [@MR1833805], we define the exponential connectivity decay threshold to be $$p_\mathrm{exp}=p_\mathrm{exp}(G) = \sup\Bigl\{p \in [0,1] : G \text{ has exponential connectivity decay at $p$} \Bigr\}.$$ It is clear that $p_\mathrm{exp}\leq p_u$ when $G$ is quasi-transitive, and it is known that this inequality is strict in some examples, such as the free product $\Z^2 * (\Z/2\Z)$, and saturated in others, such as trees. It is also classical that $p_c(G)\leq p_\mathrm{exp}(G)$ for every quasi-transitive graph $G$, see [@grimmett2010percolation Chapter 6]. The following conjecture is widely believed among experts but does not seem to have appeared in print. See [@MR1833805 Open Problems 3.1 and 3.2] for further related problems. \[conj:pcpexp\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive, nonamenable graph. Then $p_c(G)<p_\mathrm{exp}(G)$. Perturbative proofs of $p_c<p_u$ typically also implicitly yield the stronger result $p_c<p_\mathrm{exp}$, and the previously mentioned papers [@MR1833805; @bperc96; @MR1756965; @MR3005730] all yield that $p_c<p_\mathrm{exp}$ for the graphs they consider. The most notable non-perturbative result is due to Schonmann [@MR1888869], who proved that $p_\mathrm{exp}=p_u$ for transitive, one-ended, nonamenable, planar graphs. Besides this, Schramm proved that for any transitive, unimodular, nonamenable graph, the critical two-point function is exponentially small in the distance for some pairs of vertices, namely, the endpoints of a random walk have this property with high probability. See [@kozma2011percolation] for Schramm’s proof and [@Hutchcroft2016944; @1712.04911; @1804.10191] for related results. Our first result verifies \[conj:pcpexp\] under the assumption that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$. In particular, applying the results of [@1804.10191; @Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc], we deduce that the conjecture holds under the additional assumption that the graph in question is either Gromov hyperbolic or has a quasi-transitive nonunimodular subgroup of automorphisms. \[thm:p2to2pexp\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph. Then $p_{2\to 2}(G)\leq p_\mathrm{exp}(G)$. Let us mention again that Cayley graphs of groups of cost $>1$ are known to have $p_c<p_u$ [@MR2221157; @MR3009109] but are not known to have $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ or $p_c<p_\mathrm{exp}$. The proof of \[thm:p2to2pexp\] yields the quantitative bound $$\tau_p(u,v)\leq 2\\|T_p\\|_{2\to 2} \exp\left[ - \frac{d(u,v)}{ e \\|T_p\\|_{2\to 2}} \right]$$ for every $u,v \in V$ and $0<p<p_{2\to 2}$. The proof is an ‘$L^q$ version’ of the usual proof that there is exponential connectivity decay when the susceptibility is finite [@grimmett2010percolation Theorem 6.1]. Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph, let $p\in [0,1]$ and $n\geq 0$, and consider the symmetric matrices $C_{p,n},S_{p,n} \in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$ defined by[^2] $$C_{p,n}(u,v) = \tau_p(u,v) \mathbbm{1}(d(u,v)\geq n) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad S_{p,n}(u,v) = \tau_p(u,v) \mathbbm{1}(d(u,v) = n).$$ \[thm:p2to2pexp\] will be deduced from the following proposition. \[prop:expdecay\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph. Then for every $q\in [1,\infty]$ and $0\leq p <p_{q\to q}(G)$ there exists $\eta_{p,q}>0$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} = \inf_{n\geq 1} \frac{1}{n} \log \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} = -\eta_{p,q}.$$ Moreover, $\eta_{p,q}$ satisfies $\eta_{p,q}\geq e^{-1}\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}^{-1}$ when $0<p<p_{q\to q}(G)$. We begin with the following simple consequence of the BK inequality. Given two matrices $M,N \in [-\infty,\infty]^{V^2}$, we write $M {\preccurlyeq}N$ if $M(u,v)\leq N(u,v)$ for every $u,v \in V$. Note that if $M,N \in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$ and $M{\preccurlyeq}N$ then $\\|M\\|_{q\to q}\leq \\|N\\|_{q\to q}$ for every $q\in [1,\infty]$. \[lem:SCsubmult\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph. Then $$\label{eq:SCBK2} C_{p,n+m} {\preccurlyeq}C_{p,m}S_{p,n}$$ for every $p\in [0,1]$ and $n,m\geq 0$. Suppose that $u,v \in V$ have $d(u,v)\geq n+m$. On the event that $u$ is connected to $v$ in $G[p]$, there must exist $w$ with $d(u,w)=n$ such that the disjoint occurrence $\{u\leftrightarrow w\}\circ\{w \leftrightarrow v\}$ occurs, and such a $w$ must have $d(w,v)\geq m$ by the triangle inequality. Indeed, simply take some simple path from $u$ to $v$ in $G[p]$, and take $w$ to be the first vertex with $d(u,w)=n$ that this path visits. Summing over the possible choices of $w$ and applying the BK inequality yields the claim. Since $S_{p,n}{\preccurlyeq}C_{p,n}$ for every $n\geq 0$, \[lem:SCsubmult\] implies that $\\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}$ satisfies the submultiplicative inequality $\\|C_{p,n+m}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}\\|C_{p,m}\\|_{q\to q}$, and applying Fekete’s Lemma we deduce that $$\eta_{p,q} =- \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} = -\inf_{n\geq0} \frac{1}{n}\log \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}$$ is well-defined when $0<p<p_{q\to q}$. It remains to prove that $\eta_{p,q}>0$ for $0\leq p< p_{q\to q}$. Let $n,m\geq 0$ and let $0<p <p_{q\to q}$. Noting that $C_{p,\ell}{\preccurlyeq}C_{p,r}$ whenever $\ell \geq r$ and applying , we obtain that $$C_{p,n+m} {\preccurlyeq}\frac{1}{m+1}\sum_{r=0}^m C_{p,n+r} {\preccurlyeq}\frac{1}{m+1} C_{p,n}\sum_{r=0}^m S_{p,r} {\preccurlyeq}\frac{1}{m+1} C_{p,n} T_p,$$ and hence that $$\\|C_{p,n+m}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \frac{\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}}{m+1} \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}.$$ Applying this bound inductively and using that $C_{p,0}=T_p$ we deduce that $$\\|C_{p,kn}\\|_{q\to q}\leq \left[\frac{\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}}{n+1}\right]^k\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}$$ for every $k,n\geq 0$, and hence that $$\eta_{p,q}\geq \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{n+1}{\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}}$$ for every $n\geq 1$. Taking $n=\lceil e\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}\rceil -1$ completes the proof. Note that we also obtain the explicit bound $$\label{eq:extdecayexplicit} \\|C_{p,r}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} \exp\left[ - \left\lfloor \frac{r}{e \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}}\right\rfloor \right] \leq 2 \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} \exp\left[ - \frac{r}{e \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}} \right].$$ (We have bounded $e^{1/e}$ by $2$ for aesthetic reasons.) Let $u,v\in V$ be such that $d(u,v)\geq n$, let $q\in [1,\infty]$, and let $0<p<p_{q\to q}$. Then we have by Hölder’s inequality that $$\tau_p(u,v) = \langle C_{p,n} \mathbbm{1}_u, \mathbbm{1}_v \rangle \leq \\|C_{p,n}\mathbbm{1}_u\\|_q \\|1_v\\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}} \leq \\|C_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}.$$ It follows that $\xi_p \geq \eta_{p,q} \geq e^{-1} \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}^{-1} >0$ for every $0<p<p_{q\to q}(G)$. Cluster ballisticity and the extrinsic radius exponent {#sec:intrinsic_decay} ====================================================== We now turn to our results concerning cluster ballisticity and the extrinsic radius exponent. We begin by discussing the extrinsic radius exponent. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite graph and let $p\in [0,1]$. Let $d$ denote the graph distance on $G$, and let $d_\mathrm{int}$ denote the graph distance on the subgraph $G[p]$, where we set $d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)=\infty$ if $u$ and $v$ are in different clusters. The extrinsic radius $\operatorname{rad}(K_v)$ of the cluster of $v$ in $G[p]$ is defined to be $\sup\{d(v,u) : u \in K_v\}$, while the intrinsic radius $\operatorname{rad}_\mathrm{int}(K_v)$ is defined to be $\sup\{d_\mathrm{int}(v,u) : u \in K_v\}$. As discussed in the introduction, mean-field theory predicts that critical percolation on sufficiently high-dimensional quasi-transitive graphs (say, of at least seven-dimensional volume growth) resembles the trace of a critical branching random walk on the graph. Many of the specific predictions suggested by this heuristic are known to hold for any quasi-transitive graph satisfying the triangle condition. For example, Barsky and Aizenman [@MR1127713] showed that in this case $$\P_{p_c}\bigl(\|K_v\|\geq n \bigr) \asymp n^{-1/2},$$ and Kozma and Nachmias [@MR2551766] showed that $$\label{eq:KNint} \P_{p_c}\bigl(\operatorname{rad}_\mathrm{int}(K_v)\geq n \bigr) \asymp n^{-1}$$ (Some parts of the proof of Kozma and Nachmias were specific to $\Z^d$, see [@Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc Section 7] for an adaptation to general quasi-transitive graphs satisfying $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$.) These exponents are the same as those governing a critical Galton-Watson tree of finite variance, which arises as the genealogical tree of a critical branching random walk. Determining the tail of the extrinsic radius is a more subtle matter, since it varies from graph to graph even in the mean-field regime and therefore cannot be deduced from the triangle condition alone: on a regular tree of degree at least three we have that extrinsic and intrinsic distances coincide and hence that $\P_{p_c}\bigl(\operatorname{rad}(K_v)\geq n \bigr)=\P_{p_c}\bigl(\operatorname{rad}_\mathrm{int}(K_v)\geq n \bigr) \asymp n^{-1}$, while for high-dimensional Euclidean lattices it was proven in the breakthrough work of Kozma and Nachmias [@MR2748397] that $\P_{p_c}\bigl(\operatorname{rad}(K_v)\geq n \bigr) \asymp n^{-2}$. Intuitively, the difference between these two exponents is explained by the fact that simple random walk is ballistic on the tree and diffusive on $\Z^d$. Since random walk is ballistic on every quasi-transitive nonamenable graph, it is reasonable to conjecture that $\P_{p_c}\bigl(\operatorname{rad}(K_v)\geq n \bigr) \asymp n^{-1}$ for every such graph. Our next result verifies this conjecture under the assumption that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$. \[thm:ext\_radius\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$. Then for every $v\in V$ we have that $$\begin{aligned} \P_{p_c}(\operatorname{rad}(K_v)\geq n ) &\asymp n^{-1} &\text{as }n &\uparrow \infty. \label{exponent:extradius} $$ Note that the upper bound of follows from the corresponding bound for the intrinsic radius, so that it remains only to prove the lower bound. \[thm:ext\_radius\] was known in the case that $G$ has a quasi-transitive nonunimodular subgroup, using arguments specific to that setting [@Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc Theorem 1.6]. We believe the theorem is new in essentially all other cases, including for tessellations of the hyperbolic plane. They key step in the proof of \[thm:ext\_radius\] is the following intrinsic variant on \[prop:expdecay\], which can be used to derive various ballisticity results for percolation below $p_{2\to 2}$. For each $p\in [0,1]$ and $n\geq 0$ we define the matrix ${C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$ by $${C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}(u,v) = \P_p\left( u \leftrightarrow v, d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)\geq n\right).$$ \[prop:intdecay\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph, and let $p<p_{q\to q}(G)$. Then $$\\|{C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} \leq 3 \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} \exp\left[ -\frac{n}{e\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}}\right]$$ for every $n\geq 0$. Before proving \[prop:intdecay\], let us see how it implies \[thm:ext\_radius\]. Since $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ implies that $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$, we have that $\P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq n) \asymp n^{-1}$. Therefore, since the extrinsic radius is bounded by the intrinsic radius, it suffices to prove the lower bound. For every $n\geq 1$ and $m\geq n$ we trivially have that $$\begin{aligned} \P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \geq n) \geq \P_{p_c}\bigl({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq m\bigr) - \P_{p_c}\Bigl({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq m \text{ and } {\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \leq n\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ The second term on the right can be bounded by $$\begin{gathered} \P_{p_c}\Bigl({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq m \text{ and } {\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \leq n\Bigr) \leq \sum_{u\in B(v,n)} \P_{p_c}(u \leftrightarrow v, d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)\geq m)\\ = \langle C_{p,m} \mathbbm{1}_{B(v,n)}, \mathbbm{1}_v \rangle \leq \\| C_{p,m}\\|_{2\to 2} \\|\mathbbm{1}_{B(v,n)}\\|_2 \\|\mathbbm{1}_v\\|_2,\end{gathered}$$ and applying \[prop:intdecay\] we deduce that $$\P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq m \text{ and } {\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \leq n) \leq 3 \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2} \exp\left[ - \frac{m}{e \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right] \|B(v,n)\|^{1/2}$$ for every $m \geq n \geq 1$. Since $\|B(v,n)\|$ grows at most exponentially in $n$, it follows that there exist constants $C$ and $c$ such that if $m\geq Cn$ then $\P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq m \text{ and } {\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \leq n) \leq e^{-cn}$. Taking $m=\lceil C n \rceil$, we deduce that there exists a positive constant $C'$ such that $$\P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}(K_v) \geq n) \geq \P_{p_c}({\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_v) \geq C n) - e^{-cn} \geq C' n^{-1} - e^{-cn},$$ from which the claim follows immediately. \[prop:intdecay\] can also be used to derive various other other results concerning the ballisticity of percolation clusters. Examples of two such statements are given in the following theorem, whose proof is very straightforward and is omitted. \[thm:ballistic\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph. Then for every $p<p_{2\to 2}(G)$, there exist positive constants $c_p,C_p$ and $\lambda_{p}$ such that $$\P_p\left( \max_{v\in K_u} \frac{d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)}{d(u,v)} \geq \lambda \right) \leq C_p e^{-c_p \lambda}$$ for every $u\in V$ and $t\geq 1$, and similarly $$\label{eq:exponential_distance_decay} \P_p\bigl( d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) \geq n \mid u \leftrightarrow v \bigr) \leq C_p e^{-c_p n }$$ for every $u,v\in V$ and $n \geq \lambda_{p} d(u,v)$. Note that the special case of \[thm:ballistic\] in which $p<p_c$ can also be deduced from the fact that the cluster volume in subcritical percolation has an exponential tail [@MR762034] (although the argument given here will give better control on the rate of divergence of the constants as $p\uparrow p_c$). See [@MR1404543] for a related result concerning supercritical percolation on Euclidean lattices. In contrast to these results, in \[sec:planar\] we show that for percolation in the hyperbolic plane, the quantity $\P_{p_u}\bigl( d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) \geq n \mid u \leftrightarrow v \bigr)$ can have a power law tail at $p_u$. We now turn to the proof of \[prop:intdecay\]. We write $B_\mathrm{int}(v,n)=\{ u\in V: d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)\leq n\}$ and $\partial B_\mathrm{int}(v,n)=\{ u\in V: d_\mathrm{int}(u,v)= n\}$ for the intrinsic ball and sphere of radius $n$ around $v$ respectively, and for each $p\in [0,1]$ and $m\geq n \geq 0$ define the matrices $$\begin{aligned} {B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}(u,v) &= \P_p\left( v \in B_\mathrm{int}(u,n) \right), &&\\ {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}(u,v) &= \P_p\left(v \in \partial B_\mathrm{int}(u,n) \right), &&\text{and}\\ {A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n,m}(u,v) &= \P_p\left( v \in B_\mathrm{int}(u,m) \setminus B_\mathrm{int}(u,n-1) \right).&&\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:intrinsicsubmult\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph. Then $$\label{eq:intrinsicsubmult} {A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n,n+m} {\preccurlyeq}{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,m}{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}$$ for every $p\in [0,1]$ and $m,n\geq 0$. It may be instructive for the reader to reflect on why Reimer’s inequality does not imply the submultiplicative inequality ${C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n+m} {\preccurlyeq}{C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}{C^\mathrm{int}}_{p,m}$. For each three vertices $u,v,w$, let $\sG_{n,m}(u,v,w)$ be the event that $w$ is connected to $v$ with $n \leq d_\mathrm{int}(u,w)\leq n+m$ and that $v$ is the $n$th vertex on some geodesic from $u$ to $w$ in $G[p]$. The definitions ensure that $$\begin{aligned} {A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n,n+m}(u,w)\leq \sum_{v\in V}\P_p\left[\sG_{n,m}(u,v,w)\right].\end{aligned}$$ We now claim that $$\sG_{n,m}(u,v,w) \subseteq \{v \in \partial B_\mathrm{int}(u,n) \} \circ \{w \in B_\mathrm{int}(v,m) \}.$$ Indeed, on the event $\sG_{n,m}(u,v,w)$, the subgraph of $G$ induced by the intrinsic ball of radius $n$ around $u$ together with all the closed edges incident to this ball is a witness for $\{v \in \partial B_\mathrm{int}(u,n) \}$, while the geodesic in $G[p]$ from $v$ to $w$ is a witness for $\{w \in B_\mathrm{int}(v,m) \}$ that is disjoint from the former witness. Thus, we can apply Reimer’s inequality to obtain that $$\begin{aligned} {A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n,n+m}(u,w) \leq \sum_{v\in V} \P_p\left[\{v \in \partial B_\mathrm{int}(u,n) \} \circ \{w \in B_\mathrm{int}(v,m) \}\right] \leq \sum_{v\in V}{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,m}(v,w){S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}(u,v),\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the claimed inequality . We now prove \[prop:intdecay\]. The proof is quite different to that of \[prop:expdecay\] since submultiplicativity is not available, and relies instead on a certain averaging trick that will be used again in the proof of \[prop:lowerball\]. Applying and using the trivial inequality ${B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,m}{\preccurlyeq}T_p$, we have that $${A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,kn,(k+1)n} {\preccurlyeq}T_p {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,r}$$ for every $k,n\geq 1$ and $r\leq kn$. Averaging this inequality over $(k-1)n\leq r \leq kn$ we obtain that $${A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,kn,(k+1)n} {\preccurlyeq}\frac{1}{n+1}T_p {A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,(k-1)n,kn}$$ for every $k,n\geq 1$. Applying this bound inductively we deduce that $$\\|{A^\mathrm{int}}_{p,kn,(k+1)n}\\|_{q\to q} \preceq \left[\frac{\\|T_p\\|}{n+1}\right]^k \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q},$$ from which the claimed bound can be deduced by similar reasoning to that used in the proof of \[prop:expdecay\]. (We bound the resulting constant $e^{1/e}/(1-1/e)$ by $3$ for aesthetic reasons.) Mean-field lower bounds on norms of ball and sphere operators {#subsec:meanfieldlowerbounds} ------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we note that methods similar to those used to derive \[prop:expdecay,prop:intdecay\] can also be used to prove the following simple mean-field lower bounds. These bounds complement those of [@1804.10191 Corollary 2.5], which states that if $G$ is a connected, locally finite graph then $$\\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} \geq \frac{1-p}{\\|A\\|_{q\to q} (p_{q\to q}-p)} \label{eq:meanfieldlowerboundT}$$ for every $0 \leq p < p_{q\to q}$, where $A$ is the adjacency matrix. Similarly to the way that that corollary is used to prove the main results of [@1804.10191], one could potentially use \[prop:lowerball\] to establish that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ by showing that, for example, $\\| {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{2\to 2} \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. \[prop:lowerball\] Let $G$ be an infinite, connected, bounded degree graph. Then we have that $$\label{eq:extrinsiclowerball} \\|B_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q\to q} \geq n+1 \quad \text{ and } \quad \\|S_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q\to q} \geq 1$$ for every $n\geq 0$ and $q\in [1,\infty]$, and similarly that $$\label{eq:intrinsiclowerball} \\|{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q\to q} \geq n+1 \quad \text{ and } \quad \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q\to q} \geq 1$$ for every $n\geq 0$ and $q\in [1,\infty]$. The proof of \[prop:lowerball\] is inspired by the proof of [@duminil2015new Theorem 1.1]. Note that the sphere bounds do not obviously imply the ball bounds when $q\notin \{1,\infty\}$. We will prove , the proof of being similar. Let $\Lambda \subset E$ be finite. We write $\{ u \xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v\}$ for the event that $u$ and $v$ are connected by an open path using only edges of $\Lambda$, and for each $p\in [0,1]$ define the matrix $T_{p,\Lambda}(u,v)=\P_p(u \xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v)$. Note that, since $G$ has bounded degrees and ${B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}$ is symmetric, we have by the Riesz-Thorin theorem that $$\\|{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \\|{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\\|_{1\to 1} = \sum_{n\in K} \sup_{v\in V} \|B(v,n)\|<\infty$$ for every $n\geq 0$ and $q\in [1,\infty]$, and similarly that $\\|T_{p,\Lambda}\\|_{q\to q}\leq \\|T_{p,\Lambda}\\|_{1\to 1}<\infty$ for every $\Lambda \subset E$ finite. Applying Reimer’s inequality as in the proof of \[lem:intrinsicsubmult\], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} T_{p,\Lambda}(u,v) &= \P_p\bigl(u \xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v \text{ and $d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) \leq n-1$}\bigr) + \P_p\bigl(u \xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v \text{ and $d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) \geq n$}\bigr) \\ &\leq \P_p\bigl(u \xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v \text{ and $d_\mathrm{int}(u,v) \leq n-1$}\bigr) + \sum_{w \in V} \P_p\Bigl( \bigl\{u \leftrightarrow w \text{ and } d_\mathrm{int}(u,w)=n\} \circ \{ w\xleftrightarrow{\Lambda} v\bigr\} \Bigr)\\ &\leq {B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n-1}(u,v) + \sum_{w\in V}T_{p,\Lambda}(u,w){S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}(w,v), \end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the bound $$\label{eq:TpLambda} T_{p,\Lambda} {\preccurlyeq}{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n-1} + T_{p,\Lambda} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}.$$ Let $K$ be a finite subset of $\N=\{0,1,\ldots\}$. Summing over $K$ and then taking norms, we obtain that $$\label{eq:beforearrangement} \|K\|\cdot \\|T_{p,\Lambda}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \Bigl\\|\sum_{n\in K} {B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,{n-1}}\Bigr\\|_{q\to q} + \\|T_{p,\Lambda}\\|_{q\to q} \Bigl\\|\sum_{n \in K} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\Bigr\\|_{q\to q}$$ Suppose that $\\|\sum_{n\in K} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} < \|K\|$. Since every term in is finite, we may rearrange to obtain that $$\\|T_{p,\Lambda}\\|_{q\to q} \leq {\genfrac{}{}{}{}{\raisebox{0.3em}{$\bigl\\|\sum_{n\in K} {B^\mathrm{int}}_{p,{n-1}}\bigr\\|_{q\to q}$}}{\raisebox{-0.3em}{$\|K\|-\bigl\\|\sum_{n \in K} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\bigr\\|_{q\to q}$}}}<\infty,$$ and taking the limit as $\Lambda$ exhausts $E$ we obtain that $\\|T_{p}\\|_{q\to q}<\infty$ for every $p\in [0,1]$ such that $\\|\sum_{n\in K} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q} < \|K\|$. Since $\\|T_{p_{q\to q}}\\|_{q\to q}=\infty$ for every $q\in [1,\infty]$, we deduce that $$\Bigl\\|\sum_{n \in K} {S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_{q\to q},n}\Bigr\\|_{q\to q} \geq \|K\| \qquad \text{for every $q\in [1,\infty]$ and $K\subseteq \N$}.$$ The claimed inequalities follow by taking $K=\{0,\ldots,n\}$ and $K=\{n\}$ respectively. Norm exponents {#sec:norm_exponents} ============== In [@1804.10191 Proposition 2.3], we proved that if $G$ is quasi-transitive and $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$ then $p_c(G)<p_{q\to q}(G)$ for every $q\in (1,\infty)$. Our next result establishes a sharp quantitative[^3] version of this fact, which will yield very strong quantitative information about the critical two-point function. \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$. Then $$\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \asymp \begin{cases} q & \text{as } q \uparrow \infty\\ (q-1)^{-1} & \text{as } q \downarrow 1 \end{cases} \quad \text{ and }\quad p_{q\to q} -p_c \asymp \begin{cases} q^{-1} & \text{as }q \uparrow \infty\\ q-1 & \text{as }q \downarrow 1. \end{cases}$$ The proof of \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\] is given in the following two subsections. This theorem is complemented by the lower bound $$\label{eq:general_norm_lower_bound} \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q} \geq \frac{1-p}{\\|A\\|_{q\to q} (p_{q\to q}-p)} \qquad \text{ for every $0<p<p_{q\to q}$}$$ which is proven in [@1804.10191 Corollary 2.6] and holds on every infinite, connected, locally finite graph, where $A$ is the adjacency matrix of the graph. An interesting corollary of \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\] is as follows. \[cor:logbound\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$. Then there exists a constant $C$ such that $${\mathbf E}_{p_c}\|K_v \cap W\| \leq C \log \|W\|$$ for every $v\in V$ and every $W \subseteq V$ with $\|W\|\geq 2$. In particular, there exists a constant $C$ such that ${\mathbf E}_{p_c}\|K_v \cap B(v,n)\| \leq Cn$ for every $n\geq 1$. \[prop:lowerball\] shows that the bound ${\mathbf E}_{p_c}\|K_v \cap B(v,n)\| \leq Cn$ is sharp up to the choice of constant. By Hölder’s inequality, we have that $${\mathbf E}_{p_c}\|K_v \cap W\| = \langle T_{p_c} \mathbbm{1}_W, \mathbbm{1}_v\rangle \leq \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \\|\mathbbm{1}_W \\|_{q} \\|\mathbbm{1}_v\\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}} = \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \|W\|^{1/q}.$$ The claim follows by taking $q = \log \|W\|$ and applying \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]. A further corollary of \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\] concerns the asymptotic density of slightly supercritical clusters. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph. For each $0<p\leq 1$, we define the annealed upper logarithmic density of clusters in $G[p]$ by $$\delta_{\log}(p)=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sup_{v\in V}\frac{\log {\mathbf E}_p\|K_v \cap B(v,n)\|}{\log \|B(v,n)\|},$$ where $B(v,n)$ denotes the ball of radius $n$ around $v$ in $G$. Note that Markov’s inequality implies $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log \|K_v \cap B(v,n)\|}{\log \|B(v,n)\|} \leq \delta_{\log}(p)$$ that for every $v\in V$ almost surely. \[cor:density\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c(G)<p_{2\to 2}(G)$. Then $\delta_{\log}(p) \asymp p-p_c$ as $p\downarrow p_c.$ \[cor:density\] should be compared with Lalley’s result that in slightly supercritical percolation on tessellations of the hyperbolic plane, the a.s. Hausdorff dimension of the set of ideal-boundary accumulation points of an infinite percolation cluster tends to zero as $p_c$ is approached from above [@MR1873136]. (Indeed, it is possible to apply \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\] to derive a quantitative version of Lalley’s result showing that this dimension is $\Theta({\varepsilon})$ at $p_c+{\varepsilon}$.) The proof of \[cor:density\] is given after the proof of \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]. We now begin to work towards the proof of \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]. We first lower bound the rate that $\\|T_{p_{q\to q}}\\|_{q'\to q'}$ blows up as $q' \to q$. The resulting estimate can be though of as a mean-field lower bound. Given a graph $G$, we define $$\gamma=\gamma(G)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sup_{v\in V}\log \|B(v,n)\|.$$ The fact that this limit exists follows by Fekete’s lemma, since the sequence $\sup_{v\in V} \|B(v,n)\|$ is submultiplicative. Moreover, if $G$ has degrees bounded by $M$ then we have that $\gamma(G) \leq \log(M-1)<\infty$. \[prop:Tpqqq’q’\_lower\] Let $G$ be a connected, bounded degree graph, let $q\in (2,\infty]$ and let $q' \in (2,q)$. Then $$\\|T_{p_{q\to q}}\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq \frac{qq'}{e(q-q')\gamma}, $$ with the convention that the right hand side is equal to $q'/e\gamma$ when $q=\infty$. The proof of \[prop:Tpqqq’q’\_lower\] will apply the following elementary lemma. \[lem:changingqgeneral\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, and let $M \in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$. Then $$\\|M\\|_{q_2\to q_2} \leq \\|M\\|_{q_1\to q_1} \left[\sup_{v\in V} \left\|\{u: M(v,u) \neq 0 \}\right\|\right]^{(q_2-q_1)/q_1q_2}$$ for every $1\leq q_1 < q_2 \leq \infty$, with the convention that $(q_2-q_1)/q_1q_2 = 1/q_1$ if $q_2=\infty$. The case $q_2=\infty$ will use the following similarly elementary fact. \[lem:dumb\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, and let $M \in [0,\infty]^{V^2}$. Then $$\liminf_{q'\uparrow q} \\|M\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq \\|M\\|_{q\to q}$$ for every $q \in (1,\infty]$. We may assume that $\\|M\\|_{q\to q} >0$, since the claim is trivial otherwise. Note that for each $f\in V^\R$, the norm $\\|f\\|_q$ is decreasing in $q$ for every $f\in V^\R$, and is continuous in $q\in [1,\infty]$ if $f$ is finitely supported (i.e., zero at all but finitely many vertices). For each $a < \\|M\\|_{q\to q}$, there exists a finitely supported $f\in V^\R$ such that $\\|M f\\|_q/\\|f\\|_q \geq a$. For such $f$ we have $\lim_{q'\uparrow q} \\|f\\|_{q'} = \\|f\\|_q$ and $\liminf_{q' \uparrow q} \\|Mf\\|_{q'}\geq \\|Mf\\|_q$. We deduce that $\liminf_{q'\uparrow q} \\|M\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq a$, and the claim follows since $a<\\|M\\|_{q\to q}$ was arbitrary. We may assume that $\\|M\\|_{q_1\to q_1}<\infty$ and $\sup_{v\in V} \left\|\{u: M(v,u) \neq 0 \}\right\|<\infty$, since the claim is trivial otherwise. First suppose that $q_2\neq \infty$. Let $f\in L^{q_2}(V)$ be such that $f(v)\geq 0$ for every $v\in V$. By Hölder’s inequality, we have that $$\begin{aligned} \\|Mf\\|_{q_2\to q_2}^{q_2} &= \sum_{v \in V} \left[\sum_{u\in V} M(v,u)f(u) \right]^{q_2} \leq \sum_{v \in V} \left[\sum_{u\in V} M(v,u)f(u)^{q_2/q_1} \right]^{q_1} \left[ \sum_{u\in V} M(v,u)\right]^{q_2-q_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $I_v \in L^\infty(V)$ be the function $I_v(u)=\mathbbm{1}(M(v,u) \neq 0)$, we can then bound $$\sum_{u\in V} M(v,u) = \langle \mathbbm{1}_v, M I_v \rangle \leq \\|M I_v\\|_{q_2} \leq \\|M\\|_{q_2\to q_2} \left\|\{u: M(v,u) \neq 0 \}\right\|^{1/q_2},$$ and putting these two bounds together we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \\|Mf\\|_{q_2\to q_2}^{q_2} &\leq \\| M \\|^{q_1}_{q_1\to q_1} \\|f^{q_2/q_1}\\|_{q_1}^{q_1} \\| \\|M\\|_{q_2\to q_2}^{q_2-q_1} \left[\sup_{v\in V} \left\|\{u: M(v,u) \neq 0 \}\right\|\right]^{(q_2-q_1)/q_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\\|f^{q_2/q_1}\\|_{q_1}^{q_1}=\\|f\\|_{q_2}^{q_2}$, taking the supremum over $f\in L^{q_2}(V)$, and dividing both sides by $\\|M\\|_{q_2\to q_2}^{q_2-q_1}$ yields the desired inequality. The case $q_2=\infty$ follows from the case $q_2<\infty$ by an application of \[lem:dumb\]. We now turn to the proof of \[prop:Tpqqq’q’\_lower\]. Applying \[lem:changingqgeneral\] with $q_1=q'$, $q_2=q$, and $M=S_{p_{q\to q},n}$, we have that $$\\|S_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq \\|S_{p_{q\to q},n}\\|_{q\to q} \inf_{v\in V} \bigl\|\partial B(v,n)\bigr\|^{-(q-q')/qq'} \geq \inf_{v\in V} \bigl\|\partial B(v,n)\bigr\|^{-(q-q')/qq'}$$ for every $n \geq 0$, where the second inequality follows from \[prop:lowerball\]. It follows from this inequality and \[prop:expdecay\] that $$\frac{1}{e\\|T_{p_{q\to q}}\\|_{q'\to q'}} \leq \eta_{p_{q\to q},q'} \leq \frac{(q-q')\gamma}{q q'},$$ and the claim follows immediately. We next give a related bound on the rate of change of $p_{q\to q}$ as a function of $q$. Recall that the $\xi_p$ denotes the exponential decay rate of the two-point function, as defined in \[sec:extrinsic\_decay\]. \[prop:pqqupperbound\] Let $G$ be a connected, bounded degree graph, let $q\in (2,\infty]$ and $q' \in [2,q)$, and suppose that $\xi_{p_{q\to q}}>0$. Then $$\log p_{q'\to q'} \leq \frac{qq'\xi_{p_{q\to q}}}{\gamma (q-q') + qq'\xi_{p_{q\to q}}} \log p_{q\to q} $$ with the convention that the prefactor on the right hand side is equal to $q'\xi_{p_{q\to q}}/(\gamma + q'\xi_{p_{q\to q}})$ when $q=\infty$. Recall that it follows from \[thm:p2to2pexp\] that $\xi_{p_{q\to q}}>0$ whenever $p_{q\to q}<p_{2\to 2}$. We therefore immediately deduce the following corollary. \[cor:pqqcontinuity\] Let $G$ be a connected, bounded degree graph. Then $p_{q\to q}(G)$ is a continuous function of $q$ on $[1,\infty]$. By \[prop:expdecay\] and \[prop:lowerball\], we have for each $q\in [1,\infty]$ and $p\in [0,1]$ that $p \geq p_{q\to q}$ if and only if $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p,n}\\|_{q\to q}\geq 0.$$ Recall from [@grimmett2010percolation Theorem 2.38] that if $A$ is an increasing event, then $\log {\mathbf P}_p(A) /\log p$ is a non-increasing function of $p\in (0,1)$. Thus, if $0<p_1 \leq p_2 < 1$ then we have that $$\begin{gathered} \tau_{p_2}(u,v) \geq \tau_{p_1}(u,v)^{\log p_1 /\log p_2}\\ \geq \tau_{p_1}(u,v) \left[ \sup \{ \tau_{p_1}(x,y) : x,y\in V,\, d(x,y)=d(u,v)\} \right]^{ \log (p_1/p_2)/\log p_2}. \label{eq:changingexponential}\end{gathered}$$ Thus, it follows by definition of $\xi_{p_1}$ that $$S_{p_2,n} {\succcurlyeq}\exp\left[ \frac{\log (p_1/p_2)\xi_p}{\log p_2} n +o(n)\right] S_{p_1,n} \qquad \text{ as $n\to \infty$}.$$ and hence that $$\label{eq:pqqupper1} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_2,n}\\|_{q\to q} \geq \frac{\log (p_1/p_2)\xi_p}{\log p_2} + \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_1,n}\\|_{q\to q}.$$ On the other hand, applying \[lem:changingqgeneral\] as in the proof of \[prop:Tpqqq’q’\_lower\] we obtain that if $1\leq q' \leq q$ then $$\label{eq:pqqupper2} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_2,n}\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_2,n}\\|_{q\to q} - \frac{(q-q')\gamma}{qq'}.$$ Combining and , we deduce that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_2,n}\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p_1,n}\\|_{q\to q} + \frac{\log (p_1/p_2)\xi_p}{\log p_2} - \frac{(q-q')\gamma}{qq'}$$ for every $1 \leq q' \leq q$ and $0<p_1 \leq p_2<1$. Taking $p_1=p_{q\to q}$ and $p_2=p$ given by $$\log p = \frac{qq'\xi_{p_{q\to q}}}{\gamma(q-q') + qq'\xi_{p_{q\to q}}} \log p_{q\to q},$$ we deduce from and that $\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\\|S_{p,n}\\|_{q'\to q'} \geq 0$, and hence that $p_{q'\to q'}\leq p$ as claimed. It remains to prove a complimentary upper bound on $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q}$ and lower bound on $p_{q\to q}$. \[prop:normupper\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$. Then there exist positive constants $c$ and $C$ such that $$\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq C q \qquad \text{ and } \qquad p_{q\to q}-p_c \geq \frac{c}{q}$$ for every $q \geq 2$. The claimed lower bound on $p_{q\to q}-p_c$ follows immediately from the claimed upper bound on $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q}$ together with . Since $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$, we have that $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$, and hence by the results of [@MR2551766; @sapozhnikov2010upper] that there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\\|{B^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1}=\sup_{v\in V} \E_{p_c}\|B_\mathrm{int}(v,n)\| \leq C (n+1)$$ for every $n\geq 0$. Since $G$ is quasi-transitive we deduce that there exists a constant $C'$ such that $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{m=0}^n \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1} =\sum_{m=0}^n \sup_{v\in V} \E_{p_c}\|\partial B_\mathrm{int}(v,n)\|\\ \leq \#\{\text{Orbits of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)$}\}\cdot\, \sup_{v\in V} \sum_{m=0}^n \E_{p_c}\|\partial B_\mathrm{int}(v,n)\| \leq C'(n+1). \label{eq:Sintpcsummedbound}\end{gathered}$$ Let $q\in (1,2)$ and let $\theta=\theta(q)\in (0,1)$ be such that $1/q=(1-\theta)/1+\theta/2$. Then we have by the Riesz-Thorin theorem that $$\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \sum_{n\geq 0} \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{q\to q} \leq \sum_{n\geq 0}\\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1}^{1-\theta}\\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{2\to 2}^\theta.$$ Using \[prop:lowerball\] to bound $\\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1}^{1-\theta}\geq \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1}$ and \[prop:intdecay\] to bound $\\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{2\to 2}^\theta$, we have that $$\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq 3^\theta \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}^\theta \sum_{n\geq 0} \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1} \exp\left[-\frac{\theta n}{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right].$$ Summation by parts yields that $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{n=0}^N \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1} \exp\left[-\frac{\theta n}{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right] = \exp\left[-\frac{\theta n}{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right] \sum_{n=0}^N \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1} \\+ \left[1-\exp\left[-\frac{\theta }{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right]\right]\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \exp\left[-\frac{\theta n}{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right] \sum_{m=0}^n \\|{S^\mathrm{int}}_{p_c,n}\\|_{1\to 1}\end{gathered}$$ for each $0\leq N<\infty$. Applying and sending $N\to\infty$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq 3^\theta \\|T_{p_c}\\|^\theta C' \left[1-\exp\left[-\frac{\theta }{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right]\right]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \exp\left[-\frac{\theta n}{e\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}}\right] (n+1),\end{aligned}$$ and hence by calculus that there exists a positive constant $C''$ such that $$\limsup_{q\downarrow 1} \theta(q) \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq C'' \\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}.$$ Since $\theta(q) \asymp q-1$ as $q\downarrow 1$, this implies the claim. This is immediate from \[prop:Tpqqq’q’\_lower,prop:pqqupperbound,prop:normupper,prop:expdecay\]. We begin with the upper bound. For each $p\in (0,p_{2\to 2})$ let $q(p)=\sup\{q\in [2,\infty] : p < p_{q\to q}\}$. If $p<p_{2\to 2}$ then for every $q\in [2,q(p))$ and $v\in V$ we have by Hölder’s inequality that $${\mathbf E}_p\|K_v \cap B(v,n)\| = \langle T_p \mathbbm{1}_{B(v,n)},\mathbbm{1}_v\rangle \leq \\|T_p\mathbbm{1}_{B(v,n)}\\|_q\\|\mathbbm{1}_v\\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}} \leq \\|T_p\\|_{q\to q}\|B(v,n)\|^{1/q}.$$ It follows that $\delta_{\log}(p) \leq q(p)^{-1}$ for every $0<p<p_{2\to 2}$, so that the claimed upper bound may be deduced immediately from \[thm:qtoq\_exponents\]. For the lower bound, we apply to deduce that $${\mathbf E}_{p_2} \|K_v \cap \partial B(v,n)\| \geq {\mathbf E}_{p_1} \|K_v \cap \partial B(v,n)\| \exp\left[\frac{\log(p_2/p_1)}{\log(1/p_2)}\xi_{p_1}n+o(n)\right] \qquad \text{ as $n\uparrow \infty$}$$ for every $v\in V$ and $0< p_1\leq p_2 \leq 1$. Using this together with \[prop:lowerball\], we easily deduce that if $p_1 \geq p_c$ then $$\delta_{\log}(p_2) \geq \delta_{\log}(p_1)+\frac{\xi_{p_1}\log(p_2/p_1)}{\gamma \log(1/p_2)},$$ and hence that $$\delta_{\log}(p) \geq \frac{\xi_{p_c}(p-p_c)}{\gamma p_c (\log(1/p_c)-1)} + o(p-p_c) \qquad \text{as $p\downarrow p_c$.}$$ Applying \[thm:p2to2pexp\] gives that $\xi_{p_c}>0$, which completes the proof. Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph such that $p_c<p_{2\to2}$. Must the matrix $T_{p_c}$ satisfy a weak type $(1,1)$ estimate? If so, one would obtain an alternative proof of \[prop:normupper\] using the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem. Multiple arms {#sec:multiarm} ============= In this section, we prove that if $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ then the probability of various ‘multiple arm’ events are of the same order as the upper bound given by the estimates for the corresponding ‘one arm’ events and the BK inequality. Besides their intrinsic interest, these results will also be applied in our study of percolation in the hyperbolic plane at the uniqueness threshold in \[sec:planar\]. We write $\asymp_\ell$ to denote an equality depending on the choice of $\ell$ but not on any of the other parameters in question. \[thm:multibody\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, transitive graph with $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$. For each $\ell \geq 2$ there exists a finite constant $K(\ell)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf P}_{p_c}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $\|K_{v_i}\| \geq n_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq n$}) &\asymp_\ell \prod_{i=1}^\ell n_i^{-1/2} \label{eq:multibody} $$ for every $n_1,\ldots,n_\ell\geq 1$ and every $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_\ell \in V$ such that $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$. \[thm:multiarm\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, transitive graph with $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$. For each $\ell \geq 2$ there exists a finite constant $K(\ell)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf P}_p(v_1,\ldots,v_\ell \text{ are all in distinct infinite clusters}) &\asymp_\ell (p-p_c)^{\ell} \label{eq:twoarm1} \\ {\mathbf P}_{p_c}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and ${\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_{v_i}) \geq n$ for every $1\leq i \leq n$}) &\asymp_\ell n^{-\ell} \label{eq:twoarm2} \\ \label{eq:twoarm3} {\mathbf P}_{p_c}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and ${\operatorname{rad}}(K_{v_i}) \geq n_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq n$}) &\asymp_\ell n^{-\ell}\end{aligned}$$ for every $p_c<p \leq 1$, every $n \geq 1$, and every $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_\ell \in V$ such that $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$. The proof combines two techniques from the literature: the ‘inverse BK’ method used in the proof of [@MR2748397 Theorem 3], which establishes a similar result for extrinsic radii in Euclidean lattices, and the ghost field technique, which was introduced to percolation by Aizenman and Barsky [@aizenman1987sharpness] and, for our purposes, allows us to apply the inverse BK method to study the volume of the clusters rather than the radii. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite graph, and let $G[p]$ be Bernoulli-$p$ bond percolation on $G$. A ghost field of intensity $h$ on $G$ is a random subset of $V$, independent of $G[p]$, such that each vertex $v$ of $G$ is included in $\cG$ independently at random with inclusion probability $1-e^{-h}$. For each $v\in V$, $0<p<1$, and $h>0$, we define the magnetization $$\label{eq:MagFKG} M_{p,h}(v)={\mathbf P}_{p,h}(v \leftrightarrow \cG) = {\mathbf E}_p\left[1-e^{-h\|K_v\|}\right].$$ Note that if $G$ is quasi-transitive then an easy FKG argument implies that there exist a positive constant $C$ such that $$\inf_{v\in V} M_{p,h}(v) \geq p^C \sup_{v\in V} M_{p,h}(v)$$ for every $h>0$ and $0<p<1$. It is proven in [@MR1127713] (and follows from \[exponent:volume\]) that if $G$ is quasi-transitive and satisfies the triangle condition then $$\label{exponent:magnetization} M_{p_c,h}(v) \asymp \sqrt{h} \qquad \text{ as $h\downarrow 0$},$$ and in fact the lower bound of holds for every quasi-transitive graph [@aizenman1987sharpness]. (Some aspects of the proof of [@MR1127713] are specific to the case of $\Z^d$, see [@Hutchcroftnonunimodularperc Section 7] for an overview of the changes needed to handle arbitrary quasi-transitive graphs.) We begin the proof of \[thm:multibody,thm:multiarm\] with the following lemma, which is inspired by and based closely on [@MR2748397 Lemma 6.1]. Given $0<p<1$ and $\mathbf{h}=(h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_\ell)\in (0,\infty)^\ell$, we write $\P_{p,\mathbf{h}}$ for the joint law of $G[p]$ and $\ell$ mutually independent ghost fields $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$ of intensities $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell$. \[lem:KN\_inverseBK\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, graph with degrees bounded my $M$, let $\ell \geq 2$, and let $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ be vertices of $G$. Then $$\begin{gathered} \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}\right) \\\geq \prod_{i=1}^\ell \left[\inf_{v\in V} M_{p,h_i}(v)\right]- \frac{4M}{p^2}\binom{\ell-1}{2} \prod_{i=1}^\ell\left[\sup_{v \in V} M_{p,h_i}^\ell(v)\right] \sup_{1 \leq i < j \leq \ell} T_p^2(v_i,v_j).\end{gathered}$$ for every $0<p<1$ and $\mathbf{h}\in (0,\infty)^\ell$. By inducting on $\ell$, it suffices to prove that $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:inverseBKinduction} \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}\right) \geq \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_{\ell-1} \leftrightarrow \cG_{\ell-1}\}\right) \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\right)\\- \frac{4M}{p^2}(\ell-1) \prod_{i=1}^\ell\left[\sup_{v \in V} M_{p,h_i}^\ell(v)\right] \sup_{1 \leq i < j \leq \ell} T^2_p(v_i,v_j).\end{gathered}$$ for every $0<p<1$ and $\mathbf{h}\in (0,\infty)^\ell$. For this proof, we will change notation and denote our percolation configuration by $\omega$ rather than $G[p]$. Let $\omega_0,\omega_\infty$ be independent copies of Bernoulli-$p$ bond percolation on $G$, independent of the ghost fields $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$, and let $\P_\otimes$ denote the joint law of all these random variables. Let $e_1,e_2,\ldots$ be an enumeration of the edge set of $G$, and for each $m\geq 0$ define $$\omega_m(e_i)=\begin{cases} \omega_\infty(e_i) & \text{ if $i \leq m$} \\ \omega_0(e_i) & \text{ if $i>m$}. \end{cases}$$ For each event $\sA \subseteq \{0,1\}^E \times (\{0,1\}^V)^\ell$, and each $m \in \{0,1,\ldots\}\cup \{\infty\}$, let $\sA_m$ be the event that $(\omega_m,\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell)$ satisfies $\sA$. Let $\sA=\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\}\circ \cdots \circ \{v_{\ell-1} \leftrightarrow \cG_{\ell-1}\}$ and $\sB=\{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}$, and observe that $$\P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}\right) = \P_\otimes\left(\sA_0 \circ \sB_0\right)$$ and that $$\P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_{\ell-1} \leftrightarrow \cG_{\ell-1}\}\right) \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\right) =\P_\otimes\left(\sA_0 \circ \sB_\infty\right) = \lim_{m\to\infty} \P_\otimes\left(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m\right).$$ Thus, to prove , it suffices to prove that $$\sum_{m=1}^\infty \left[\P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m) - \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}) \right] \leq \frac{4M}{p^2}(\ell-1) \prod_{i=1}^\ell\left[\sup_{v \in V} M_{p,h_i}^\ell(v)\right] \sup_{1 \leq i < j \leq \ell} T^2_p(v_i,v_j).$$ Observe that on the event $\sA_0 \circ \sB_m \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}$ we must have that $\omega_\infty(e_m)=1$. Moreover, the events $$\begin{aligned} \sA_0 \circ \sB_m \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1} \text{ holds, $\omega_0(e_m)=1$ and $\omega_\infty(e_m)=0$} \intertext{and} \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1} \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m} \text{ holds, $\omega_0(e_m)=0$ and $\omega_\infty(e_m)=1$}\end{aligned}$$ have the same probability: Indeed, the proof of the BK inequality (see in particular the presentation in [@grimmett2010percolation Section 2.3]) establishes that there is a measure-preserving bijection between these sets. Thus, we have that $$\begin{aligned} \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m) - \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}) &= \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}) - \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1} \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m}) \\ &\leq \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}, \omega_0(e_m)=\omega_\infty(e_m)=1).\end{aligned}$$ Now suppose that $\sA_0 \circ \sB_m \setminus \sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}$ occurs and that $\omega_0(e_m)=\omega_\infty(e_m)=1$. Since $\sA_0 \circ \sB_m$ occurs there exists a collection of edge-disjoint $\omega_0$-open paths $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_{\ell-1}$ such that $\gamma_i$ connects $v_i$ to $\cG_i$ for each $1\leq i \leq \ell-1$ and an $\omega_m$-open path $\gamma_\ell$ connecting $v_\ell$ to $\cG_\ell$ such that $\gamma_\ell$ does not traverse any of the edges in $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m\}$ that are traversed by one of the paths $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_{\ell-1}$. (Indeed, such paths exist if and only if $\sA_0 \circ \sB_m$ holds.) On the other hand, since $\omega_0(e_m)=\omega_\infty(e_m)=1$ and $\sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}$ does not hold, we must have that the edge $e_m$ is traversed both by $\gamma_\ell$ and $\gamma_j$ for some $1 \leq j \leq \ell-1$. Thus, on this event, the events $\{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}$ in $ \omega_m \}$, $\{v_j \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\} $ in $\omega_{m-1}\}$, $\{ \cG_\ell \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}$ in $\omega_m \}$, and $\{ \cG_j \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}$ in $\omega_{m-1} \}$ all occur disjointly. Moreover, on this event, the events $\{v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ in $\omega_{m-1}\}$ for $i \notin \{j,\ell\}$ also occur disjointly from each other and from these events. Thus, we may apply the BK inequality to deduce that $$\begin{gathered} \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_m) - \P_\otimes(\sA_0 \circ \sB_{m-1}) \leq \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}{\mathbf P}_p(v_\ell \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}){\mathbf P}_p(v_j \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\})\\ \cdot{\mathbf P}_{p,h_\ell}(\cG \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}){\mathbf P}_{p,h_j}(\cG \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}) \prod_{i \notin \{j,\ell\}} M_{p,h_i}(v_i),\end{gathered}$$ which is at most $$4\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}{\mathbf P}_p(v_\ell \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}){\mathbf P}_p(v_j \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}) \prod_{i =1}^\ell \left[\sup_{v\in V}M_{p,h_i}(v)\right].$$ The claim now follows by noting that ${\mathbf P}_p(v\leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}) \leq \frac{1}{p}{\mathbf P}_p(v\leftrightarrow e_m^-)$ for every $v\in V$ and $m\geq 1$ by the Harris-FKG inequality, and hence that $$\sum_{m=1}^\infty {\mathbf P}_p(v_\ell \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\}){\mathbf P}_p(v_j \leftrightarrow \{e_m^-,e_m^+\})\\ \leq \frac{1}{p^2}\sum_{w \in V}\deg(w)T_p(v_\ell,w)T_p(w,v_j) \leq \frac{M}{p^2}T^2_p(v_\ell,v_j). \qedhere$$ \[lem:KN\_inverseBK\], and the proof of [@MR2748397 Lemma 6.1] that inspired it, are remarkable as a rare instance where it is the convergence of the bubble diagram rather than the triangle diagram that is indicative of mean-field type behaviour. In particular, if $0$ denotes the origin in $\Z^d$, it seems one should expect that $${\mathbf P}_{p_c}\bigl(\text{there exist two disjoint open paths from $0$ to $\partial [-n,n]^d$}\bigr) \asymp {\mathbf P}_{p_c}\bigl(0 \leftrightarrow \partial [-n,n]^d\bigr)^2$$ not just for $d>6$, but also for some $d$ slightly smaller than $6$, possibly including $d=5$. Next, we compare the probability that the events all occur disjointly to the probability that the events all hold with all clusters distinct. \[lem:diagrammatic\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, locally finite graph, let $\ell \geq 2$, and let $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ be vertices of $G$. Then $$\begin{gathered} \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq n$}\right) \\\geq \P_p\left(\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}\right)- 2\binom{\ell-1}{2} \prod_{i=1}^\ell\left[\sup_{v \in V} M_{p,h_i}^\ell(v)\right] \sup_{1 \leq i < j \leq \ell} T^3_p(v_i,v_j)\end{gathered}$$ for every $0<p<1$ and $\mathbf{h}\in (0,\infty)^\ell$. Let $\sA$ be the event that $K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell}$ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq n$, and let $\sB$ be the event $\{v_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_1\} \circ \cdots \circ \{v_\ell \leftrightarrow \cG_\ell\}$. Clearly $\sA \subseteq \sB$. Suppose that $\sB \setminus \sA$ occurs. Since $\sB$ occurs, there must exist a collection of edge-disjoint open paths $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_\ell$ such that $\gamma_i$ connects $v_i$ to a vertex of $\cG_i$. (Note that we may have that $v_i \in \cG_i$, in which case we may take $\gamma_i$ to be a degenerate length zero path.) On the other hand, since $\sA$ does not occur, there must exist an open path $\gamma$ connecting two distinct vertices from the set $\{v_1,\ldots,v_\ell\}$. Suppose that this path $\gamma$ starts at the vertex $v_{j_1}$, and let $\gamma'$ be the segment of $\gamma$ between the last time it visits a vertex visited by $\gamma_{j_1}$ and the first subsequent time that it visits a vertex visited by one of the paths $\gamma_i$ for $i \neq j_1$. Call these two vertices $w_1$ and $w_2$, and let $j_2\neq j_1$ be such that $\gamma_{j_2}$ visits $w_2$. (It may be that $w_1=w_2$, in which case $\gamma'$ has length zero.) Observe that, with this choice of $j_1$, $j_2,$ $w_1$ and $w_2$, we have that the events $\{v_{j_1}\to w_1\}$, $\{v_{j_2}\leftrightarrow w_2\}$, $\{w_1 \leftrightarrow w_2\}$, $\{w_1 \leftrightarrow \cG_{j_1}\}$, and $\{w_2 \leftrightarrow \cG_{j_2}\}$ all occur disjointly. Moreover, the events $\{v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i\}$ for $i \notin \{j_1,j_2\}$ also occur disjointly from each other and from these events. Thus, applying the BK inequality and summing over the possible choices of $j_1,j_2,w_1,$ and $w_2$ and we obtain that $$\begin{gathered} \P_{p,\mathbf{h}}(\sB \setminus \sA)\\ \leq \sum_{w_1,w_2 \in V} \sum_{j_1=1}^\ell \sum_{j_2 \neq j_1} T_p(v_{j_1},w_1)T_p(w_1,w_2)T_p(w_2,v_{j_2}) M_{p,h_{j_1}}(w_1)M_{p,h_{j_2}}(w_2) \prod_{i \notin \{j_1,j_2\}} M_{p,h_i}(v_i)\\ \leq \ell(\ell-1)\sup_{1 \leq i < j \leq \ell} T^3_p(v_i,v_j) \prod_{i=1}^\ell \left[\sup_{v\in V} M_{p,h_i}(v) \right],\end{gathered}$$ concluding the proof. We are now ready to prove \[thm:multibody,thm:multiarm\]. It suffices to prove the lower bound, since the upper bound is an immediate consequence of and the BK inequality. Fix $\ell \geq 1$, and let $C_1$ be the constant from . Let $0<p<1$ and let $\mathbf{h}=(h_1,\ldots,h_\ell) \in (0,\infty)^\ell$. Let $G[p]$ be Bernoulli-$p$ bond percolation, let $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$ be independent ghost fields of intensities $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell>0$, and write $\P_{p,\mathbf{h}}$ for the joint law of $G[p]$ and $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$. Since $G$ is quasi-transitive and $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$, we have by the result of [@MR2779397] that the open triangle condition also holds, so that for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $r<\infty$ such that if $u,v$ have distance at least $r$ in $G$ then $T_{p_c}^3(u,v) \leq {\varepsilon}$. In particular, it follows that there exists $K(\ell)$ such that if $u,v$ are vertices of $G$ with distance at least $K(\ell)$ then $$T_{p_c}^2(u,v) \leq T_{p_c}^3(u,v) \leq \frac{p_c^{2+C_1\ell}}{64 M \ell},$$ where $M$ is the maximum degree of $G$. (Note that if $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ we can take $K(\ell)$ to be $O(\ell)$, and if $G$ is transitive with $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ we can take $K(\ell)$ to be $O(\log \ell)$.) With this choice of $K(\ell)$, we deduce from \[lem:KN\_inverseBK,lem:diagrammatic\] that if $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ are such that $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$, then $$\P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \geq \frac{1}{2}\prod_{i=1}^\ell \left[\inf_{v\in V} M_{p,h_i}(v)\right]$$ for every $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell>0$. Since $G$ is quasi-transitive, we may apply the lower bound of to deduce that there exists a constant $c_1$ such that $$\P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \geq c_1^\ell \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_i}. \label{eq:magmultlower}$$ On the other hand, the BK inequality implies that $$\P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \leq \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sup_{v\in V} M_{p_c,h_i}(v), $$ and hence by that, since $\nabla_{p_c}<\infty$, there exists a constant $C_2$ such that $$\P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \leq C_2^\ell \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_i} \label{eq:magmultupper}$$ for every $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell >0$. It remains to convert the magnetization estimates and into the claimed estimate . Let $\delta_\ell>0$ be a sufficiently small that $$\frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{(1-e^{-1})\sqrt{\delta_\ell}} \leq \frac{c_1^\ell}{2 \ell C_2^\ell},$$ where $c_1$ and $C_2$ are the constants from and respectively. Let $n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_\ell \geq 1$ and let $h_i=\delta_\ell/n_i$ for each $1\leq i \leq \ell$. Let $\sD$ be the event that $K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell}$ are disjoint, let $\sA$ be the event that $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $i \geq 1$, and let $\sB$ be the event that $\|K_{v_i}\|\geq n_i$ for every $i \geq 1$. Then we have that $$\P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}(\sA \cap \sD) \leq \P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}\left(\sB \cap \sD \right) + \sum_{j=1}^\ell \P(\sA \cap \sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}).$$ For each $1 \leq i,j \leq \ell$ let $h_{i,j}$ be defined by $h_{i,j}=h_i$ if $i \neq j$ and $h_{j,j}=1/n_j$, and let $\mathbf{h}_j=(h_{1,j},\ldots,h_{\ell,j})$. Then for each $1\leq j \leq n$ we can write $$\begin{aligned} \P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}(\sA \cap \sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}) &= {\mathbf E}_{p_c}\left[\mathbbm{1}\left(\sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}\right)\prod_{i=1}^\ell\left(1-e^{-h_i \|K_{v_i}\|}\right)\right] \\ &= {\mathbf E}_{p_c}\left[\mathbbm{1}\left(\sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}\right)\frac{1-e^{-h_{j} \|K_{v_j}\|}}{1-e^{-h_{j,j} \|K_{v_j}\|}}\prod_{i=1}^\ell\left(1-e^{-h_{i,j} \|K_{v_i}\|}\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}(\sA \cap \sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}) &\leq \frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{1-e^{-1}}{\mathbf E}_{p_c}\left[\mathbbm{1}\left(\sD\right)\prod_{i=1}^\ell\left(1-e^{-h_{i,j} \|K_{v_i}\|}\right)\right]\\ & = \frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{1-e^{-1}} \sum_{j=1}^\ell \P_{p_c,\mathbf{h_j}}(\sA \cap \sD).\end{aligned}$$ Applying we deduce that $$\P(\sA \cap \sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\}) \leq \frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{1-e^{-1}} C_2^\ell \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_{i,j}} = \frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{(1-e^{-1})\sqrt{\delta_\ell}} C_2^\ell \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_i}$$ and hence by that $$\begin{gathered} \P_{p_c,\mathbf{h}}(\sB \cap \sD) \geq \P(\sA \cap \sD) - \sum_{j=1}^\ell \P(\sA \cap \sD \cap \{\|K_{v_j}\|\leq n_j\})\\ \geq \left[c_1^\ell - \frac{1-e^{-\delta_\ell}}{(1-e^{-1})\sqrt{\delta_\ell}} \ell C_2^\ell \right] \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_i} \geq \frac{c_1^\ell}{2} \prod_{i=1}^\ell \sqrt{h_i}.\end{gathered}$$ It follows that $${\mathbf P}_{p_c}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and } \|K_{v_i}\| > n_i \text{ for every $1 \leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \geq \frac{c^\ell \delta_\ell^{\ell/2}}{2} \prod_{i=1}^\ell n_i^{-1/2}$$ for every $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ with $d(v_i,v_j)\geq K(\ell)$ for every $1\leq i < j \leq \ell$ and every $n_1,\ldots,n_\ell \geq 1$. It suffices to prove the lower bound, since the upper bound is an immediate consequence of and the BK inequality. Fix $\ell \geq 1$, and let $C_1$ be the constant from . Let $0<p<1$ and let $h>0$. Let $G[p]$ be Bernoulli-$p$ bond percolation, let $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$ be independent ghost fields of intensity $h>0$, and write $\P_{p,h}$ for the joint law of $G[p]$ and $\cG_1,\ldots,\cG_\ell$. Fix $p_c<p_0<p_{2\to 2}$. As in the proof of \[thm:multibody\], there exists $K(\ell)$ such that if $u,v$ are vertices of $G$ with distance at least $K(\ell)$ then we have by \[lem:KN\_inverseBK,lem:diagrammatic\] that $$T_{p}^2(u,v) \leq T_{p}^3(u,v) \leq \frac{p_c^{2+C_1\ell}}{64M \ell}.$$ for every $0 \leq p \leq p_0$, where $M$ is the maximum degree of $G$. Thus, if $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ satisfy $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$, then $$\P_{p,h}\left(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and $v_i \leftrightarrow \cG_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}\right) \geq \frac{1}{2}\left[\inf_{v\in V} M_{p,h}(v)\right]^\ell$$ for every $0 \leq p < p_0$ and $h>0$. Taking the limit as $h \downarrow 0$, we obtain that $${\mathbf P}_p(v_1,\ldots,v_\ell \text{ are all in distinct infinite clusters}) \geq \frac{1}{2}\left[\inf_{v\in V} {\mathbf P}_p(\|K_v\|=\infty)\right]^\ell$$ for every $0 \leq p < p_0$ and $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ satisfying $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$. Thus, we may deduce from . We now deduce the lower bounds of and from the lower bound of . First, notice that $$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf P}_{p_c+\frac{1}{n}}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and ${\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_{v_i}) \geq n$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}) \\ \geq {\mathbf P}_{p_c+\frac{1}{n}}(v_1,\ldots,v_\ell \text{ are all in distinct infinite clusters}) \succeq_\ell n^{-\ell}\end{gathered}$$ for every $n\geq 1$ and every $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ satisfying $d(v_i,v_j) \geq K(\ell)$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq \ell$: the first inequality is trivial and the second follows from . Now consider coupling percolation at $p_c$ and $p_c+\frac{1}{n}$ in the standard monotone fashion. If the clusters of $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ are all distinct with intrinsic radius at least $n$ in percolation at $p_c+\frac{1}{n}$, then the conditional probability that this continues to hold in percolation at $p_c$ is at least $[p_c/(p_c+\frac{1}{n})]^{n \ell}$. To see this, take a length-$n$ intrinsic geodesic from $v_i$ in each $(p_c+\frac{1}{n})$-cluster, and observe that, for the property to no longer hold at $p_c$, at least one edge in at least one of these geodesics must change from open to closed when we move from $p_c+\frac{1}{n}$ to $p_c$. Thus, we deduce that $$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf P}_{p_c}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and ${\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_{v_i}) \geq n$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$})\\ \geq \left[\frac{p_c}{p_c+\frac{1}{n}}\right]^{n\ell} {\mathbf P}_{p_c+\frac{1}{n}}(K_{v_1},\ldots,K_{v_\ell} \text{ are disjoint and ${\operatorname{rad}}_\mathrm{int}(K_{v_i}) \geq n$ for every $1\leq i \leq \ell$}),\end{gathered}$$ so that the lower bound of follows from the lower bound of . Finally, the lower bound of can be deduced from the lower bound of using \[prop:intdecay\] in a very similar manner to the proof of \[thm:ext\_radius\]. Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite graph and consider a Bernoulli bond percolation $G[p]$ on $G$. A vertex $v$ of $G$ is said to be a furcation point if $K_v$ is infinite and deleting $v$ would split $K_v$ into at least three distinct infinite clusters, and say that $v$ is a trifurcation point if deleting $v$ would split $K_v$ into exactly three distinct infinite clusters. These points come up memorably in the Burton-Keane [@burton1989density] proof of uniqueness of the infinite cluster in amenable transitive graphs, where it is argued that if $G[p]$ has infinitely many infinite clusters, then it must have furcation points; see also [@LP:book Section 7.3]. Using \[thm:multiarm\] allows one to make this proof quantitative, leading to the following corollary. (Note that the upper bound follows trivially from and the BK inequality.) \[cor:furcations\] Let $G$ be a connected, locally finite, quasi-transitive graph, and suppose that $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$. Then there exists a vertex $v$ of $G$ such that $${\mathbf P}_p\bigl(v \text{ \emph{is a trifurcation point}}\bigr) \asymp (p-p_c)^3 \qquad \text{ as $p \downarrow p_c$.}$$ (Note that, under the triangle condition, being a furcation point but not a trifurcation point has probability of order at most $(p-p_c)^4$ as $p \downarrow p_c$ by and the BK inequality.) Applications to percolation in the hyperbolic plane {#sec:planar} =================================================== In this section we apply the results of the previous sections to study percolation on quasi-transitive nonamenable simply connected planar maps with locally finite dual. In particular, we apply duality arguments to compute various critical exponents governing the geometry of clusters at the uniqueness threshold $p_u$. Let us now briefly recall the relevant terminology. A (locally finite) map is a connected, locally finite graph $G$ together with an equivalence class of proper embeddings of $G$ into orientable surfaces (without boundary), where we consider two embeddings to be equivalent if there is an orientation preserving homeomorphism between the two surfaces sending one embedding to the other. A map is said to be simply connected if the surface it is embedded in is (in which case it is homeomorphic to the plane or the sphere). Maps can also be defined combinatorially as graphs equipped with cyclic orderings of the oriented edges emanating from each vertex. Every map $M$ has a dual $M^\dagger$ whose vertices are the faces of $M$ and whose faces correspond to the vertices of $M$, and there is a natural bijection between the edges of $M$ and the edges of $M^\dagger$ sending each edge $e$ of $M$ to the unique edge $e^\dagger$ of $M^\dagger$ that crosses $e$. See [@LZ] or [@unimodular2 Section 2.1] for further background. Let us remark again that if $M$ is a simply connected, quasi-transitive, locally finite, nonamenable map then it is Gromov hyperbolic [@MR3658330] and hence has $p_c<p_{2\to 2}$ by the results of [@1804.10191]. Let $M$ be a map with locally finite dual $M^\dagger$. Observe that if $\omega$ is distributed as Bernoulli-$p$ bond percolation on $M$, then the configuration $\omega^\dagger \in \{0,1\}^{E^\dagger}$ defined by $\omega^\dagger(e^\dagger)=1-\omega(e)$ is distributed as Bernoulli-$(1-p)$ percolation on $M^\dagger$. This duality is extremely useful in the case that $M$ is simply connected. In particular, Benjamini and Schramm proved that if $M$ is a nonamenable, quasi-transitive, locally finite, simply connected map with locally finite dual, then $$\label{eq:pcpu_duality} p_u(M)=1-p_c(M^\dagger) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad 0<p_c(M)<p_u(M)<1.$$ See also the earlier work of Lalley [@MR1614583]. We now apply this duality to deduce various results about percolation at $p_u$ on $M$ by converting them into results about critical percolation on $M^\dagger$. Given two vertices $x$ and $y$ that are in the same cluster, we write $\operatorname{ConRad}(x,y)$ for the minimal $r$ such that $x$ and $y$ are connected by an open path in the union of extrinsic balls $B(x,r)\cup B(y,r)$. \[thm:planarpuexponents\] Let $M$ be a connected, locally finite, nonamenable, quasi-transitive, simply connected planar map with locally finite dual. Then $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{x \sim y}{\mathbf P}_{p_u}\bigl[ d_\mathrm{int}(x,y) &\geq n \mid x \leftrightarrow y \bigr] \asymp n^{-1} &&\text{and}\\ \sup_{x\sim y}{\mathbf P}_{p_u}\bigl[ \operatorname{ConRad}(x,y) &\geq n \mid x \leftrightarrow y \bigr] \asymp n^{-2} &&\end{aligned}$$ where the suprema are taken over all neighbouring pairs of vertices in $M$. The reader may find it interesting to compare these exponents to the corresponding exponents for the free uniform spanning forest [@HutNach15b], which are $1/2$ and $1$ respectively. \[thm:planarpuexponents\] is complemented by forthcoming work of the author with Hermon [@SupercriticalNonamenable], which establishes in particular that, under the hypotheses of \[thm:planarpuexponents\], for every $p\in (0,p_u) \cup (p_u,1)$, there exists a constant $c_p>0$ such that $${\mathbf P}_{p}\bigl[ d_\mathrm{int}(x,y) \geq n \mid x \leftrightarrow y \bigr] \leq e^{-c_p n}$$ for every $n\geq 1$ and every pair of neighbouring vertices $x$ and $y$. Note that the lower bounds of \[thm:planarpuexponents\] theorem cannot be strengthened to apply to every edge, since the local geometry of the graph might make it impossible for the endpoints of some edges to be in distinct large clusters. The proof shows that the lower bound holds whenever the edge dual to that between $x$ and $y$ lies on a doubly infinite geodesic in $M^\dagger$. Let $\omega$ be $p_u$ percolation on $M$. Then $\omega^\dagger$ is $p_c$ percolation on $M^\dagger$ and consequently has only finite clusters by the results of [@BLPS99b; @Hutchcroft2016944] since $M^\dagger$ is quasi-transitive and nonamenable. Let $e$ be an edge of $M$, let $f$ and $g$ be the two faces of $M$ on either side of $e$, and let $K_1$ and $K_2$ be the clusters of $f$ and $g$ in $\omega^\dagger \setminus \{e^\dagger\}$ respectively. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are connected in $\omega$ with $d_\mathrm{int}(x,y)>1$ then we must have that $\omega(e)=0$ and that $K_1 \neq K_2$, since otherwise the path between $f$ and $g$ in $\omega^\dagger \setminus \{e^\dagger\}$ would disconnect $x$ from $y$. Moreover, we claim that there exist positive constants $c,C$ such that $$\label{eq:dint_duality} c \min\{ \|K_1\|, \|K_2\| \} \leq d_\mathrm{int}(x,y) \leq C\min\{ \|K_1\|, \|K_2\| \}$$ and $$\label{eq:conrad_duality} c \min\{ {\operatorname{diam}}(K_1), {\operatorname{diam}}(K_2) \} \leq \operatorname{ConRad}(x,y) \leq C\min\{ {\operatorname{diam}}(K_1), {\operatorname{diam}}(K_2) \}$$ on this event. Indeed, if $\eta$ is any open path from $x$ to $y$ in $\omega \setminus \{e\}$ then $\eta \cup \{e\}$ forms a cycle that surrounds one of the two clusters $K_1$ or $K_2$. The lower bound of follows by nonamenability of $M$ together with the fact that $M$ and $M^\dagger$ both have bounded degrees, these facts together implying that any simple cycle in $M$ must have length comparable to the number of faces it bounds. For the upper bound of , we note that the collection of dual edges other than $e$ in the boundary of $K_i$ must contain a primal path from $x$ to $y$ on the event that $K_1$ and $K_2$ are distinct. Thus, $d_\mathrm{int}(x,y)$ is at most this number of dual edges, which is at most a constant multiple of $\|K_i\|$ since $M^\dagger$ has bounded degrees. The bounds of follow by similar arguments. The upper bounds of the theorem follow immediately from the estimates , , the bounds and of \[thm:ext\_radius\] (applied to $M^\dagger$) together with the BK inequality. On the other hand, the lower bounds are very close to those of \[thm:multibody,thm:multiarm\] and can be deduced from those theorems via a finite energy argument. We will give only a brief sketch of how this is done; an essentially identical argument is given in detail in the proof of [@hutchcroft2018locality Theorem 1.3]. By \[thm:multibody,thm:multiarm\] applied to $M^\dagger$, there exist positive constants $c$ and $k$ such that if $f,g$ are faces of $M$ with distance at least $k$ (in $M^\dagger$) then $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf P}(K_{f},K_{g} \text{ distinct and } \|K_{f}\|,\|K_{g}\| \geq n) &\geq \frac{c}{n} \intertext{ and } {\mathbf P}(K_{f},K_{g} \text{ distinct and } {\operatorname{diam}}(K_{f}),{\operatorname{diam}}(K_{g}) \geq n) &\geq \frac{c}{n^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Fix two such $f$ and $g$. If we start with a configuration in which $K_f$ and $K_g$ are distinct and then force the edges along the geodesic in $M^\dagger$ between $f$ and $g$ to be open one at a time, there must be some first time when the two clusters merge when the next edge is added. At the time immediately before this one, the edge about to be added has endpoints in distinct clusters, both of which are at least as large (both in terms of volume and diameter) as $K_f$ and $K_g$ were in the original configuration. Since there are a constant number of choices of what this edge could be, and since forcing a bounded number of edges to be included in the percolation configuration increases probabilities of events by at most a constant, the claim follows. Outside of the planar case, the behaviour of percolation at $p_u$ is very poorly understood. In particular, no good characterisation of whether or not there is uniqueness at $p_u$ is known. It is known that quasi-transitive simply connected planar maps have uniqueness at $p_u$, but that graphs defined as infinite products [@MR1770624] and Cayley graphs of infinite Kazhdan groups [@LS99] have nonuniqueness at $p_u$. It is open whether uniform lattices in $\bbH^d$ with $d\geq 3$ have nonuniqueness at $p_u$ or not. Indeed, this is also open for transitive graphs that are rough-isometric to $\bbH^2$ but are not planar. In [@1804.10191 Section 6] it is shown that there is always nonuniqueness at $p_{2\to 2}$, and one possibility is that there is uniqueness at $p_u$ if and only if $p_u > p_{2\to 2}$. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- We thank Gady Kozma for helpful discussions on interpolation theory of operators, and thank Asaf Nachmias for comments on a draft. [^1]: Statistical Laboratory, DPMMS, University of Cambridge. Email: <[email protected]> [^2]: $C$ is for ‘compliment’ and $S$ is for ‘sphere’. [^3]: While the proof of [@1804.10191 Proposition 2.3] can also be made quantitative, the best bound we were able to prove using that approach was of the form $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{q\to q} \leq q^C$ for some possibly very large constant $C$ depending on $\\|T_{p_c}\\|_{2\to 2}$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Using evaluation at appropriately chosen points, we propose a Gröbner basis free approach for calculating the secondary invariants of a finite permutation group. This approach allows for exploiting the symmetries to confine the calculations into a smaller quotient space, which gives a tighter control on the algorithmic complexity, especially for large groups. This is confirmed by extensive benchmarks using a [`Sage`]{}implementation.' address: 'Univ. Paris-Sud, Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay, Orsay Cedex, F-91405; CNRS, France' author: - 'Nicolas Borie and Nicolas M. Thiéry' bibliography: - 'main.bib' title: \| An evaluation approach to computing\ invariants rings of permutation groups --- Introduction ============ Invariant theory has been a rich and central area of algebra ever since the eighteenth theory, with practical applications [@Kemper_Derksen.CIT.2002 § 5] in the resolution of polynomial systems with symmetries (see e.g. [@Colin.1997.SolvingSymmetries], [@Gatermann.1990.Symmetry], [@Sturmfels.AIT § 2.6], [@Faugere_Rahmany.2009.SAGBIGroebner]), in effective Galois theory (see e.g. [@Colin.TIE], [@Abdeljaouad.TIATG], [@Geissler_Kluners.2000.GaloisGroupComputations]), or in discrete mathematics (see e.g. [@Thiery.AIG.2000; @Pouzet_Thiery.IAGR.2001] for the original motivation of the second author). The literature contains deep and explicit results for special classes of groups, like complex reflection groups or the classical reductive groups, as well as general results applicable to any group. Given the level of generality, one cannot hope for such results to be simultaneously explicit and tight in general. Thus the subject was effective early on: given a group, one wants to calculate the properties of its invariant ring. Under the impulsion of modern computer algebra, computational methods, and their implementations, have largely expanded in the last twenty years [@Kemper.Invar; @Sturmfels.AIT; @Thiery.CMGS.2001; @Kemper_Derksen.CIT.2002; @King.2007.secondary; @King.2007.minimal]. However much progress is still needed to go beyond toy examples and enlarge the spectrum of applications. An important obstruction is that the algorithms depend largely on efficient computations in certain quotients of the invariant ring; this is usually carried out using elimination techniques (Gröbner or SAGBI-Gröbner bases), but those do not behave well with respect to symmetries. An emerging trend is the alternative use of evaluation techniques, for example to rewrite invariants in terms of an existing generating set of the invariant ring [@Gaudry_Schost_Thiery.2006; @Dahan_Schost_Wu.2009]. In this paper, and as a test bed, we focus on the problem of computing secondary invariants of finite permutation groups in the non modular case, using evaluation techniques. In Section \[section.preliminaries\], we review some relevant aspects of computational invariant theory, and in particular discuss the current limitations due to quotient computations. In Section \[section.quotient\], we give a new theoretical characterization of secondary invariants in term of their evaluations on as many appropriately chosen points; this is achieved by perturbating slightly the quotient, and using the grading to transfer back results. In Section \[section.algorithm\], we derive an algorithm for computing secondary invariants of permutation groups. We establish in Section \[section.complexity\] a worst case complexity bound for this algorithm. This bound suggests that, for a large enough group $G$, at least a factor of $\|G\|$ is gained. This comparison remains however sloppy since, to the best of our knowledge and due to the usual lack of fine control on the complexity of Gröbner bases methods, no meaningful bound exists in the literature for the elimination based algorithms. Therefore, in Section \[section.benchmarks\] we complement this theoretical analysis with extensive benchmarks comparing in particular our implementation in [`Sage`]{}and the elimination-based implementation in [`Singular`]{}’s [@Singular; @King.2007.secondary]. Those benchmarks suggest a practical complexity which, for large enough groups, is cubic in the size $n!/\|G\|$ of the output. And indeed, if the evaluation-based implementation can be order of magnitudes slower for some small groups, it treats predictably large groups which are completely out of reach for the elimination-based implementation. This includes an example with $n=14$, $\|G\|=50,803,200$, and $1716$ secondary invariants. We conclude, in Section \[section.future\], with a discussion of avenues for further improvements. Preliminaries {#section.preliminaries} ============= We refer to [@Stanley.1979; @Sturmfels.AIT; @Cox_al.IVA; @Smith.1997; @Kemper.1998; @Kemper_Derksen.CIT.2002] for classical literature on invariant theory of finite groups. Parts of what follows are strongly inspired by [@Kemper.1998]. Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{K}}$-vector space of finite dimension $n$, and $G$ be a finite subgroup of ${\operatorname{GL}}(V)$. Tacitly, we interpret $G$ as a group of $n\times n$ matrices or as a representation on $V$. Two vectors $v$ and $w$ are isomorphic, or in the same $G$-orbit (for short orbit), if $\sigma\cdot v=w$ for some $\sigma\in G$. Let ${\mathbf{x}}:=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ be a basis of the dual of $V$, and let ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ be the ring of polynomials over $V$. The action of $G$ on $V$ extends naturally to an action of $G$ on ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ by $\sigma\cdot p:=p\circ \sigma^{-1}$. An invariant polynomial, or invariant, is a polynomial $p\in K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ such that $\sigma\cdot p=p$ for all $\sigma\in G$. The invariant ring ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is the set of all invariants. Since the action of $G$ preserves the degree of polynomials, it is a graded connected commutative algebra: ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}=\bigoplus_{d\geq 0} {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d$, with ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_0\approx {\mathbb{K}}$. We write ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_+=\bigoplus_{d> 0} {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d$ for the positive part of the invariant ring. The Hilbert series of ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is the generating series of its dimensions: $${H({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)} := \sum_{d=0}^\infty z^d \dim {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d\,.$$ It can be calculated using Molien’s formula: $${H({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)} = \frac{1}{\|G\|} \sum_{M \in G} \frac{1}{\det(\operatorname{Id} - zM)}\,.$$ This formula reduces to Pólya enumeration for permutation groups. Furthermore, the summation can be taken instead over conjugacy classes of $G$, which is relatively cheap in practice. A crucial device is the Reynolds operator: $$\begin{array}{clll} R: & {{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}&\longrightarrow &{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}\\ & p &\longmapsto & \frac{1}{\|G\|} \sum_{g\in G} g.p\,, \end{array}$$ which is both a graded projection onto ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ and a morphism of ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$-module. Note that its definition requires $\operatorname{char} {\mathbb{K}}$ not to divide $\|G\|$, which we assume from now on (non-modular case). Hilbert’s fundamental theorem of invariant theory states that ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is finitely generated: there exists a finite set $S$ of invariants such that any invariant can be expressed as a polynomial combination of invariants in $S$. We call $S$ a generating set. If no proper subset of $S$ is generating, $S$ is a minimal generating set. Since ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is finitely generated, there exists a degree bound $d$ such that ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is generated by the set of all invariants of degree at most $d$. We denote by $\beta({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G})$ the smallest degree bound. Noether proved that $\beta({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G})\leq \|G\|$. Thanks to the grading, for $M$ a set of homogeneous invariants, the following properties are equivalent: (i) $M$ is a minimal generating set for ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$; (ii) $M$ is a basis of the quotient ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/ {{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_+}^2$. Therefore, even though the generators in $M$ are non canonical, the number of generators of a given degree $d$ in $M$ is: it is given by the dimension of the component of that degree in the graded quotient ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/ {{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_+}^2$. There is no known algorithm to compute those dimensions, or even just $\beta({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G})$, without computing explicitly a minimal generating set. The previous properties give immediately a naive algorithm for computing an homogeneous minimal generating set, calculating degree by degree in the finite dimensional quotient up to Noether’s bound. There are however two practical issues. The first one is that Noether’s bound is tight only for cyclic groups; in general it is very dull, possibly by orders of magnitude. The second issue is how to compute efficiently in the given quotient. We will get back to it. By a celebrated result of Shepard, Todd, Chevalley, and Serre, ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is a polynomial algebra if and only if $G$ is a complex reflection group. In all other cases, there are non trivial relations (also called syzygies) between the generators; however ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ remains Cohen-Macaulay. Namely, a set of $m$ homogeneous invariants $(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n)$ of ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is called a homogeneous system of parameters or, for short, a system of parameters if the invariant ring ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is finitely generated over its subring ${\mathbb{K}}[\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n]$. That is, if there exist a finite number of invariants $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_t)$ such that the invariant ring is the sum of the subspaces $\eta_i.{\mathbb{K}}[\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n]$. By Noether’s normalization lemma, there always exists a system of parameters for ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$. Moreover, ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is Cohen-Macaulay, which means that ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is a free-module over any system of parameters. Hence, if the set $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_t)$ is minimal for inclusion, ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ decomposes into a direct sum: $${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^t \eta_i . {\mathbb{K}}[\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n].$$ This decomposition is called a Hironaka decomposition of the invariant ring. The $\theta_i$ are called primary invariants, and the $\eta_i$ secondary invariants (in algebraic combinatorics literature, the $\theta_i$ are some times called quasi-generators and the $\eta_i$ separators [@Garsia_Stanton.1984]). It should be emphasized that primary and secondary invariants are not uniquely determined, and that being a primary or secondary invariant is not an intrinsic property of an invariant $p$, but rather express the role of $p$ in a particular generating set. The primary and secondary invariants together form a generating set, usually non minimal. From the degrees $(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ of the primary invariants $(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n)$ and the Hilbert series we can compute the number $t$ and the degrees $(d'_1,\dots,d'_t)$ of the secondary invariants $(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_t)$ by the formula: $$\label{eq:degres_secondaires} z^{d'_1}+\dots+z^{d'_t}=(1-z^{d_1})\cdots(1-z^{d_n}) H({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G},z)\,.$$ We denote this polynomial by ${S({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)}$. Assuming $d_1\le\dots\le d_n$ and $d'_1\le\dots\le d'_t$, it can be proved that: $$\label{eq.max_secondaires} \begin{gathered} t = \frac{d_1\cdots d_n}{\|G\|}\,,\qquad d'_t = d_1+\dots+d_n - n - \mu\,,\qquad \beta({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G})\le \max(d_n,d'_t)\,, \end{gathered}$$ where $\mu$ is the smallest degree of a polynomial $p$ such that $\sigma\cdot p=\det(\sigma) p$ for all $\sigma\in G$ [@Stanley.1979 Proposition 3.8]. For example, if $G$ is the symmetric group ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$, the $n$ elementary symmetric polynomials (or the $n$ first symmetric power sums) form a system of parameters, $t=1$, $d'_t=0$ and $\eta_1=1$. This is consistent with the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials. More generally, if $G$ is a permutation group, the elementary symmetric polynomials still form a system of parameters: ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ is a free module over the algebra ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}={{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^{{{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}}$ of symmetric polynomials. It follows that: $$\begin{gathered} t = \frac{n!}{\|G\|}\,,\qquad d'_t = \binom n 2 - \mu\,,\qquad \beta({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G})\le \binom{n}{2}\,.\end{gathered}$$ For a review of algorithms to compute primary invariants with minimal degrees, see [@Kemper_Derksen.CIT.2002]. They use Gröbner bases, exploiting the property that a set $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ of $n$ homogeneous invariants forms a system of parameters if and only if ${\mathbf{x}}=0$ is the single solution of the system of equations $\Theta_1({\mathbf{x}})=\cdots=\Theta_n({\mathbf{x}})=0$ (see e.g. [@Kemper_Derksen.CIT.2002 Proposition 3.3.1]). We focus here on the second step: we assume that primary invariants $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ are given as input, and want to compute secondary invariants. This is usually achieved by using the following proposition to reduce the problem to linear algebra. \[proposition.secondary\] Let $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ be primary invariants and $S:=(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_t)$ be a family of homogeneous invariants with the appropriate degrees. Then, the following are equivalent: (i) $S$ is a family of secondary invariants; (ii) $S$ is a basis of the quotient ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}$; (iii) $S$ is free in the quotient ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}}$. The central problem is how to compute efficiently inside one of the quotients ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}}$ or ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}$. Most algorithms rely on $(iii)$ using normal form reductions w.r.t. the Gröbner basis for $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ which was calculated in the first step to prove that they form a system of parameters. The drawback is that Gröbner basis and normal form calculations do not preserve symmetries; hence they cannot be used to confine the calculations into a small subspace of ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}}$. Besides, even the Gröbner basis calculation itself can be intractable for moderate size input ($n=8$) in part due to the large multiplicity ($d_1\cdots d_n$) of the unique root ${\mathbf{x}}=0$ of this system. An other approach is to use $(ii)$. Then, in many cases, one can make use of the symmetries to get a compact representation of invariant polynomials. For example, if $G$ is a permutation group, an invariant can be represented as a linear combination of orbitsums instead of a linear combination of monomials, saving a factor of up to $\|G\|$ (see e.g. [@Thiery.CMGS.2001]). Furthermore, one can use SAGBI-Gröbner bases (an analogue of Gröbner basis for ideals in subalgebras of polynomial rings) to compute in the quotient (see [@Thiery.CMGS.2001; @Faugere_Rahmany.2009.SAGBIGroebner]). However SAGBI and SAGBI-Gröbner basis tend to be large (in fact, they are seldom finite, see [@Thiery_Thomasse.SAGBI.2002]), even when truncated. In both cases, it is hard to derive a meaningful bound on the complexity of the algorithm, by lack of control on the behavior of the (SAGBI)-Gröbner basis calculation. In the following section, we propose to calculate in the quotient ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/ \langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle_{{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}$ using instead evaluation techniques. Quotienting by evaluation {#section.quotient} ========================= Recall that, in the good cases, an efficient mean to compute modulo an ideal is to use evaluation on its roots. \[proposition.semisimple\_quotient\] Let $P$ be a system of polynomials in ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ admitting a finite set ${\boldsymbol\rho}_1,\dots,{\boldsymbol\rho}_r$ of multiplicity-free roots, and let $I$ be the dimension $0$ ideal they generate. Endow further ${\mathbb{K}}^r$ with the pointwise (Hadamard) product. Then, the evaluation map: $$\begin{array}{clll} \Phi: & {{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}&\longrightarrow &{\mathbb{K}}^r\\ & p &\longmapsto &(p({\boldsymbol\rho}_1),\dots,p({\boldsymbol\rho}_r)) \end{array}$$ induces an isomorphism of algebra from ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/I$. In particular, ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/I$ is a semi-simple basic algebra, a basis of which is given by the $r$ idempotents $(p_i)_{i=1,\dots,r}$ which satisfy $p_i({\boldsymbol\rho}_j)=\delta_{i,j}$; those idempotents can be constructed by multivariate Lagrange interpolation, or using the Buchberger-Möller algorithm [@Buchberger_Moller.1982]. This proposition does not apply directly to the ideal $\langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n\rangle$ because it has a single root with a very high multiplicity $d_1\dots d_n$. The central idea of this paper is to blowup this single root by considering instead the ideal $\langle \Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_{n-1},\Theta_n-{\epsilon}\rangle$, where ${\epsilon}$ is a non zero constant, and then to show that the grading can be used to transfer back the result to the original ideal, modulo minor complications. This approach is a priori general: assuming the field is large enough, the ideal $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ can always be slightly perturbed to admit $d_1\cdots d_n$ multiplicity-free roots; those roots are obviously stable under the action of $G$, and can be grouped into orbits. Yet it can be non trivial to compute and describe those roots. For the sake of simplicity of exposition, we assume from now on that $G$ is a permutation group, that $\Theta_1,\dots,\Theta_n$ are the elementary symmetric functions $e_1,\dots,e_n$, and that ${\epsilon}=(-1)^{n+1}$. Finally we assume that the ground field ${\mathbb{K}}$ contains the $n$-th roots of unity; this last assumption is reasonable as, roughly speaking, the invariant theory of a group depends only on the characteristic of ${\mathbb{K}}$. With those assumptions, the roots ${\boldsymbol\rho}_i$ take a particularly nice and elementary form, and open connections with well know combinatorics. Yet we believe that this case covers a wide enough range of groups (and applications) to contain all germs of generality. In particular, the results presented here should apply mutatis mutandis to any subgroup $G$ of a complex reflection group. Let $\rho$ be a $n$-th primitive root of unity, and set ${\boldsymbol\rho}:=(1,\rho,\dots,\rho^{n-1})$. Then, $e_1({\boldsymbol\rho})=\cdots=e_{n-1}({\boldsymbol\rho}) = 0$ and $e_n({\boldsymbol\rho})={\epsilon}$. Up to sign, $e_i({\boldsymbol\rho})$ is the $i$-th coefficient of the polynomial $$(X^n - 1) = \displaystyle\prod_{i = 0}^{n-1} (X - \rho^i)\,.\qedhere$$ For $\sigma\in {{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$, write ${\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma:=\sigma\cdot{\boldsymbol\rho}$ the permuted vector. It follows from the previous remark that the orbit $({\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma)_{\sigma\in{{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}}$ of ${\boldsymbol\rho}$ gives all the roots of the system $$e_1({\mathbf{x}})=\cdots=e_{n-1}({\mathbf{x}})=e_n({\mathbf{x}})-{\epsilon}=0\,.$$ Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ be the ideal generated by $e_1,\dots,e_{n-1},e_n-{\epsilon}$ in ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$, that is the ideal of symmetric relations among the roots of the polynomial $X^n-1$; it is well known that the quotient ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/{\mathcal{I}}$ is of dimension $n!$. We define the evaluation map $\Phi: p \in {{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}\mapsto (p({\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma))_\sigma$ as in Proposition \[proposition.semisimple\_quotient\] to realize the isomorphism from ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}/{\mathcal{I}}$ to ${\mathcal{E}}= {\mathbb{K}}^{{{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}}$. Obviously, the evaluation of an invariant polynomial $p$ is constant along $G$-orbits. This simple remark is the key for confining the quotient computation into a small subspace of dimension $n!/\|G\|$, which is precisely the number of secondary invariants. Let ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$ be the subalgebra of the functions in ${\mathcal{E}}$ which are constant along $G$-orbits. Obviously, ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{K}}^L$ where $L$ is any transversal of the right cosets in ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}/G$. Let ${\mathcal{I}^G}$ be the ideal generated by $(e_1,\dots,e_{n-1},e_n-{\epsilon})$ in ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$; as the notation suggests, it is the subspace of invariant polynomials in ${\mathcal{I}}$. \[remark.isoquotientinvariant\] The restriction of $\Phi$ on ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$, given by: $$\begin{array}{clll} \Phi: & {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}&\longrightarrow &{{\mathcal{E}^G}}\\ & p &\longmapsto &(p({\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma))_{\sigma\in L} \end{array}$$ is surjective and induces an algebra isomorphism between ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}/{\mathcal{I}^G}$ and ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$. For each evaluation point ${\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma$, $\sigma\in L$, set $$\overline p_{{\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma} := \sum_{\tau\in \sigma G} p_{{\boldsymbol\rho}_\tau}\,,$$ where $p_{{\boldsymbol\rho}_\tau}$ is the Lagrange interpolator of Proposition \[proposition.semisimple\_quotient\]. Then, their images $(\Phi(\overline p_{{\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma}))_{\sigma\in L}$ are orthogonal idempotents and, by dimension count, form a basis of ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$. From now on, we call evaluation points the family $({\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma)_{\sigma\in L}$. We proceed by showing that the grading can be used to compute modulo the original ideal $\langle e_1,\dots,e_n\rangle$, modulo minor complications. \[keylemma\] Let $G$ be a subgroup of ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$ and ${\mathbb{K}}$ be a field of characteristic $0$ containing a primitive $n$-th root of unity. Let ${S_{}}$ be a set of secondary invariants w.r.t. the primary invariants $e_1,\dots,e_n$, and write $\langle {S_{}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}$ for the vector space they span (equivalently, one could choose a graded supplementary of the graded ideal $\langle e_1,\dots,e_n\rangle$ in ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$). Write ${S_{d}}$ for the secondary invariants of degree $d$. Then, $$\begin{array}{rl} \text{for } 0 \leqslant d < n : & \Phi({{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}_d^G) = \Phi(\langle {S_{d}}\rangle_{{\mathbb{K}}})\,, \\ \text{for } d \geqslant n : & \Phi({{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}_d^G) = \Phi(\langle {S_{d}}\rangle_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \oplus \Phi({{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}_{d-n}^G)\,.\\ \end{array}$$ In particular, $\Phi$ restricts to an isomorphism from $\langle {S_{}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}$ to ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$. For ease of notation, we write the Hironaka decomposition by grouping the secondary invariants by degree: $${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}= \bigoplus_{i=1}^t \eta_i {\mathbb{K}}[e_1, \dots , e_n] = \bigoplus_{d=0}^{d_{\max}} \langle {S_{d}} \rangle_{\mathbb{K}}{\mathbb{K}}[e_1, \dots , e_n]\,,$$ where $d_{\max}$ is the highest degree of a secondary invariant. Then, using that $$\begin{array}{l} \Phi(e_1) = \cdots = \Phi(e_{n-1}) = 0_{{\mathcal{E}^G}}\quad \text{ and } \quad \Phi(e_n) = 1_{{\mathcal{E}^G}}\,, \\ \end{array}$$ we get that $\Phi({\mathbb{K}}[e_1,\dots,e_n])=\Phi({\mathbb{K}}[e_n])={\mathbb{K}}.1_{{\mathcal{E}^G}}$, and thus: $${{\mathcal{E}^G}}= \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}) = \sum_{d=1}^{d_{\max}} \Phi(\langle {S_{d}} \rangle_{\mathbb{K}}) \Phi({\mathbb{K}}[e_1,\dots,e_n]) = \sum_{d=1}^{d_{\max}} \Phi(\langle {S_{d}} \rangle_{\mathbb{K}})\,,$$ where, by dimension count, the sum is direct. Using further that $e_n$ is of degree $n$: $$\begin{aligned} {4} \Phi({{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}_d^G) &= \Phi(\langle {S_{d}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}) &&+ \Phi(\langle {S_{d-n}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}e_n) &&+ \Phi(\langle{S_{d-2n}}\rangle_{{\mathbb{K}}} e_n^2) &&+ \cdots\\ &= \Phi(\langle {S_{d}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}) &&\oplus \Phi(\langle {S_{d-n}}\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}) &&\oplus \Phi(\langle{S_{d-2n}}\rangle_{{\mathbb{K}}}) &&\oplus \cdots \end{aligned}$$ The desired result follows by induction. In practice, this lemma adds to Proposition \[proposition.secondary\] two new equivalent characterizations of secondary invariants: \[theorem.secondary.evaluation\] Let $G\subset {{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$ be a permutation group, take $e_1,\dots,e_n$ as primary invariants, and let $S=(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_t)$ be a family of homogeneous invariants with the appropriate degrees. Then, the following are equivalent: (i) $S$ is a set of secondary invariants; (ii) $\Phi(S)$ forms a basis of ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$; (iii) The elements of $\Phi({S_{d}})$ are linearly independent in ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$, modulo the subspace $$\sum_{0\leq j < d, \ n \,\|\, d-j} \langle \Phi(S_j)\rangle_{\mathbb{K}}\,.$$ Furthermore, when any, and therefore all of the above hold, the sum in $(v)$ is a direct sum. Direct application of Lemma \[keylemma\], together with recursion for the direct sum. Let $G=\mathcal A_3=\langle (1,2,3)\rangle$ be the alternating group of order $3$. In that case, $\rho$ is the third root of unity $j$, and ${\mathbb{K}}={\mathbb{Q}}(j)={\mathbb{Q}}\oplus_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{Q}}.j \oplus_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{Q}}.j^2$. We are looking for $n!/\|G\|=2$ secondary invariants, whose degree are given by the numerator of the Hilbert series: $${H({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)} = \frac 1 3 \left( \frac{1}{(1-z)^3} + 2 \frac{1}{(1-z^3)} \right) = \frac{1+z^3}{(1-z)(1-z^2)(1-z^3)}$$ Simultaneously, the ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$-orbit of $(1,\rho,\rho^2)$ splits in two $G$-orbits. We can, for example, take as evaluation points the two $G$-orbit representatives ${\boldsymbol\rho}_{()} = (1,\rho,\rho^2)$ and ${\boldsymbol\rho}_{(2,1)}=(\rho,1,\rho^2)$, and the evaluation morphism is given by: $$\begin{array}{clll} \Phi: & {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}&\longrightarrow &{{\mathcal{E}^G}}={\mathbb{K}}^2\\ & p &\longmapsto &(p({\boldsymbol\rho}_{()}), p({\boldsymbol\rho}_{(1,2)}))) \end{array}$$ For example, $\Phi(1)=\Phi(e_3)=(1,1)$, whereas $\Phi(e_1)=\Phi(e_2)=0$. Let us evaluate the orbitsum of the monomial $x_1^2x_2 = {\mathbf{x}}^(2,1,0)$, using Remark \[remark.evaluation.orbitsum\]: $$\begin{aligned} {3} &{o({\mathbf{x}}^{(2,1,0)})}({\boldsymbol\rho}_{()}) &=& j^{\langle (2,1,0), (0,1,2)\rangle} + j^{\langle (2,1,0), (1,2,0)\rangle} + j^{\langle (2,1,0), (2,0,1)\rangle} &=& 3j\,,\\ &{o({\mathbf{x}}^{(2,1,0)})}({\boldsymbol\rho}_{(1,2)}) &=& j^{\langle (2,1,0), (1,0,2)\rangle} + j^{\langle (2,1,0), (0,2,1)\rangle} + j^{\langle (2,1,0), (2,1,0)\rangle} &=& 3j^2\,. \end{aligned}$$ That is $\Phi({o(x_1^2x_2)})=3.(j,j^2)$. It follows that: $$\begin{aligned} \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_0)&={\mathbb{K}}.(1,1)\\ \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_1)&= \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_2) = \{(0,0)\}\\ \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_3)&={\mathbb{K}}.(1,1)\oplus {\mathbb{K}}.(3,3) = {\mathbb{K}}.\Phi(1) \oplus {\mathbb{K}}.\Phi({o(x_1^2x_2)})\,. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $1$ and ${o(x_1^2x_2)}$ are two secondary invariants, both over ${\mathbb{K}}$ or ${\mathbb{Q}}$: $${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}= {\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}\oplus {\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}.{o(x_1^2x_2)}\,.$$ We consider now the two extreme cases. For $G={{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$, there is a single evaluation point and a single secondary invariant $1$; and indeed, $\Phi(1)=(1)$ spans $\Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}) = {\mathbb{K}}$. Take now $G=\{()\}$ the trivial permutation group on $n$ points. Then, the evaluation points are the permutations of $(1,j,j^2,\dots,j^{n-1})$. In that case, Theorem \[theorem.secondary.evaluation\] states in particular that the matrix $(j^{\langle m, \sigma})_{m,\sigma}$, where $m$ and $\sigma$ run respectively through the integer vectors below the staircase and through ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$, is non singular. An algorithm for computing secondary invariants by evaluation {#section.algorithm} ============================================================= Algorithm \[algorithm\] is a straightforward adaptation of the standard algorithm to compute secondary invariants in order to use the evaluation morphism $\Phi$ together with Theorem \[theorem.secondary.evaluation\]. § We assume that the following have been precomputed from the Hilbert series: - $s_d$: the number of secondary invariants of degree $d$\ (this is the coefficient of degree $d$ of ${S({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)}$) - $e_d$: the dimension of $\dim \Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d)$\ (this is $s_d$ if $d<n$ and $e_{d-n}+s_d$ otherwise) At the end of each iteration of the main loop: - $\S_d$ is a set ${S_{d}}$ of secondary invariants of degree $d$; - ${\mathcal{I}}_d$ is a set of irreducible secondary invariants of degree $d$; - $E_d$ models the vector space $\Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d)$. Code, in pseudo-[`Python`]{}syntax: $$\begin{small} \begin{array}{l} \textbf{def }\text{SecondaryInvariants(G)} : \\ {\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{for } d \in \{0, 1, 2, \dots , \deg({S({{{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}}, z)})\}: \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{I}}_d \leftarrow \{\}\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\S_d \leftarrow \{\}\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{if } d \geqslant n :\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{E}}_d \leftarrow {\mathcal{E}}_{d-n} {\qquad \text{\footnotesize{\#Defect of direct sum of Theorem~\ref{theorem.secondary.evaluation}}}}\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{else} : \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{E}}_d \leftarrow \{\vec 0\} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\text{\# Consider all products of secondary invariants of lower degree} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{for } (\eta, \eta') \in \S_k \times {\mathcal{I}}_l \text{ with } k+l = d : \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{if } \Phi(\eta\eta') \notin {\mathcal{E}}_d:\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\S_d \leftarrow \S_d \cup \{\eta\eta'\} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{E}}_d \leftarrow {\mathcal{E}}_d \oplus {\mathbb{K}}. \Phi(\eta\eta') \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\text{\# Complete with orbitsums of monomials under the staircase} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{for } m \in \text{CanonicalMonomialsUnderStaircaseOfDegree(d)} : \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{if } \dim {\mathcal{E}}_d == e_d: \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{break} {\qquad \text{\footnotesize{\#All secondary invariants were found}}}\\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\eta \leftarrow \text{OrbitSum}(m) \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{if } \Phi(\eta) \notin {\mathcal{E}}_d : \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{I}}_d \leftarrow {\mathcal{I}}_d \cup \{\eta\} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}\S_d \leftarrow \S_d \cup \{\eta\} \\ {\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\hspace{4ex}}{\mathcal{E}}_d \leftarrow {\mathcal{E}}_d \oplus {\mathbb{K}}.\Phi(\eta) \\ {\hspace{4ex}}\textbf{return } (\{\S_0, \S_1, \dots \}, \{{\mathcal{I}}_0, {\mathcal{I}}_1, \dots \}) \end{array} \end{small}$$ For the sake of the upcoming complexity analysis, we now detail how the required new invariants in each degree can be generated and evaluated in the case of a permutation group. It is well known that the ring ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ is a free ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$-module of rank $n!$. It admits several natural bases over ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$, including the Schubert polynomials, the descent monomials, and the monomials under the staircase. We focus on the later. Namely, encoding a monomial $m={\mathbf{x}}^\alpha$ in ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ by its exponent vector $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots , \alpha_n)$, $m$ is under the staircase if $\alpha_i \leqslant n-i$ for all $1 \leqslant i \leqslant n$. Given a permutation group $G \subset {{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$, a monomial $m$ is canonical if $m$ is maximal in its $G$-orbit for the lexicographic order: $\sigma(m) \leqslant_{{\operatorname{lex}}} m$, $\forall \sigma \in G$. The following lemma is a classical consequence of the Reynolds operator being a ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$-module morphism. \[lemma.spanning\] Let $M$ be a family of polynomials which spans ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ as a ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$-module. Then, the set of invariants $\{R(m) \mid m\in M\}$ spans ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ as a ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$ module. In particular, taking for $M$ the set of monomials under the staircase, one gets that the orbitsums of monomials which are simultaneously canonical and under the staircase generate ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ as a ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$-module. One can further remove non zero integer partitions from this set. Let $p \in {{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$ be an invariant polynomial, and write it as $p=\sum_{m\in M} f_m m$, where the $f_m$ are symmetric polynomials. Then, using that the Reynolds operator $R$ is a ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$-module morphism, one gets as desired that: $$p = R(p) = R(\sum_{m\in M} f_m m) = \sum_{m\in M} f_m R(m)\,.\qedhere$$ \[remark.canonical\] The canonical monomials under the staircase can be iterated through efficiently using orderly generation [@Read.1978; @McKay.1998] and a strong generating system of the group $G$ [@Seress.2003.PermiutationGroupAlgorithms]; the complexity of this iteration can be safely bounded above by ${\mathcal{O}}(n!)$, though in practice it is much better than that (see Figures \[benchmarks.cannonics.average\] and \[benchmarks.cannonics.bound\], and [@Borie.2011.Thesis] for details). \[benchmarks.cannonics.average\] \[benchmarks.cannonics.bound\] \[remark.evaluation.monomial\] Let ${\mathbf{x}}^\alpha$ be a monomial. Then, evaluating it on a point ${\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma$ requires at most ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ arithmetic operations in ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Assume indeed that $\rho^k$ has been precomputed in ${\mathbb{K}}$ and cached for all $k$ in $0,\dots,n-1$; then, one can use: $${\mathbf{x}}^\alpha({\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma) = \rho^{\langle \alpha\mid \sigma\rangle \mod n }\,,$$ where $\sigma$ is written, in the scalar product, as a permutation of $\{0,\dots,n-1\}$. \[remark.evaluation.orbitsum\] Currently, the evaluation of the orbitsum ${o({\mathbf{x}}^\alpha)}$ of a monomial on a point ${\boldsymbol\rho}_\sigma$ is carried out by evaluating each monomial in the orbit. This gives a complexity of ${\mathcal{O}}(n\|G\|)$ arithmetic operations in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ (for counting how many times each $\rho^k$ appears in the result) and ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ additions in ${\mathbb{K}}$ (for expressing the result in ${\mathbb{K}}$). This can be roughly bounded by ${\mathcal{O}}(\|G\|)$ arithmetic operations in ${\mathbb{K}}$. This bounds the complexity of calculating $\Phi({o({\mathbf{x}}^\alpha)})$ on all $\frac{n!}{\|G\|}$ points by $\frac{n!}{\|G\|} {\mathcal{O}}(\|G\|)={\mathcal{O}}(n!)$. This worst case complexity gives only a very rough overestimate of the average complexity in our application. Indeed, in practice, most of the irreducible secondary invariants are of low degree; thus Algorithm \[algorithm\] only need to evaluate orbitsums of monomials $m$ of low degree; such monomials have many multiplicities in their exponent vector, and tend to have a large automorphism group, that is a small orbit. Furthermore, it is to be expected that such evaluations can be carried out much more efficiently by exploiting the inherent redundancy (à la Fast Fourrier Transform). In particular, one can use the strong generating set of $G$ to apply a divide and conquer approach to the evaluation of an orbitsum on a point. The complexity analysis and benchmarking remains to be done to evaluate the practical gain. Finally, the evaluation of an orbitsum on many points is embarrassingly parallel (though fine grained), a property which we have not exploited yet. Complexity analysis {#section.complexity} =================== For the sake of simplicity, all complexity results are expressed in terms of arithmetic operations in the ground field ${\mathbb{K}}={\mathbb{Q}}(\rho)$. This model is realistic, because, in practice, the growth of coefficients does not seem to become a bottleneck; a possible explanation for this phenomenon might be that the natural coefficient growth would be compensated by the pointwise product which tends to preserve and increase sparseness. We also consider that one operation in ${\mathbb{K}}$ is equivalent to $n$ operations in ${\mathbb{Q}}$. This is a slight abuse; however $\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{Q}}(\rho) = \phi(n)\geq 0.2n$ for $n\leq 10000$ which is far beyond any practical value of $n$ in our context. \[proposition.complexity\] Let $G$ be a permutation group, and take the elementary symmetric functions as primary invariants. Then, the complexity of computing secondary invariants by evaluation using Algorithm \[algorithm\] is bounded above by ${\mathcal{O}}(n!^2 + n!^3/\|G\|^2)$ arithmetic operations in ${\mathbb{K}}$. To get this upper bound on the complexity, we broadly simplify the main steps of this algorithm to: 1. Group theoretic computations on $G$: strong generating set, conjugacy classes, etc; \[proposition.complexity.group\] 2. Computation of the Hilbert series of ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}$; \[proposition.complexity.hilbert\] 3. Construction of canonical monomials under the staircase; \[proposition.complexity.canonical\] 4. Computation by $\Phi$ of the evaluation vectors of the orbitsums of those monomials; \[proposition.complexity.evaluation\] 5. Computation of products $\Phi(\eta)\Phi(\eta')$ of evaluation vectors of secondary invariants; \[proposition.complexity.products\] 6. Row reduction of the evaluation vectors. \[proposition.complexity.reduction\] The complexity of is a small polynomial in $n$ (see e.g. [@Seress.2003.PermiutationGroupAlgorithms]) and is negligible in practice as well as in theory. can be reduced to the addition of $c$ polynomials of degree at most $\binom n 2$, where $c\leq \|G\|\leq n!$ is the number of conjugacy classes of $G$ (the denominator of the Hilbert series is known; the mentioned polynomials contribute to its numerator, that is the generating series of the secondary invariants); it is negligible as well. Furthermore, by Remark \[remark.canonical\] is not a bottleneck. Using Lemma \[lemma.spanning\] and Remark \[remark.evaluation.orbitsum\], the complexity of is bounded above by ${\mathcal{O}}(n!^2)$ (at most ${\mathcal{O}}(n!)$ orbitsums to evaluate, for a cost of ${\mathcal{O}}(n!)$ each). For a very crude upper bound for , we assume that the algorithm computes all products of evaluation vectors of two secondary invariants. This gives $(n!/G)^2$ products in ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$ which is in ${\mathcal{O}}(n!/G)^3$. Finally, in , the cost of the row reduction of ${\mathcal{O}}(n!)$ evaluation vectors in ${{\mathcal{E}^G}}$ is of ${\mathcal{O}}(n!^3/\|G\|^2)$. This complexity bound gives some indication that the symmetries are honestly taken care of by this algorithm. Consider indeed any algorithm computing secondary invariants by linear algebra in ${\mathbb{K}}[x]/{\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}^+$ (say using Gröbner basis or orthogonal bases for the Schur-Schubert scalar product). Then the same estimation gives a complexity of ${\mathcal{O}}(n!^2/\|G\|)$ (reducing $n!$ candidates to get $n!/\|G\|$ linearly independent vectors in a vector space of dimension $n!$). Therefore, for $G$ large enough, a gain of $\|G\|$ is obtained. That being said, this is a very crude upper bound. For a fixed group $G$, one could use the Hilbert series to calculate explicitly a much better estimate: indeed the grading splits the linear algebra in many smaller problems and also greatly reduces the number of products to consider. However, it seems hard in general to get enough control on the Hilbert series, to derive complexity information solely in term of basic information on the group ($n$, $\|G\|$, ...). Also, in practice, there usually are only few irreducible invariants, and they are of small degrees. Thus only few of the canonical monomial need actually to be generated and evaluated. It is therefore essential to complement this complexity analysis with extensive benchmarks to confirm the practical gains. This is the topic of the next section. Implementation and benchmarks {#section.benchmarks} ============================= Algorithm \[algorithm\], and many variants, have been implemented in the open source mathematical platform [`Sage`]{} [@Sage]. The choice of the platform was motivated by the availability of most of the basic tools (group theory via [`GAP`]{} [@GAP4], cyclotomic fields, linear algebra, symmetric functions, etc), and the existence of a community to share with the open-source development of the remaining tools (e.g. Schubert polynomials or the orderly generation of canonical monomials) [@Sage-Combinat]. Thanks to the [`Cython`]{}compiler, it was also easy to write most of the code in a high level interpreted language ([`Python`]{}), and cherry pick just those critical sections that needed to be compiled (orderly generation, evaluation). The implementation is publicly available in alpha version via the [`Sage-Combinat`]{}patch server. It will eventually be integrated into the [`Sage`]{}library. We ran systematic benchmarks (see Figure \[benchmark.sage-singular\] and \[benchmark.relative\]), comparing the results with the implementation of secondary invariants in [`Singular`]{} [@Singular; @King.2007.secondary]. Note that [`Singular`]{}’s implementation deals with any finite group of matrices. Also, it precomputes and uses its own primary invariants instead of the elementary symmetric functions. Therefore, the comparison is not immediate: on the one hand, [`Singular`]{}has more work to do (finding the primary invariants); on the other hand, when the primary invariants are of small degree, the size of the result can be much smaller. Thus, those benchmarks should eventually be complemented by: - Calculations of secondary invariants w.r.t. the elementary symmetric functions, using Gröbner basis using [`Singular`]{}and [`Magma`]{}; - Calculations of secondary invariants using [`Singular`]{}and [`Magma`]{}; - Calculations of secondary invariants w.r.t. the elementary symmetric functions, using SAGBI-Gröbner basis (for example by using [`MuPAD-Combinat`]{} [@Thiery.PerMuVAR; @MuPAD-Combinat]). A similar benchmark comparing [`Magma`]{} [@Cannon_al.1996] and [`MuPAD-Combinat`]{}is presented in [@Thiery.CMGS.2001 Figure 1] (up to a bias: the focus in [`MuPAD-Combinat`]{}is on a minimal generating set, but this is somewhat equivalent to irreducible secondary invariants). This benchmark can be roughly compared with that of Figure \[benchmark.sage-singular\] by shifting by a speed factor of $10$ to compensate for the hardware improvements since 2001. Related benchmarks are available in [@King.2007.secondary; @King.2007.minimal]. We used the transitive permutation groups as test bed. A practical motivation is that there are not so many of them and they are easily available through the [`GAP`]{}database [@Hulpke.2005.TransitivePermutationGroups]. At the same time, we claim that they provide a wide enough variety of permutation groups to be representative. In particular, the computation for non transitive permutation groups tend to be easier, since one can use primary invariants of much smaller degrees, namely the elementary symmetric functions in each orbit of variables. The benchmarks were run on the computation server `sage.math.washington.edu`[^1] which is equipped with 24 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7460 @2.66GHz cores and $128$ GB of RAM. We did not use parallelism, except for running up to four tests in parallel. The memory usage is fairly predictable, at least for the [`Sage`]{}implementation, so we did not include it into the benchmarks. In practice, the worst calculation used $12$ GB. Any calculation running over 24 hours was aborted. \[benchmark.sage-singular\] \[benchmark.relative\] Further developments {#section.future} ==================== At this stage, the above sections validate the potential of the evaluation approach. Yet much remains to be done, both in theory and practice, to design algorithms making an optimal use of this approach. The main bottleneck so far is the calculation of evaluations by $\Phi$, and we conclude with a couple problems we are currently investigating in this direction. Construct invariants with nice properties under evaluation by $\Phi$ (sparsity, ...). A promising starting point are Schubert polynomials [@LascouxSchutzenberger82; @Lascoux.2003.CBMS], as they form a basis of ${{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}$ as ${\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbf{x})}$-module whose image under $\Phi$ is triangular. However, it is not clear whether this triangularity can be made somehow compatible with the coset distribution of $G$ in ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$. Another approach would be to search for invariants admitting short Straight Line Programs. Note that a good solution to this problem, combined with the evaluation approach of this paper, could possibly open the door for the solution of a long standing problem, namely the explicit construction of secondary invariants; currently such a description is known only in the very simple case of products of symmetric groups [@Garsia_Stanton.1984]. Even just associating in some canonical way a secondary invariant to each coset in ${{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}/G$ seems elusive. From a practical point of view, the following would be needed. Find a good algorithm to compute $\Phi$ on the above invariants. This is similar in spirit to finding an analogue of the Fast Fourier Transform w.r.t. the Fourier Transform. Theorem \[theorem.secondary.evaluation\] further suggests that, using the grading, it could be sufficient to consider only a subset of the evaluation points.This is corroborated by computer exploration; for example, for the cyclic group $C_7$ of order $7$, $110$ evaluation points out of $720$ were enough for constructing the secondary invariants. Possible approaches include lazy evaluation strategies, or explicit choices of evaluation points, or some combination of both. \[problem.points\] Get some theoretical control on which evaluation points are needed so that $\Phi$ restricted on those points remains injective on some (resp. all) homogeneous component ${{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d$. Here again, Schubert polynomials are natural candidates, with the same difficulty as above. A step toward Problem \[problem.points\] would be to solve the following. For $G\subset{{\mathfrak{S}_{n}}}$ a permutation group, and to start with for $G$ the trivial permutation group, find a good description of the subspaces $\Phi({{{\mathbb{K}}[\mathbf{x}]}^G}_d)$. Last but not least, one would want to generalize the evaluation approach to any matrix groups, following the line sketched in the introduction. The issue is whether one can get enough control on perturbations of the primary invariants so that: - The orbits of the simple roots are large, in order to benefit from the gain of taking a single evaluation point per orbit; - Only few of the primary invariants need to be perturbated, to best exploit the grading in the analogue of Theorem \[theorem.secondary.evaluation\]. Acknowledgments =============== We would like to thank Marc Giusti, Alain Lascoux, Romain Lebreton, and Éric Schost, for fruitful discussions, as well as the anonymous referees of the extended abstract presented at MEGA 2011 [@Borie_Thiery.2011.Invariants] for their many useful suggestions for improvements. This research was driven by computer exploration using the open-source mathematical software [`Sage`]{} [@Sage]. In particular, we perused its algebraic combinatorics features developed by the [`Sage-Combinat`]{}community [@Sage-Combinat], as well as its group theoretical and invariant theoretical features provided respectively by [`GAP`]{} [@GAP] and [`Singular`]{} [@Singular]. The extensive benchmarks were run on the computational server `sage.math.washington.edu`, courtesy of the [`Sage`]{}developers group at the University of Washington (Seattle, USA) and the “National Science Foundation Grant No. DMS-0821725”. [^1]: This server is part of the [`Sage`]{}cluster at the University of Washington at Seattle and is devoted to [`Sage`]{}development; it was financed by “National Science Foundation Grant No. DMS-0821725”.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper presents a general iterative bias correction procedure for regression smoothers. This bias reduction schema is shown to correspond operationally to the $L_2$ Boosting algorithm and provides a new statistical interpretation for $L_2$ Boosting. We analyze the behavior of the Boosting algorithm applied to common smoothers $S$ which we show depend on the spectrum of $I-S$. We present examples of common smoother for which Boosting generates a divergent sequence. The statistical interpretation suggest combining algorithm with an appropriate stopping rule for the iterative procedure. Finally we illustrate the practical finite sample performances of the iterative smoother via a simulation study. simulations.' address: - \| Address of P-A Cornillon\ UMR ASB - Montpellier SupAgro\ 34060 Montpellier Cedex 1\ - \| Address of N. Hengartner\ Los Alamos National Laboratory,\ NW, USA\ - \| Address of E. Matzner-Løber\ Statistics, IRMAR UMR 6625,\ Univ. Rennes 2,\ 35043 Rennes, France\ \ author: - - - bibliography: - './biblio.bib' title: 'Recursive Bias Estimation and $L_2$ Boosting' --- , Introduction ============ Regression is a fundamental data analysis tool for uncovering functional relationships between pairs of observations $(X_i,Y_i), i=1,\ldots,n$. The traditional approach specifies a parametric family of regression functions to describe the conditional expectation of the dependent variable $Y$ given the independent variables $X \in {\mathbb R}^p$, and estimates the free parameters by minimizing the squared error between the predicted values and the data. An alternative approach is to assume that the regression function varies smoothly in the independent variable $x$ and estimate locally the conditional expectation of $Y$ given $X$. This results in nonparametric regression estimators (e.g. @fan+1996 [@hastie+1995; @simonoff1996]). The vector of predicted values $\widehat Y_i$ at the observed covariates $X_i$ from a nonparametric regression is called a regression smoother, or simply a smoother, because the predicted values $\widehat Y_i$ are less variable than the original observations $Y_i$. Over the past thirty years, numerous smoothers have been proposed: running-mean smoother, running-line smoother, bin smoother, kernel based smoother (@nadaraya1964 [@watson1964]), spline regression smoother, smoothing splines smoother (@whittaker1923 [@wahba1990]), locally weighted running-line smoother (@cleveland1979), just to mention a few. We refer to @buja++1989 [@eubank1988; @fan+1996; @hastie+1995] for more in depth treatments of regression smoothers. An important property of smoothers is that they do not require a rigid (parametric) specification of the regression function. That is, we model the pairs $(X_i,Y_i)$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:basic.model} Y_i &=& m(X_i) + \varepsilon_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,\end{aligned}$$ where $m(\cdot)$ is an unknown smooth function. The disturbances $\varepsilon_i$ are independent mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$ random variables that are independent of the covariates $X_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$. To help our discussion on smoothers, we rewrite Equation (\[eq:basic.model\]) compactly in vector form by setting $Y=(Y_1,\ldots,Y_n)^t$, $m=(m(X_1),\ldots,m(X_n))^t$ and $\varepsilon=(\varepsilon_1,\ldots,\varepsilon_n)^t$, to get $$\begin{aligned} Y &=& m + \varepsilon. \label{eq:model.vector}\end{aligned}$$ Finally we write $\widehat m = \widehat Y =(\widehat Y_1,\ldots,\widehat Y_n)^t$, the vector of fitted values from the regression smoother at the observations. Operationally, linear smoothers can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m = S_\lambda Y,\end{aligned}$$ where $S_\lambda$ is a $n \times n$ smoothing matrix. While in general the smoothing matrix will be not be a projection, it is usually a contraction (@buja++1989). That is, $\\|S_\lambda Y \\| \leq \\|Y\\|$. Smoothing matrices $S_\lambda$ typically depend on a tuning parameter, which denoted by $\lambda$, that governs the tradeoff between the smoothness of the estimate and the goodness-of-fit of the smoother to the data. We parameterize the smoothing matrix such that large values of $\lambda$ will produce very smooth curves while small $\lambda$ will produce a more wiggly curve that wants to interpolate the data. The parameter $\lambda$ is the bandwidth for kernel smoother, the span size for running-mean smoother, bin smoother, and the penalty factor $\lambda$ for spline smoother. Much has been written on how to select an appropriate smoothing parameter, see for example (@simonoff1996). Ideally, we want to choose the smoothing parameter $\lambda$ to minimize the expected squared prediction error. But without explicit knowledge of the underlying regression function, the prediction error can not be computed. Instead, one minimizes estimates of the prediction error using Stein Unbiased Risk Estimate or Cross-Validation (@li1985). This paper takes a different approach. Instead of selecting the tuning parameter $\lambda$, we fix it to some reasonably large value, in a way that ensures that the resulting smoothers oversmooths the data, that is, the resulting smoother will have a relatively small variance but a substantial bias. Observe that the conditional expectation of the $-R=-(Y-\widehat Y)$ given $X$ is the bias of the smoother. This provides us with the opportunity of estimating the bias by smoothing the residuals $R$, thereby enabling us to bias correct the initial smoother by subtracting from it the estimated bias. The idea of estimating the bias from residuals to correct a pilot estimator of a regression function goes back to the concept of twicing introduced by (@tukey1977) to estimate bias from model misspecification in multivariate regression. Obviously, one can iteratively repeat the bias correction step until the increase to the variance from the bias correction outweighs the magnitude of the reduction in bias, leading to an iterative bias correction. Another iterative function estimation method, seemingly unrelated to bias reduction, is Boosting. Boosting was introduced as a machine learning algorithm for combining multiple weak learners by averaging their weighted predictions (@schapire1990 [@freund1995]). The good performance of the Boosting algorithm on a variety of datasets stimulated statisticians to understand it from a statistical point of view. In his seminal paper, @breiman1998 shows how Boosting can be interpreted as a gradient descent method. This view of Boosting was reinforced by @friedman2001. Adaboost, a popular variant of the Boosting algorithm, can be understood as a method for fitting an additive model (@friedman++2000) and recently @efron+++2004 made a connection between $L_2$ Boosting and Lasso for linear models. But connections between iterative bias reduction and Boosting can be made. In the context of nonparametric density estimation, @marzio+2004 have shown that one iteration of the Boosting algorithm reduced the bias of the initial estimator in a manner similar to the multiplicative bias reduction methods (@hjort+1995 [@jones++1995; @hengartner+2007]). In the follow-up paper (@marzio+2007), they extend their results to the nonparametric regression setting and show that one step of the Boosting algorithm applied to an oversmooth effects a bias reduction. As expected, the decrease in the bias comes at the cost of an increase in the variance of the corrected smoother. In Section 2, we show that in the context of regression, such iterative bias reduction schemes obtained by correcting an estimator by smoothers of the residuals correspond operationally to the $L_2$ Boosting algorithm. This provides a novel statistical interpretation of $L_2$ Boosting. This new interpretation helps explain why, as the number of iteration increases, the estimator eventually deteriorates. Indeed, by iteratively reducing the bias, one eventually adds more variability than one reduces the bias. In Section 3, we discuss the behavior of the $L_2$ Boosting of many commonly used smoothers: smoothing splines, Nadaraya-Watson kernel and $K$-nearest neighbor smoothers. Unlike the good behavior of the $L_2$ boosted smoothing splines discussed in @buhlmann+2003, we show that Boosting $K$-nearest neighbor smoothers and kernel smoothers that are not positive definite produces a sequence of smoothers that behave erratically after a small number of iteration, and eventually diverge. The reason for the failure of the $L_2$ Boosting algorithm, when applied to these smoothers, is that the bias is overestimated. As a result, the Boosting algorithm over-corrects the bias and produces a divergent smoother sequence. Section 4 discusses modifications to the original smoother to ensure good behavior of the sequence of boosted smoothers. To control both the over-fitting and over-correction problems, one needs to stop the $L_2$ Boosting algorithm in a timely manner. Our interpretation of the $L_2$ Boosting as an iterative bias correction scheme leads us to propose in Section 5 several data driven stopping rules: Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), a modified AIC, Generalized Cross Validation (GCV), one and $L$-fold Cross Validation, and estimated prediction error estimation using data splitting. Using either the asymptotic results of @li1987 or the finite sample oracle inequality of @hengartner++2002, we see that stopped boosted smoother has desirable statistical properties. We use either of these theorems to conclude that the desirable properties of the boosted smoother does not depend on the initial pilot smoother, provided that the pilot oversmooths the data. This conclusion is reaffirmed from the simulation study we present in Section 6. To implement these data driven stopping rules, we need to calculate predictions of the smoother for any desired value of the covariates, and not only at the observations. We show in Section 5 how to extend linear smoothers to give predictions at any desired point. The simulations in Section 6 show that when we combine a GCV based stopping rule to the $L_2$ Boosting algorithm seems to work well. It stops early when the Boosting algorithm misbehaves, and otherwise takes advantage of the bias reduction. Our simulation compares optimum smoothers and optimum iterative bias corrected smoothers (using generalized cross validation) for general smoothers without knowledge of the underlying regression function. We conclude that the optimal iterative bias corrected smoother outperforms the optimal smoother. Finally, the proofs are gathered in the Appendix. Recursive bias estimation {#section:bias} ========================= In this section, we define a class of iteratively bias corrected linear smoothers and highlight some of their properties. Bias Corrected Linear Smoothers ------------------------------- For ease of exposition, we shall consider the univariate nonparametric regression model in vector form (\[eq:model.vector\]) from Section 1 $$\begin{aligned} Y &=& m + \varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where the errors $\varepsilon$ are independent, have mean zero and constant variance $\sigma^2$, and are independent of the covariates $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$, $X_j \in {\mathbb R}$. Extensions to multivariate smoothers are strait forward and we refer to @buja++1989 for example. Linear smoothers can be written as $$\label{eq:smoother.0} \widehat m_1 = S Y,$$ where $S$ is an $n \times n$ smoothing matrix. Typical smoothing matrices are contractions, so that $\\|S Y\\| \leq \\|Y\\|$, and as a result the associated smoother $SY$ is called a shrinkage smoother (see for example @buja++1989). Let $I$ be the $n \times n$ identity matrix. The linear smoother (\[eq:smoother.0\]) has bias $$\label{eq:bias.0} B(\widehat m_1) = {\mathbb E}[\widehat m_1\|X] - m = (S-I)m$$ and variance $$\begin{aligned} V(\widehat m_1\|X) = S S^\prime \sigma^2,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. A natural question is “how can one estimate the bias?” To answer this question, observe that the residuals $R_1=Y-\widehat m_1=(I-S)Y$ have expected value ${\mathbb E}[R_1\|X] = m - {\mathbb E}[\widehat m_1\|X] = (I-S)m = -B(\widehat m_1)$. This suggests estimating the bias by smoothing the negative residuals $$\label{eq:bias.1} \widehat b_1 := -SR_1 = -S(I-S)Y.$$ This bias estimator is zero whenever the smoothing matrix $S$ is a projection, as is the case for linear regression, bin smoothers and regression splines. However, since most common smoothers are not projections, we have an opportunity to extract further signal from the residual and possibly improve upon the initial estimator. Note that a smoothing matrix other than $S$ can be used to estimate the bias in (\[eq:bias.1\]), but as we shall see, in many examples, using $S$ works very well, and leads to an attractive interpretation of Equation (\[eq:bias.1\]). Indeed, since the matrices $S$ and $I-S$ commute, we can express the estimated bias as $$\begin{aligned} \widehat b_1 = -S(I-S)Y = -(I-S)SY = (S-I) \widehat m_1.\end{aligned}$$ We recognize the latter as the right-hand side of (\[eq:bias.0\]) with the smoother $\widehat m_1$ replacing the unknown vector $m$. This says that $\hat b_1$ is a plug-in estimate for the bias $B(\hat m_1)$. Subtracting the estimated bias from the initial smoother $\widehat m_1$ produces the twicing estimator $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m_2 & = & \widehat m_1 - \widehat b_1\\ &=& (S + S(I-S))Y \\ &=& (I - (I-S)^2)Y.\end{aligned}$$ Since the twiced smoother $\widehat m_2$ is also a linear smoother, one can repeat the above discussion with $\widehat m_2$ replacing $\widehat m_1$, producing a thriced linear smoother. We can iterate the bias correction step to recursively define a family of bias corrected smoothers. Starting with $\widehat m_1 = SY$, construct recursively for $k=2,3,\ldots$, the sequences of residuals, estimated bias and bias corrected smoothers $$\begin{aligned} R_{k-1} &=& (I-S)^{k-1} Y \nonumber \\ \widehat b_k & = & -S R_{k-1} = -(I-S)^{k-1} SY \nonumber \\ \widehat m_k &=& \widehat m_{k-1} - \widehat b_k = \widehat m_{k-1} + SR_{k-1}. \label{eq:def.mk}\end{aligned}$$ We show in the next theorem that the iteratively bias corrected smoother $\hat m_k$ defined by Equation \[eq:def.mk\] has a nice representation in terms of the original smoothing matrix $S$. \[theorem:iterative\] The $k^{th}$ iterated bias corrected linear smoother $\widehat m_k$ (\[eq:def.mk\]) can be explicitly written as $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m_k &=& S[I+(I-S)+(I-S)^2+\dots+(I-S)^{k-1}]Y \nonumber \\ &=& [I-(I-S)^k]Y=S_k Y.\label{eq:fk}\end{aligned}$$ [Example with a Gaussian kernel smoother]{} Throughout the next two sections, we shall use the following example to illustrate the behavior of the Boosting algorithms applied to various common smoothers. Take the design points to be 50 independently drawn points from an uniform distribution on the unit interval $[0,1]$. The true regression function is $m(x)=\sin(5 \pi x)$, the solid line in the Figure \[fig:exemple1\], and the disturbances are mean zero Gaussians with variance producing a signal to noise ratio of five. In the next figure, the initial smoother is a kernel one, with a bandwidth equals to 0.2 and a Gaussian kernel. This pilot smoother heavily oversmooths the data, see Figure \[fig:exemple1\] that shows that the pilot smoother (plain line) is nearly constant. The iterative bias corrected estimators are plotted in figure (\[fig:exemple1\]) for values of $k$, the number of iterations, in $\{1,10,50,100,500,10^3,10^5,10^6\}$ ![True function $m_1$ (fat plain line) and different estimators varying with the number of iterations $k$.\[fig:exemple1\]](exemple1.eps) Figure \[fig:exemple1\] shows how each bias correction iteration changes the smoother, starting from a nearly constant smoother and slowly deforming (going down into the valleys and up into the peaks) with increasing number of iterations $k=10$, $k=50$ and $k=100$. After 500 iterations, the iterative smoother is very close to the true function. However when the number of iterations is very large (here $k=10^5$ and $10^6$) the iterative smoother deteriorates. \[MSE\] The squared bias and variance of the $k^{th}$ iterated bias corrected linear smoother $\widehat m_k$ (\[eq:def.mk\]) are $$\begin{aligned} B^2(\hat m_k) &=& m^t\left((I-S)^k\right)^t(I-S)^k m\\ \operatorname{V}(\hat m_k) &=& \sigma^2(I-(I-S)^k)\left((I-(I-S)^k)\right)^t.\end{aligned}$$ Remark: Symmetric smoothing matrices $S$ can be decomposed as $S=P_{S}\Lambda_{S}P_{S}^t$, with orthonormal matrix $P_S=[u_1,u_2,\cdots,u_n]$ and diagonal matrix $\Lambda_S$. $$\begin{aligned} \label{sym.iter} \hat m_k &=& P_{S} \operatorname{diag}(1-(1-\Lambda_S)^k)P_{S}^{t} Y = \sum_j (1-(1-\lambda_j)^k) u_ju_j^t Y.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[MSE\], we get $$\begin{aligned} B^2(\hat m_k) &=& m^tP_S(I-\Lambda_S)^{2k} P_S^tm\\ \operatorname{V}(\hat m_k) &=& \sigma^2P_S(I-(I-\Lambda_S)^k)^2P_S^t.\end{aligned}$$ Hence if the magnitude of the eigenvalues of $I-S$ are bounded by one, each iteration of the bias correction will decrease the bias and increase the variance. This monotonicity (decreasing bias, increasing variance) with increasing number of iterations $k$ allows us consider data driven selection for number of bias correction steps to achieves the best compromise between bias and variance of the smoother. The preceding remark suggests that the behavior of the iterative bias corrected smoother $\widehat m$ is tied to the spectrum of $I-S$, and not of $S$. The next theorem collects the various convergence results for iterated bias corrected linear smoothers. \[theorem:converge\] Suppose that the singular values $\lambda_j = \lambda_j(I-S)$ of $I-S$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:condition.theorem} -1 < \lambda_j < 1 \quad \mbox{for} \quad j=1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Then we have that $$\begin{aligned} && \\|\hat b_k\\| < \\|\hat b_{k-1}\\| \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \hat b_k = 0,\\ && \\|R_k\\| < \\|R_{k-1}\\| \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} R_k = 0,\\ && \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \widehat m_k = Y \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} {\mathbb E}[\\|\widehat m_k - m\\|^2] = n \sigma^2.\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if $I-S$ has a singular value $\|\lambda_j\| > 1$, then $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \\|\hat b_k\\| = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \\|R_k\\| = \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \\| \widehat m_k\\| = \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Remark 1: This theorem shows that iterating the booting algorithm to reach the limit of the sequence of boosted smoothers, $Y_\infty$, is not the desirable. However, since each iteration decreases the bias and increases the variance, a suitably stopped Boosting estimator is likely to improve upon the initial smoother. Remark 2: When $\|\lambda_j(I-S)\| > 1$, the iterative bias correction fails. The reason is that $\hat b_k$ overestimates the true bias $b_k$, and hence Boosting repeatedly overcorrects the bias of the smoothers, which results in a divergent sequence of smoothers. Divergence of the sequence of boosted smoothers can be detected numerically, making it possible to avoid this bad behavior by combining the iterative bias correction procedure with a suitable stopping rule. Remark 3: The assumption that for all $j$, the singular values $-1 < \lambda_j(I-S) < 1$ implies that $I-S$ is a contraction, so that $\\|(I-S)Y\\| < \\|Y\\|$. This condition does not imply that the smoother $S$ itself is a shrinkage smoother as defined by (@buja++1989). Conversely, not all shrinkage estimators satisfy the condition \[eq:condition.theorem\] of the theorem. In Section 3, we will given examples of common shrinkage smoothers for which $\|\lambda_j(I-S)\| > 1$, and show numerically that for these shrinkage smoothers, the iterative bias correction scheme will fail. $L_2$ Boosting for regression ----------------------------- Boosting is one of the most successful and practical methods that arose 15 years ago from the machine learning community (@schapire1990 [@freund1995]). In light of @friedman2001, the Boosting algorithms has been interpreted as functional gradient descent technique. Let us summarize the $L_2$ Boost algorithm described in @buhlmann+2003. [Step 0:]{} Set $k=1$. Given the data $\{(X_i,Y_i), i=1,\ldots,n\}$, calculate an pilot regression smoother $$\begin{aligned} \hat F_1(x) &=& h(x;\hat \theta_{X,Y}),\end{aligned}$$ by least squares fitting of the parameter, that is, $$\hat \theta_{X,Y}=\operatorname{argmin}_{\theta}\sum_{i=1}^n (Y_i-h(X_i,\theta))^2.$$ [Step 1:]{} With a current smoother $\widehat F_k$, compute the residuals $U_i=Y_i-\hat F_k(X_i)$ and fit the real-valued learner to the current residuals by least square. The fit is denoted by $\hat f_{k+1}(.)$. Update $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:update.gradient} \hat F_{k+1}(.) &=& \hat F_k(.) + \hat f_{k+1}(.).\end{aligned}$$ [Step 2:]{} Increase iteration index $k$ by one and repeat step 1. The smoothing matrix associated with the $k^{th}$ Boosting iterate of linear smoother with smoothing matrix $S$ is $$\begin{aligned} \hat F_{k} = (I-(I-S)^k)Y=B_k Y.\end{aligned}$$ Viewing Boosting as a greedy gradient descent method, the update formula (\[eq:update.gradient\]) is often modified to include convergence factor* $\mu_k$, as in @friedman2001, to become $$\begin{aligned} \hat F_{k+1}(.) &=& \hat F_k(.) + \hat \mu_{k+1} \hat f_{k+1}(\cdot),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat \mu_{k+1}$ is the best step toward the best direction $\hat f_{k+1}(\cdot)$. This general formulation allows a great deal of flexibility, both in selecting the type of smoother used in each iteration of the Boosting algorithm, and in the selection of the convergence factor. For example, we may start with a running mean pilot smoother, and use a smoothing spline to estimate the bias in the first Boosting iteration and a nearest neighbor smoother to estimate the bias in the second iteration. However in practice, one typically uses the same smoother for all iterations and fix the convergence factor $\mu_k \equiv \mu \in (0,1)$. That is, the sequence of smoothers resulting from the Boosting algorithm is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:mod.boosting} \hat F_{k} = (I-(I- \mu S)^k)Y=B_k Y.\end{aligned}$$ We shall discuss in detail in Section \[ingeniering\] the impact of this convergence factor and other modifications to the Boosting algorithm to ensure good behavior of the sequence of boosted smoothers. Boosting classical smoothers ============================ This section is devoted to understanding the behavior of the iterative Boosting schema using classical smoothers, which in light of Theorem \[theorem:converge\], depends on the magnitude of the singular values of the matrix $I-S$. We start our discussion by noting that Boosting a [projection type smoothers]{} is of no interest because residuals $(I-S)Y$ are orthogonal to smoother $SY$. It follows that the smoothed residuals $S(I-S)Y=0$, and as a result, $\widehat m_k = \widehat m_1$ for all $k$. Hence Boosting a bin smoother or a regression spline smoother leaves the initial smoother unchanged. Consider the [$K$-nearest neighbor smoother]{}. Its associated smoothing matrix is $S_{ij}=1/K$ if $X_j$ belongs to the $K$-nearest neighbor of $X_i$ and $S_{ij}=0$ otherwise. Note that this smoothing matrix is not symmetric. While this smoother enjoys many desirable properties, it is not well suited for Boosting because the matrix $I-S$ has singular values larger than one. \[knn\] In the fixed design or in the uniform design, as soon as the number of $K$ is bigger than one and smaller than $n$, at least one singular value of $I-S$ is bigger than 1. The proof of the theorem is found in the appendix. A consequence of Proposition \[knn\] and Theorem \[theorem:converge\], is that the Boosting algorithm applied to a $K$-nearest neighbor smoother produces a sequence of divergent smoothers, and hence should not be used in practice. [Example continued with $K$-nearest neighbor smoother.]{} We confirm this behavior numerically. Using the same data as before, we apply the Boosting algorithm starting with an pilot $K$-nearest neighbor smoother with $K=10$. The pilot estimator is plotted in a plain line, and the various boosted smoothers with $k$, the number of iterations, valued in $\{2,\cdots,5\}$ in dotted lines. ![True function $m_1$ (fat plain line) and different estimators varying with the number of iterations $k$.\[fig:uniform\]](exempleknn.eps) For $k=1$, the pilot smoother is nearly constant (since we take $K=10$ neighbors) and very quickly the iterative bias corrected estimator explodes. Qualitatively, the smoothers are getting higher at the peaks and lower in the valleys, which is consistent with an overcorrection of the bias. Contrast this behavior with the one shown in Figure 1. [Kernel type smoother]{}. For Nadaraya kernel type estimator, the smoothing matrix $S$ has entries $S_{ij} = K_h(X_i-X_j)/\sum_k K_h(X_i-X_k)$, where $K(.)$ is a symmetric function (e.g., uniform, Epanechnikov, Gaussian), $h$ denotes the bandwidth and $K_h(\cdot)$ is the scaled kernel $K_h(t)=h^{-1}K(t/h)$. The matrix $S$ is not symmetric but can be written as $S= D \mathbb{K}$ where $\mathbb{K}$ is symmetric with general element $[K_h(X_i-X_j)]$ and $D$ is diagonal with element $1/\sum_j K_h(X_i-X_j)$. Algebraic manipulations allows us to rewrite the iterated estimator as $$\begin{aligned} \hat m_k &=& [I-(I-S)^k]Y \\ &=& [I - (D^{1/2}D^{-1/2} - D^{1/2}D^{1/2}\mathbb{K}D^{1/2}D^{-1/2})^k]Y\\ &=&[I - D^{1/2}(I - D^{1/2}\mathbb{K}D^{1/2})^kD^{-1/2}]Y\\ &=&D^{1/2}[I-(I - A)^k] D^{-1/2}Y.\end{aligned}$$ Since the matrix $A=D^{1/2}\mathbb{K}D^{1/2}$ is symmetric, we apply the classical decomposition $A=P_{A}\Lambda_AP_A^{t}$, with $P_A$ orthonormal and $\Lambda_A$ diagonal, to get a closed form expression for the boosted smoother $$\begin{aligned} \hat m_k &=&D^{1/2}P_{A}[I-(I - \Lambda_A)^k]P_A^{t}D^{-1/2}Y.\end{aligned}$$ The eigen decomposition of $A=D^{1/2}\mathbb{K}D^{1/2}$ can be used to describe the behavior of the sequence of iterative estimators. In particular, any eigenvalue of $A=D^{1/2}\mathbb{K}D^{1/2}$ that is negative or greater than 2 will lead to unstable procedure. If the kernel $K(\cdot)$ is a symmetric probability density function positive definite, then the spectrum of the Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoother lies between zero and one. \[kernel\] If the inverse Fourier-Stieltjes transform of a kernel $K(\cdot)$ is a real positive finite measure, then the spectrum of the Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoother lies between zero and one. Conversely, suppose that $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ are an independent $n$-sample from a density $f$ (with respect to Lebesgue measure) that is bounded away from zero on a compact set strictly included in the support of $f$. If the inverse Fourier-Stieltjes transform of a kernel $K(\cdot)$ is not a positive finite measure, then with probability approaching one as the sample size $n$ grows to infinity, the maximum of the spectrum of $I-S$ is larger than one. [Remark 1:]{} Since the $\operatorname{spec}(A)$ is the same as the $\operatorname{spec}(S)$ and $S$ is row stochastic, we conclude that $\operatorname{spec}(A) \leq 1$. So we are only concern by the presence of negative eigenvalues in the spectrum of $A$. [Remark 2:]{} In @marzio+2008 proved the first part of the theorem. Our proof of the converse shows that for large enough sample sizes, most configurations from a random design lead to smoothing matrix $S$ with negative singular values. [Remark 3:]{} The assumption that the inverse Fourier-Stieltjes transform of a kernel $K(\cdot)$ is a real positive finite measure is equivalent to the kernel $K(\cdot)$ being positive a definite function, that is, for any finite set of points $x_1,\ldots,x_m$, the matrix $$\left ( \begin{array}{ccccc} K(0) & K(x_1-x_2) & K(x_1-x_3) & \dots & K(x_1-x_m) \\ K(x_2-x_1) & K(0) & K(x_2-x_3) & \dots & K(x_2-x_m)\\ \vdots & & & & \vdots \\ K(x_m-x_1) & K(x_m - x_2) & K(x_m-x_3) & \dots & K(0) \end{array} \right )$$ is positive definite. We refer to @schwartz1993 for a detailed study of positive definite functions. The Gaussian and triangular kernels are positive definite kernels (they are the Fourier transform of a finite positive measure (@feller1966)) and in light of Theorem \[kernel\] the Boosting of Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoothers with these kernels produces a sequence of well behavior smoother. However, the uniform and the Epanechnikov kernels are not positive definite. Theorem \[kernel\] states that for large samples, the spectrum of $I-S$ is larger than one and as a result the sequence of boosted smoother diverges. Proposition \[unif\] below strengthen this result by stating that the largest singular value of $I-S$ is always larger than one. \[unif\] Let $S$ be the smoothing matrix of a Nadaraya-Watson regression smoother based on either the uniform or the Epanechnikov kernel. Then the largest singular value of $I-S$ is larger than one. [Example continued with Epanechnikov kernel smoother.]{} In the next figure, the pilot smoother is a kernel one with an Epanechnikov kernel and with bandwidth is equal to 0.15. The pilot smoother is the plain line, and the subsequent iterations with $k$, the number of iterations, valued in $\{1,2,5,10,20,50,100\}$, are the dotted lines. ![True function $m_1$ (fat plain line) and different estimators varying with the number of iterations $k$.\[fig:knn\]](exempleepane.eps) For $k=1$, the pilot smoother oversmooths the true regression since the bandwidth takes almost one third of the data and very quickly the iterative estimator explodes. Contrast this behavior with the one shown by the Gaussian kernel smoother in Figure \[fig:exemple1\]. Finally, let us now consider the [smoothing splines smoother]{}. The smoothing matrix $S$ is symmetric, and therefore admits an eigen decomposition. Denote by $\{u_1,u_2,\cdots,u_n\}$ an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of $S$ associated to the eigenvalues $1 \geq \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_n \geq 0$ (@utreras1983). Denote by $P_{S}=[u_1,u_2,\cdots,u_n]$ the orthonormal matrix of column eigenvectors and write $S= P_{S} \operatorname{diag}(\lambda_S)P_{S}^{t}$, that is $S= \sum_j \lambda_j u_ju_j^t$. The iterated bias reduction estimator is given by (\[sym.iter\]). Since all the eigenvalues are between 0 and 1, then if $k$ is large, the iterative procedure kills the eigenvalues less than 1 and put the others to 1. [Example continued with smoothing splines smoother]{} In the next figure, the pilot smoother is a smoothing spline, with $\lambda$ equals to 0.2. The different estimators are plotted in figure (\[fig:exemple2\]), with the pilot estimator in plain line and the boosted smoothers with number of iterations $k$ being $\{10, 50, 100, 500, 10^3, 10^5,10^6\}$ in dotted lines. ![True function $m_1$ (fat plain line) and different estimators varying with the number of iterations $k$.\[fig:exemple2\]](exemple.sspline.eps) The pilot estimator is more variable than the pilot estimator of figure \[fig:exemple1\] and by the way the convergence and the deterioration arise faster. Smoother engineering {#ingeniering} ==================== Practical implementations of the Boosting algorithm include a user selected convergence factor $\mu \in (0,1)$ that appears in the definition of the boosted smoother $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:def.Bk} \hat m_{k} = (I-(I- \mu S)^k)Y=B_k Y.\end{aligned}$$ In this section, we show that when $\mu < 1$, one effectively operates a partial bias correction. This partial bias correction does not however resolve the problems associated with Boosting a nearest neighbor or Nadaraya Watson kernel smoothers with compact kernel we exhibited in the previous section. To resolve these problems, we propose to suitably modify the boosted smoother. We call such targeted changes smoother engineering. The following iterative partial bias reduction scheme is equivalent to the Boosting algorithm defined by Equation (\[eq:def.Bk\]): Given a smoother $\widehat m_k = B_k Y$ at the $k^{th}$ iteration of the Boosting algorithm, calculate the residuals $R_k$ and estimated bias $\widehat b_k$ $$\begin{aligned} R_k &=& Y - \widehat m_k = (I-B_k)Y\\ \widehat b_k &=& S R_k = S(I-B_k) Y.\end{aligned}$$ Next, given $0 < \mu < 1$, consider the partially bias corrected smoother $$\label{eq:m.k+1} \widehat m_{k+1} = \widehat m_k + \mu \widehat b_k.$$ Algebraic manipulations of the smoothing matrix of the right-hand side of (\[eq:m.k+1\]) yields $$\begin{aligned} B_k + \mu S(I-B_k) = I - (I-\mu S)^{k+1},\end{aligned}$$ from which we conclude that $\widehat m_{k+1}$ satisfies (\[eq:def.Bk\]) and therefore is the $(k+1)^{th}$ iteration of the Boosting algorithm. It is interesting to rewrite (\[eq:m.k+1\]) as $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m_{k+1} = (1-\mu) \widehat m_k + \mu \left [ \widehat m_k + \widehat b_k \right ],\end{aligned}$$ which shows that boosted smoother $\widehat m_{k+1}$ is a convex combination between the smoother $\widehat m_k$ at iteration $k$, and the fully bias corrected smoother $\widehat m_k+\widehat b_k$. As a result, we understand how the introduction of a convergence factor produces a “weaker learner” than the one obtained for $\mu=1$. In analogy to Theorem \[theorem:converge\], the behavior of the sequence of the smoother depends on the spectrum of $I-\mu S$. Specifically, if $\max_j \|\lambda_j(I-\mu S)\| \leq 1$, then $\lim_{k \longrightarrow \infty} \widehat m_k = Y$,and conversely, if $\max_j \|\lambda_j(I-\mu S)\| > 1$, $\lim_{k \longrightarrow \infty} \\|\widehat m_k\\| = \infty$. Inspection of the proofs of propositions \[knn\] and \[kernel\] reveal that the spectrum of $(I-\mu S)$ for both the nearest neighbor smoother and the Nadaraya Watson kernel smoother has singular values of magnitude larger than one. Hence the introduction of the convergence factor does not help resolve the difficulties arising when Boosting these smoothers. To resolve the potential convergence issues, one needs to suitably modify the underlying smoother to ensure that the magnitude of the singular values of $I-\mu S$ are bounded by one. A practical solution is to replace the smoothing matrix $S$ by $S^\star = S S^t$. If $S$ is a contraction, it follows that the eigenvalues of $I-S^\star$ are nonnegative and bounded by one. Hence the Boosting algorithm with this smoother will produce a well behaved sequence of smoothers with $\lim_{k \longrightarrow \infty} \widehat m_k = Y$. While substituting the smoother $S^\star$ for $S$ can produces better boosted smoothers in cases where Boosting failed, our numerical experimentations has shown that the performance of Boosting $S^\star$ is not as good as Boosting $S$ when the pilot estimator enjoyed good properties, as is the case for smoothing splines and the Nadaraya Watson kernel smoother with Gaussian kernel. Stopping rules\[stop\] ====================== Theorem \[theorem:converge\] in Section \[section:bias\] states that the limit of the sequence of boosted smoothers is either the raw data $Y$ or has norm $\\|Y_\infty\\|=\infty$. It follows that iterating the Boosting algorithm until convergence is not desirable. However, since each iteration of the Boosting algorithm reduces the bias and increases the variance, often a few iteration of the Boosting algorithm will produce a better smoother than the pilot smoother. This brings up the important question of how to decide when to stop the iterative bias correction process. Viewing the latter question as a model selection problem suggests stopping rules based on Mallows’ $C_p$ (@mallows1973), Akaike Information Criterion, AIC, (@akaike1973), Bayesian Information Criterion, BIC, (@schwarz1978), and Generalized cross validation (@craven+1979). Each of these selectors estimate the optimum number of iterations $k$ of the Boosting algorithm by minimizing estimates of the expected squared prediction error of the smoothers over some pre-specified set ${\mathcal K}=\{1,2,\ldots,M\}$. Three of the six criteria we study numerically in Section 6 use plug-in estimates for the squared bias and variance of the expected prediction mean square error. Specifically, consider $$\begin{aligned} \hat k_{AIC}&=&\operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \left\{ \widehat{\sigma}^2+ 2\frac{\operatorname{trace}(S_k)}{n} \right\},\label{AIC}\\ && \nonumber\\ \hat k_{GCV}&=&\operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\left\{ \log{\widehat {\sigma}^2}-2\log{\left(1-\frac{\operatorname{trace}(S_k)}{n}\right)} \right\},\label{GCV}\\ && \nonumber\\ \hat k_{AIC_C} &=& \operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \left\{\log{\widehat {\sigma}^2}+1+\frac{2(\operatorname{trace}(S_k)+1)} {n-\operatorname{trace}(S_k)-2}\right\}.\label{AICc}\end{aligned}$$ In nonparametric smoothing, the AIC criteria (\[AIC\]) has a noticeable tendency to select more iterations than needed, leading to a final smoother $\widehat m_{\widehat k_{AIC}}$ that typically undersmooths the data. As a remedy, @hurvich++1998 introduced a corrected version of the AIC (\[AICc\]) under the simplifying assumption that the nonparametric smoother $\hat m$ is unbiased, which is rarely hold in practice and which is particularly not true in our context. The other three criteria considered in our simulation study in Section 6 are Cross-Validation, L-fold cross-validation and data splitting, all of which estimate empirically the expected prediction mean square error by splitting the data into learning and testing sets. Implementation of these criterion require one to evaluate the smoother at locations outside the of the design. To this end, write the $k^{th}$ iterated smoother as a $k$ times bias corrected smoother $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m_k &=& \widehat m_0 + \widehat b_1 + \dots + \widehat b_k \\ &=& S[I+(I-S)+(I-S)^2+\dots+(I-S)^{k-1}]Y,\end{aligned}$$ which we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} \widehat m_k &=& S \hat \beta_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \hat \beta_k &=& [I+(I-S)+(I-S)^2+\dots+(I-S)^{k-1}]Y \\ &=& Y + R_1 + R_2 + \dots + R_k\end{aligned}$$ is a vector of size $n$. Given the vector $S(x)$ of size $n$ whose entries are the weights for predicting $m(x)$, we calculate $$\begin{aligned} \label{entoutx} \widehat m_k(x) = S(x)^t \widehat \beta_k.\end{aligned}$$ This formulation is computationally advantageous because the vector of weights $S(x)$ only needs to be computed once, while each Boosting iteration updates the parameter vector $\widehat \beta_k$ by adding the residuals $R_k = Y-\widehat m_k$ of the fit to the previous value of the parameter, i.e., $\widehat \beta_k = \widehat \beta_{k-1} + R_k$. The vector $S(x)$ is readily computed for many of the smoothers used in practice. For kernel smoothers, the $i^{th}$ entry in the vector $S(x)$ is $$\begin{aligned} S_i(x) = \frac{K_h(x-X_i)}{\sum_j K_h(x-X_j)}.\end{aligned}$$ For smoothing spline, let $N(x)$ denote the vector of basis function evaluated at $x$. One can show that $\hat m_k(x) = N(x) M \hat \beta_k$, where $M$ is the $n \times n$ matrix given by $$\begin{aligned} M &=& (N^tN + \lambda \Omega)^{-1} N^t.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the $K$-nn smoother, the entries of the vector $S(x)$ are $$\begin{aligned} S_i(x) = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll} 1/K & \mbox{if $X_i$ is a $K$-nn of $x$}\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right . .\end{aligned}$$ We note that if the spectrum of $I-S$ is bounded in absolute value by one, then the parameter $\hat \beta_k \longrightarrow \beta_\infty$, and hence we have pointwise convergence of $\widehat m_k(x)$ to some $m_\infty(x)$, whose properties depend on $S(x)$. To define the data splitting and cross validation stopping rules, one divides the sample into two disjoint subset: a learning set ${\mathcal L}$ which is used to estimate the smoother $\widehat m^{\mathcal L}$, and a testing set ${\mathcal T}$ on which predictions from the smoother are compared to the observations. The data splitting selector for the number of iterations is $$\begin{aligned} \label{DS} \hat k_{DS} &=& \operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{T}} \left(Y_i - \hat m^{\mathcal{L}}_k(X_i) \right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ One-fold cross validation, or simply cross validation, and more generally $L$-fold cross validation average the prediction error over all partitions of the data into into learning and testing sets, with fixed size of the testing set $\|{\mathcal T}\|=L$. This leads to $$\begin{aligned} \label{CV} \hat k_{CV} &=& \operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \sum_{\|{\mathcal T}\|=L} \sum_{i \in {\mathcal T}}^n \left(Y_i - \hat m^{\mathcal L}_k(X_i) \right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ We rely on the expansive literature on model selection to provide insight into the statistical properties of stopped boosted smoother. For example, Theorem 3.2 of @li1987 describes the asymptotic behavior of the generalized cross-validation (GCV) stopping rule applied to spline smoothers. Assume that Li’s assumptions are verified for the smoother $S$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\\| m- S_{\hat k_{GCV}} Y \\|^2} {\inf_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\\| m- S_k Y\\|^2} \rightarrow 1 \quad \hbox{in probability}.\end{aligned}$$ Results on the finite sample performance for data splitting for arbitrary smoothers is presented in Theorem 1 of @hengartner++2002 who proved the following oracle inequality. For each $k$ in $\mathcal{K}$, $\lambda>0$ and $\alpha>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} P\left\{\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=n+1}^{n+m} (\hat{m}_{K_{DS}}-m)^2(X_i) -(1-\alpha)\sum_{i=n+1}^{n+m} (\hat{m}_{k}-m)^2(X_i) \geq \lambda \right\}\\ \leq \|K\| \sqrt{ \left(\frac{32(1+\alpha)\sigma^2}{\pi \alpha m \lambda}\right) \left[\exp\left(\frac{\alpha m \lambda}{8(1+\alpha)\sigma^2}\right)-1\right]^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ [Example continued with smoothing splines]{} Figure \[fig:initialsmoother\] shows the three pilot smoothers (smoothing splines with different smoothing parameters) considered in the simulation study in Section 6. ![True function $m_1$ (plain line) and different pilot smoothing spline smoother, $S(\lambda_1)$ (dotted line), $S(\lambda_2)$ (dashed line),$S(\lambda_3)$ (dash-dotted line) for the 50 data points of one replication (Gaussian error).\[fig:initialsmoother\]](points_depart.eps) Starting with the smoothest pilot smoother $S(\lambda_1)$, the Generalized Cross Validation criteria stops after 1389 iterations. Starting with smoother $S(\lambda_2)$, GCV stopped after 23 iterations, while starting with the noisiest pilot $S(\lambda_3)$, GCV stopped after one iteration. It is remarkable how similar the final smoother are. ![True function $m_1$ (plain line) and different pilot smoothing spline smoother, $S(\lambda_1)$ (dashed line), $S(\lambda_2)$ (dotted line),$S(\lambda_3)$ (dash-dotted line) for the same 50 data points as in figure \[fig:initialsmoother\] of one replication (Gaussian error).\[fig:finalsmoother\]](points_arrivee.eps) The final selected estimators are very close to one another, despite the different pilot smoothers and the different numbers iterations that were selected by the GVC criteria. Despite the flatness of the pilot smoother $S(\lambda_1)$, it succeeds after 1389 iteration to capture the signal. Note that larger smoothing parameter $\lambda$ are associated to weaker learners that require a larger number of bias correction iterations before they become desirable smoothers according the the generalized cross validation criteria. A close examination of figure \[fig:finalsmoother\] shows that using the less biased estimator $S(\lambda_3)$ leads to the worse final estimator. This can be explained as follows: if the pilot smoother is not enough biased, after the first step almost no signal is left in the residuals and the iterative bias reduction is stopped. We remark again that one does not need to keep the same smoother throughout the iterative bias correcting scheme. We conjecture that there are advantages to using weaker smoothers later in the iterative scheme, and shall investigate this in a forthcoming paper. Simulations =========== This section presents selected results from our simulation study that investigates the statistical properties of the various data driven stopping rules. The simulations examine, within the framework set by @hurvich++1998, the impact on performance of various stopping rules, smoother type, smoothness of the pilot smoother, sample size, true regression function, and the relative variance of the errors as measured by the signal to noise ratio. We examine the influence of various factors on the performance of the selectors, with 100 simulation replications and a random uniform grid in $[0,1]$. The error standard deviation is $\sigma=0.2R_g$, where $R_g$ is the range of $g(x)$ over $x \in [0,1]$. For each setting of factors, we have - sample size: $n=$ 50, 100 and 500 - the following 3 regression functions, most of which were used in earlier studies 1. $m(x) = \sin(5\pi x)$, 2. $m(x) = 1-48x+218x^2-315x^3+145x^4$, 3. $m(x) = \exp{(x-\frac{1}{3})}\{x<\frac{1}{3}\}+\exp[-2(x-\frac{1}{3})]\{x\geq\frac{1}{3}\}$. - error distribution: Gaussian and Student(5) - pilot smoothers: smoothing splines, Gaussian kernel, $K$-nearest neighbor type smoother - three starting smoothers: $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ by decreasing order of smoothing. For each setting, we compute the ideal numbers of iterations by computing at data points $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ $$\begin{aligned} k_{\mathrm{opt}} &=& \operatorname{argmin}_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \sum_{i=1}^n \\|m(X_i) - \hat m_k(X_i)\\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since the results are numerous we report here a summary, focusing on the main objectives of the paper. First of all, does the stopping procedures proposed in section \[stop\] work ? Figure \[fig:densityk:kopt\] represents the kernel density estimates of the log ratios of the number of iterations to the ideal number of iterations for the smoothing spline type smoother. ![Estimated density of $\log(\hat k/k_{\mathrm{opt}})$, $\hat k$ evaluated by different stopping criterion : GCV, CV (leave one out), CV 5 fold (CV5), data splitting (DS), AIC and corrected AIC (AICc). Density is estimated on 100 replication for function $m_1$, with Gaussian error, spline smoother $S_2$ and $n=50$ data points.\[fig:densityk:kopt\]](densite_logkkopt_centre_N2.eps) Obviously, negative values indicate undersmoothing ($\hat k$ smaller than $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$, that is not enough bias reduction) while positive values indicate oversmoothing. The results remain essentially unchanged over the range of starting values, regression function and smoothers types we considered in our simulation study. For small data sets ($n=50$), the stopping rule based on data splitting produced values for $\widehat k$ that were very variable. A similar observation about the variability of bandwidth selection from data splitting was made in [see @hengartner++2002]. We also found that the five fold cross validation stopping rule produced highly variable values for $\widehat k$. The AIC stopping rule selects values $\hat k$ that are often too big (oversmoothing) and sometimes selects the largest possible value of $\widehat k \in K$. In that cases, the curve $k$ versus $AIC$ (not shown) indicates two minimum, a local one which is around the true value and the global one at the boundary. This can be attributed to the fact that the penalty term used by AIC is too small. The AICc criteria uses a larger penalty term, which leads to smaller values for $\hat k$. In fact, the selected values are typically smaller than the optimal one. The penalty associated with GCV lies in between the AICc penalty and AIC penalty, and produces in practice values of $\widehat k$ that are closer to the optimum than either AIC or AICc. Finally, the leave one out cross-validation selection rule produces $\hat k$ that are typically larger than the optimal one. Investigation of the MSE as a function of the number of iterations $k$ reveal that, in the examples we considered, that function decreases rapidly towards its minimum and then remains relatively flat over a range of values to right of the minimum. It follows that the loss of stopping after $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ is less than stopping before $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$. We verify this empirically as follows: for each estimate, we calculate the approximation to the integrated mean squared error between the estimator $\hat m_{\hat k}$ and the true regression function $m$ $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{MSE}(\hat m_{\hat k})&=& 1/100\sum_{x\in \mathcal{G}} \|m(x) - \hat m_{\hat k}(x)\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{G}$ is a fix grid of 100 regularly spaced points in the unit interval $[0,1]$. We partition the calculated integrated mean squared error depending on whether $\hat k$ is bigger than $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ or smaller than $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$. Figure \[fig:boxplot\_stopbefore\] presents the boxplot of the integrated mean squared error when $\hat k$ over-estimates $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ and when it under-estimates $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ and clearly shows that over-estimating $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ leads to smaller integrated mean squared error than under-estimating $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$. ![Boxplot of $\mathrm{MSE}_{\hat m_{\hat k}}$ when $\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}} > k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ (denoted as GCV+), of mean squared error of $\hat f_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}$ when $\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}\le k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ (denoted as GCV-), and the same boxplots with leave one out stopping criterion. Mean squared error are estimated on a grid of 100 points regularly spaced between 0 and 1, 100 replication for function $m_1$, with Gaussian error, spline smoother $S_2$ and $n=50$ data points.\[fig:boxplot\_stopbefore\]](boxplot_tropitere_pasassez_N2.eps) For bigger data sets, say $n=100$ or bigger, most of the stopping criterion act the same except for the modified AIC which tends to select a smaller number of iterations $k$ than the ideal one. One fold cross-validation is rather computational intensive as the usual relation between cross validated estimator at $X_i$ and full data estimator is no longer valid [e.g. @hastie+1995 p. 47]. These conclusions remain true for kernel smoother and nearest neighbor smoothers. However if the pilot smoother is not smooth enough (not biased enough), then the number of iteration is too small to allow us to discriminate between the different stopping rules. These initial smoothers we name as wiggly learner are almost unbiased and therefore, there is little value to apply an iterative bias correction scheme. In conclusion, for small data sets, our simulations show that both GCV and leave one cross-validation work well, and for bigger data sets, we recommend using GCV. Tables (\[tab:mse\]) and (\[tab:mse.kernel\]) here below report the finite sample performance of stopped boosted smoother by the GCV criterion. Each entry in the table reports the median number of iterations and the median mean square error over 100 simulations. As expected, larger smoothing parameter of the initial smoother require more iterations of the boosting algorithm to reach its optimum. Interestingly, the selected smoother starting with a very smooth smoother, has slightly smaller mean squared error. The quantify the benefits of the iterative bias correction scheme, the last column of the tables gives the mean squared error of the original smoother with smoothing parameters selected using GCV. In all cases, the iterative bias correction has smaller mean squared error than the “one-step” smoother, with improvements ranging from 15% to 30%. Table (\[tab:mse\]) presents the results for smoothing splines. [cccccccc]{}\ error& $\hat k_1$1& $S_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}(\lambda_1)$& $\hat k_2$& $S_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}(\lambda_2)$& $\hat k_3$& $S_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}(\lambda_3)$& $S(\hat \lambda_\mathrm{GCV})$\ Gaussian&4077&0.0273&65&0.0282&2&0.0293&0.0379\ student &4115&0.0273&70&0.0286&2&0.0296&0.0352\ \ Gaussian&1219&0.0798&21&0.0845&1&0.0837&0.0829\ student &1307&0.0887&22&0.0944&1&0.0932&0.0937\ \ Gaussian&135&0.0014&3&0.0014&1&0.0016&0.0016\ student &147&0.0016&3&0.0016&1&0.0018&0.0019\ Table (\[tab:mse.kernel\]) presents the results for kernel smoothers with a Gaussian kernel. [cccccccc]{}\ error& $\hat k_1$1& $S_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}(h_1)$& $\hat k_2$& $S_{\hat k_E{\mathrm{GCV}}}(h_2)$& $\hat k_3$& $S_{\hat k_{\mathrm{GCV}}}(h_3)$& $S(\hat h_\mathrm{AICc})$\ Gaussian&385&0.0231&27&0.0254&4&0.0368&0.04857\ student &360&0.0221&25&0.0262&4&0.0353&0.05199\ \ Gaussian&330&0.0477&128&0.0581&14&0.0782&0.1175\ student &1621&0.0563&160&0.0660&16&0.0754&0.1184\ \ Gaussian&30&0.0017&7&0.0016&2&0.0014&0.00178\ student &29&0.0017&8&0.0016&2&0.0016&0.0018\ The simulation results reported in the above tables show that the iterative bias reduction scheme works well in practice, even for moderate sample sizes. While starting with a very smooth pilot requires more iterations, the mean squared error of the resulting smoother is somewhat smaller compared to a more noisy initial smoother. Figures \[fig:initialsmoother\] and \[fig:finalsmoother\] also support this claim. Discussion ========== In this paper, we make the connection between iterative bias correction and the $L_2$ boosting algorithm, thereby providing a new interpretation for the latter. A link between bias reduction and boosting was suggested by [@ridgeway2000] in his discussion of the seminal paper [@friedman++2000], and explored in @marzio+2004 [@marzio+2007] for the special case of kernel smoothers. In this paper, we show that this interpretation holds for general linear smoothers. It was surprising to us that not all smoothers were suitable to be used for boosting. We show that many weak learners, such as the $k$-nearest neighbor smoother and some kernel smoothers, are not stable under $L_2$ boosting. Our results extend and complement the recent results of @marzio+2007. Iterating the boosting algorithm until convergence is not desirable. Better smoothers result if one stops the iterative scheme. We have explored, via simulations, various data driven stopping rules and have found that for the linear smoothers, the Generalized Cross Validation criteria works very well, even for moderate sample sizes of $50$. In our simulations show that optimally correcting the bias (by stopping the $L_2$ boosting algorithm after a suitable number of iterations) produced better smoothers than the one with the best data-dependent smoothing parameter. Finally, the iterative bias correction scheme can be readily extended to multivariate covariates $X$, as in @buhlmann2006. Appendix ======== [Proof of Theorem \[theorem:iterative\]]{} To show \[eq:fk\], let $\Sigma = I + (I-S) + \dots + (I-S)^{k-1}$. The conclusion follows from a telescoping sum argument applied to $$S\Sigma = \Sigma - (I-S) \Sigma = I - (I-S)^k.$$ [Proof of Theorem \[theorem:converge\]]{} $$\begin{aligned} \\|\hat b_k\\|^2 &=& \\|-(I-S)^{k-1} SY\\|^2\\ &=& \\|(I-S)(I-S)^{k-2} SY\\|^2 \leq \\|(I-S)\\|^2 \\|\hat b_{k-1}\\|^2\\ & \leq & \\|\hat b_{k-1}\\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the assumptions on the spectrum of $I-S$. Similarly, one shows that $$\begin{aligned} \\|R_k\\|^2 &=& \\| (I-S)^kY\\|^2 \leq \\|I-S\\|^2 \\|R_{k-1}\\|^2 < \\|R_{k-1}\\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Theorem \[knn\]]{} To simplify the exposition, let us assume that the $X_i$’s are ordered. Let us consider the $K$-nn smoother the matrix $S$ is of general term $$\begin{aligned} S_{ij} &=& \frac{1}{K} \quad \hbox{if} \quad X_j \in \text{$K$-nn}(X_i).\end{aligned}$$ In order to bound the singular values of $(I-S)$, consider the eigen values of $(I-S)(I-S)'$ which are the square of the singular values of $I-S$. Since $A=(I-S)(I-S)'$ is symmetric, we have for any vector $x$ that $$\begin{aligned} \label{bornevp} \lambda_n \leq \frac{x' A x}{x' x} \leq \lambda_1.\end{aligned}$$ Let us find a vector $x$ such that $x' A x > x'x$. First notice that $$\begin{aligned} A_{ii} &=& 1 - \frac{1}{K}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, consider the vector $x$ of ${\mathbbm{R}}^n$ that is zero every where except at position $(i-l_1)$ (respectively $i$ and $i+l_2$) where its value is -1 (respectively 2 and -1). For this choice, we expand $x' A x$ to get $$\begin{aligned} x' A x &=& A_{i-l_1,i-l_1}+4 A_{i,i} +A_{i+l_2,i+l_2} -4 A_{i-l_1,i} -4 A_{i,i+l_2} +2 A_{i+l_2,i-l_1}\\ &=& 6 - \frac{6}{K}-4 A_{i-l_1,i} -4 A_{i,i+l_2} +2 A_{i+l_2,i-l_1}.\end{aligned}$$ To show that this last quantity is larger than $x^t x = 6$, we need to suitably bound the off-diagonal elements of $A = I - S- S' +SS'$. To bound $A_{ij}$, where $j=i+l$ and $l<K$, we need to consider three cases: 1. If $X_i$ belongs to the $K$-nn of $X_j$ and vice versa, then $S_{ij} = S_{ji}'=1/K$. This does not mean that all the $K$-nn neighbor of $X_i$ are the same as those of $X_j$, but if it is the case, then $(SS')_{ij} \leq K/K^2$ and otherwise in the pessimistic case, we bound $(SS')_{ij} \geq (l+1)/K^2$. It therefore follows that $$\begin{aligned} (l+1)/K^2 - \frac{2}{K} \leq &A_{i,i+l} &\leq \frac{K}{K^2}-\frac{2}{K} = -\frac{1}{K}.\end{aligned}$$ 2. If $X_i$ belongs to the $K$-nn of $X_j$ $S_{ij} =1/K$ but $X_j$ does not belong to the $K$-nn of $X_i$ then $S_{ji}'=0$. There is at a maximum of $K-1$ points that are in the $K$-nn of $X_i$ and in the $K$-nn of $X_j$ so $(SS')_{ij} \leq (K-1)/K^2$. In the pessimistic case, there is only one point, which leads to the bound $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{K^2} -\frac{1}{K} \leq &A_{i,i+l} & \leq \frac{K-1}{K^2}-\frac{1}{K} \leq - \frac{1}{K^2}.\end{aligned}$$ 3. If $X_i$ does not belong to the $K$-nn of $X_j$ $S_{ij}=0$ and $X_j$ does not belong to the $K$-nn of $X_i$ then $S_{ji}'=0$. However there are potentially as many as $l-1$ points that are in the $K$-nn of $X_i$ and in the $K$-nn of $X_j$, so that $(SS')_{ij} \leq (l-1)/K^2$. In that case $$\begin{aligned} 0 \leq A_{ij} &\leq& \frac{l-1}{K^2}\leq \frac{K-2}{K^2}.\end{aligned}$$ With these bounds for the off-diagonal terms, we are able to major $x'Ax$. Before continuing, we need to discuss the relative position of the points $X_{i-l_1}, X_i$ and $X_{i+l_2}$. We chose them such that $$X_{i-l_1} \in \text{$K$-nn}(X_i) \quad \mbox{and} \quad X_i \in \text{$K$-nn}(X_{i-l_1}).$$ For this choice, we calculate $$\begin{aligned} \frac{l_1+1-2K}{K^2} \leq & A_{i-l_1,i} & \leq -\frac{1}{K}\\ \frac{l_2+1-2K}{K^2} \leq & A_{i,i+l_2} & \leq -\frac{1}{K},\\\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned} 6 - \frac{6}{K} + \frac{8}{K}+ 2 A_{i+l,i-l} \leq x' A x \leq 6 + \frac{2}{K} + 2 A_{i+l,i-l}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter shows that $x'Ax > x'x$ whenever $$\begin{aligned} A_{i+l_2,i-l_1} > - \frac{1}{K},\end{aligned}$$ which is always true if the condition $$X_{i-l_1} \not \in \text{$K$-nn}(X_{i+l_2}) \quad \mbox{or} \quad X_{i+l_2} \not \in \text{$K$-nn}(X_{i-l_1})$$ is satisfied because in such case, we have $$\begin{aligned} -\frac{1}{K} < &A_{i-l_1,i+l_2} & \leq \frac{1}{K^2}.\end{aligned}$$ [Proof of Theorem \[kernel\]]{} Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ is an i.i.d. sample from a density $f$ that is bounded away from zero on a compact set strictly included in the support of $f$. Consider without loss of generality that $f(x) \geq c > 0$ for all $\|x\| < b$. We are interested in the sign of the quadratic form $u^tAu$ where the individual entries $A_{ij}$ of matrix $A$ are equal to $$\begin{aligned} A_{ij} &=& \frac{K_h(X_i-X_j)}{\sqrt{\sum_l K_h(X_i-X_l)}\sqrt{\sum_lK_h(X_j-X_l)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall the definition of the scaled kernel $K_h(\cdot) = K(\cdot/h)/h$. If $v$ is the vector of coordinate $v_i=u_i/\sqrt{\sum_l K_h(X_i-X_l)}$ then we have $u^t Au=v^t \mathbb{K} v$, where $\mathbb{K}$ is the matrix with individual entries $K_h(X_i-X_j)$. Thus any conclusion on the quadratic form $v^t\mathbb{K}v$ carry on to the quadratic form $u^tAu$. To show the existence of a negative eigenvalue for ${\mathbb K}$, we seek to construct a vector $U=(U_1(X_1),\ldots,U_n(X_n))$ for which we can show that the quadratic form $$U^t {\mathbb K} U = \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n U_j(X_j) U_k(X_k) K_h(X_j-X_k)$$ converges in probability to a negative quantity as the sample size grows to infinity. We show the latter by evaluating the expectation of the quadratic form and applying the weak law of large number. Let $\varphi(x)$ be a real function in $L_2$, define its Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned} \hat \varphi(t) &=& \int e^{-2i\pi t x} \varphi(x) dx\end{aligned}$$ and its Fourier inverse by $$\begin{aligned} \hat \varphi_{inv}(t) &=& \int e^{2i\pi t x} \varphi(x) dx.\end{aligned}$$ For kernels $K(\cdot)$ that are real symmetric probability densities, we have $$\begin{aligned} \hat K(t) &=& \hat K_{inv}(t).\end{aligned}$$ From Bochner’s theorem, we know that if the kernel $K(\cdot)$ is not positive definite, then there exists a bounded symmetric set $A$ of positive Lebesgue measure (denoted by $\|A\|$), such that $$\label{eq:not.pd} \hat K(t) < 0 \quad \forall t \in A.$$ Let $\widehat \varphi(t)\in L_2$ be a real symmetric function supported on $A$, bounded by $B$ (i.e. $\|\widehat \varphi(t)\| \leq B$). Obviously, its inverse Fourier transform $$\varphi(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-2\pi i x t} \widehat \varphi(t) dt$$ is integrable and by virtue of Parceval’s identity $$\begin{aligned} \\|\varphi\\|^2 = \\|\widehat \varphi\\|^2 \leq B^2 \|A\| < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Using the following version of Parceval’s identity [see @feller1966 p.620] $$\label{eq:parceval} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \varphi(x) \varphi(y) K(x-y) dx dy = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \|\widehat \varphi(t)\|^2 \hat K(t) dt,$$ which when combined with equation (\[eq:not.pd\]), leads us to conclude that $$\begin{aligned} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \varphi(x) \varphi(y) K(x-y) dx dy < 0.\end{aligned}$$ Consider the following vector $$U = \frac{1}{nh} \left [ \begin{array}{c} \frac{\varphi(X_1/h)}{f(X_1)} {\mathbb I}(\|X_1\| < b)\\ \frac{\varphi(X_2/h)}{f(X_2)} {\mathbb I}(\|X_2\| < b)\\ \vdots\\ \frac{\varphi(X_n/h)}{f(X_n)} {\mathbb I}(\|X_n\| < b)\\ \end{array} \right ].$$ With this choice, the expected value of the quadratic form is $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbbm{E}}[Q] & = & {\mathbbm{E}}\left [ \sum_{j,k=1}^n U_j(X_j) U_k(X_k) K_h(X_j-X_k)\right ]\\ &=& \frac{1}{n} \int_{-b}^b \frac{1}{f(s) h^2} \varphi(s/h)^2 K_h(0) ds \\ &&\quad + \frac{n^2-n}{n^2} \int_{-b}^b \int_{-b}^b \frac{1}{h^2} \varphi(s/h)\varphi(t/h) K_h(s-t) ds dt\\ &=& I_1 + I_2.\end{aligned}$$ We bound the first integral $$\begin{aligned} I_1 & = & \frac{K_h(0)}{nh^2} \int_{-b}^b \frac{\varphi(s/h)^2}{f(s)} ds\\ &\leq& \frac{K_h(0)}{nch} \int_{-b/h}^{b/h} \varphi(u)^2 du\\ &\leq& \frac{B^2 \|A\| K(0)}{c h^2} n^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that for any fixed value $h$, the latter can be made arbitrarily small by choosing $n$ large enough. We evaluate the second integral by noting that $$\begin{aligned} I_2 &=& \left ( 1-\frac{1}{n} \right ) h^{-2} \int_{-b}^b \int_{-b}^b \varphi(s/h) \varphi(t/h) K_h (s-t) ds dt \nonumber \\ &=& \left ( 1-\frac{1}{n} \right ) h^{-2} \int_{-b}^b \int_{-b}^b \varphi(s/h) \varphi(t/h) \frac{1}{h} K\left ( \frac{s}{h} - \frac{t}{h} \right ) ds dt \nonumber \\ &=& \left ( 1-\frac{1}{n} \right ) h^{-1} \int_{-b/h}^{b/h} \int_{-b/h}^{b/h} \varphi(u) \varphi(v) K(u-v) du dv. \label{eq:want.negative}\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of the dominated convergence theorem, the value of the last integral converges to $\int_{-\infty}^\infty \|\widehat \varphi(t)\|^2 \hat K(t) dt < 0$ as $h$ goes to zero. Thus for $h$ small enough, (\[eq:want.negative\]) is less than zero, and it follows that we can make ${\mathbb E}[Q] < 0$ by taking $n \geq n_0$, for some large $n_0$. Finally, convergence in probability of the quadratic form to its expectation is guaranteed by the weak law of large numbers for $U$ statistics (see @grams+1973 for example). The conclusion of the theorem follows. [Proof of Proposition \[unif\]]{} We are interested in the sign of the quadratic form $u^t\mathbb{K}u$ (see proof of Theorem \[kernel\]). Recall that if $\mathbb{K}$ is semidefinite then all its principal minor [see @horn+1985 p.398] are nonnegative. In particular, we can show that $A$ is non-positive definite by producing a $3 \times 3$ principal minor with negative determinant. To this end, take the principal minor $\mathbb{K}[3]$ obtained by taking the rows and columns $(i_1,i_2,i_3)$. Without loss of generality, let us assume that $X_{i_1}<X_{i_2}<X_{i_3}$. The determinant of $\mathbb{K}[3]$ is $$\begin{aligned} det(\mathbb{K} [3]) &=&\quad K_h(0)\left[K_h(0)^2 - K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_2})^2\right]\\ && \!\!\quad - K_h(X_{i_2}-X_{i_1})\\ && \!\!\quad \quad \times \left[K_h(0)K_h(X_{i_2}-X_{i_1})-K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_2})K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_1})\right]\\ && \!\!\quad + K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_1})\\ && \!\!\quad \quad \times \left[K_h(X_{i_2}-X_{i_1})K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_2})-K_h(0)K_h(X_{i_3}-X_{i_1})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Let us evaluate this quantity for the uniform and Epanechnikov kernels.\ \ [Uniform kernel.]{} Let $h$ be larger than the minimum distance between three consecutive points, and chose the index $i_1,i_2,i_3$ such that $$X_{i_2}-X_{i_1} < h, \quad X_{i_3}-X_{i_2} < h, \quad \mbox{and} \quad X_{i_3} - X_{i_1} > h.$$ With this choice, we readily calculate $$\begin{aligned} det(\mathbb{K} [3])&=&0-K_h(0)\left[K_h(0)^2-0\right]-0<0.\end{aligned}$$ Since a principal minor of $\mathbb{K}$ is negative, we conclude that $\mathbb{K}$ and $A$ are not semidefinite positive.\ \ [Epanechnikov kernel.]{} For $i_1,i_2,i_3$ fixed, denote by $x=X_{i_2}-X_{i_1}$ and by $y=X_{i_3}-X_{i_2}$, and assume that $h> \min(x,y)$. The determinant $det(\mathbb{K} [3])$ is a bivariate function of $x$ and $y$ (as $X_{i_3}-X_{i_1} = x+y$). Numerical evaluations of that function show that as soon as we have the range of the three points less than the bandwidth, the determinant of $\mathbb{K} [3]$ is negative. ![Contour of $det(\mathbb{K} [3])$ as a function of $(x,y)$.](contour.eps) Thus a principal minor of $\mathbb{K}$ is negative, and as a result, $\mathbb{K}$ and $A$ are not semidefinite positive.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We study the problem of learning similarity functions over very large corpora using neural network embedding models. These models are typically trained using SGD with sampling of random observed and unobserved pairs, with a number of samples that grows quadratically with the corpus size, making it expensive to scale to very large corpora. We propose new efficient methods to train these models without having to sample unobserved pairs. Inspired by matrix factorization, our approach relies on adding a global quadratic penalty to all pairs of examples and expressing this term as the matrix-inner-product of two generalized Gramians. We show that the gradient of this term can be efficiently computed by maintaining estimates of the Gramians, and develop variance reduction schemes to improve the quality of the estimates. We conduct large-scale experiments that show a significant improvement in training time and generalization quality compared to traditional sampling methods.' author: - \| Walid Krichene[^1]\ [`[email protected]`]{}\ Xinyang Yi\ [`[email protected]`]{} - \| Nicolas Mayoraz\ [`[email protected]`]{}\ Lichan Hong\ [`[email protected]`]{} - \| Steffen Rendle\ [`[email protected]`]{}\ Ed Chi\ [`[email protected]`]{} - \| Li Zhang\ [`[email protected]`]{}\ John Anderson\ [`[email protected]`]{} bibliography: - 'bib.bib' title: \| Efficient Training on Very Large Corpora\ via Gramian Estimation --- Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ We consider the problem of learning a similarity function $h: \Xcal \times \Ycal \to \mathbb R$, that maps each pair of items, represented by their feature vectors $({x}, {y}) \in \Xcal \times \Ycal$, to a real number $h({x}, {y})$, representing their similarity. We will refer to ${x}$ and ${y}$ as the left and right feature vectors, respectively. Many problems can be cast in this form: In a natural language processing setting, ${x}$ represents a context (e.g. a bag of words), ${y}$ represents a candidate word, and the target similarity measures the likelihood to observe ${y}$ in context ${x}$ [@mikolov2013word2vec; @pennington2014glove; @levy2014neural]. In recommender systems, ${x}$ represents a user query (the user id and any available contextual information), ${y}$ represents a candidate item to recommend, and the target similarity is a measure of relevance of item $y$ to query $x$, e.g. a movie rating [@agarwal2009regression], or the likelihood to watch a given movie [@hu2008collborative; @rendle2010FM]. Other applications include image similarity, where ${x}$ and ${y}$ are pixel-representations of a pair of images [@bromley1993signature; @chechik2010large; @schroff2015facenet], and network embedding models [@grover2016node2vec; @qiu2018network], where ${x}$ and ${y}$ are nodes in a network and the target similarity is wheter an edge connects them. A popular approach to learning similarity functions is to train an embedding representation of each item, such that items with high similarity are mapped to vectors that are close in the embedding space. A common property of such problems is that only a very small subset of all possible pairs $\Xcal \times \Ycal$ is present in the training set, and those examples typically have high similarity. Training exclusively on observed examples has been demonstrated to yield poor generalization performance. Intuitively, when trained only on observed pairs, the model places the embedding of a given item close to similar items, but does not learn to place it far from dissimilar ones [@shazeer2016swivel; @xin2017folding]. Taking into account unobserved pairs is known to improve the embedding quality in many applications, including recommendation [@hu2008collborative; @yu2017selection] and word analogy tasks [@shazeer2016swivel]. This is often achieved by adding a low-similarity prior on all pairs, which acts as a repulsive force between all embeddings. But because it involves a number of terms quadratic in the corpus size, this term is computationally intractable (except in the linear case), and it is typically optimized using sampling: for each observed pair in the training set, a set of random unobserved pairs is sampled and used to compute an estimate of the repulsive term. But as the corpus size increases, the quality of the estimates deteriorates unless the sample size is increased, which limits scalability. In this paper, we address this issue by developing new methods to efficiently estimate the repulsive term without having to sample a large number of unobserved pairs. ### Related work {#related-work .unnumbered} Our approach is inspired by matrix factorization models, which correspond to the special case of linear embedding functions. They are typically trained using alternating least squares [@hu2008collborative], or coordinate descent methods [@bayer2017generic], which circumvent the computational burden of the repulsive term by writing it as a matrix-inner-product of two Gramians, and computing the left Gramian before optimizing over the right embeddings, and vice-versa. Unfortunately, in non-linear embedding models, each update of the model parameters induces a simulateneous change in all embeddings, making it impractical to recompute the Gramians at each iteration. As a result, the Gramian formulation has been largely ignored in the non-linear setting. Instead, non-linear embedding models are trained using stochastic gradient methods with sampling of unobserved pairs, see [@chen2016strategies]. In its simplest variant, the sampled pairs are taken uniformly at random, but more sophisticated schemes have been proposed, such as adaptive sampling [@bengio2008adaptive; @bai2017tapas], and importance sampling [@bengio2003quick; @mikolov2013word2vec] to account for item frequencies. We also refer to [@yu2017selection] for a comparative study of sampling methods in recommender systems. [@vincent2015efficient] were, to our knowledge, the first to attempt leveraging the Gramian formulation in the non-linear case. They consider a model where only one of the embedding functions is non-linear, and show that the gradient can be computed efficiently in that case. Their result is remarkable in that it allows exact gradient computation, but this unfortunately does not generalize to the case where both embedding functions are non-linear. ### Our contributions {#our-contributions .unnumbered} We propose new methods that leverage the Gramian formulation in the non-linear case, and that, unlike previous approaches, are efficient even when both left and right embeddings are non-linear. Our methods operate by maintaining stochastic estimates of the Gram matrices, and using different variance reduction schemes to improve the quality of the estimates. Perhaps most importantly, they do not require sampling large numbers of unobserved pairs, and experiments show that they scale far better than traditional sampling approaches when the corpus is very large. We start by reviewing preliminaries in Section \[sec:preliminaries\], then derive the methods and analyze them in Section \[sec:estimation\]. Finally, we conduct large-scale experiments in Section \[sec:experiments\], on a classification task on the Wikipedia dataset and a regression task on the MovieLens dataset. All the proofs are deferred to the appendix. Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries} ============= ![An inner-product embedding model for learning a similarity function on $\Xcal \times \Ycal$. []{data-label="fig:model"}](figures/model){width=".7\textwidth"} Notation and problem formulation -------------------------------- We consider embedding models that consist of two embedding functions $u: \Rbb^d \times \Xcal \to \Rbb^k$ and $v: \Rbb^d \times \Ycal \to \Rbb^k$, which map a parameter vector[^2] $\theta \in \Rbb^d$ and feature vectors $x, y$ to embeddings $u(\theta, x), v(\theta, y) \in \Rbb^k$. The output of the model is the inner product[^3][^4] of the embeddings $$\label{eq:model} h_\theta({x}, {y}) = \braket{u(\theta, {x})}{v(\theta, {y})},$$ where $\braket{\cdot}{\cdot}$ denotes the usual inner-product on $\Rbb^k$. Low-rank matrix factorization is a special case of , in which the left and right embedding functions are linear in $x$ and $y$. Figure \[fig:model\] illustrates a non-linear model, in which each embedding function is given by a feed-forward neural network. We denote the training set by $$T = \{({x}_i, {y}_i, s_i) \in \Xcal \times \Ycal \times \Rbb\}_{i \in \{1, \dots, n\}},$$ where ${x}_i, {y}_i$ are the feature vectors and $s_i$ is the target similarity for example $i$. To make notation more compact, we will use $u_i(\theta), v_i(\theta)$ as a shorthand for $u(\theta, x_i), v(\theta, y_i)$, respectively. As discussed in the introduction, we also assume that we are given a low-similarity prior $p_{ij} \in \Rbb$ for all pairs $(i, j) \in \{1, \dots, n\}^2$. Given a scalar loss function $\ell: \Rbb \times \Rbb \to \Rbb$, the objective function is given by $$\label{eq:objective} \min_{\theta \in \Rbb^d} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n \ell\left(\braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_i(\theta)}, s_i\right) + \frac{\lambda}{n^2} \sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n (\braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_j(\theta)} - p_{ij})^2,$$ where $\lambda$ is a positive hyper-parameter. To simplify the discussion, we will assume a uniform zero prior $p_{ij}$ as in [@hu2008collborative], but we relax this assumption in Appendix \[app:low-rank\]. The last term in is a double-sum over the training set and can be problematic to optimize efficiently. We will denote it by $$g(\theta) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n \braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_j(\theta)}^2.$$ Existing methods typically rely on sampling to approximate $g(\theta)$, and are usually referred to as negative sampling or candidate sampling, see [@chen2016strategies; @yu2017selection] for recent surveys. Due to the double sum, the quality of the sampling estimates degrades as the corpus size increases, which can significantly increase training times. This can be alleviated by increasing the sample size, but does not scale to very large corpora. Gramian formulation {#sec:gram_formulation} ------------------- A different approach to optimizing , widely popular in matrix factorization, is to rewrite $g(\theta)$ as the inner product of two Gram matrices. Let us denote by $U_\theta \in \Rbb^{n \times k}$ the matrix of all left embeddings such that $u_i(\theta)$ is the $i$-th row of $U_\theta$, and similarly for $V_\theta \in \Rbb^{n \times k}$. Then denoting the matrix inner-product by $\braket{A}{B} = \sum_{i, j} A_{ij}B_{ij}$, we can rewrite $g(\theta)$ as: $$g(\theta) = \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n \braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_j(\theta)}^2 = \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n (U_\theta V^\top_\theta)_{ij}^2 = \frac{1}{n^2}\braket{U_\theta V^\top_\theta}{U_\theta V^\top_\theta}. \label{eq:gravity_sum}$$ Now, using the adjoint property of the inner product, we have $\braket{U_\theta V^\top_\theta}{U_\theta V^\top_\theta} = \braket{U^\top_\theta U_\theta}{V^\top_\theta V_\theta}$, and if we denote by $u \otimes u$ the outer product of a vector $u$ by itself, and define the Gram matrices[^5] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gramian_definition} \begin{cases} {G_u}(\theta) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}U_\theta^\top U_\theta = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n {u}_i(\theta) \otimes {u}_i(\theta),\\ {G_v}(\theta) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n} V^\top_\theta V_\theta = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {v}_i(\theta) \otimes {v}_i(\theta), \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\label{eq:gravity_dot} g(\theta) = \braket{{G_u}(\theta)}{{G_v}(\theta)}.$$ The Gramians are $k \times k$ PSD matrices, where $k$, the dimension of the embedding space, is much smaller than $n$ – typically $k$ is smaller than $1000$, while $n$ can be arbitrarily large. Thus, the Gramian formulation has a much lower computational complexity than the double sum formulation , and this transformation is at the core of alternating least squares and coordinate descent methods [@hu2008collborative; @bayer2017generic], which operate by computing the exact Gramian for one side, and solving for the embeddings on the other. However, these methods do not apply in the non-linear setting due to the dependence on $\theta$, as a change in the model parameters simultaneously changes all embeddings, making it intractable to recompute the Gramians at each iteration, so the Gramian formulation has not been used when training non-linear models. In the next section, we will show that it can in fact be leveraged in the non-linear case, and leads to significant speed-ups in numerical experiments. Training Embedding Models using Gramian Estimates {#sec:estimation} ================================================= Using the Gramians defined in , the objective function can be rewritten as a sum over examples $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n [f_i(\theta) + \lambda g_i(\theta)]$, where $$\begin{aligned} f_i(\theta) &\coloneqq \ell\left(\braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_i(\theta)}, s_i\right)\\ g_i(\theta) &\coloneqq \frac{1}{2n} \sum_{j = 1}^n \big[\braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_j(\theta)}^2 + \braket{u_j(\theta)}{v_i(\theta)}^2\big] \notag \\ &= \frac{1}{2}[\braket{u_i(\theta)}{G_v(\theta)u_i(\theta)} + \braket{v_i(\theta)}{G_u(\theta)v_i(\theta)}].\label{eq:gravity}\end{aligned}$$ Intuitively, for each example $i$, $-\nabla f_i(\theta)$ pulls the embeddings $u_i$ and $v_i$ close to each other (assuming a high similarity $s_i$), while $-\nabla g_i(\theta)$ creates a repulsive force between $u_i$ and all embeddings $\{v_j\}_{j \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$, and between $v_i$ and all embeddings $\{u_j\}_{j \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$. Due to this interpretation, we will refer to $g(\theta) = \sum_{i = 1}^n g_i(\theta)$ as the gravity term, as it pulls the embeddings towards certain regions of the embedding space. We further discuss its properties and interpretations in Appendix \[app:gravity\]. We start from the observation that, while the Gramians are expensive to recompute at each iteration, we can maintain PSD estimates ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$ of the true Gramians ${G_u}(\theta), {G_v}(\theta)$, respectively. Then the gradient of $g(\theta)$ (equation ) can be approximated by the gradient (w.r.t. $\theta$) of $$\label{eq:gravity_estimate} {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}) \coloneqq \braket{{u}_i(\theta)}{{\hat G_v}{u}_i(\theta)} + \braket{{v}_i(\theta)}{{\hat G_u}{v}_i(\theta)},$$ as stated in the following proposition. \[prop:unbiased\] If $i$ is drawn uniformly from $\{1, \dots, n\}$, and ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$ are unbiased estimates of ${G_u}(\theta), {G_v}(\theta)$ and independent of $i$, then $\nabla_\theta {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})$ is an unbiased estimate of $\nabla g(\theta)$. In a mini-batch setting, these estimates can be further averaged over a batch of examples $i \in B$ (which we do in our experiments), but we will omit batches to keep the notation concise. Next, we propose several methods for maintaining the Gramian estimates ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$, and discuss their tradeoffs. Training data $\{({x}_i, {y}_i, s_i)\}_{i \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$, learning rate $\eta > 0$. draw $\theta$ randomly ${\hat u}_i \leftarrow {u}_i(\theta), \ {\hat v}_i \leftarrow {v}_i(\theta) \quad \forall i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ ${\hat S_{u}} \leftarrow \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i$, ${\hat S_{v}} \leftarrow \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i$ Update Gramian estimates ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) ${\hat G_u}\leftarrow {\hat S_{u}} + \beta [{u}_i(\theta) \otimes {u}_i(\theta) - {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i]$, ${\hat G_v}\leftarrow {\hat S_{v}} + \beta [{v}_i(\theta) \otimes {v}_i(\theta) - {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i]$ Update model parameters then update caches ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta \nabla_\theta [f_i(\theta) + \lambda {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})]$ ${\hat S_{u}} \leftarrow {\hat S_{u}} + \frac{1}{n} [{u}_i(\theta)\otimes {u}_i(\theta) - {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i]$, ${\hat S_{v}} \leftarrow {\hat S_{v}} + \frac{1}{n} [{v}_i(\theta)\otimes {v}_i(\theta) - {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i]$ ${\hat u}_i \leftarrow {u}_i(\theta), \ {\hat v}_i \leftarrow {v}_i(\theta)$ Stochastic Average Gramian {#sec:estimation-sagram} -------------------------- Inspired by variance reduction for Monte Carlo integrals [@hammersley1964monte; @evans2000approximating], many variance reduction methods have been developed for stochastic optimization. In particular, stochastic average gradient methods [@schmidt2017SAG; @defazio2014saga] work by maintaining a cache of individual gradients, and estimating the full gradient using this cache. Since each Gramian is a sum of outer-products (see equation ), we can apply the same technique to estimate Gramians. For all $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, let ${\hat u}_i, {\hat v}_i$ be a cache of the left and right embeddings respectively. We will denote by a superscript $(t)$ the value of a variable at iteration $t$. Let ${\hat S_{u}}^{(t)} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {\hat u}^{(t)}_i \otimes {\hat u}^{(t)}_i$, which corresponds to the Gramian based on the current caches. At each iteration $t$, an example $i$ is drawn uniformly at random and the estimate of the Gramian is given by $$\label{eq:sagram_estimate} {\hat G_u}^{(t)} = {\hat S_{u}}^{(t)} + \beta [{u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) - {\hat u}^{(t)}_i \otimes {\hat u}^{(t)}_i],$$ and similarly for $ {\hat G_v}^{(t)}$. This is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:sagram\], where the model parameters are updated using SGD (line 10), but can be replaced with any first-order method. Note that for efficient implementation, the sums ${\hat S_{u}}, {\hat S_{v}}$ are not recomputed at each step, they are updated in an online fashion (line 11). Here $\beta$ can take one of the following values: 1. $\beta = \frac{1}{n}$, following SAG [@schmidt2017SAG], or 2. $\beta = 1$, following SAGA [@defazio2014saga]. The choice of $\beta$ comes with trade-offs that we briefly discuss below. We will denote the cone of positive semi-definite $k \times k$ matrices by $\Scal^k_+$. Suppose $\beta = \frac{1}{n}$ in . Then for all $t$, ${\hat G_u}^{(t)}, {\hat G_v}^{(t)}$ remain in $\Scal^k_+$. Suppose $\beta = 1$ in . Then for all $t$, ${\hat G_u}^{(t)}$ is an unbiased estimate of ${G_u}(\theta^{(t)})$. While taking $\beta = 1$ gives an unbiased estimate, note that it does not guarantee that the estimates remain in $\Scal^k_+$. In practice, this can cause numerical issues, but can be avoided by projecting the estimates on $\Scal^k_+$, using the eigenvalue decomposition of each estimate. The per-iteration computational cost of maintaining the Gramian estimates is $\Ocal(k)$ to update the caches, $\Ocal(k^2)$ to update the estimates ${\hat S_{u}}, {\hat S_{v}}, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$, and $\Ocal(k^3)$ for projecting on $\Scal_+^k$. Given the small size of $k$, $\Ocal(k^3)$ remains tractable. The memory cost is $\Ocal(nk)$, since each embedding needs to be cached (plus a negligible $\Ocal(k^2)$ for storing the Gramian estimates). Note that this makes SAGram much less expensive than applying the original SAG(A) methods, which require maintaining caches of the gradients, which would incur a $\Ocal(nd)$ memory cost, where $d$ is the number of parameters of the model, and can be several orders of magnitude larger than the embedding dimension $k$. However, $\Ocal(nk)$ can still be prohibitively expensive when $n$ is very large. In the next section, we propose a different method which does not incur this additional memory cost, and does not require projection. Stochastic Online Gramian {#sec:estimation-online} ------------------------- To derive the second method, we reformulate problem as a two-player game. The first player optimizes over the parameters of the model $\theta$, the second player optimizes over the Gramian estimates ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}\in \Scal^k_+$, and they seek to minimize the respective losses $$\label{eq:game} \begin{cases} L_1^{{\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}}(\theta) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n [f_i(\theta) + \lambda \hat{g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})] \\ L_2^{\theta}({\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}) = \frac{1}{2}\\|{\hat G_u}- {G_u}(\theta)\\|_F^2 + \frac{1}{2}\\|{\hat G_v}- {G_v}(\theta)\\|_F^2, \end{cases}$$ where $\hat g_i$ is defined in , and $\\|\cdot\\|_F^{}$ denotes the Frobenius norm. To simplify the discussion, we will assume in this section that $f_i$ is differentiable. This reformulation can then be justified by characterizing its first-order stationary points, as follows. $(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})\in \Rbb^d \times \Scal^k_+ \times \Scal^k_+$ is a first-order stationary point for if and only if $\theta$ is a first-order stationary point for problem and ${\hat G_u}= {G_u}(\theta), {\hat G_v}= {G_v}(\theta)$. Several stochastic first-order dynamics can be applied to the problem, and Algorithm \[alg:sogram\] gives a simple instance where each player implements SGD with constant learning rates, $\eta$ for player $1$ and $\alpha$ for player 2. In this case, the updates of the Gramian estimates (line 7) have a particularly simple form, since $\nabla_{{\hat G_u}} L_2^\theta({\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}) = {\hat G_u}- {G_u}(\theta)$, which can be estimated by ${\hat G_u}- {u}_i(\theta) \otimes {u}_i(\theta)$, resulting in the update $$\label{eq:sogram_update} \hat G_u^{(t)} = (1-\alpha)\hat G_u^{(t-1)} + \alpha {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}),$$ and similarly for $\hat G_v$. One advantage of this form is that each update performs a convex combination between the current estimate and a rank-1 PSD matrix, thus guaranteeing that the estimates remain in $\Scal_+^k$, without the need to project. The per-iteration cost of updating the estimates is $\Ocal(k^2)$, and the memory cost is $\Ocal(k^2)$ for storing the Gramians, which are both negligible. The update can also be interpreted as computing an online estimate of the Gramian by averaging rank-1 terms with decaying weights, thus we call the method Stochastic Online Gramian. Indeed, we have by induction on $t$, $$\hat G_u^{(t)} = \sum_{\tau = 1}^{t} \alpha(1-\alpha)^{t-\tau} u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(\tau)}) \otimes u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(\tau)}).$$ Intuitively, the averaging reduces the variance of the estimator but introduces a bias, and the choice of the hyper-parameter $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ trades-off bias and variance. Similar smoothing of estimators has been observed to empirically improve convergence in other contexts, e.g. [@mandt2014smoothed]. We give coarse estimates of this tradeoff under mild assumptions in the next proposition. \[prop:bias-variance\] Let $\bar G^{(t)}_u = \sum_{\tau = 1}^t \alpha(1-\alpha)^{t-\tau}G_u(\theta^{(\tau)})$. Suppose that there exist $ \sigma, \delta > 0$ such that for all $t$, $\Exp_{i \sim \text{Uniform}} \\|u_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes u_i(\theta^{(t)}) - G_u(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F^2 \leq \sigma^2$ and $\\|G_{u}(\theta^{(t+1)}) - G_{u}(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F \leq \delta$. Then $\forall t$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:variance_bound} \Exp \\|\hat G^{(t)}_u - \bar G^{(t)}_u\\|_F^2 &\leq \sigma^2 \frac{\alpha}{2 - \alpha}\\ \label{eq:bias_bound} \\|\bar G_{u}^{(t)} - G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F &\leq \delta (1/\alpha - 1) + (1-\alpha)^t \\|G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ The first assumption simply bounds the variance of single-point estimates, while the second bounds the distance between two consecutive Gramians (a reasonable assumption, since in practice the changes in Gramians vanish as the trajectory $\theta^{(\tau)}$ converges). In the limiting case $\alpha = 1$, $\hat G_u^{(t)}$ reduces to a single-point estimate, in which case the bias vanishes and the variance is maximal, while smaller values of $\alpha$ decrease variance and increase bias. This is confirmed in our experiments, as discussed in Section \[sec:experiments\]. Training data $\{({x}_i, {y}_i, s_i)\}_{i \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$, learning rates $\eta > 0$, $\alpha \in (0, 1)$. draw $\theta$ randomly ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}\leftarrow 0^{k\times k}$ Update Gramian estimates ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) ${\hat G_u}\leftarrow (1 - \alpha){\hat G_u}+ \alpha {u}_i(\theta)\otimes {u}_i(\theta)$, ${\hat G_v}\leftarrow (1 - \alpha){\hat G_v}+ \alpha {v}_i(\theta)\otimes {v}_i(\theta)$ Update model parameters ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta \nabla_\theta [f_i(\theta) + \lambda {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})]$ Comparison with sampling methods {#sec:discussion} -------------------------------- We conclude this section by observing that traditional sampling methods can be recast in terms of the Gramian formulation , and implementing them in this form can decrease their computional complexity in the large batch regime. Indeed, suppose a batch $B \subset \{1, \dots, n\}$ is sampled, and the gravity term $g(\theta)$ is approximated by $$\label{eq:sampling_naive} \tilde g(\theta) = \frac{1}{\|B\|^2} \sum_{i \in B} \sum_{j \in B} \braket{u_i(\theta)}{v_j(\theta)}^2.$$ Then applying a similar transformation to Section \[sec:gram\_formulation\], one can show that [$$\label{eq:sampling_gram} \tilde g(\theta) = \Big\langle\frac{1}{\|B\|}\sum_{i \in B} {u_i(\theta) \otimes u_i(\theta)}, \frac{1}{\|B\|}\sum_{j \in B} {v_j(\theta) \otimes v_j(\theta)}\Big\rangle.$$]{}The double-sum formulation involves a sum of $\|B\|^2$ inner products of vectors in $\Rbb^k$, thus computing its gradient costs $\Ocal(k \|B\|^2)$. The Gramian formulation , on the other hand, is the inner product of two $k \times k$ matrices, each involving a sum of $\|B\|$ terms, thus computing the gradient in this form costs $\Ocal(k^2\|B\|)$, which can give significant computational savings when $\|B\|$ is larger than the embedding dimension $k$, a common situation in practice. Incidentally, given expression , sampling methods can be interpreted as implicitly computing Gramian estimates, using a sum of rank-1 terms over the batch. Intuitively, one advantage of SOGram and SAGram is that they take into account many more embeddings (by caching or online averaging) than is possible using plain sampling. Experiments {#sec:experiments} =========== In this section, we conduct large-scale experiments on the Wikipedia dataset [@wikipedia]. Additional experiments on the MovieLens dataset [@harper2015movielens] are given in Appendix \[app:movielens\]. Experimental setup {#sec:exp-setup} ------------------ [Datasets]{} We consider the problem of learning the intra-site links between Wikipedia pages. Given a pair of pages $(x, y) \in \Xcal \times \Xcal$, the target similarity is $1$ if there is a link from $x$ to $y$, and $0$ otherwise. Here a page is represented by a feature vector $x = (x_{{\emph{id}\xspace}}, x_{{\emph{ngrams}\xspace}}, x_{{\emph{cats}\xspace}})$, where $x_{{\emph{id}\xspace}}$ is (a one-hot encoding of) the page URL, $x_{{\emph{ngrams}\xspace}}$ is a bag-of-words representation of the set of n-grams of the page’s title, and $x_{\emph{cats}\xspace}$ is a bag-of-words representation of the categories the page belongs to. Note that the left and right feature spaces coincide in this case, but the target similarity is not necessarily symmetric (the links are directed edges). We carry out our experiments on subsets of the Wikipedia graph corresponding to three languages: Simple English, French, and English, denoted respectively by `simple`, `fr`, and `en`. These subgraphs vary in size, and Table \[tbl:dataset\] shows some basic statistics for each set. Each set is partitioned into training and validation using a (90%, 10%) split. [Model]{} We train a non-linear embedding model consisting of a two-tower neural network as in Figure \[fig:model\], where the left and right embedding functions map, respectively, the source and destination page features. Both networks have the same structure: the input feature embeddings are concatenated then mapped through two hidden layers with ReLU activations. The input feature embeddings are shared between the two networks, and their dimensions are $50$ for `simple`, $100$ for `fr`, and $120$ for `en`. The sizes of the hidden layers are $[256, 64]$ for `simple` and $[512, 128]$ for `fr` and `en`. [Training]{} The model is trained using SAGram, SOGram, and batch negative sampling as a baseline. We use a learning rate $\eta = 0.01$ and a gravity coefficient $\lambda = 10$ (cross-validated). All of the methods use a batch size $1024$. For SAGram and SOGram, a batch $B$ is used in the Gramian updates (line 8 in Algorithm \[alg:sagram\] and line 7 in Algorithm \[alg:sogram\], where we use a sum of rank-1 terms over the batch), and another batch $B'$ is used in the gradient computation[^6]. For the sampling method, the gravity term is approximated by all cross-pairs $(i, j) \in B \times B'$, and for efficiency, we implement it using the Gramian formulation as discussed in Section \[sec:discussion\], since we operate in a regime where the batch size is an order of magnitude larger than the embedding dimension $k$ (equal to $64$ for `simple` and $128$ for `fr` and `en`). ![Gramian estimation error on a common trajectory $(\theta^{(t)})$, for SAGram, SOGram and sampling.[]{data-label="fig:gram_estimation"}](figures/gram_estimation_quality.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Quality of Gramian estimates ---------------------------- In the first set of experiments, we evaluate the quality of the Gramian estimates using each method. In order to have a meaningful comparison, we fix a trajectory of model parameters $(\theta^{(t)})_{t \in \{1, \dots, T\}}$, and evaluate how well each method tracks the true Gramians ${G_u}(\theta^{(t)}), {G_v}(\theta^{(t)})$ on that common trajectory. This experiment is done on `simple`, the smallest of the datasets, so that we can compute the exact Gramians by periodically computing the embeddings $u_i(\theta^{(t)}), v_i(\theta^{(t)})$ on the full training set at a given time $t$. We report the estimation error for each method, measured by the normalized Frobenius distance $\frac{\\|{\hat G_u}^{(t)} - {G_u}(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F}{\\|{G_u}(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F}$ in Figure \[fig:gram\_estimation\]. We can observe that both variants of SAGram yield the best estimates, and that SOGram yields better estimates than sampling. We also vary the batch size to evaluate its impact: increasing the batch size from 128 to 1024 improves the quality of all estimates, as expected. It is worth noting that the estimates of SOGram with $\|B\| = 128$ have comparable quality to sampling estimates with $\|B\| = 1024$. In Figure \[fig:gram\_tradeoff\], we evaluate the bias-variance tradeoff discussed in Section \[sec:estimation-online\], by comparing the estimates of SOGram with different learning rates $\alpha$. We observe that for the initial iterations, higher values of $\alpha$ yield better estimates, but as training progresses, the errors decay to a lower value for lower $\alpha$ (observe in particular how all the plots intersect). This is consistent with the results of Proposition \[prop:bias-variance\]: higher values of $\alpha$ induce higher variance which persists throughout training, while a lower value of $\alpha$ reduces the variance but introduces a bias, which is mostly visible during the early iterations, but decreases as the trajectory converges. We further study the SOGram estimates on the larger datasets in Appendix \[app:gramian\_experiments\]. ![Gramian estimation error of SOGram, for different values of $\alpha$.[]{data-label="fig:gram_tradeoff"}](figures/gram_estimation_quality_tradeoff.pdf){width=".51\textwidth"} Impact on training speed and generalization quality --------------------------------------------------- In order to evaluate the impact of the Gramian estimation quality on training speed and generalization quality, we compare the validation performance of batch sampling and SOGram with different Gramian learning rates $\alpha$, on each dataset (we do not use SAGram due to its prohibitive memory cost for corpus sizes of 1M or more). We estimate the mean average precision (MAP) at 10, by periodically (every 5 minutes) scoring left items in the validation set against 50K random candidates – exhuastively scoring all candidates is prohibitively expensive at this scale, but this gives a reasonable approximation. ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_simple_train.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_simple_eval.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_fr_train.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_fr_eval.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_en_train.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left), and the validation set (right), for different methods, on `simple` (top), `fr` (middle), and `en` (bottom).](figures/wiki_en_eval.pdf "fig:"){width="\wdt"} \[fig:validation-MAP\] The results are reported in Figure \[fig:validation-MAP\]. While SOGram does not improve the MAP on the training set compared to the baseline sampling method, it consistently achieves the best validation performance, by a large margin for the larger sets. This discrepancy between training and validation can be explained by the fact that the gravity term $g(\theta)$ has a regularizing effect, and by better estimating this term, SOGram improves generalization. Table \[tbl:validation\] summarizes the relative improvement of the final validation MAP. The improvement on `simple` is modest (1.8%), which can be explained by the relatively small corpus size (85K unique pages), in which case the baseline sampling already yields decent estimates. On the larger corpora, we obtain a much more significant improvement of 30.7% on `fr` and 33.2% on `en`. The plots for `en` and `fr` also reflect the bias-variance tradeoff dicussed in Proposition \[prop:bias-variance\]: with a lower $\alpha$, progress is initially slower (due to the bias introduced in the Gramian estimates), but the final performance is better. Given a limited training time budget, one may prefer a higher $\alpha$, and it is worth observing that with $\alpha = 0.01$ on `en`, SOGram achieves a better performance under 2 hours of training, than batch sampling in 50 hours. This tradeoff also motivates the use of decaying Gramian learning rates, which we leave for future experiments. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== We showed that the Gramian formulation commonly used in low-rank matrix factorization can be leveraged for training non-linear embedding models, by maintaining estimates of the Gram matrices and using them to estimate the gradient. By applying variance reduction techniques to the Gramians, one can improve the quality of the gradient estimates, without relying on large sample size as is done in traditional sampling methods. This leads to a significant impact on training time and generalization quality, as indicated by our experiments. An important direction of future work is to extend this formulation to a larger family of penalty functions, such as the spherical loss family studied in [@vincent2015efficient; @brebisson2016exploration]. Proofs ====== If $i$ is drawn uniformly in $\{1, \dots, n\}$, and ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$ are unbiased estimates of ${G_u}(\theta), {G_v}(\theta)$ and independent of $i$, then $\nabla_\theta {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})$ is an unbiased estimate of $\nabla g(\theta)$. Starting from the expression of $g(\theta) = \braket{G_u(\theta)}{G_v(\theta)}$, and applying the chain rule, we have $$\begin{aligned} \nabla g(\theta) &= \nabla \braket{{G_u}(\theta)}{{G_v}(\theta)} \notag \\ &= J_{u}(\theta)[{G_v}(\theta)] + J_{v}(\theta)[{G_u}(\theta)], \label{eq:gravity_gradient}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{u}(\theta)$ denotes the Jacobian of ${G_u}(\theta)$, an order-three tensor given by $$\begin{aligned} J_{u}(\theta)_{l, i, j} = \frac{\partial {G_u}(\theta)_{i, j}}{\partial \theta_l}, && l \in \{1, \dots, d\}, i, j \in \{1, \dots, n\},\end{aligned}$$ and $J_{u}(\theta)[{G_v}(\theta)]$ denotes the vector $[\sum_{i, j} J_{u}(\theta)_{l, i, j} {G_v}(\theta)_{i, j}]_{l \in \{1, \dots, d\}}$. Observing that ${\hat g}_i(\theta, \hat G_u, \hat G_v) = \braket{\hat G_u}{u_i(\theta)\otimes u_i(\theta)} + \braket{\hat G_v}{v_i(\theta) \otimes v_i(\theta)}$, and applying the chain rule, we have $$\label{eq:gravity_estimate_gradient} \nabla_\theta {\hat g}_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}) = J_{u, i}(\theta)[{\hat G_v}] + J_{{v}, i}(\theta)[{\hat G_u}],$$ where $J_{{u}, i}(\theta)$ is the Jacobian of ${u}_i(\theta) \otimes {u}_i(\theta)$, and $$\Exp_{i \sim \text{Uniform}}[J_{{u}, i}(\theta)] = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n J_{u, i}(\theta) = J_u(\theta),$$ an similarly for $J_{{v}, i}$. We conclude by taking expectations in and using assumption that $\hat G_u, \hat G_v$ are independent of $i$. Suppose $\beta = \frac{1}{n}$ in . Then for all $t$, ${\hat G_u}^{(t)}, {\hat G_v}^{(t)}$ remain in $\Scal^k_+$. From and the definition of ${\hat S_{u}}^{(t)}$, we have, $${\hat G_u}^{(t)} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j \neq i} {\hat u}^{(t)}_j\otimes {\hat u}^{(t)}_j + \frac{1}{n} {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}),$$ which is a sum of matrices in the PSD cone $\Scal^k_+$. Suppose $\beta = 1$ in . Then for all $t$, ${\hat G_u}^{(t)}$ is an unbiased estimate of ${G_u}(\theta^{(t)})$, and similarly for $ {\hat G_v}^{(t)}$. Denoting by $(\Fcal_t)_{t \geq 0}$ the filtration generated by the sequence $(\theta^{(t)})_{t \geq 0}$, and taking conditional expectations in , we have $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb E[{\hat G_u}^{(t)}\|\Fcal_t] &= {\hat S_{u}}^{(t)} + \underset{i\sim \text{Uniform}}{\mathbb E} [{u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) - {\hat u}_i^{(t)} \otimes {\hat u}_i^{(t)} \| \Fcal_t] \\ &= {\hat S_{u}}^{(t)} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n [{u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) - {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i] \\ &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes {u}_i(\theta^{(t)}) = G_u(\theta^{(t)}).\end{aligned}$$ $(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})\in \Rbb^d \times \Scal^k_+ \times \Scal^k_+$ is a first-order stationary point for if and only if $\theta$ is a first-order stationary point for problem and ${\hat G_u}= {G_u}(\theta), {\hat G_v}= {G_v}(\theta)$. $(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}) \in \Rbb^d \times \Scal^k_+ \times \Scal^k_+$ is a first-order stationary point of the game if and only if $$\begin{aligned} &\nabla f(\theta) +\lambda (J_{u}(\theta)[{\hat G_v}] + J_{v}(\theta)[{\hat G_u}]) = 0 \label{eq:equiv_proof_1} \\ &\braket{{\hat G_u}- {G_u}(\theta)}{G' - {\hat G_u}} \geq 0, \quad \forall G' \in \Scal^k_+ \label{eq:equiv_proof_2} \\ &\braket{{\hat G_v}- {G_v}(\theta)}{G' - {\hat G_v}} \geq 0, \quad \forall G' \in \Scal^k_+ \label{eq:equiv_proof_3}\end{aligned}$$ The second and third conditions simply states that $\nabla_{{\hat G_u}} L_2^\theta({\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v})$ and $\nabla_{\hat G_v}L_2^\theta(\hat G_u, \hat G_v)$ define supporting hyperplanes of $\Scal^k_+$ at ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}$, respectively. Since ${G_u}(\theta) \in \Scal^k_+$, condition is equivalent to ${\hat G_u}= {G_u}(\theta)$ (and similarly, is equivalent to ${\hat G_v}= {G_v}(\theta)$). Using the expression of $\nabla g$, we get that (\[eq:equiv\_proof\_1\]-\[eq:equiv\_proof\_3\]) is equivalent to $\nabla f(\theta) + \lambda\nabla g(\theta) = 0$. Let $\bar G^{(t)}_u = \sum_{\tau = 1}^t \alpha(1-\alpha)^{t-\tau} G_u(\theta^{(\tau)})$. Suppose that there exist $ \sigma, \delta > 0$ such that for all $t$, $\Exp_{i \sim \text{Uniform(n)}} \\|u_i(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes u_i(\theta^{(t)}) - G_u(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F^2 \leq \sigma^2$ and $\\|G_{u}(\theta^{(t+1)}) - G_{u}(\theta^{(t)})\\|_F \leq \delta$. Then $\forall t$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:app-variance_bound} \Exp \\|\hat G^{(t)}_u - \bar G^{(t)}_u\\|_F^2 &\leq \sigma^2 \frac{\alpha}{2 - \alpha}\\ \label{eq:app-bias_bound} \\|\bar G_{u}^{(t)} - G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F &\leq \delta (1/\alpha - 1) + (1-\alpha)^t \\|G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ We start by proving the first bound . As stated in Section \[sec:estimation-online\], we have, by induction on $t$, $\hat G_u^{(t)} = \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t - \tau} u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(t)}) \otimes u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(t)})$, where $a_\tau = \alpha(1-\alpha)^\tau$. And by definition of $\bar G^{(t)}$, we have $\bar G_u^{(t)} = \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t -\tau} G_u(\theta^{(\tau)})$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \hat G_{u}^{(t)} - \bar G_{u}^{(t)} &= \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau}\Delta_{u}^{(\tau)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{u}^{(\tau)} = u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(\tau)}) \otimes u_{i_\tau}(\theta^{(\tau)}) - G_{u}(\theta^{(\tau)})$ are zero-mean random variables. Thus, taking the second moment, and using the first assumption (which simply states that the variance of $\Delta_u^{(\tau)}$ is bounded by $\sigma^2$), we have $$\begin{aligned} \Exp\\|\hat G_u^{(t)} - \bar G_u^{(t)}\\|_F^2 &= \Exp \left\\|\sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau}\Delta_{u}^{(\tau)}\right\\|_F^2 = \sum_{\tau =1}^t a_{t-\tau}^2 \Exp \\|\Delta_{u}^{(\tau)}\\|_F^2 \\ &\leq \sigma^2 \alpha^2 \sum_{\tau = 0}^{t-1} (1-\alpha)^{2\tau} = \sigma^2 \alpha^2 \frac{1 - (1-\alpha)^{2t}}{1 - (1-\alpha)^2} \\ &\leq \sigma^2 \frac{\alpha}{2 - \alpha},\end{aligned}$$ which proves the first inequality . To prove the second inequality, we start from the definition of $\bar G_u^{(t)}$: $$\begin{aligned} \\|\bar G_{u}^{(t)} - G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F^{} &= \\| \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau}(G_{u}^{(\tau)} - G_{u}^{(t)}) - (1-\alpha)^t G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F^{} \notag\\ &\leq \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau} \\|G_{u}^{(\tau)} - G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F + (1-\alpha)^t \\|G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F^{}, \label{eq:bias_proof_1}\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality uses that fact that $\sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau} = 1 - (1-\alpha)^t$. Focusing on the first term, and bounding $\\|G_{u}^{(\tau)} - G_{u}^{(t)}\\|_F \leq (t-\tau)\delta$ by the triangle inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau} \\|G_{u}^{(\tau)} - G_{u}^{(t)})\\|_F &\leq \delta \sum_{\tau = 1}^t a_{t-\tau}(t-\tau) = \delta \alpha \sum_{\tau = 0}^{t-1} \tau (1-\alpha)^\tau \notag\\ &= \delta \alpha(1-\alpha) \frac{d}{d\alpha} \left[-\sum_{\tau = 0}^{t-1} (1-\alpha)^\tau \right] \notag\\ & = \delta \alpha(1-\alpha) \frac{d}{d\alpha} \left[ -\frac{1-(1-\alpha)^t}{\alpha} \right] \notag\\ &\leq \delta \alpha(1-\alpha) \frac{1}{\alpha^2}. \label{eq:bias_proof_2}\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we get the desired inequality . Interpretation of the gravity term {#app:gravity} ================================== In this section, we briefly discuss different interpretations of the gravity term. Starting from the expression of $g(\theta)$ and the definition of the Gram matrices, we have $$\begin{aligned} g(\theta) = \braket{G_u(\theta)}{G_v(\theta)} = \braket{\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n u_i(\theta) \otimes u_i(\theta)}{G_v(\theta)} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n \braket{u_i(\theta)}{G_v(\theta) u_i(\theta)}, \label{eq:gravity_quadratic}\end{aligned}$$ which is a quadratic form in the left embeddings $u_i$ (and similarly for $v_j$, by symmetry). In particular, the partial derivative of the gravity term with respect to an embedding $u_i$ is $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial g(\theta)}{\partial u_i} = \frac{2}{n} G_v(\theta) u_i(\theta) = \frac{2}{n} \left[ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j = 1}^n v_j(\theta)\otimes v_j(\theta)\right] u_i(\theta).\end{aligned}$$ Each term $(v_j \otimes v_j) u_i = v_j \braket{v_j}{u_i}$ is simply the projection of $u_i$ on $v_j$ (scaled by $\\|v_j\\|^2$). Thus the gradient of $g(\theta)$ with respect to $u_i$ is an average of scaled projections of $u_i$ on each of the right embeddings $v_j$, and moving in the direction of the negative gradient simply moves $u_i$ away from regions of the embedding space with a high density of left embeddings. This corresponds to the intuition discussed in the introduction: the purpose of the gravity term $g(\theta)$ is precisely to push left and right embeddings away from each other, to avoid placing embeddings of dissimilar items near each other, a phenomenon referred to as folding of the embedding space [@xin2017folding]. [.49]{} ![Evolution of the inner product distribution $\braket{u_i(\theta^{(t)})}{v_j(\theta^{(t)})}$ in the Wikipedia `en` model trained with different gravity coefficients $\lambda$, for observed pairs (left) and random pairs (right).[]{data-label="fig:dot_distribution"}](figures/dot_distribution_gravityweight1e-2_obs.jpg "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} [.49]{} ![Evolution of the inner product distribution $\braket{u_i(\theta^{(t)})}{v_j(\theta^{(t)})}$ in the Wikipedia `en` model trained with different gravity coefficients $\lambda$, for observed pairs (left) and random pairs (right).[]{data-label="fig:dot_distribution"}](figures/dot_distribution_gravityweight1e-2_unobs.jpg "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} [.49]{} ![Evolution of the inner product distribution $\braket{u_i(\theta^{(t)})}{v_j(\theta^{(t)})}$ in the Wikipedia `en` model trained with different gravity coefficients $\lambda$, for observed pairs (left) and random pairs (right).[]{data-label="fig:dot_distribution"}](figures/dot_distribution_gravityweight10_obs.jpg "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} [.49]{} ![Evolution of the inner product distribution $\braket{u_i(\theta^{(t)})}{v_j(\theta^{(t)})}$ in the Wikipedia `en` model trained with different gravity coefficients $\lambda$, for observed pairs (left) and random pairs (right).[]{data-label="fig:dot_distribution"}](figures/dot_distribution_gravityweight10_unobs.jpg "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} ![Mean Average Precision of the Wikipedia `en` model, trained with different values of the gravity coefficient $\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:effect_of_gravity_weight"}](figures/wiki_en_effect_of_gravity_weight.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"} In order to illustrate this effect of the gravity term on the embeddings, we visualize, in Figure \[fig:dot\_distribution\], the distribution of the inner product $\braket{u_i(\theta^{(t)})}{v_j(\theta^{(t)})}$, for random pairs $(i, j)$, and for observed pairs ($i = j$), and how these distributions change as $t$ increases. The plots are generated for the Wikipedia `en` model described in Section \[sec:experiments\], trained with SOGram ($\alpha = 0.01$), with two different values of the gravity coefficient, $\lambda = 10^{-2}$ and $\lambda = 10$. In both cases, the distribution for observed pairs remains concentrated around values close to $1$, as one expects (recall that the target similarity is $1$ for observed pairs, i.e. pairs of connected pages in the Wikipedia graph). The distributions for random pairs, however, are very different: with $\lambda = 10$, the distribution quickly concentrates around a value close to $0$, while with $\lambda = 10^{-2}$ the distribution is more flat, and a large proportion of pairs have a high inner-product. This indicates that with a lower $\lambda$, the model is more likely to fold, i.e. place embeddings of unrelated items near each other. This is consistent with the validation MAP, reported in Figure \[fig:effect\_of\_gravity\_weight\]. With $\lambda = 10^{-2}$, the validation MAP increases very slowly, and remains two orders of magnitude smaller than the model trained with $\lambda = 10$. The figure also shows that when the gravity coefficient is too large, the model is over-regularized and the MAP decreases. To conclude this section, we also note that equation gives an intuitive motivation for the algorithms developed in this paper. Since the same quadratic form $\braket{\cdot}{G_v(\theta) \cdot}$ applies to all left embeddings $u_i$, maintaining an estimate $\hat G_v$ of $G_v(\theta)$ is much more efficient than estimating individual gradients (if one were to apply variance reduction to the gradients instead of the Gramians). Generalization to low-rank priors {#app:low-rank} ================================= So far, we have assumed a uniform zero prior to simplify the notation. In this section, we relax this assumption. Suppose that the prior is given by a low-rank matrix $P = Q R^\top$, where $Q, R \in \Rbb^{n \times k_P}$. In other words, the prior for a given pair $(i, j)$ is given by the dot product of two vectors $p_{ij} = \braket{q_i}{r_j}$. In practice, such a low-rank prior can be obtained, for example, by first training a simple low-rank matrix approximation of the similarity matrix $S$. Given this low-rank prior, the penalty term becomes $$\begin{aligned} g^P(\theta) &= \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n [U_\theta V_\theta^\top - Q R^\top]_{ij}^2\\ &= \frac{1}{n^2}\braket{{U}_\theta {V}_\theta^\top - QR^\top}{{U}_\theta {V}_\theta^\top - QR^\top} \\ &= \frac{1}{n^2}\left[ \braket{{U}_\theta^\top{U}_\theta}{{V}_\theta^\top {V}_\theta} - 2\braket{{U}_\theta^\top Q}{{V}_\theta^\top R} + c \right],\end{aligned}$$where $c = \braket{Q^\top Q}{R^\top R}$ is a constant that does not depend on $\theta$. Here, we used a superscript $P$ in $g^P$ to disambiguate the zero-prior case. Now, if we define weighted embedding matrices $$\begin{aligned} \begin{cases} H_{u}(\theta) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}{U}_\theta Q = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {u}_i(\theta)\otimes q_i \\ H_{v}(\theta) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}{V}_\theta R = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {v}_i(\theta)\otimes r_i, \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ the penalty term becomes $$g^P(\theta) = \braket{{G_u}(\theta)}{{G_v}(\theta)} - 2\braket{H_{u}(\theta)}{H_{v}(\theta)} + c.$$ Finally, if we maintain estimates ${\hat H}_{u}, {\hat H}_{v}$ of $H_{u}(\theta), H_{v}(\theta)$, respectively (using the methods proposed in Section \[sec:estimation\]), we can approximate $\nabla g^P(\theta)$ by the gradient of $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:gravity_estimate_lr_prior} {\hat g}^P_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}, {\hat H}_{u}, {\hat H}_{v}) \coloneqq \\ \braket{{u}_i(\theta)}{{\hat G_v}{u}_i(\theta)} + \braket{{v}_i(\theta)}{{\hat G_u}{v}_i(\theta)} - 2\braket{{u}_i(\theta)}{{\hat H}_{v}q_i} - 2\braket{{v}_i(\theta)}{{\hat H}_{u}r_i}.\end{gathered}$$ Proposition \[prop:unbiased\] and Algorithms \[alg:sagram\] and \[alg:sogram\] can be generalized to the low-rank prior case by adding updates for ${\hat H}_{u}, {\hat H}_{v}$, and by using expression of ${\hat g}^P_i$ when computing the gradient estimate. If $i$ is drawn uniformly in $\{1, \dots, n\}$, and ${\hat G_u}$, ${\hat G_v}$, ${\hat H}_{u}$, ${\hat H}_{v}$ are unbiased estimates of ${G_u}(\theta)$, ${G_v}(\theta)$, $H_{u}(\theta)$, $H_{v}(\theta)$, respectively, then $\nabla_\theta {\hat g}^P_i(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}, {\hat H}_{u}, {\hat H}_{v})$ is an unbiased estimate of $\nabla g^P(\theta)$. Similar to the proof of Proposition \[prop:unbiased\]. The generalized versions of SOGram and SAGram are stated below, where we highlight the differences compared to the zero-prior versions. Training data $\{({x}_i, {y}_i, s_i)\}_{i \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$, draw $\theta$ randomly ${\hat u}_i \leftarrow {u}_i(\theta), \ {\hat v}_i \leftarrow {v}_i(\theta) \quad \forall i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ ${\hat S_{u}} \leftarrow \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i$, ${\hat S_{v}} \leftarrow \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i$ Update Gramian estimates ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) ${\hat G_u}\leftarrow {\hat S_{u}} + \beta [{u}_i(\theta) \otimes {u}_i(\theta) - {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i]$, ${\hat G_v}\leftarrow {\hat S_{v}} + \beta [{v}_i(\theta) \otimes {v}_i(\theta) - {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i]$ Update model parameters then update caches ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta \nabla_\theta [f_i(\theta) + \lambda\emp{\hat g^P(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}, \hat H_{u}, \hat H_{v})}]$ ${\hat S_{u}} \leftarrow {\hat S_{u}} + \frac{1}{n} [{u}_i(\theta)\otimes {u}_i(\theta) - {\hat u}_i \otimes {\hat u}_i]$, ${\hat S_{v}} \leftarrow {\hat S_{v}} + \frac{1}{n} [{v}_i(\theta)\otimes {v}_i(\theta) - {\hat v}_i \otimes {\hat v}_i]$ ${\hat u}_i \leftarrow {u}_i(\theta), \ {\hat v}_i \leftarrow {v}_i(\theta)$ Training data $\{({x}_i, {y}_i, s_i)\}_{i \in \{1, \dots, n\}}$, draw $\theta$ randomly ${\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}\leftarrow 0^{k\times k}$ Update Gramian estimates ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) ${\hat G_u}\leftarrow (1 - \alpha){\hat G_u}+ \alpha {u}_i(\theta)\otimes {u}_i(\theta)$, ${\hat G_v}\leftarrow (1 - \alpha){\hat G_v}+ \alpha {v}_i(\theta)\otimes {v}_i(\theta)$ Update model parameters ($i \sim \text{Uniform}(n)$) $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta \nabla_\theta [f_i(\theta) + \lambda\emp{\hat g^P(\theta, {\hat G_u}, {\hat G_v}, \hat H_{u}, \hat H_{v})}]$ Further experiments on quality of Gramian estimates {#app:gramian_experiments} =================================================== In addition to the experiment on Wikipedia `simple`, reported in Section \[sec:experiments\], we also evaluated the quality of the Gramian esimates on Wikipedia `en`. Due to the large number of embeddings, computing the exact Gramians is no longer feasible, so we approximate it using a large sample of 1M embeddings. The results are reported in Figure \[fig:gram\_tradeoff\_en\], which shows the normalized Frobenius distance between the Gramian estimates $\hat G_u$ and (the large sample approximation of) the true Gramian $G_u$. The results are similar to the experiment on `simple`: with a lower $\alpha$, the estimation error is initially high, but decays to a lower value as training progresses, which can be explained by the bias-variance tradeoff discussed in Proposition \[prop:bias-variance\]. The tradeoff is affected by the trajectory of the true Gramians: smaller changes in the Gramians (captured by the parameter $\delta$ in Proposition \[prop:bias-variance\]) induce a smaller bias. In particular, changing the learning rate $\eta$ of the main algorithm can affect the performance of the Gramian estimates by affecting the rate of change of the true Gramians. To investiage this effect, we ran the same experiment with two different learning rates, $\eta = 0.01$ as in Section \[sec:experiments\], and a lower learning rate $\eta = 0.002$. The errors converge to similar values in both cases, but the error decay occurs much faster with smaller $\eta$, which is consistent with our analysis. ![Gramian estimation error on `en`, for SOGram with different values of $\alpha$, and different learning rates. The left and right figures correspond respectively to $\eta = 0.01$ and $\eta = 0.002$.[]{data-label="fig:gram_tradeoff_en"}](figures/tradeoff_en_01.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}![Gramian estimation error on `en`, for SOGram with different values of $\alpha$, and different learning rates. The left and right figures correspond respectively to $\eta = 0.01$ and $\eta = 0.002$.[]{data-label="fig:gram_tradeoff_en"}](figures/tradeoff_en_002.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} Experiment on MovieLens data {#app:movielens} ============================ In this section, we report experiments on a regression task on MovieLens. #### Dataset The MovieLens dataset consists of movie ratings given by a set of users. In our notation, the left features $x$ represent a user, the right features $y$ represent an item, and the target similarity is the rating of movie $y$ by user $x$. The data is partitioned into a training and a validation set using a (80%-20%) split. Table \[tbl:movielens-dataset\] gives a basic description of the data size. Note that it is comparable to the `simple` dataset in the Wikipedia experiments. #### Model We train a two-tower neural network model, as described in Figure \[fig:model\], where each tower consists of an input layer, a hidden layer, and output embedding dimension $k = 35$. The left tower takes as input a one-hot encoding of a unique user id, and the right tower takes as input one-hot encodings of a unique movie id, the release year of the movie, and a bag-of-words representation of the genres of the movie. These input embeddings are concatenated and used as input to the right tower. #### Methods The model is trained using SOGram with different values of $\alpha$, and sampling as a baseline. We use a learning rate $\eta = 0.05$, and gravity coefficient $\lambda = 1$. We measure mean average precision on the trainig set and validation set, following the same procedure described in Section \[sec:experiments\]. The results are given in Figure \[fig:movielens-validation-MAP\]. ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left) and the validation set (right), for different methods, on the MovieLens dataset.[]{data-label="fig:movielens-validation-MAP"}](figures/movielens_train.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Mean average precision at 10 on the training set (left) and the validation set (right), for different methods, on the MovieLens dataset.[]{data-label="fig:movielens-validation-MAP"}](figures/movielens_eval.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} #### Results The results are similar to those reported on the Wikipedia `simple` dataset, which is comparable in corpus size and number of observations to MovieLens. The best validation mean average precision is achieved by SOGram with $\alpha = 0.1$ (for an improvement of 2.9% compared to the sampling baseline), despite its poor performance on the training set, which indicates that better estimation of the gravity term $g(\theta)$ induces better regularization. The impact on training speed is also remarkable in this case, SOGram with $\alpha = 0.1$ achieves a better validation performance in under 1 hour of training than the sampling baseline in 6 hours. [^1]: Google Research. [^2]: In many applications, it is desirable for the two embedding functions $u, v$ to share certain parameters, e.g. embeddings of categorical features common to left and right items; hence, we use the same $\theta$ for both. [^3]: This also includes cosine similarity models when the embedding functions $u, v$ are normalized. [^4]: One advantage of an inner-product model is that it allows for efficient retrieval: given a query item $x$, the problem of retrieving items $y$ with high similarity to $x$ is a maximum inner product search problem (MIPS), which can be approximated efficiently [@shrivastava2014ALSH; @neyshabur2015symmetric]. [^5]: Note that a given left item $x$ may appear in many example pairs (and similarly for right items), one can define the Gram matrices as a sum over unique items. The two formulations are equivalent up to reweighting of the embeddings. [^6]: We use two separate batches to ensure the independence assumption of Proposition \[prop:unbiased\]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We develop a finite-state automata approach, implemented in a Maple package [ToadsAndFrogs]{} available from our websites, for conjecturing, and then rigorously proving, values for large families of positions in Richard Guy’s combinatorial game “Toads and Frogs”. In particular, we prove a conjecture of Jeff Erickson.' address: - Department of Mathematics - 'Hill Center-Busch Campus' - Rutgers University - 110 Frelinghuysen Rd - 'Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019' - USA author: - 'Thotsaporn “Aek” Thanatipanonda' - Doron Zeilberger title: 'A Symbolic Finite-state approach for Automated Proving of Theorems in Combinatorial Game Theory' --- Introduction ============ The game [Toads and Frogs]{}, invented by Richard Guy, is extensively discussed in “Winning Ways”\[1\], the famous classic by Elwyn Berlekamp, John Conway, and Richard Guy, that is the [bible]{} of combinatorial game theory.\ This game got so much coverage because of the simplicity and elegance of its rules, the beauty of its analysis, and as an example of a combinatorial game whose positions do not always have values that are numbers.\ The game is played on a $1 \times n$ strip with either Toad(T) , Frog(F) or $\Box$ on the squares. Left plays T and Right plays F. T may move to the immediate square on its right, if it happens to be empty, and F moves to the next empty square on the left, if it is empty. If T and F are next to each other, they have an option to jump over one another, in their designated directions, provided they lend on an empty square. (See \[1\], page 14).\ In symbols: the following moves are legal for Toad:\ $\dots {{\rm T}}\Box \dots \;\ \rightarrow \;\ \dots \Box {{\rm T}}\dots $,\ $\dots {{\rm T}}{{\rm F}}\Box \dots \;\ \rightarrow \;\ \dots \Box {{\rm F}}{{\rm T}}\dots $ ,\ and the following moves are legal for Frog:\ $\dots \Box {{\rm F}}\dots \;\ \rightarrow \;\ \dots {{\rm F}}\Box \dots $,\ $\dots \Box {{\rm T}}{{\rm F}}\dots \;\ \rightarrow \;\ \dots {{\rm F}}{{\rm T}}\Box \dots \quad $ .\ Already in “Winning Ways”\[1\], there is some analysis of Toads and Frogs positions, but on [specific]{}, small boards, such as ${{\rm T}}{{\rm T}}{{\rm T}}\Box {{\rm F}}{{\rm F}}$. In 1996, Jeff Erickson\[2\] analyzed more general positions. At the end he made five conjectures about the values of some families of positions. All of them are “starting” positions (i.e. positions where all T’s are rightmost and all F’s are leftmost).\ To be able to understand the present article, readers need some knowledge of combinatorial game theory, that can be found in \[1\]. In particular, readers should be familiar with the notion of [value]{} of a game. Recall that values are not always numbers (not even surreal ones).\ Let’s recall the [bypass reversible move rule]{}, the [dominated options rule]{} (see \[1\] page 62-64) and Erickson’s [Terminal Toads Theorem]{} (see\[2\]).\ Bypassing right’s reversible move rule\ \[ht\] $G = H$ if $D^{L} \geq G.$\ The Dominated options Rule\ Let $G = \{A,B,C,... \mid D,E,F,.. \}.$\ If $A \geq B$ and $D \geq E$ then $G = \{A,C,... \mid E,F,.. \}.$\ The Terminal Toads Theorem: Let X be any position. Then\ $ {\rm X} {{\rm T}}\Box^{n} = {\rm X} \Box^{n} + n.$\ The only notation we use is $ * \;\ ( = \{ 0 \mid 0 \})$. We will not use any shorthand notation like $\uparrow$, $\Uparrow$, etc.\ Next, we will explain the method through examples, and describe how to implement the method when applied to certain classes of positions. Finally, we discuss a new conjecture and possible future work.\ Everything is fully implemented in a Maple package, [ToadsAndFrogs]{}, written by the first author, available from our websites. A Symbolic Finite-State Method ============================== We define two classes of positions:\ Class [A]{}: All the positions that have a [fixed]{} number of occurrences of $\Box$ and F, but a [variable]{} (symbolic) number of T’s in-between the $\Box$’s and F’s.\ class [B]{}: All the positions that have a [fixed]{} number of occurrences of T’s and F’s, but a [variable]{} (symbolic) number of $\Box$’s in-between the T’s and F’s.\ $Aij$ := the class in which we have exactly $i$ occurrences of $\Box$ and exactly $j$ occurrences of ${{\rm F}}$.\ $Bij$ := the class in which we have exactly $i$ occurrences of ${{\rm T}}$ and exactly $j$ occurrences of ${{\rm F}}$.\ For any [specific]{} position, we can always compute its value, by using the recursive definition of the value. But this is mere [number-crunching]{}. After collecting enough data, and examining it, if we are lucky, we (or rather our computers) can detect a uniform [pattern]{}, and [conjecture]{} an [explicit]{} formula for the values of the studied family, in terms of the symbolic parameters. Once conjectured, these conjectured explicit expressions can be proved by induction on the symbolic parameters. The beauty and novelty of our approach is that everything is done [automatically]{}. First the [conjecturing]{} parts, but more dramatically, the [proving]{} part. We teach the computer how to conjecture, by looking for general patterns, and then how to use induction in order to prove its own conjectures.\ This [activity]{} of [computer-generated]{} mathematics is in sharp contrast to the traditional approach of \[2\], that merely uses the computer as a calculator, to generate numerical data, and everything else, the conjecturing, and the proving (when feasible) is done by humans.\ We believe that the present methodology is of potential use in many other branches of mathematics, and “Toads and Frogs” is but an instructive arena for presenting a general approach for computer-generated research.\ When we analyze each class of positions, we are naturally lead, by the recursive definition of the [value]{} (of a game), to other classes of positions. Luckily, at least in all the cases encountered so far, there are always a [finite]{} number of different classes, that we can name “symbolic states”. If the (symbolic) value of each “state” in the class is conjectured to have a (symbolic) explicit expression, then we can prove the truth of [all]{} these conjectures [all at once]{} by applying induction on the recurrence relations. Note that in order for this to work we need to conjecture explicit expressions for [all]{} the states, so we usually get much more than we bargained for.\ We will demonstrate the method with the two simplest nontrivial classes: A11 and B11.\ First example: Type A11: one $\Box$ and one F\ Let $f(a,b)$ be the value of ${{\rm T}}^{a} \Box {{\rm T}}^{b} {{\rm F}}$.\ Let $g(a)$ be the value of ${{\rm T}}^{a} {{\rm F}}\Box$.\ Here, of course, ${{\rm T}}^{a}$ means ${{\rm T}}$ repeated $a$ times, so the ‘game’ $f(a,b)$, for example, stands for a doubly-infinite set of starting positions.\ Recurrences:\ Note that if any parameter of the function is negative then it return NULL.\ \[ht\] $f(a,0) = \{ f(a-1,1) \mid g(a)\} , a \geq 0. $\ \[ht\] $f(a,1) = \{ f(a-1,2) \mid g(a)+1\} , a \geq 0.$\ \[ht\] $f(a,b) = \{ f(a-1,b+1) \mid \;\ \} , a \geq 0 , b \geq 2.$\ \[ht\] $g(a) = \{ f(a-1,0) \mid \;\ \}, a \geq 0$.\ The above recurrences can be easily used to crank out [numerical data]{} for small (and not so small) values of $a$ and $b$. Then the computer [automatically]{} makes the following [symbolic]{} conjectures.\ Conjectures: $$\begin{array}{llll} f(0,0) &=& -1. \\ f(a,0) &=& \{\{a-2 \mid 1 \} \mid 0 \} &, \;\ a \geq 1. \\ f(a,1) &=& \{ a-1 \mid 1 \} &, \;\ a \geq 0.\\ f(a,b) &=& a &,\;\ a \geq 0, \;\ b \geq 2.\\ g(a) &=& 0 &, \;\ a \geq 0.\\ \\ \end{array}$$ Once conjectured, the proof is routine, and also can (and was!) done by computer. One checks the obvious initial conditions and verifies that the above expressions satisfy the above [defining]{} relations. Indeed, the computer easily verifies that $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,0) &=& \{f(a-1,1) \mid g(a) \} = \{\{ a-2\mid 1 \} \mid 0 \} &,\;\ a \geq 1. \\ f(0,1) &=& \{ \;\ \mid g(0)+1 \} = \{ \;\ \mid 1 \} = 0 = \{ -1 \mid 1 \}. \\ f(a,1) &=& \{f(a-1,2) \mid g(a)+1 \} = \{ a-1\mid 1 \} &, \;\ a \geq 1. \\ f(0,b) &=& \{ \;\ \mid \;\ \} = 0 &, \;\ b \geq 2. \\ f(a,b) &=& \{f(a-1,b+1) \mid \;\ \} = \{ a-1\mid \;\ \} = a &, \;\ a \geq 1, b \geq 2. \\ g(0) &=& \{ \;\ \mid \;\ \} = 0. \\ g(1) &=& \{f(0,0) \mid \;\ \} = \{ -1\mid \;\ \} = 0. \\ g(a) &=& \{f(a-1,0) \mid \;\ \} = \{\{\{ a-3\mid 1 \} \mid 0 \}\mid \;\ \}\\ &=& \{ \;\ \mid \;\ \}$ (!! by bypass reversible move rule) $= 0 &, \;\ a \geq 2. \\ \\ \end{array}$$ Note that the above values for $f(a,0)$ ($a \geq 1$) agree with the case $b=1$ of Theorem 5.2 of \[2\].\ Second Example: Type B11: one T and one F.\ Let $f(a,b,c) := \Box^{a} {{\rm T}}\Box^{b} {{\rm F}}\Box^{c}.$\ Now we have a [three-]{} parameter family!\ Initial Conditions and Recurrences:\ $$\begin{array}{llll} f(0,0,0) &=& \{ \;\ \mid \;\ \}.\\ f(a,0,0) &=& \{ \;\ \mid (-a+1)+1\} = \{ \;\ \mid -a+2 \} &, \;\ a \geq 1.\\ f(0,0,c) &=& \{ (c-1)-1\mid \;\ \} = \{ c-2 \mid \;\ \} &, \;\ c \geq 1.\\ f(a,0,c) &=& \{ c-a-2\mid c-a+2\} &, \;\ a \geq 1, c \geq 1.\\ \end{array}$$ \[ht\] $f(a,b,c) = \{ f(a+1,b-1,c)\mid f(a,b-1,c+1) \}, \;\ a \geq 0, c \geq 0, b \geq 1$.\ By using these recurrences [numerically]{}, the computer cranks out enough data, that enables it to make the following\ Conjecture:\ $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,b,c) &=& \{ c-a-2\mid c-a+2\} &, \;\ a \geq 0, c \geq 0 , b\mbox{ is even}.\\ f(a,b,c) &=& \{\{ c-a-3\mid c-a+1\} \mid \{ c-a-1\mid c-a+3\}\} &, \;\ a \geq 0, c \geq 0, \, b \mbox{ is odd }.\\ \end{array}$$\ Proof: by induction: on $b$.\ Base case: $b$ = 0\ We have $$\begin{array}{llll} f(0,0,0) &=& 0 = \{-2 \mid 2 \} . \\ f(a,0,0) &=& \{\;\; \mid -a+2 \} = \{-a-2 \mid -a+2 \} , \;\ &a \geq 1.\\ f(0,0,c) &=& \{ c-2 \mid \;\ \} = \{c-2 \mid c+2 \} ,&c \geq 1.\\ f(a,0,c) &=& \{ c-a-2\mid c-a+2\} ,&a \geq 1, c \geq 1.\\ \end{array}$$ Induction step on $b$\ Case 1) $b$ is even and $b \neq 0$: $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,b,c) &=& \{ f(a+1,b-1,c)\mid f(a,b-1,c+1) \} ,\;\ a \geq 0, c \geq 0.\\ &=& \{\{ c-a-4\mid c-a\} \mid \{ c-a-2\mid c-a+2\}\} \\ && \mid \{\{ c-a-2\mid c-a+2\} \mid \{ c-a\mid c-a+4\}\}\}.\\ &=& \{ c-a-2 \mid c-a+2 \}. \\ \end{array}$$ Case 2) $b$ is odd $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,b,c) &=& \{ f(a+1,b-1,c)\mid f(a,b-1,c+1) \} &, a \geq 0, c \geq 0.\\ &=& \{\{ c-a-3\mid c-a+1\} \mid \{ c-a-1 \mid c-a+3\}\}. \\ \\ \end{array}$$ The second example is related to the results of Erickson \[2\] as follows. The case $b=0$ is Lemma 4.1 of \[2\], while the case $a=0,c=0$ coincides with the case $a=1$ of Theorem 5.2. Note that we need the extra elbow-room of a three-parameter family to enable the inductive argument.\ How far can the symbolic finite state method go? ================================================ As we mentioned in the previous section, the finite state method works perfectly well when the value of every position in the class has a discernible pattern. This seems to be the case for class A. We wrote a computer program in Maple to first [calculate]{}, then [conjecture]{}, and finally [prove]{}, the values of general positions in class A automatically. The program now works for positions with any fixed number of $\Box$’s and with one Frog. For the class where we have more than one Frog, it is harder to find conjectures, for humans, and [even]{} for computers. We conjectured some classes with two Frogs(A12, A22, A32) by hand and put it in the computer program to prove the conjectures.\ The list of the results for the classes A11, A21, A31, A41, A51, A12, A22, A32 can be found in both authors’ websites.\ As a very special case of our results for the class A32, we get a proof of Erickson’s\[2\] conjecture 2, that claims that the value of ${{\rm T}}^{a} \Box\Box\Box {{\rm F}}{{\rm F}}$ is $ \{ a-2 \mid a-2 \}$, ( $a \geq 2$).\ In \[3\], the first-named author of the present paper discusses the value of [any]{} position with one $\Box$ and [any]{} number of Toads and Frogs (Therefore we are done with class $A1n$, $n \geq 1$). This general class with one $\Box$ is the only general class we are able to figure out the patterns for.\ We now turn our attention to class B. We solved class B11 in the previous section. For B21: TTF, we already have a difficulty. The formulas in this class are long and hard to find in a canonical form. We will discuss this in the appendix.\ A Conjecture and Future Work ============================ Conjecture:\ 1) We always have “nice compact” formulas for every position in class A.\ Future Work:\ 1) Implement the symbolic finite state method for the class B21.\ 2) We have seen systems of recurrence relations arising naturally in each class. We solved the recurrences by “guessing” (automatically, of course) the answers (using predefined [ansatzes]{}) and then proving them by induction. It would be interesting to develop general algorithms for systematically solving the recurrnces, without the need for “guessing”.\ APPENDICES {#appendices .unnumbered} ========== On the difficulty of class B21: TTF =================================== B21: TTF $f(a,b,c,d) := \Box^{a} {{\rm T}}\Box^{b} {{\rm T}}\Box^{c} {{\rm F}}\Box^{d}.$\ $g(a,b,c) := \Box^{a} {{\rm T}}\Box^{b} {{\rm F}}\Box^{c}.$\ We already knew the solution of g since it is exactly B11.\ We can now focus on f.\ Recurrences: $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,0,0,0) &=& \{ \;\ \mid \;\ \} = 0.\\ f(a,0,0,d) &=& \{ g(a,1,d-1)+d-1 \mid \;\ \} \\ &=& \{\{\{ d-a-4 \mid d-a \} \mid \{ d-a-2 \mid d-a+2 \}\} \mid \;\ \} \\ &&,\;\ a\geq 0, \;\ d \geq 1.\\ f(a,b,0,0) &=& \{ f(a+1,b-1,0,0) \mid g(a,b-1,1)+1 \} \\ &&, \;\ a \geq 0, b \geq 1.\\ f(a,b,0,d) &=& \{ f(a+1,b-1,0,d) ,\;\ g(a,b+1,d-1)+d-1 \mid g(a,b-1,d+1)+d+1 \} \\ &&, \;\ a \geq 0, b \geq 1, d \geq 1.\\ f(a,b,c,d) &=& \{ f(a+1,b-1,c,d) ,\;\ f(a,b+1,c-1,d) \mid f(a,b,c-1,d+1) \} \\ &&, \;\ a \geq 0, b \geq 0, c \geq 1, d \geq 0.\\ \end{array}$$ Note: $f(a,0,0,d)$ has been discussed before as lemma 4.3 by Erickson.\ A nice formula for $f(a,b,0,0)$.\ For b =1: $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,1,0,0) &=& \{ f(a+1,0,0,0) \mid g(a,0,1) +1 \} \\ &=& \{ 0 \mid \{ -1-a \mid 3-a \} +1 \} \\ &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \frac{1}{2} & \mbox{, a = 0,1} \\ \{0 \mid 3-a \} & \mbox{, a} \geq \mbox{2} \\ \end{array} \right. \end{array}$$ For b $\geq$ 2 and b is even: $$\begin{array}{llll} \noindent f(a,b,0,0) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{, a = 0 } \\ -a+2 & \mbox{, a } \geq 1. \\ \end{array} \right. \\ &=& \{ \;\ \mid a \} -a+2. \\ \end{array}$$ For b $\geq$ 2 and b is odd.\ $$\begin{array}{llll} f(a,b,0,0) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \{1 \mid 1\} &, a = 0 \\ \frac{1}{2} &, a = 1 \\ -a+2 &, a \geq 2 .\\ \end{array} \right. \end{array}$$\ However for $f(a,b,0,d) , a\geq 0, b \geq 1, d\geq 1$ , the formulas get longer and longer and we started to lose track of them, and consequently failed to find formulas in this case. It should be possible to write Maple code specifically to find a pattern for the values of positions in class B. The authors expect the formulas in other classes of type B (for example B22: TTFF) to be even more complicated than B21, since it has to build up from B21.\ It appears that the positions in class B have periodicity and they need more care to formulate the right conjectures.\ About the program ================== Our Symbolic Finite-State Method was implemented by one of us (TT) in Maple. He first wrote a program to recursively calculate the values of games. Then he improved the program by making use of the symbolic computation capability of Maple, to formulate conjectures, and prove the values of game-positions. The whole proof process was completely automated. Below is the short description of the program. See the authors’ web sites for complete details of the program.\ ToFr\ [Input]{}: the specific position of the game.\ [Output]{}: the value of the game in canonical form.\ SVG\ [Input]{}: the value of the game, could be symbolic.\ [Output]{}: the value of the game in canonical form.\ Note: This program can also be used for other combinatorial games.\ MainConj\ [Input]{}: number of $\Box$ and number of F.\ [Output]{}: The list of conjectures.\ Prove\ [Input]{}: number of $\Box$ and number of F.\ [Output]{}: the values of all of the positions in this class.\ The program currently only works for one Frog with any fixed number of $\Box$. With more than one Frog, it gets harder to find conjectures. But one could find conjectures by hand and feed them to the subfunctions in Prove. The program can help verify such humanly-made conjectures.\ Obviously, there is still a lot of work to be done, but let’s remember that\ “ [Every great artwork always starts from a rough draft]{}”.\ [9]{} Elwyn Berlekamp, John Conway, and Richard Guy, [[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]{}]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1982.\ Jeff Erickson, [[New Toads and Frogs Results]{}]{}, in: “Games of No Chance”, 299-310, Richard J. Nowakowski, ed., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. [29]{}, 1996.\ Thotsaporn “Aek” Thanatipanonda, [[Further Hopping with Toads and Frogs]{}]{}, preprint (available from the author’s website) .\	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - \| [Dirk Schlingemann]{}\ The Erwin Schrödinger International Institute\ for Mathematical Physics (ESI)\ Vienna title: 'Application of Tomita-Takesaki theory in algebraic euclidean field theories' --- Introduction {#sc1} ============ Concerning the know examples for non-free quantum field theory models, the construction of them, by means of euclidean techniques, is the most successful method which is known. Not surprisingly, most of the interesting quantities of such a model are explicitly given only in terms of euclidean correlation functions. It is therefore natural to ask the following question: Given a euclidean field theory from which a quantum field theory can be constructed. Which properties of the quantum field theory can directly read off from the euclidean data? This motivates the development of tools which analyze structural aspects of euclidean field theories in a systematic manner and we think that the C\-algebraic approach of euclidean field theory gives an appropriate setup in order to follow this program. Analogously to the famous Osterwalder-Schrader Theorem [@OstSchra1], it can be shown [@Schl97] that to each euclidean field theory, formulated in the C\-algebraic framework, a quantum field theory model in the sense of R. Haag and D. Kastler [@H; @HK] can be associated. We give a brief description of the corresponding construction scheme later. Based on this work, a tool for investigating the high energy behavior of a quantum field theory model, by only looking at its euclidean counterpart, has already been discussed in [@Schl99a]. Compared to the scaling limit analysis of D. Buchholz and R. Verch [@Bu97; @BuVer97; @Bu96a; @Bu96b; @BuVer95] one finds the expected results, namely that the high energy behavior of the euclidean model reflects the high energy behavior of the corresponding quantum field theory. In addition to that, the C\-algebraic point of view provides new strategies for constructing euclidean field theory models, as it is laid out in [@Schl98; @Schl99c]. Within the framework of algebraic quantum field theory, the physical concept of PCT symmetry and spin and statistics is deeply linked to the Tomita-Takesaki theory of von Neumann algebras and has been studied in several papers, see for example [@BiWi75; @Bor95a; @Bor95b; @GuLo95; @Kuck95; @Yng96; @Sum96; @Bor98; @BorYng99]. Moreover, Tomita-Takesaki theory might also be important for constructive purposes as it is, for example, proposed in [@SchrWies98]. From the point of view of eulidean field theory, it would be desirable to express the modular data of a wedge algebra of the quantum field theoretical counterpart directly in terms of euclidean correlation functions. This might be of importance, since according to the discussion in [@SchrWies98], there is hope, that an analysis of the modular data related to the euclidean field theory models, which are constructed in [@Schl98; @Schl99c] by an abstract procedure, can be used as a tool in order to decide whether a theory describes interaction. #### Organization of the paper.* In the second part of the present section, we make some preliminary remarks on the algebraic approach to euclidean field theory in order to introduce notations and conventions which are used. Starting from a given euclidean field, we present in Section \[sc2\] the main results which state in particular that the square-root of the modular operator of a wedge algebra of the quantum field theory, constructed from the euclidean data, can explicitly be identified with a particular euclidean rotation with rotation angle $s=\pi$. Furthermore, the corresponding modular conjugation is a PCT symmetry which can be expressed in terms of euclidean reflexions. We close the paper by Section \[seccr\], mentioning some work in progress. We feel obliged to postpone most of the technical details and the proofs to the appendix in order to keep the paper more readable. #### Preliminary remarks on the algebraic approach to euclidean field theory. The starting point within the C\-algebraic approach to euclidean field theory is a so called [euclidean net of C\-algebras]{} $(\6B,\be)$. Such a net is an inclusion preserving prescription $\9U\mapsto\6B(\9U)\subset \6B$, which assigns to each bounded convex region $\9U$ in $\7R^d$ a C\-algebra $\6B(\9U)$. This assignment has to fulfill several assumptions, according to physical principles. Two operators commute if they are localized in disjoint regions, more specifically, if the intersection $\9U_1\cap\9U_2=\emptyset$ is empty, then the commutator $[b_1,b_2]=0$ vanishes for all operators $b_1\in\6B(\9U_1)$ and $B_2\in\6B(\9U_2)$. The net $\9U\mapsto\6B(\9U)$ is euclidean covariant, i.e. there exists a group homomorphism $\be$ form the euclidean group into the automorphism group of $\6B$ such that for a euclidean transformation $h\in\8E(d)$ the algebra of a local region $\9U$ is mapped, via $\be_h$, onto the algebra of the transformed region $h\9U$: $\be_h\6B(\9U)=\6B(h\9U)$. We have to mention that, although the analogy between the C\-algebraic approach to euclidean field theory and the Haag-Kastler framework for quantum field theory is obious, the euclidean C\-algebras have to be interpreted in a different manner. Within the Haag-Kastler program, the dynamics of a given quantum field theory is usually contained in the relative inclusion of local algebras, whereas a euclidean net of C\-algebras only describes kinematical aspects. The dynamics of euclidean field theory model is encoded in the choice of a particular (euclidean invariant and reflexion positive regular) state on the corresponding euclidean C\-algebra: #### Euclidean invariance:* A state $\eta$ on $\6B$ is called [euclidean invariant]{} if for each $h\in \8E(d)$ the identity $\eta\circ\be_h=\eta$ holds true. #### Reflexion positivity: A state $\eta$ on $\6B$ is called [reflexion positive]{} if exists a euclidean direction $e\in S^{d-1}$ such that the sesquilinear form B(H\_e)B(H\_e)b\_0b\_1 ,j\_e(b\_0)b\_1 is positive semi definite. Here, $\8H_e$ is the half space $\7R_+e+e^\perp$ with respect to a given euclidean direction $e\in S^{d-1}$, $j_e$ is the anti-linear involution which is given by $j_e(b)=\be_{\te_e}(b^)$ where $\te_e$ is the euclidean reflexion $\te_ex=x-2\<e,x\>e$. #### Regularity:* A state $\eta$ on $\6B$ is called [regular]{} if for each $b_0,b_1,b_2\in\6B$ the map h&&<,b\_0\_h(b\_1)b\_2> is continuous. A triple $(\6B,\be,\eta)$ consisting of a euclidean net of C\-algebras $(\6B,\be)$ and a euclidean invariant reflexion positive regular state $\eta$ is called a [euclidean field]{}. #### From euclidean field theory to quantum field theory.* We briefly describe here, as it has carried out in [@Schl97], how to construct from a given euclidean field a quantum field theory. #### Step 1: According to the reflexion positivity, for e given direction $e\in S^{d-1}$ there exists a Hilbert space $\2H$ and a linear map :B(H\_e)H which is uniquely determined by ,&=&<,j\_e(b\_0)b\_1> and we have a distinguished vector $\Om:=\Psi[\11]$, the vacuum vector. Following the analysis presented in [@FrohOstSeil], a unitary strongly continuous representation of the Poincar' e group $U$ on $\2H$ can be constructed (see also [@Seil82; @Schl97]). The vacuum vector $\Om$ is invariant under the action of $U$ and, in addition to that, the spectrum of the the generator of the translations $x\mapsto U(x)$ is contained in the closed forward light cone $\bar V_+=\{x\in\7R^{1,d-1}\|x^2\geq 0 ; x^0\geq 0\}$. A more detailed description of the construction of $U$ is given in Appendix \[app1\]. #### Step 2: For a subset $\9V$ of the hyperplane $e^\perp$, perpendicular to $e$, we introduce the algebra $\6B(\9V)$ of [time zero opeartors]{}, localized in $\9V$, by the intersection B(V)&:=&\_[sR\_+]{} B(\[0,s)eV) . The algebar $\6B(e^\perp)$ is then the C\-algebra which is generated by all local time-zero algebras $\6B(\9V)$ with $\9V\subset e^\perp$. There exists a \-representation $\pi$ of the time-zero algebra $\6B(e^\perp)$ on $\2H$, which is uniquely determined by the relation (b)&=&for each $b_1\in\6B(\8H_e)$. The algebra $\pi(\6B(e^\perp))$ can be regarded as the [Cauchy data]{} of the quantum field theory model by identifying the hyperplane $e^\perp$ with the spacelike hyperplane $x^0=0$ in Minkowski space $\7R^{1,d-1}$. For a double cone $\9O$ (a causally complete bounded set in Minkowski space), we define $\6A(\9O)$ to be the von Neumann algbera on $\2H$ which is generated by all operators \[opm1\] &:=& U(g)(b)U(g)\^\* with $b\in\6B(\9V)$, such that $g\9V\subset\9O$ for the Poincaré transformation $g$. The prescription OA(O) is an isotonous net of C\-algebras. We define a group homomorphism $\al$ from the Poincaré group to the automorphism group of $\6A$ by \_g:=(U(g)) which is, by construction, covariant, i.e. $\al_g\6A(\9O)=\6A(g\9O)$ for each double cone $\9O$ and for each Poincaré transformation $g$. The state $\om$ on $\6A$, which is given by &=&,a has the following properties: #### Poincaré invariance:* For each Poincaré transformation $g$ the identity $\om\circ\al_g=\om$ holds true which is a consequence of the invariance of $\Om$ under $U(g)$. #### Positivity of the energy: For each $a_1,a_2\in\6A$ and for each test function $f\in S(\7R^{1,d-1})$ on Minkowski space whose Fourier transform $\tilde f$ has support in the complement of the closed forward light cone $\bar V_+$, the identity dx f(x) <,a\_1\_x a\_2> &=& 0 is valid. This is nothing else but expressing the fact that the generators of the translations $x\mapsto U(x)$ have joint spectrum in the closed forward light cone. #### Locality: If $\9O_1$ and $\9O_2$ are spacelike separated regions, then the commutator $[a_1,a_2]=0$ vanishes for $a_1\in\6A(\9O_1)$ and $a_2\in\6A(\9O_2)$. #### Remark. Whereas Poincaré invariance as well as the positivity of the energy follow directly from the construction of the representation $U$, the fact that locality is fulfilled is not directly visible. The proof, carried out in [@Schl97], is quite lengthy. We shall see later, that the use of Tomita-Takesaki theory for wedge algebras, leads to a more elegant proof of locality. Modular data for wedge algebras as geometric operations in euclidean space {#sc2} ========================================================================== The present section is concerned with the discussion of the Tomita-Takesaki theory of wedge algebras of the net $\9O\mapsto\6A(\9O)$ of von Neumann algebras emerging from a given euclidean field theory model. We present here the main results of the paper, which relate the modular operator and the modular conjugation of a particular wedge algebra to geometric operations in euclidean space. The technical details and the proofs are postponed to the appendix. KMS states associated with wedge algebras ----------------------------------------- For any wedge region $\9W$ in Minkowski space the wedge algebra with respect to $\9W$ is the von Neumann algebra A(W)&:=& \_[OW]{}A(O) generated by all local von Neumann algebras $\6A(\9O)$ with $\9O\subset \9W$. Particular wedge algebras are related to euclidean directions $e_0\in S^{d-1}$ which are perpendicular $e_0\perp e$ to $e$. An application of the boosts in $(e,e_0)$ direction to the half hyperplane $\8P_{(e,e_0)}:=\8H_e\cap\8H_{-e}\cap\8H_{e_0}$ yields the wedge region W\_[(e,e\_0)]{}&:=&\_[tR]{}(tB\_[(e,e\_0)]{})P\_[(e,e\_0)]{} . Obviously, the spacelike complement $\9W_{(e,e_0)}'$ of the wedge $\9W_{(e,e_0)}$ is just the wedge $\9W_{(e,-e_0)}$ with respect to the reflected direction $-e_0$. Writing $\al_{(e,e_0)}:\7R\to\8{Aut}(\6A)$ for the one-parameter automorphism group of boosts \_[(e,e\_0,t)]{}&:=&we obtain a W\-dynamical system $(\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)}),\al_{(e,e_0)})$ together with a $\al_{(e,e_0)}$-invariant state \_[(e,e\_0)]{}&:=& \|\_[A(W\_[(e,e\_0)]{})]{} , the restriction of the vacuum state $\om$ to the corresponding wedge algebra. \[the0\] For each direction $e_0\perp e$, the state $\om_{(e,e_0)}$ is a KMS state at inverse temperature $\be=2\pi$ with respect to the W\-dynamical system $$(\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)}),\al_{(e,e_0)}) \ \ .$$ The proof of Theorem \[the0\] can be obtained in complete analogy to the analysis of [@KlLan81] and we give a version of it within the Appendix \[app2\]. The PCT symmetry and complex Lorentz boosts as geometric operations in euclidean space -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #### The $e_0$-PCT operator. For a euclidean direction $e_0\in S^{d-1}$ which is perpendicular to $e$, the euclidean reflexion $$\te_{e_0}:x\mapsto x-2\<e_0,x\>e$$ is contained in the stabilizer group of $e$ and hence it gives rise to an anti-unitary operator $\9J_{(e,e_0)}$, called the $e_0$-PCT operator. It is defined according to the prescription J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}&:=& and it has the geometric property (see Appendix \[app3\] for the proof): \[pro1\] For each $e_0\in S^{d-1}\cap\8P_e$ the identity J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}A(W\_[(e,e\_0)]{})J\_[(e,e\_0)]{} &=&A(W\_[(e,-e\_0)]{}) is valid. #### Complex Lorentz boosts as euclidean rotations. For a direction $e_0\in S^{d-1}$, $e\perp e_0$, The one-parameter group $t\mapsto U( \exp(tB_{(e,e_0)})$ can be extended analytically to complex parameters on a appropriate dense subspace of $\2H$. This is based on remarkable facts which have been established by J. Fröhlich [@Froh80], on one hand, and by A. Klein and L. J. Landau [@KlLan81a], on the other hand. The generator $L_{(e,e_0)}\in\6so(d)$ of the euclidean rotations within the $e-e_0$ plane yields a one-parameter group of automorphisms on $\6A$ \_[(e,e\_0,s)]{}&:=&\_[(sL\_[(e,e\_0)]{})]{} . For each $s\in (-\pi/2,\pi/2)$ an operator $V_{(e,e_0)}(s)$ is uniquely determined by V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}(s)&=& for each $b\in\6B(\8H_e)$ with $\be_{(e,e_0,s)}b\in\6B(\8H_e)$. On an appropriate dense subspace $\2D\subset\2H$, the operator $V_{(e,e_0)}(s)$ is related to the one-parameter group $t\mapsto U( \exp(tB_{(e,e_0)}))$ by V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}(s)&=&U( (isB\_[(e,e\_0)]{} ) ) . The modular operator and the modular conjugation for wedge algebras. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From the fact that $\om_{(e,e_0)}$ is a KMS state for the W\-dynamical system $(\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)}),\al_{(e,e_0)})$, one concludes (e.g. [@Araki76]) that the vector $\Om$ is separating for the algebra $\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)})$. Therefore there exists a modular operator $\Delta_{(e,e_0)}$ and a modular conjugation $J_{(e,e_0)}$ with respect to the pair $(\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)}),\Om)$. The subsequent theorem, which is proven in the Appendix \[app4\], states that the modular data can be expressed in terms of geometric actions in [euclidean]{} space: \[the1\] For the modular operator $\Delta_{(e,e_0)}$ and the modular conjugation $J_{(e,e_0)}$ the identities \_[(e,e\_0)]{}\^[1/2]{}&=&V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}() J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}&=&J\_[(e,e\_0)]{} hold true for each $e_0\in S^{d-1}\cap \8P_e$. #### Locality and wedge duality.* The statement of Theorem \[the1\] has some direct implications. As already mentioned, a proof for locality of the net $\9O\mapsto\6A(\9O)$ has already been established in [@Schl97]. The proof of Theorem \[the1\], which we postpone to the appendix, do not make use of this fact and by means of Theorem \[the1\] we derive an independent proof for locality which is, compared to [@Schl97], much more elegant and straight forward. The net $\9O\mapsto \6A(\9O)$ fulfills wedge duality, i.e. for each wedge region $\9W$ the identity A(W)’=A(W’) is valid. In particular, locality holds true. As a consequence of Theorem \[the1\] we get A(W\_[(e,e\_0)]{})’&=&A(W\_[(e,-e\_0)]{}) and the Poincaré covariance of the net $\9O\mapsto\6A(\9O)$ implies wedge duality for each wedge $\9W$. Therefore, the net fulfills locality since for two spacelike separated double cones $\9O_1\subset \9O_2'$ there is a wedge $\9W$ with $\9O_1\in \9W$ and $\9O_2\in \9W'$. Now wedge duality implies for operators $a_1\in\6A(\9O_1)$ and $a_2\in\6A(\9O_2)$ that $[a_1,a_2]=0$. Concluding remarks {#seccr} ================== We have shown, that the modular operator and the modular conjugation of a particular wedge algebra $\6A(\9W)$, associated to a given euclidean field $(\6B,\be,\eta)$, do not only have the meaning as geometric action on Minkowski space in terms of Lorentz boosts and reflexions, they also can be identified with geometric operations in euclidean space, namely particular euclidean rotations and euclidean reflexions. This fact can be used to conclude wedge duality for the net $\9O\mapsto\6A(\9O)$. As a consequence we get, compared to the analysis carried out in [@Schl97], an improved method in order to prove locality. Keeping in mind that the minkowskian analogue of the euclidean $d$-sphere $S^d\subset\7R^{d+1}$ is the de Sitter space, it should be possible, by exploring the analytic structure of de Sitter space, to construct from a given euclidean field theory $(\6B,\be,\eta)$ on the sphere $S^d$ a quantum field theory $(\6A,\al,\om)$ in de Sitter space (A forthcoming preprint is in preparation). For an example, we refer the reader to the work of R. Figari, R. Höegh-Krohn, and C. R. Nappi [@FigHoehNap75]. According to Theorem \[the0\], we conjecture that the reconstructed state $\om$ fulfills the so called [geodesic KMS condition]{}, in the sense of H. J. Borchers and D. Buchholz [@BorBu98], i.e. for any geodesic observer the state $\om$ looks like an equilibrium state. In order to prove locality for the constructed quantum field theory in de Sitter space, the method of [@Schl97], can not directly be applied since here the euclidean translations are used. Establishing the analogous results of Theorem \[the1\] for the theory in de Sitter space, locality would also follow here. ### [Acknowledgment:]{} {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} I am grateful to Prof. Jakob Yngvason for supporting this investigation many ideas. This investigation is financially supported by the [Jubiläumsfonds der Oesterreichischen Nationalbank]{} which is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally I would like to thank the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna (ESI) for its hospitality. Construction of a representation of the Poincaré group {#app1} ====================================================== In order to keep the paper self contained, we review here the construction procedure of a representation of the Poincaré group from a given eucliden field $(\6B,\be,\eta)$ in more ditail. We first give a list of facts which are consequences of the axioms for a euclidean field. #### Fact 1: For each $e\in S^d$ there is a strongly continuous one-parameter semi-group of contractions $T_e$ with positive generator $H_e\geq 0$ which is given according to T\_e(s)&=& for $s>0$ and for $b\in\6B(\8H_e)$. #### Fact 2: For $e\in S^{d-1}$, $w\in (0,\pi/2)$, the conic region $\Gam(e,w)$ is defined to be the $\8O_e(d-1)$ invariant cone in $e$ direction with opening angle $w$. Moreover, for a pair euclidean time directions $e,e_1\in S^{d-1}$, $e\perp e_1$, the generator of the rotations within the $(e,e_1)$ plane is denoted by $L_{(e,e_1)}\in\6so(d)$. Hence the corresponding one-parameter group yields a one-parameter group of automorphisms on $\6B$ \_[(e,e\_1,s)]{}&:=&\_[(sL\_[(e,e\_1)]{})]{} and a local one-parameter group V\_[(e,e\_1)]{}={V\_[(e,e\_1)]{}(s)\|s(-/2,/2)} of selfadjoint operators. For each $s\in (-\pi/2,\pi/2)$ the domain of $V_{(e,e_1)}(s)$ is D(e,\|s\|) &:=& for each $s\in (-\pi/2,\pi/2)$. The operator $V_{(e,e_1)}(s)$ is uniquely determined by V\_[(e,e\_1)]{}(s)&=& and there exists an anti-selfadjoint operator $\1B_{(e,e_1)}$ on $\2H$ such that V\_[(e,e\_1)]{}(s)&=&(isB\_[(e,e\_1)]{}) . For each angle $w\in(0,\pi/2)$, the vectors in $\2D(e,w)$ are analytic for $B_{(e_1,e)}$. This remarkable facts have been established by J. Fröhlich [@Froh80], on one hand, and by A. Klein and L. J. Landau [@KlLan81a], on the other hand. #### Fact 3: There is a unitary strongly continuous representation $W$ on $\2H$ of the stabilizer subgroup $\8E_e(d-1)$ fulfilling W(g)&=& for $g\in\8E_e(d-1)$ and for $b\in\6B(\8H_e)$. #### A representation of the Poincaré group. By making use of the analysis of virtual representations [@FrohOstSeil] a strongly continuous unitary representation U\[,U(H)\] of the Poincaré group can be constructed. The paper [@FrohOstSeil] exploits the facts, listed above, and proceeds in several steps: #### Step 1: According to [Fact 3]{} the stabilizer subgroup $\8E_e(d-1)\subset \8E(d)$ is represented by $W$ and we put U(g)&:=&W(g) for each $g\in\8E_e(d-1)$. #### Step 2: By using [Fact 2]{} for each $e_1\perp e$ there exists a anti-selfadjoint operator $B_{(e,e_1)}$ on $\2H_{(\eta,e)}$ such that V\_[(e,e\_1)]{}(s)&=&(-i s B\_[(e,e\_1)]{}) . Let $B_{(e,e_1)}\in\6o(d-1,1)$ be the boost generator in $e_1-e$ direction we define a unitary operator by U((tB\_[(e\_1,e)]{}))&:=&( t B\_[(e\_1,e)]{}) . #### Step 3: Finally, the translations with respect to the time-like direction which corresponds to the $e$-direction in euclidean space are represented by U(te)&:=& (i t H\_e) according to [Fact 1]{}. Proof of Theorem \[the0\] {#app2} ========================= The main steps of the proof can be performed in complete analogy to the the analysis of [@KlLan81]. We consider a family of operators $b_1,\cdots, b_n$ which are contained in the time slice algebra, where $b_j\in\6B(\9V_j)$ is localized in a convex subset $\9V_j\subset\8H_{(e,e_0)}$. This implies that $\be_{(e,e_0,s)}b_j\in\6B(\8H_e)$ for each $s\in(0,\pi)$ where we have chosen the condition $\exp(2\pi L_{(e,e_0)})=1$. We introduce the open subset in $\7R^2$ I(V\_j)&:=&{(,s)R\^2\|e\_2: (sL\_[(e,e\_0)]{})(L\_[(e,e\_2)]{})V\_j\_e} which contains in particular the set $\{0\}\times(0,\pi)\subset I(\9V_j)$. We put $V:=V_{(e,e_0)}$ and $\Om=\Psi[\11]$. By introducing the operators b\_j(\_j)&:=&V\_[(e,e\_j)]{}(\_j)(b\_j)V\_[(e,e\_j)]{}(-\_j) && b\_j(\_j,s\_j)&:=&\_[(e,e\_0,s\_j)]{}\_[(e,e\_j,\_j)]{}b\_j we obtain &&V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1)&=& V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(-s\_k)V(s\_k+s\_[k-1]{})b\_[k-1]{}(\_[k-1]{}) V(-s\_k-s\_[k-1]{})&&V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1)&=& V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(-s\_k)V(s\_1++s\_k)b\_1(\_1) &=& . We compute for $s_1,\cdots,s_n\in\7R_+$, $(\tau_j,s_n+\cdots+s_j)\in I(\9V_j)$ for $n\leq j\leq k+1$ and $(\tau_i,s_k+\cdots+s_i)\in I(\9V_i)$ for $k\leq i\leq 1$: &&V(s\_n)b\_n(\_n)V(s\_[k+1]{})b\_[k+1]{}(\_[k+1]{}), V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k) &&V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1) &=& <,j\_e\[ b\_n(\_n,s\_n)b\_[k+1]{}(\_[k+1]{},s\_n++s\_[k+1]{}) \] && b\_k(\_k,s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,s\_k++s\_1)> &=& <, b\_[k+1]{}\^\(-\_[k+1]{},-s\_n--s\_[k+1]{})b\_n\^\(-\_n,-s\_n) &&b\_k(\_k,s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,s\_k++s\_1)> . Furthermore, we find due to our periodicity condition $\exp(2\pi L)=1$: && <, b\_[k+1]{}\^\(-\_[k+1]{},-s\_n--s\_[k+1]{})b\_n\^\(-\_n,-s\_n) && b\_k(\_k,s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,s\_k++s\_1)> &=& <, b\_[k+1]{}\^\(-\_[k+1]{},--s\_n--s\_[k+1]{}) b\_n\^\(-\_n,--s\_n) && b\_k(\_k,-+s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,-+s\_k++s\_1)> &=& <, b\_k(\_k,-+s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,-+s\_k++s\_1) && b\_[k+1]{}\^\(-\_[k+1]{},-(-+s\_n++s\_[k+1]{})) b\_n\^\(-\_n,-(-+s\_n))> . In the last step we have used the locality of the euclidean net $(\6B,\be)$, i.e. operators which are localized in disjoint regions commute. According to the definition of $I(\9V_j)$ we have for $(\tau,s)\in I(\9V_j)$ (sL\_[(e,e\_0)]{})(L\_[(e,e\_j)]{})V\_j\_e and hence ((-+s)L\_[(e,e\_0)]{})(L\_[(e,e\_j)]{})V\_j\_[-e]{} and therefore $(-\tau,\pi-s))\in I(\9V_j)$ which implies &&b\_k(\_k,-+s\_k)b\_[1]{}(\_1,-+s\_k++s\_1)B(H\_[-e]{}) &&b\_[k+1]{}\^\(-\_[k+1]{},-(s\_n++s\_[k+1]{})) b\_n\^\(-\_n,-s\_n))B(H\_e) . Keeping in mind that we have $$\1b_j(\tau_j)^= V_{(e,e_j)}(-\tau_j)\pi(b_j^)V_{(e,e_j)}(\tau_j)$$ the identity &&V(s\_n)b\_n(\_n)V(s\_[k+1]{})b\_[k+1]{}(\_[k+1]{}), V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)&&V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1) &=& V(-(s\_1++s\_k))b\_1(\_1)\^\V(s\_1)b\_2(\_2)\^\ V(s\_[k-1]{})b\_k(\_k)\^\* , && V(-(s\_[k+1]{}++s\_n))b\_[k+1]{}(\_[k+1]{})\^\* V(s\_[k+1]{})b\_[k+2]{}(\_[k+2]{})\^\* &&V(s\_[n-1]{})b\_n(\_n)\^\* follows which expresses the KMS condition in the euclidean points. Finally, a straight forward application of the analysis of [@KlLan81] proves the theorem. Proof of Proposition \[pro1\] {#app3} ============================= The $e_0$-PCT operator $\9J_{(e,e_0)}$ commutes with the local one-parameter group $V_{(e,e_1)}$ for $e_0\perp e_1$ and it fulfills the relation J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}(s)J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}&=&V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}(-s) as easily can be verified. For a time-zero operator $b\in\6B(e,\8P_{(e,e_0)})$, for a family of directions $\1e=(e_0,\cdots,e_n)$ with $e_i=e_j$ or $e_i\perp e_j$, $i,j=0,\cdots,n$ and for $t=(t_1,\cdots,t_n)\in\7R^{n}$, we introduce an operator $\Phi_{(e,\1e)}[t,b]\in\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)})$, localized in the wedge $\9W_{(e,e_0)}$: \_[(e,e)]{}\[t,b\] &:=& \_[(e,e\_1,t\_1)]{}\_[(e,e\_n,t\_n)]{}(b) . The wedge algebra $\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)})$ is generated by these operators and since the operator J\_[(e,e\_0)]{} \_[(e,e)]{}\[t,b\]J\_[(e,e\_0)]{} &=& \_[(e,e)]{}\[t,j\_[e\_0]{}b\] is contained in $\6A(\9W_{(e,-e_0)})$, the result follows, where $(\sgm t)_j=t_j$, if $e_j\perp e_0$, and $(\sgm t)_j=-t_j$, if $e_j=e_0$. Proof of Theorem \[the1\] {#app4} ========================= By following the analysis of [@KlLan81], we choose a family of operators $b_1,\cdots, b_n$ which are contained in the time slice algebra, where $b_j\in\6B(\9V_j)$ is localized in a convex subset $\9V_j\subset H_{(e,e_0)}$. By using the same notations as for the proof of Theorem \[the0\], we obtain by putting $V:=V_{(\eta,e,e_0)}$ and $\9J:=\9J_{(e,e_0)}$: &&V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1)&=& V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(-s\_k)V(s\_k+s\_[k-1]{})b\_[k-1]{}(\_[k-1]{}) V(-s\_k-s\_[k-1]{})&&V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1)&=& V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(-s\_k)V(s\_1++s\_k)b\_1(\_1) &=& . We compute for $s_1,\cdots,s_k\in\7R_+$ and $(\tau_i,s_k+\cdots+s_i)\in I(\9V_i)$ for $k\leq i\leq 1$: &&J V(s\_k)b\_k(\_k)V(s\_1)b\_1(\_1)&=& &=& &=& V(-s\_1++s\_k)b\_1\^\(\_1\_1)V(s\_1) b\_k\^\(\_k\_k)\^\V(s\_k) with $\sgm_j=1$ if $e_j\perp e_0$ and $\sgm_j=-1$ if $e_j=e$. Performing an analytic continuation within the parameter $s_1,\cdots s_k$ and $\tau_1,\cdots,\tau_k$ and taking boundary values at $s_j=\tau_j=0$ yields the relation (compare [@KlLan81] as well as [@FrohOstSeil] and [@Schl97]) &&J\_[(e,e\_0)]{} &=& V\_[(,e,e\_0)]{}() \^\ which implies that the Tomita operator is J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}\_[(e,e\_0)]{}\^[1/2]{}&=& J\_[(e,e\_0)]{}V\_[(e,e\_0)]{}() . Moreover, according to Theorem \[the0\], the automorphism group \_[(e,e\_0)]{}:t maps $\6A(\9W_{(e,e_0)})$ into itself and the state \_[(e,e\_0)]{}&=&\|\_[A(W\_[(e,e\_0)]{})]{} is a KMS state at inverse temperature $\be=2\pi$ and the theorem follows. [References]{} Araki, H.:\ [Positive cone, Radon-Nykodym theorems, relative hamiltonian and the Gibbs condition in statistical mechanics. An application of thr Tomita-Takesaki theory]{}\ C\-algebras and their applications to statistical mechanics and quantum field theory, Ed.: Kastler, D., pp. 64-100, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1976) Bisognano, J. and Wichmann, E.:\ [On the duality condition for a hermitian scalar field.]{}\ J. Math. Phys. [16]{}, 985-1007, (1975) Borchers, H.-J.:\ [When does Lorentz invariance imply wedge duality?]{}\ Lett. Math. Phys. [35]{}, 39-60, (1995) Borchers, H.-J.:\ [On the use of modular groups in quantum field theory.]{}\ Annales Poincaré Phys. Theor. [63]{}, 331-382, (1995) Borchers, H.-J.:\ [On Poincaré transformations and the modular group of the algebra associated with a wedge.]{} Lett. Math. Phys. [46]{}, 295-301, (1998) Borchers, H.-J. and Buchholz, D.:\ [Global properties of vacuum states in de Sitter space]{}\ e-Print Archive: gr-qc/9803036 Borchers, H.-J. and Yngvason, J.:\ [Modular groups of quantum fields in thermal states.]{}\ J. Math. Phys. [40]{}, 601-624, (1999) Buchholz, D.:\ [Short Distance Analysis in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory]{}\ Invited talk at 12th International Congress of Mathematical Physics (ICMP97), Brisbane, Australia, 13-19 Jul 1997. e-Print Archive: hep-th/9710094 Buchholz, D. and Verch, R.:\ [Scaling algebras and renormalization group in algebraic quantum field theory. II. Instructive examples]{}\ hep-th/9708095 Buchholz, D.:\ [Quarks, gluons, colour: Facts or fiction?]{}\ Nucl.Phys. [B469]{} (1996) 333-356 Buchholz, D.:\ [Phase Space Properties of Local Observables and Structure of Scaling Limits]{}\ Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. [64]{} (1996) 433-460 Buchholz, D. and Verch, R.:\ [Scaling algebras and renormalization group in algebraic quantum field theory]{}\ Rev. Math. Phys. [7]{}, 1195-1240, (1995) Buchholz, D.:\ [On the manifestations of particles]{}\ Published in “Mathematical Physics Towards the 21st Century”, R. Sen, A. Gersten eds. Beer-Sheva, Ben Gurion University Press 1994 Driessler,W. and Fröhlich, J.:\ [The reconstruction of local algebras from the Euclidean Green’s functions of relativistic quantum field theory.]{} Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré [27]{}, 221-236, (1977) Figari, R., Höegh-Krohn, R. and Nappi, C. R.:\ [Interacting relativistic boson fields in de Sitter universe with two space-time dimensions]{}\ Commun. Math. Phys. [44]{}, 265-278, (1975) Fröhlich, J.:\ [Some results and comments on quantized gauge fields.]{}\ Cargese, Proceedings, Recent Developments In Gauge Theories, 53-82, (1979) Fröhlich, J.:\ [Unbounded, symmetric semigroups on a separable Hilbert space are essentially selfadjoint]{}\ Adv. Appl. Math. [1]{}, 237-256, (1980) Fröhlich, J., Osterwalder, K. and Seiler E.:\ [On virtual representations of symmetric spaces and their analytic continuation.]{}\ Ann. Math. [118]{}, 461-489, (1983) Glimm, J. and Jaffe, A.:\ [Quantum physics, a functional integral point of view.]{}\ Springer, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg (1987) Guido, D. and Longo, R.:\ [An algebraic spin and statistics theorem.]{}\ Commun. Math. Phys. [172]{}, 517, (1995) Haag, R.:\ [Local quantum physics.]{}\ Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1992 Haag, R. and Kastler, D.:\ [An algebraic approach to quantum field theory.]{}\ J. Math. Phys. [5]{}, 848-861, (1964) Klein, A. and Landau L. J.:\ [Stochastic processes assosiated with KMS states]{}\ J. Func. Anal. [42]{}, 368-429, (1981) Klein, A. and Landau L. J.:\ [Construction of a unique self-adjoint generator for a local semigroup]{}\ J. Func. Anal. [44]{}, 121-137, (1981) Kuckert, B.:\ [A new approach to spin and statistics.]{}\ Lett. Math. Phys. [35]{} ,319-331, (1995) Magnen, J., Rivasseau, V. and Sénéor, R.:\ [Construction of YM-4 with an infrared cutoff.]{}\ Commun. Math. Phys. [155]{}, 325-384, (1993) Osterwalder, K. and Schrader, R.:\ [Axioms for Euclidean Green’s functions I.]{}\ Commun. Math. Phys. [31]{}, 83-112, (1973) Osterwalder, K. and Schrader, R.:\ [Axioms for Euclidean Green’s functions II.]{}\ Commun. Math. Phys. [42]{}, 281-305, (1975) Schlingemann, D.:\ [From euclidean field theory to quantum field theory.]{}\ To appear in Rev. Math. Phys. (1999) Schlingemann, D.:\ [Constructive aspects of algebraic euclidean field theory.]{}\ ESI preprint 622, math-ph/9902022 Schlingemann, D.:\ [Short-distance analysis for algebraic euclidean field theory.]{}\ ESI preprint 737, hep-th/9907167 Schlingemann, D.:\ [Remarks on euclidean field theory models.]{}\ In preparation Schror, B. and Wiesbrock, H.W.:\ [Modular construction of quantum field theories with interactions.]{}\ e-Print Archive: hep-th/9812251 Seiler, E.:\ [Gauge theories as a problem of constructive quantum field theory and statistical mechanics.]{}\ Berlin, Germany: Springer (1982) 192 P. ( Lecture Notes In Physics, 159). Streater, R.F. and Wightman, A.S.: [PCT, spin and statistics and all that.]{} Redwood City, USA: Addison-Wesley (1989) 207 p. (Advanced book classics). Summers, S.:\ [Geometric modular action and transformation groups.]{}\ Annales Poincaré Phys. Theor. [64]{}, 409-432, (1996) Yngvason, J.:\ [Tomita conjugations and transitivity of locality.]{}\ Annales Poincaré Phys. Theor. [64*]{}, 395-408, (1996)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We define and study embeddings of cycles in finite affine and projective planes. We show that for all $k$, $3\le k\le q^2$, a $k$-cycle can be embedded in any affine plane of order $q$. We also prove a similar result for finite projective planes: for all $k$, $3\le k\le q^2+q+1$, a $k$-cycle can be embedded in any projective plane of order $q$.' address: - \| Department of Mathematical Sciences\ University of Delaware\ Newark, DE 19716. - \| Department of Mathematics\ University of Mary Washington\ Fredericksburg, VA 22401. - \| Department of Mathematics\ California State University, Fresno\ Fresno, CA 93740. author: - Felix Lazebnik - 'Keith E. Mellinger' - Oscar Vega title: Embedding cycles in finite planes --- Introduction ============ Our work concerns substructures in finite affine and projective planes. In order to explain the questions we consider, we will need the following definitions and notations. Any graph-theoretic notion not defined here may be found in Bollob' as [@Bol98]. All of our graphs are finite, simple and undirected. If $G = (V,E)=(V(G), E(G))$ is a graph, then the [order]{} of $G$ is $v(G)=\|V\|$, the number of vertices of $G$, and the [size]{} of $G$ is $e(G)=\|E\|$, the number of edges in $G$. Each edge of $G$ is thought as a 2-subset of $V$. An edge $\{x,y\}$ will be denoted by $xy$ or $yx$. A vertex $v$ is [incident]{} with an edge $e$ if $v\in e$. We say that a graph $G'=(V',E')$ is a [subgraph of $G$]{}, and denote it by $G'\subset G$, if $V'\subset V$ and $E'\subset E$. If $G' \subset G$, we will also say that $G$ [contains]{} $G'$. For a vertex $v \in V$, $N(v) = N_G(v)= \{u \in V: uv \in E\}$ denotes the [neighborhood]{} of $v$, and $deg(v) = deg_G(v) = \|N(v)\|$, the [degree]{} of $v$. If the degrees of all vertices of $G$ are equal to $d$, then $G$ is called $d$-[regular]{}. For a graph $F$, we say that $G$ is [$F$-free]{} if $G$ contains no subgraph isomorphic to $F$. For $k\ge 2$, any graph isomorphic to the graph with a vertex-set $\{x_1,\ldots, x_k\}$ and an edge-set $\{x_1x_2, x_2x_3,\ldots, x_{k-1}x_k\}$ is called an $x_1x_k$-path, or a [$k$-path]{}, and we denote it by ${\mathcal P}_k$. The length of a path is its number of edges. For $k\ge 3$, the graph with a vertex-set $\{x_1,\ldots, x_k\}$ and edge-set $\{x_1x_2, x_2x_3, \ldots , x_{k-1}x_k, x_kx_1\}$ is called a [$k$-cycle]{}, and it is often denoted by ${{\mathcal C}}$ or ${{\mathcal C}}_k$. Any subgraph of $G$ isomorphic to a $k$-cycle is called a [$k$-cycle in $G$]{}. The [girth]{} of a graph $G$ containing cycles, denoted by $g=g(G)$, is the length of a shortest cycle in $G$. Let $V(G)=A\cup B$ be a partition of $V(G)$, and let every edge of $G$ have one endpoint in $A$ and another in $B$. Then $G$ is called [bipartite]{} and we denote it by $G(A,B;E)$. If $\|A\|=m$ and $\|B\|=n$, then we refer to $G$ as an $(m,n)$-bipartite graph. All notions of incidence geometry not defined here may be found in [@Bu95]. A [partial plane]{} $\pi = ({{{\mathcal P}}}, {{{\mathcal L}}} ; {{\mathcal I}})$ is an incidence structure with a set of points ${{\mathcal P}}$, a set of lines ${{\mathcal L}}$, and a symmetric binary relation of incidence $I\subseteq ({{{\mathcal P}}}\times {{{\mathcal L}}})\,\cup \,({{{\mathcal L}}}\times {{{\mathcal P}}})$ such that any two distinct points are on at most one line, and every line contains at least two points (note that we have used ${{\mathcal P}}$ for two different object as of now: to denote a path and to denote the points on a partial plane. The usage of this symbol should be clear from the context). The definition implies that any two lines share at most one point. We will often identify lines with the sets of points on them. We say that a partial plane $\pi ' = ({{{\mathcal P}}}', {{{\mathcal L}}}' ; {{\mathcal I}}')$ is a [subplane]{} of $\pi$, denoted $\pi' \subset \pi$, if ${{{\mathcal P}}}'\subset {{{\mathcal P}}}, {{{\mathcal L}}}'\subset{{{\mathcal L}}}$, and ${{\mathcal I}}'\subset {{\mathcal I}}$. If there is a line containing two distinct points $X$ and $Y$, we denote it by $XY$ or $YX$. For $k\ge 3$, we define a $k$-gon as a partial plane with $k$ distinct points $\{P_1,P_2, \ldots P_k\}$, with $k$ distinct lines $\{P_1P_{2}, P_2P_{3}, \ldots, P_{k-1}P_k, P_kP_1\}$, and with point and line being incident if and only if the point is on the line. A subplane of $\pi$ isomorphic to a $k$-gon is called a [$k$-gon in $\pi$]{}. The [Levi graph]{} of a partial plane $\pi$ is its point-line bipartite incidence graph $Levi(\pi) = Levi({{{\mathcal P}}},{{{\mathcal L}}}; E)$, where $Pl\in E$ if and only if point $P$ is on line $l$. The Levi graph of any partial plane is $4$-cycle-free. Clearly, there exists a bijection between the set of all $k$-gons in $\pi$ and the set of $2k$-cycles in $Levi(\pi)$. A [projective plane of order $q\ge 2$]{}, denoted $\pi_q$, is a partial plane with every point on exactly $q+1$ lines, every line containing exactly $q+1$ points, and having four points such that no three of them are collinear. It is easy to argue that $\pi_q$ contains $ q^2 + q + 1$ points and $q^2 + q + 1$ lines. Let $n_q = q^2 + q + 1$. It is easy to show that a partial plane is a projective plane of order $q$ if and only if its Levi graph is a $(q+1)$-regular graph of girth $6$ and diameter $3$. Projective planes $\pi_q$ are known to exist only when the order $q$ is a prime power. If $q\ge 9$ is a prime power but not a prime, there are always non-isomorphic planes of order $q$, and their number grows fast with $q$. Let $PG(2,q)$ denote the [classical]{} projective plane of prime power order $q$ which can be modeled as follows: points of $PG(2,q)$ are 1-dimensional subspaces in the 3-dimensional vector space over the finite field of $q$ elements, lines of $PG(2,q)$ are 2-dimensional subspaces of the vector space, and a point is incident to a line if it is a subspace of it. Removing a line from a projective plane, and removing its points from all other lines, yields a partial plane known as an [affine plane]{}. The line removed is often referred to as the [line at infinity]{}, and it is denoted by $l_\infty$. Conversely, a projective plane of order $q$ can be obtained from an affine plane of order $q$ (i.e. having $q+1$ lines through each point) by adding a line at infinity to it, which can be thought of as a set of $q+1$ new points, called [points at infinity]{}, which is in bijective correspondence with the set of parallel classes (also called the set of all slopes) of lines in the affine plane. We will use $\pi_q$ to denote a projective plane of order $q$, and $\alpha_q$ for affine planes of order $q$. The following problem, stated in terms of set systems, appears in Erdős [@Erd79]: [Problem 1.]{} \[Problem1\] [Is every finite partial linear space embedded in a finite projective plane?]{} It is possible that the question was asked before, as it was well known that every partial linear space embeds in some infinite projective plane, by a process of free closure due to Hall [@Hall43]. For recent results related to the question, see Moorhouse and Williford [@MoorWil2009]. Rephrased in terms of graphs, Problem 1 is the following: [*Problem 1$^$.*]{} \[Problem1’\] [Is every finite bipartite graph without 4-cycles a subgraph of the Levi graph of a finite projective plane?]{} Thinking about cycles in Levi graphs of projective planes, we introduced the following notion of embedding of a graph into a partial plane, and found it useful. Let $G$ be a graph and let $\pi = ({{{\mathcal P}}}, {{{\mathcal L}}}; {{\mathcal I}})$ be a partial plane. Let $$f: V(G)\cup E(G) \to {{{\mathcal P}}}\cup {{{\mathcal L}}}$$ be an injective map such that $f(V(G))\subset {{{\mathcal P}}}$, $f(E(G))\subset {{\mathcal L}}$, and for every vertex $x$ and edge $e$ of $G$, their incidence in $G$ implies the incidence of point $f(x)$ and line $f(e)$ in $\pi$. We call such a map $f$ an [embedding of $G$ in $\pi$]{}, and if it exists we say that [$G$ embeds in $\pi$]{} and write $G\hookrightarrow \pi$. If $G\hookrightarrow \pi$, then adjacent vertices of $G$ are mapped to collinear points of $\pi$. Note that if $G\hookrightarrow \pi_q$, then $v(G)\le n_q$, $e(G)\le n_q$, and $deg_G(x)\le q+1$ for all $x\in V(G)$. A cycle containing all vertices of a graph is called a [hamiltonian cycle]{} of the graph, and if such exists, the graph is called a [hamiltonian]{} graph. Similarly, if $\pi_q$ contains an $n_q$-gon, we call it [hamiltonian]{}. A graph $G$ containing $k$-cycles of all possible lengths, $3\le k\le v(G)$, is called [pancyclic]{}. Similarly, we say that $\pi _q$ is [pangonal]{}, if it contains $k$-gons for all $3\le k\le n_q$. The latter is equivalent to $Levi (\pi_q)$ containing all $2k$-cycles for $3\le k\le n_q$. Clearly, if $G\hookrightarrow \pi_q$, a $k$-cycle in $G$ corresponds to a $k$-gon in $\pi_q$, which, in turn, corresponds to a $2k$-cycle in $Levi(\pi_q)$. From now on we choose to be less pedantic, and will feel free to use graph theoretic and geometric terms interchangeably. For example, we will say ‘point’ for a vertex of a graph, ‘vertex’ for a point of a partial plane, and we will speak about ‘path’ and ‘cycle’ in a plane, etc. Determining whether a graph is hamiltonian, or, more generally, understanding what cycles it contains, is one of the central problems in graph theory, and it has been a subject of active research for many years. The existence of hamiltonian cycles in $\pi_q$ (or $Levi (\pi_q)$), or its pancyclicity, was addressed by several researchers. The presence of $k$-gons of some small lengths in $\pi_q$ is easy to establish. In [@LMV09], the authors presented explicit formuli for the numbers of distinct $k$-gons in every projective plane of order $q$ for $k=3, 4, 5, 6$. Very recently, and in a very impressive way, Voropaev [@Vor12] extended this list to $k= 7, 8, 9, 10$. The existence of very special hamiltonian cycles in $PG(2,q)$ is a celebrated result of Singer [@Singer38]. These cycles are often referred to as the [Singer cycles]{} in $PG(2,q)$. For $q=p$ (prime) Schmeichel [@Schm89] showed by explicit constructions that $PG(2,p)$ is pancyclic, and that the hamiltonian cycles he constructed were different from Singer cycles. DeMarco and Lazebnik [@DL08] constructed a hamiltonian cycle in a Hall plane of order $p^2$. Most of the known sufficient conditions for the existence of hamiltonian cycles in graphs are effective for rather dense graphs: graphs of order $n$ and size greater that $cn^2$ for some positive constant $c$ (see a survey by Gould [@Gould03]). Levi graphs of projective planes are much sparser; being $(q+1)$-regular, their size is $ (1/(2\sqrt{2}) +o(1))n^{3/2}$ for $n\to \infty$, and that is why most techniques of proving hamiltonicity of graphs do not apply to them. For the same reason, upper bounds on the Turán number of a $2k$-cycle, see, e.g., Pikhurko [@Pik12] and and references therein, are not effective for proving the existence of $2k$-cycles in Levi graphs of projective planes for most values of $k$ (as $k$ may depend on $q$). A new approach for establishing hamiltonicity and the existence of shorter cycles came from probabilistic techniques and studies of cycles in random and pseudo-random graphs (we omit the definition). See, e.g., Thomasson [@Thom87], Chung, Graham and Wilson [@CGW89], Frieze [@Fri00], and Frieze and Krivelevich [@FriKriv02]. In [@KS03], Krivelevich and Sudakov explored relations between pseudo-randomness and hamiltonicity in regular non-bipartite graphs. Some other results related to hamiltonicity and pancyclicity appeared in recent publications by Keevash and Sudakov [@KeeSud10], Krivelevich, Lee and Sudakov [@KriLeeSud10], and Lee and Sudakov [@LeeSud12]. It is likely that proofs in these papers can be modified to give results for (bipartite) Levi graphs of projective planes, but the requirement on the order of the graph to be sufficiently large (as is the case in the aforementioned papers) will remain. In this paper we establish the pancyclicity of $\pi_q$ and $\alpha_q$, for all $q$, and our proof is constructive.\ Our main results follow. \[thmlongcycles\] Let $\alpha_q$ be an affine plane of order $q\ge 2$. Then $C_k \hookrightarrow \alpha_q$ for all $k$, $3\le k\le q^2$. \[main\] Let $\pi_q$ be a projective plane of order $q\ge 2$, and $n_q=q^2 + q + 1$. Then $C_k \hookrightarrow \pi_q$ for all $k$, $3\le k\le n_q$. We now proceed to give a construction for paths and cycles in any* finite affine or projective plane. We start with a remark that will be very useful later on. \[remcombpaths\] Let $P_1 \rightarrow P_2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_k$ and $Q_1\rightarrow Q_2\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Q_n$ be two disjoint (in terms of points and lines) paths embedded in $\pi_q$ or $\alpha_q$. Then, if the line $\ell = P_kQ_n$ has not been used in these embeddings, we can create the following embedding for a path on $n+k$ vertices: $$P_1\rightarrow P_2\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_k \xrightarrow{\ell} Q_n \rightarrow Q_{n-1} \rightarrow \cdots Q_{2} \rightarrow Q_1.$$ Here, the symbol $P_k \xrightarrow{\ell} Q_n$ indicates that the line $\ell$ joins the points $P_k$ and $Q_n$. Moreover, if the line $m = Q_1P_1$ is still available, then we get a cycle of length $k+n$ embedded in $\pi_q$ (or $\alpha_q$).\ Our main technique in the next two sections will be to construct paths that can be combined using Remark \[remcombpaths\] to create cycles of any length. Cycles in Affine Planes {#sec:CyclesAffinePlanes} ======================= Let $\alpha_q$ be an affine plane of order $q$, and let $O$ be any point of the plane. We label the $q+1$ lines through $O$ by $l_0, l_1, \ldots , l_{q}$. For any given point $Q\in \alpha_q$, we use $l_{i}+Q$ to denote the line parallel to $l_i$ that passes through $Q$. Let $ a \mod q+1$ denote the remainder of the division of $a$ by $q+1$. Pick any point $P_0$ on $l_0$, different from $O$. Let $P_1$ be the point of intersection of $l_{2}+P_0$ and $l_1$. Let $P_2$ be the point of intersection of $l_3+P_1$ and $l_2$, etc. In general, let $P_i$ be the point of intersection of $l_{i+1 \bmod q+1}+P_{i-1}$ and $l_i$, for all $i=1,2,\ldots , q$. Since $O\neq P_i \in l_i$, for all $i=1, 2, \ldots, q$, then all these points are distinct. Similarly, the lines $P_{i-1} P_{i}$ are in different parallel classes, for all $i=1, 2, \ldots, q$. It follows that by joining the points $P_{i-1}$ and $P_{i}$, for all $i=1, 2, \ldots, q$, we obtain a path on $q+1$ vertices. Denote this path by $\mathcal{P}_{P_0}$.\ ![Two vertex/edge disjoint paths, $\mathcal{P}_{P_0}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{Q_0}$, for $q=4$.](spiralq=4fig4.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}\ \[lemdisjoint\] Let $P_0 \neq Q_0 \in l_0$. Then the paths $\mathcal{P}_{P_0}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{Q_0}$ share neither points nor lines. Let $$\mathcal{P}_{P_0}: \ P_0 \rightarrow P_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_q \hspace{1in} \mathcal{P}_{Q_0}: \ Q_0 \rightarrow Q_{1} \rightarrow \cdots Q_q$$ Clearly $P_i \neq Q_j$, for $i\neq j$. We also know that $P_0 \neq Q_0$. So, assume that $P_i=Q_i$, for some $i=1, \ldots , q$, so that $P_j\neq Q_j$, for all $0\leq j<i$. It follows that $$\left( l_{i+1 \bmod q+1}+P_{i-1} \right) \cap l_i = P_i = Q_i =\left( l_{i+1 \bmod q+1}+Q_{i-1} \right)\cap l_i$$ which forces $l_{i+1 \bmod q+1}+P_{i-1} = l_{i+1 \bmod q+1}+Q_{i-1} $, and thus $P_{i-1}=Q_{i-1}$, a contradiction. Finally, it is easy to see that if $\mathcal{P}_{P_0}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{Q_0}$ shared a line, then they would also share a point. \[lemscycles\] We can partition the points of $\alpha_q \setminus \{O\}$ into $s$ cycles, ${{\mathcal C}}_1, \ldots , {{\mathcal C}}_s$, where the length of $C_i$ is $t_i(q+1)$ for some integer $t_i$, $1\le i \le s \le q-1$, $1\le t_1 \le \ldots \le t_s$, and $t_1 + \cdots + t_s = q-1$. If we label the points on $l_0 \setminus\{O\}$ by $x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_{q-1}$, by Lemma \[lemdisjoint\], $\mathcal{P}_{x_1}$, $\mathcal{P}_{x_2}, \ldots$, $\mathcal{P}_{x_{q-1}}$ yields a partition of the points of $\alpha_q \setminus \{O\}$ into $q-1$ disjoint paths each having $q+1$ vertices. If $q\ge 3$, then we have at least two such paths, and we may want to connect them to create longer paths and/or cycles. Note that in the paths ${{\mathcal P}}_{x_i}$, no line parallel to $l_1$ has been used. Now, if we consider a path $\mathcal{P}_{P_0}$, then the line $l_{1}+ P_{q}$ intersects $l_0$ at a point $Q$, which can never be equal to $O$, otherwise $l_{1}+ P_{q}=l_1$, and thus $P_q\in l_1\cap l_q = \{O\}$, a contradiction. This point $Q$ is uniquely determined by $P_0$ (and the way we do this construction, of course). If $Q=P_0$, then we get a $(q+1)$-cycle. If $Q\neq P_0$, then we re-label $Q=Q_0$ and consider the path $\mathcal{P}_{Q_0}$. This will give us a path with $2(q+1)$ vertices, namely $$P_0 \rightarrow P_1\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_q \rightarrow Q_0 \rightarrow Q_{1} \rightarrow \cdots Q_q.$$ We then proceed to find $R_0: = \left( l_{1}+ Q_{q} \right) \cap l_0$. If $R_0=P_0$ we get a cycle of length $2(q+1)$. If $R_0 =Q_0$, then we get that $Q_0$ is on two lines that are parallel to $l_1$, namely $l_{1}+ Q_{q}$ and $l_{1}+ P_{q}$. This forces $P_q$ and $Q_q$ to coincide, but this is impossible because of Lemma \[lemdisjoint\]. It follows that we either get a cycle of length $2(q+1)$ or we can keep extending this path using $\mathcal{P}_{R_0}$. Since $l_0$ contains finitely many points this process must end. Moreover, it is impossible to ‘close’ this cycle at any point that is not $P_0$, as this would yield the same contradiction we obtained above when we assumed $R_0 =Q_0$. Hence, by combining paths we can construct cycles of length $t(q+1)$, for some positive integer $t$, these are the cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_i$ we wanted to find. In order to prove Theorem \[thmlongcycles\] we will need to construct paths out of the cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_1, {{\mathcal C}}_2,\ldots, {{\mathcal C}}_{s}$. Firstly, we define terms and set notation that will be necessary for the rest of this article. For every $i=1,\ldots, s$, let $P_{i,i-1}$ be an arbitrary point on $l_{i-1}\cap {{\mathcal C}}_i$ (note that there are $t_i$ such points), and let $P_{i,i}$ be its neighbor on $l_i$. We construct two different types of paths in ${{\mathcal C}}_{i}$: all of them start at $P_{i,i-1}$ and 1. the next vertex is $P_{i,i}$. The other vertices in the path are easily determined from these first two, or 2. the next vertex is the neighbor of $P_{i,i-1}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}_{i}$ that is on the line $l_{i-2 \mod q+1}$. The other vertices in the path are easily determined from these first two. We will say that the first path is a positive path, and that the second is a negative path. \[lemcaset\_1\] $k$-cycles can be embedded in $\alpha_q$, for all $3\leq k \leq t_1(q+1)$. If $q=2, 3$ the result is immediate. We assume $q\ge 4$ for the rest of this proof. The cycle ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ is of length $t_1(q+1)$, and so we only need to construct $k$-cycles with $3 \le k < t_1(q+1)$.\ If $k\equiv 1 \pmod{q+1}$, then, since $k\ge 3$, we consider a positive $k$-path in ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ starting at $P_{1,0}$. As $k\equiv 1 \pmod{q+1}$, this path ends at some $ Q_0 \in l_0$, and $Q_0 \ne P_0$. Connect $P_0$ to $Q_{0}$ using $l_0$ to get a $k$-cycle.\ If $k \equiv 2 \pmod{q+1}$ and $2< k<t_1(q+1)$, then $t_1>1$. Consider a positive $(k-2)$-path ${{\mathcal P}}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ starting at $P_{1,0}$. This path ends at a point $P_q\in l_q$. Since $k<t_1(q+1)$ then there is a $2$-path in ${{\mathcal C}}_1$, disjoint from ${{\mathcal P}}$, of the form $Q_{q-1} \rightarrow Q_q$ with $Q_i\in l_i$, for $i=q-1,q$. Consider the following $k$ cycle $$O \xrightarrow{l_0} \underbrace{P_0 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_{q-1}}_{in \ {{\mathcal P}}} \xrightarrow{l_{q-1}} Q_{q-1}\rightarrow Q_q \xrightarrow{l_q} O,$$ where $P_{q-1}\in l_{q-1}$ was the neighbor of $P_q$ in ${{\mathcal P}}$.\ If $k \not\equiv 1,2 \pmod{q+1}$, then, since $3\le k\le t_1(q+1)$, take a positive $(k-1)$-path in ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ starting at $P_{1,0}$. This path will end on a point $P_{k-2}\in l_{k-2}$. Connect $P_0$ and $P_{k-2}$ to $O$ using $l_0$ and $l_{k-2}$, respectively, to get a $k$-cycle. We now focus on the construction of $k$-cycles for $k > t_1(q+1)$. In order to do that we will use the following construction. \[constrP\_m\] Let $\lambda_m =t_1+t_2+\cdots + t_m$. We will construct a $\lambda _m (q+1)$-path $\mathcal{P}_m$ out of the cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_1, {{\mathcal C}}_2,\ldots, {{\mathcal C}}_{m}$, where $2\leq m \leq s$ (recall that $s\leq q-1$).\ For each $i=1,\ldots, m-1$, we connect ${{\mathcal C}}_i$ with ${{\mathcal C}}_{i+1}$ by joining $P_{i,i}$ with $P_{i+1,i}$ using $l_i$. Then, for all $i=1,\ldots, m$, we take the $P_{i,i-1}P_{i,i}$ path in ${{\mathcal C}}_i$ having $t_i(q+1)$ vertices, and construct the following path $$\underbrace{P_{1,0} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_{1,1}}_{in \ {{\mathcal C}}_1} \xrightarrow{l_1} \underbrace{P_{2,1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_{2,2}}_{in \ {{\mathcal C}}_2} \xrightarrow{l_2} \cdots \xrightarrow{l_{m-1}} \underbrace{P_{m,m-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_{m,m}}_{in \ {{\mathcal C}}_m}$$ Since no vertices were eliminated or added, and all new lines are distinct and through $O$ (none used in the construction of the ${{\mathcal C}}_i$’s), this construction yields a $P_{1,0}P_{m,m}$-path with $\lambda _m (q+1)$ vertices. ![Construction of $\mathcal{P}_m$](cyclesNEWfig4.pdf "fig:"){height="2.55in"}\ Note that $O$ has not been used in the construction of $\mathcal{P}_m$, and that neither have the lines $l_m, \ldots, l_q$, and $l_0$.\ Finally, we will denote the neighbor of $P_{1,0}$ in $\mathcal{P}_m$, which is a point on $l_q$, by $P_{1,q}$. We now prove Theorem \[thmlongcycles\]. In this proof we follow the notation introduced in Construction \[constrP\_m\]. If $q=2$, the existence of 3- and 4-cycles is obvious. If $q=3$, pancyclicity can be easily verified. In what follows we assume $q\ge 4$, though most arguments hold for $q\ge 3$. We want to embed all possible $k$-cycles in $\alpha_q$ that have not been already discussed in Lemma \[lemcaset\_1\]. For any given $k$, we write it as either $k=\lambda_s(q+1)$, $k=\lambda_s(q+1)+1 = q^2$, or $k = \lambda_m(q+1)+r$, for some $m=1, \ldots, s-1$ and $0\leq r<t_{m+1}(q+1)$. Note that the case $m=0$ was taken care of in Lemma \[lemcaset\_1\]. Firstly, we can join $P_{1,0}$ and $P_{s,s}$ with $O$, using the lines $l_0$ and $l_s$ respectively, to obtain a cycle of length $\lambda_s(q+1)+1$. Note that this grants hamiltonicity. Moreover, if we cut $\mathcal{P}_s$ short one vertex, and thus we ask it to end at $P_{1,q}$, then joining the endpoints of this new path to $O$ yields a $\lambda_s(q+1)$-cycle.\ From now on, let $k = \lambda_m(q+1)+r$, for some $m=1, \ldots, s-1$ and some $0\leq r<t_{m+1}(q+1)$.\ Our strategy for constructing a $k$-cycle in $\alpha _q$ will be to connect a path on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ (note that $m<s$) to $O$ and ${{\mathcal P}}_m$. The paths on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ we will consider always starts at $P_{m+1,m}$, which will be connected to $P_{m,m} \in {{\mathcal P}}_m$ by using $l_m$. ![Connecting ${{\mathcal P}}_m$ and $\mathcal{C}_{m+1}$](cyclesNEWfig5.pdf "fig:"){height="1.7in"}\ We consider several cases.\ (a) If $r\equiv 3 \pmod{q+1}$ we first get a positive path on $r-1$ vertices on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ that ends on a point $Q_{m+1} \in l_{m+1}$. We then join $P_{1,0}$ with $O$ using $l_0$, $Q_{m+1}$ with $O$ using $l_{m+1}$. The result is a cycle of the desired length. (b) If $r\equiv 1 \pmod{q+1}$ we consider a negative $(r-2)$-path on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ that ends on a point $Q_{m+1} \in l_{m+1}$. We finish the construction as in case (a). (c) If $r\equiv 2 \pmod{q+1}$ or $r\equiv 0 \pmod{q+1}$, then we cut $\mathcal{P}_m$ short one vertex, so it ends at $P_{1,q}$. We get the path in ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ as in part (a) (for $r\equiv 2 \pmod{q+1}$) or (b) (for $r\equiv 0 \pmod{q+1}$). We close the cycle by joining $P_{1,q}$ with $O$ using $l_q$, $Q_{m+1}$ with $O$ using $l_{m+1}$.\ (d) If $r\equiv i \pmod{q+1}$, where $4\leq i \leq q$. We want to get a positive $(r-2)$-path on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ starting at $P_{m+1,m}$. This path would end at a point on $l_{m+i-2 \mod q+1}$.\ (i) If $i\leq q+2-m$, then $m+i-2 \leq q$, and thus this path on $r-1$ vertices ends at a point $Q_{m+i-2}\in l_{m+i-2}$. We then get a cycle of the desired length by joining $P_{1,0}$ with $O$ using $l_0$, $Q_{m+i-2}$ with $O$ using $l_{m+i-2}$.\ (ii) If $i\geq q+3-m$, then $m+i-2 \geq q+1$, and thus this path on $r-1$ vertices ends at a point $Q_{t-2}\in l_{t-2}$, where $0\leq t-2 \leq m-3$. We next ‘shift’ this path to make it start at $P_{m+1,m+1}$ instead of $P_{m+1,m}$ and add a vertex to make it a path on $r$ vertices. Now this path ends at $Q_{t}\in l_{t}$, where $2\leq t \leq m-1$. Since the line $l_t$ is needed to construct ${{\mathcal P}}_m$ we will need to modify the construction of ${{\mathcal P}}_m$ by connecting the cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_1, {{\mathcal C}}_2,\ldots, {{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ in the following way $${{\mathcal C}}_1\xrightarrow{l_1} {{\mathcal C}}_2 \xrightarrow{l_2} \cdots \xrightarrow{l_{t-2}} {{\mathcal C}}_{t-1}\xrightarrow{l_{t-1}} {{\mathcal C}}_t \xrightarrow{l_{t+1}} {{\mathcal C}}_{t+1} \xrightarrow{l_{t+2}} \cdots \xrightarrow{l_{m+1}} {{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$$ Note that this can be done for all $2 \leq t \leq m-1$, and that doing this means that $P_{t,t}$ is a ‘loose’ vertex, not used in ${{\mathcal P}}_m$ anymore.\ Now we connect this path to the path on ${{\mathcal C}}_{m+1}$ that ends on $Q_t$. The line $l_t$ is now free, and thus it can be used to close the cycle at $O$. We get the cycle $$O \xrightarrow{l_0} {{\mathcal C}}_1 \xrightarrow{l_1} \cdots \xrightarrow{l_{m}} {{\mathcal C}}_m \xrightarrow{l_{m+1}} P_{m+1,m+1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Q_t \xrightarrow{l_t} O$$ This cycle has length: $$\lambda_m(q+1) -1 + r +1 = \lambda_m(q+1) + r = k$$ The ‘minus one’ is because of the loose vertex, the ‘plus one’ is because of $O$. Cycles in Projective Planes =========================== In this section we will study embeddings of cycles in finite projective planes. Let $\pi_q$ denote a projective plane of order $q$. We think about $\pi_q$ as obtained from an affine plane $\alpha _q$ by adding a line, denoted $\ell_{\infty}$, consisting of points $(i)$, for $i=0, \cdots, q$. Using the notations from the previous section, each of these points $(i)$ is incident with only the following lines: $\ell_{\infty}$, line $l_i$ of $\alpha _q$, and the $q-1$ lines of $\alpha _q$ parallel to $l_i$. The next statement follows immediately from our work in Section \[sec:CyclesAffinePlanes\]. \[lemprojcycles\] Let $\pi_q$ be a projective plane of order $q$. Then, a $k$-cycle can be embedded in $\pi_q$, for all $k=3, \ldots , q^2$. Therefore in order to prove the pancyclicity of $\pi _q$, we need to show that $k$-cycles can be embedded into $\pi_q$ for all $k$, $q^2+1 \leq k \leq q^2+q+1$. At this point one would expect to use heavily the pancyclicity of $\alpha _q$ for the construction of ‘long’ cycles in $\pi_q$, but we could not make use of this idea. Instead, we base our construction methods on using the cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_i$ in similar ways to that in the proof of Theorem \[thmlongcycles\]. Let $W_1$ be any of the vertices of ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ that are on $l_q$, and let $V_1= (l_1+W_1) \cap l_0$. It follows that $V_1$ is a vertex of ${{\mathcal C}}_1$, and that $l_1+W_1$ is an edge of ${{\mathcal C}}_1$. Similarly, for $2\leq i \leq s$, let $W_i \in l_{i-2}$ be a vertex of ${{\mathcal C}}_i$, and $V_i= (l_i + W_i) \cap l_{i-1}$. Hence, $V_i$ is a vertex of ${{\mathcal C}}_i$, and $l_i + W_i$ is an edge of ${{\mathcal C}}_i$. For each $i=1, \cdots , s$, let $[V_i,W_i]$ denote the $V_iW_i$-path in ${{\mathcal C}}_i$, different from the edge $V_iW_i$. Next we define $U_i$ to be the vertex of ${{\mathcal C}}_i$ that is on $l_q$ and that is the closest to $V_i$, when we move from $V_i$ towards $W_i$ along ${{\mathcal C}}_i$. By $[V_iU_i]$ we denote the subpath of $[V_i,W_i]$ having $q-i+2$ vertices and endpoints $V_i$ and $U_i$. ![Paths $[V_i,W_i]$ and $[V_iU_i]$](v_iandw_ipath.pdf "fig:"){height="1.65in"}\ ![Paths $[V_1,W_1]$, $[V_2,W_2]$, and $[V_3,W_3]$](v_1w_spath-1.pdf){height="1.65in"} Recall that $(i)= l_i \cap \ell_{\infty}$. We now construct a path ${{\mathcal P}}$ (for $s\geq 2$) by connecting $W_i$ with $(i)$ using $l_i+W_i$ (which is not an edge of $[V_i,W_i]$), and connecting $(i)$ with $V_{i+1}$ using $l_i$. Thus ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the path: $$[V_1,W_1] \xrightarrow{l_1+W_1} (1) \xrightarrow{l_1} [V_2,W_2] \xrightarrow{l_2+W_2} (2) \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow (s-1) \xrightarrow{l_{s-1}} [V_s,W_s].$$ For $s=1$, ${{\mathcal P}}$ is obtained from the cycle ${{\mathcal C}}_1$ by removing the edge $V_1W_1$. Note that for all $s$, ${{\mathcal P}}$ has $(q^2-1)+(s-1)=q^2+s-2$ vertices. The lines $l_{s}, \cdots , l_q, l_0$, $l_s+W_s$, and $\ell_{\infty}$ have not been used in the construction of ${{\mathcal P}}$, and neither have the points $(s), \cdots , (q), (0)$, and $O$. ![Paths $[V_1,W_1]$, $[V_2,W_2], [V_3,W_3]$ joined into a path ${{\mathcal P}}$. Its endpoints are $V_1$ and $W_3$](v_1w_spath-2.pdf){height="1.65in"} ![A simple diagram of the path ${{\mathcal P}}$](pathP.pdf){height="1.65in"} Now we begin our construction of $k$-cycles in $\pi_q$ of lengths from $q^2+1$ to $q^2+q+1$ by using the path ${{\mathcal P}}$ and/or modifications of it. Recall that $s$ denotes the number of all cycles ${{\mathcal C}}_i$, or of all paths $[V_i,W_i]$, and that $1\le s\le q-1$. We will first construct cycles of length between $q^2+1$ to $q^2+s+2$, and then the ones that are longer than $q^2+s+2$. \[lempathsq\^2+1->q\^2+s\] Cycles of length ranging from $q^2+1$ to $q^2+s+2$ can be embedded in $\pi_q$. Using the path ${{\mathcal P}}$ we can construct 1. a cycle of length $q^2+s+2$: $$\underbrace{V_1 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow W_s}_{in \ {{\mathcal P}}} \xrightarrow{l_s+W_s} (s) \xrightarrow{l_s} O \xrightarrow{l_q} (q) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (0) \xrightarrow{l_0} V_1,$$ 2. a cycle of length $q^2+s+1$: $$\underbrace{V_1 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow W_s}_{in \ {{\mathcal P}}} \xrightarrow{l_s+W_s} (s) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (q) \xrightarrow{l_q} O \xrightarrow{l_0} V_1,\, \text{and}$$ 3. a cycle of length $q^2+s$: $$\underbrace{V_1 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow W_s}_{in \ {{\mathcal P}}} \xrightarrow{l_s+W_s} (s) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (0) \xrightarrow{l_0} V_1.$$ Note that the lines $l_{s}, \cdots , l_q$ have not been used in the construction of this last cycle, and neither have the points $(s+1), \cdots , (q)$, and $O$. We will denote this cycle by $\mathcal{C}$. If $q+1\leq 2s$, then, for every $q-s+1\leq i \leq s$, let us modify $\mathcal{C}$ in the following way: - Delete $q-i+1$ vertices of the path $[V_iU_i]$, all except $U_i$. - Connect $(i-1)$ with $O$ (recall that $(i-1)$ was connected to $V_i$ in $\mathcal{C}$ via $l_{i-1}$). - Connect $O$ with $U_i$ using $l_q$. This yields the cycle $$\underbrace{U_i \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow (i-1)}_{in \ \mathcal{C}} \xrightarrow{l_{i-1}} O \xrightarrow{l_q} U_i$$ which has length $(q^2+s)-(q-i+1)+1 = q^2-q+s+i$. Since $q-s+1\leq i \leq s$, the length of this cycle ranges between $q^2+1$ and $(q^2+s)-(q-s)$. Note that if $q+1> 2s$, then $(q^2+s)-(q-s) < q^2 +1$. So, for all relevant values of $s$ we have been able to construct cycles with lengths ranging from $q^2+1$ to $(q^2+s)-(q-s)$. Next we want to construct $k$-cycles for $(q^2+s)-(q-s)<k<q^2+s$. In order to do that we need to set more notation. Let us relabel the vertices in the path $[V_sU_s]$ by $V_s =P_{s-1}, P_s, \cdots , P_{q-1}, P_q$, where $P_i\in l_i$, for all $i=s, \ldots , q$. Note that $P_q = U_s$. For $s-1\le i< q$, let $[P_iP_j]$ denote the subpath of $[V_sU_s]$ joining $P_i$ and $P_j$. Note that a cycle of length $(q^2+s)-(q-s)$ vertices may be obtained using $i=s$ in the previous construction. We want to use a similar construction to get a cycle of length $(q^2+s)-(q-s)+1$. We modify $\mathcal{C}$ by replacing its subpath $[P_{s-1}P_{q-1}]$ by a path $$(s-1) \xrightarrow{l_{s-1}} O \xrightarrow{l_{q-1}} P_{q-1} \rightarrow P_{q}$$ leading to the following cycle of length $(q^2+s)-(q-s) +1$. $$\underbrace{U_s \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow (s-1)}_{in \ \mathcal{C}} \xrightarrow{l_{s-1}} O \xrightarrow{l_{q-1}} P_{q-1} \rightarrow P_{q}$$ Note that we are using here that $s\leq q-1$. Now, to create cycles of length larger than $(q^2+s)-(q-s)+1$ we use the following strategy. For every $i=s, \cdots , q-1$, we modify $\mathcal{C}$, by connecting $P_i$ with $O$, and $O$ with $P_q$ to get the cycle $$\underbrace{P_q \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_i}_{in \ \mathcal{C}} \xrightarrow{l_{i}} O \xrightarrow{l_q} P_q ,$$ which has length $(q^2+s)-(q-i-1)+ 1=(q^2+s)-(q-i -2)$. Since $i=s, \cdots , q-1$, then the length of this cycle ranges from $(q^2+s)-(q-s)+2$ to $(q^2+s)+1$. With the same notation used in Lemma \[lempathsq\^2+1->q\^2+s\], if $s=q-1$, then $\pi_q$ is pancyclic. Now we want to construct cycles longer than $q^2+s+2$ for when $1\leq s < q-1$. \[lempathsq\^2+s+2<\] For every $1\leq s < q-1$, cycles of length ranging from $q^2+s+3$ to $q^2+q+1$ can be embedded in $\pi_q$. Just as we did in the proof of Lemma \[lempathsq\^2+1->q\^2+s\], the idea is to modify the path ${{\mathcal P}}$ to get the desired cycles. Hence, we will use the same notation introduced earlier in this section, including that used in the proof of Lemma \[lempathsq\^2+1->q\^2+s\]. We first eliminate the edge $l_{s+1}+V_s$ from ${{\mathcal P}}$, and connect $W_s$ with $V_s$ using $l_s+W_s$. This gives us a path $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ that has the same length of ${{\mathcal P}}$ ($q^2+s-2$ vertices) with endpoints $V_1$ and $P_s$. ![The path $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$](pathP-2.pdf "fig:"){height="1.65in"}\ Note that the lines $l_{s}, \cdots , l_q, l_0$, $l_{s+1}+V_s$, and $\ell_{\infty}$ have not been used, neither have the points $(s), \cdots , (q), (0)$, and $O$. If we now eliminate the edge $l_{s+2}+P_s$ and, instead, connect $P_s$ with $P_{s+1}$ using $$P_s \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}+V_s} (s+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}} P_{s+1},$$ we get a path ${{\mathcal G}}_1$ in $(q^2+s-2)+1$ vertices (one more than $\tilde{P}$). We may close this path into a cycle by $$V_1 \xrightarrow{l_{0}} (0) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (s) \xrightarrow{l_{s}} P_s \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}+V_s} (s+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}} \underbrace{P_{s+1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow V_1}_{in \ \tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}}$$ which has length $(q^2+s-1)+2=q^2+s+1$. Now we eliminate the edge $l_{s+3 \mod q+1}+P_{s+1}$ from ${{\mathcal G}}_1$ and instead connect $P_{s+1}$ with $P_{s+2}$ using $$P_{s+1} \xrightarrow{l_{s+2}+P_s} (s+2) \xrightarrow{l_{s+2}} P_{s+2}.$$ This yields a path ${{\mathcal G}}_2$ in $(q^2+s-2)+2$ vertices (two more than $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$). We may close this path into a cycle by using $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ as above [$$V_1 \xrightarrow{l_{0}} (0) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (s) \xrightarrow{l_{s}} P_s \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}+V_s} (s+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}} P_{s+1} \xrightarrow{l_{s+2}+P_s} (s+2) \xrightarrow{l_{s+2}} \underbrace{P_{s+2} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow V_1}_{in \ \tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}}$$ ]{} which has length $(q^2+s)+2=q^2+s+2$. In general, for $1\leq i< q-s$ (and thus $s+i +1< q+1$), given a path ${{\mathcal G}}_i$ of length $(q^2+s-2)+i$ constructed as above we can eliminate the edge $l_{s+i+2 \mod q+1}+P_{s+i}$ from ${{\mathcal G}}_i$ and instead connect $P_{s+i}$ with $P_{s+i+1}$ using $$P_{s+i} \xrightarrow{l_{s+i+1}+P_{s+i-1}} (s+i+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+i+1}} P_{s+i+1}$$ this yields a path ${{\mathcal G}}_{i+1}$ in $(q^2+s-2)+i+1$ vertices ($i+1$ more than $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$). We may close this path into a cycle as we did above $$V_1 \xrightarrow{l_{0}} (0) \xrightarrow{\ell_{\infty}} (s) \xrightarrow{l_{s}} P_s \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}+V_s} (s+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+1}} P_{s+1}\xrightarrow{l_{s+2}+P_s} (s+2) \rightarrow \cdots \hspace{1in}$$ $$\hspace{1.3in} \cdots \rightarrow P_{s+i} \xrightarrow{l_{s+i+1}+P_{s+i-1}} (s+i+1) \xrightarrow{l_{s+i+1}} \underbrace{P_{s+i+1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow V_1}_{in \ \tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}}$$ which has length $q^2+s+i+1$. This will yield cycles of length up to $q^2+q$. The line not used in the $(q^2+q)$-cycle ${{\mathcal Q}}$ is $l_0+P_{q-1}$, and the point not used is $O$. Figure \[fig:Q\] gives an idea of what ${{\mathcal Q}}$ looks like. ![Cycle ${{\mathcal Q}}$[]{data-label="fig:Q"}](pathP-3.pdf "fig:"){height="1.8in"}\ In order to construct a $(q^2+q+1)$-cycle we use ${{\mathcal Q}}$ and modified it as follows. - eliminate $\ell_{\infty}$, which connected $l_0$ and $l_s$. - eliminate $l_{q-1}$, which connected $(q-1)$ and $P_{q-1}$. - eliminate $l_{q}$, which connected $(q)$ and $P_{q}$. - connect $(s)$ and $(q)$ using $\ell_{\infty}$. - connect $(q-1)$ and $O$ using $l_{q-1}$ - connect $P_q$ and $O$ using $l_{q}$ - connect $(q-1)$ and $(0)$ using $l_0+P_{q-1}$ We get the following hamiltonian cycle: ![A hamiltonian cycle](pathP-4.pdf "fig:"){height="2in"}\ It follows from Lemmas \[lempathsq\^2+1->q\^2+s\] and \[lempathsq\^2+s+2<\]. We wish to conclude this paper with a conjecture. Let $s\ge 1$ and $n\ge 2$. A finite partial plane $\mathcal{G} = ({{{\mathcal P}}}, {{{\mathcal L}}} ; {{\mathcal I}})$ is called a [generalized $n$-gon of order $s$]{} if its Levi graph is $(s+1)$-regular, has diameter $n$, and has girth $2n$. It is known that a generalized $n$-gons of order $s$ exists only for $n=2,3,4,6$, see Feit and Higman [@FH]. It is easy to argue that the number of points and the number of lines in the generalized $n$-gon is $p_s^{(n)} : = s^{n-1} + s^{n-2} + \cdots + s+1$ . Note that a projective plane of order $q$ is a generalized $3$-gon (generalized triangle) of order $q$, and so $p_q^{(3)} = q^2 + q +1 = n_q$ – the notation used in this paper earlier. Let $s\ge 2$ and $n\ge 3$. Then $C_k \hookrightarrow \mathcal{G}$ for all $k$, $n\le k\le p_s^{(n)}$. Acknowledgement: The authors are thankful to Benny Sudakov for the clarification of related results obtained by probabilistic methods. [99]{} B. Bollob' as, Modern Graph Theory, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (1998). F. Buekenhout (editor), Handbook of Incidence Geometry: Buildings and Foundations, Elsevier Science, North-Holland (1995). F. Chung, R.L. Graham and R.M. Wilson, Quasi-random graphs, Combinatorica 9 (1989), 345–362. B. DeMarco and F. Lazebnik, Hall planes of order $p^2$ are Hamiltonian. Unpublished manuscript, 2008. P. Erdős, Some old and new problems in various branches of combinatorics, Proceedings of the Tenth Southeastern Conference in Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing, Florida Atlantic Univ., Boca Raton, Fla. (1979) 19–37. W. Feit and G. Higman, The nonexistence of certain generalized polygons, J. Algebra 1, 1964, 114–131. A. M. Frieze, On the number of perfect matchings and Hamilton cycles in regular non-bipartite graphs. Electronic J Combinatorics Vol. 7 (2000), publ. R57. A. M. Frieze and M. Krivelevich, Hamilton cycles in random subgraphs of pseudo-random graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 256, (2002) 137–150. R.J. Gould, Advances on the hamiltonian problem: A survey. Graphs and Combinatorics, 19 (2003), No. 1, 7-–52. M. Hall, Projective planes. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 54 (1943), 229–-277. P. Keevash and B. Sudakov, Pancyclicity of Hamiltonian and highly connected graphs. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B 100 (2010), 456–467. M. Krivelevich and B. Sudakov, Sparse pseudo-random graphs are Hamiltonian. J. Graph Theory 42 (2003), 17–33. M. Krivelevich, C. Lee and B. Sudakov, Resilient pancyclicity of random and pseudo-random graphs. SIAM J. of Discrete Math. 24 (2010), 1-16. F. Lazebnik, K. E. Mellinger, and O. Vega, On the number of $k$-gons in finite projective planes. Note Mat., vol 29 suppl. 1 (2009) 135-152. C. Lee and B. Sudakov, Hamiltonicity, independence number, and pancyclicity. European Journal of Combinatorics 33 (2012), 449–457. G.E. Moorhouse and J. Williford, Embedding Partial Linear Spaces in Finite Translation Nets, Journal of Geometry 91 no.1-2 (2009), 73–83. O. Pikhurko, A Note on the Turán Function of Even Cycles. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 140 (2012) 3687–3992. E. Schmeichel, On the cycle structure of finite projective planes. Combinatorial Mathematics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (New York, 1985), Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 555, New York Acad. Sci., New York, (1989) 368–-374. J. Singer, A theorem in finite projective geometry and some applications to number theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 43 (1938), 377–385. A. Thomason, Pseudorandom graphs, In: Random graphs’85 (Poznán, 1985), North-Holland Math Stud 144, North Holland, Amsterdam (1987) 307–-331. A.N. Voropaev, Counting $k$-gons in finite projective planes. Siberian Electronic Mathematical Reports. Vol 10 (2013), 241–270. (In Russian.)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this paper, we propose the first exact Markov model for connection blocking analysis in elastic optical networks, based on the occupancy status of spectrum slices on all links due to arrivals and departures of various classes of connections in a network. Since the complexity of the exact Markov model grows exponentially with the link capacity, number of links, routes, and classes of demands, we further advance the state-of-the-art in computing approximate blocking probability in elastic optical networks and propose two novel approximations, i.e., load-independent and load-dependent. These approximations are used to compute state-dependent per-class connection setup rates in multi-class elastic optical networks with or without spectrum converters by taking into account the spectrum fragmentation factor in each state. We validate approximation analysis by exact and/or simulation results, and show that load-independent and load-dependent approximations can be more accurately used than previously proposed approximations, under a random-fit (RF) and a first-fit (FF) spectrum allocation policies. The approximate results match closely with the exact model, for smaller networks, and with the simulations under a variety of network scenarios.' author: - '[Sandeep Kumar Singh, and Admela Jukan, ]{} [^1]' bibliography: - 'BPbib.bib' title: Computing Exact and Approximate Blocking Probabilities in Elastic Optical Networks --- Elastic optical networks, spectrum allocation, fragmentation, blocking analysis, approximation, Markov chain. Introduction ============ -grid elastic optical networks (EONs) divide optical spectrum into units of spectrum grids (slices), that can be flexibly allocated in form of “just-enough" spectrum amounts to variable bandwidth demands [@jinno2009spectrum]. Elastic spectrum allocation thus generally increases spectrum utilization in comparison to fixed spectrum systems. At the same time, connection requests in these networks can also be blocked due to the fragmentation of spectrum occupancy, in addition to resource unavailability. In fragmentation states, even though sufficient, but scattered, spectrum maybe available in the network, a connection request maybe blocked if there is no required number of continuous and contiguous slices available for a new bandwidth demand. The spectrum continuity and spectrum contiguity are in fact two fundamental constraints for routing and spectrum allocation in elastic optical networks. The spectrum continuity constraint requires an incoming connection (lightpath) request to be provisioned all-optically over the same set of subcarrier slices in all links it traverses. The constraint called spectrum contiguity constraint means that a connection request demanding multiple subcarriers needs to be allocated over adjacent frequency slices. These two constraints along with the resulting spectrum fragmentation have been subject to much research in optimal routing and spectrum allocation (RSA) schemes, presenting an NP hard problem [@wang2011study], for which the exact blocking model has not been formulated yet. In this paper, we address this grand challenge for the first time by proposing an exact Markov model for computing connection blocking in EONs, where a network state is represented by occupancy of individual spectrum slices on all network links. Since the complexity of the exact Markov models grows exponentially with the link capacity, number of links, routes, and classes of demands, we further advance the state-of-the-art in computing approximate blocking probability in elastic optical networks. Note that implementing an approximation that is tractable, yet sufficiently accurate has been studied in the past, and was shown not to be a trivial task either. It is also analytically hard to taking into account the effect of fragmentation while deriving the connection setup rate, i.e., the effective arrival rate at which a link allows connections to be setup in a given spectrum occupancy state. The reason is that a given number of occupied slices could be represented by fragmented as well as non-fragmented spectrum patterns, and the fragmented states could not accept an incoming connection request. The estimation of the connection setup rates taking into account the fraction of time a link stays in non-blocking states can be obtained by monitoring the link state occupancy over a long period of time, as shown by simulations by Reyes et al. [@reyes2016reward]. In absence of such monitoring information, the progress towards a tractable and close to accurate approximate blocking analysis has been challenging, and slow. To address these challenges, we develop two novel approximations. Finally, this paper compares the novel approximate blocking performance with the exact and/or simulation results to evaluate the approximation analysis. The approximate results are accurate under a range of scenarios, including varying link capacities, classes of demands, traffic loads and network topology. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:relatedWork\] presents the related work and our contribution. We present the exact network blocking model in Section \[sec:ExactModel\]. In Section \[sec:stateDescription\], we describe a novel reduced state model, and identify non-blocking and blocking exacts states for each occupancy state in the reduced state model. We present model assumptions and approximation approaches towards calculating the probability of acceptance of a connection in Section \[sec:stateDescription\]. Section \[sec:Methodology4BP\] presents a multirate loss model to computing connection setup rate, departure rate and approximate blocking probability in EONs. We evaluate the performance in Section \[sec:evaluation\], and conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. BP work Approach Exact states Contiguity Continuity Reduced-load app. Link-load correlation ---- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------------- ----------------------- [@beyranvand2014analytical] CTMC Partially NA This paper CTMC NA Kaufman [@kaufman1981blocking] Binomial [@peng2013theoretical] Partially Partially EES [@kuppuswamy2009analytic] Partially Partially This paper SOC [@kuppuswamy2009analytic] Partially Partially Partially Uniform [@kuppuswamy2009analytic] Partially Partially App.: Approximation; NA: Not applicable; EES: Equiprobable exact states; SOC: Slice occupancy correlation. Related Work and Our Contribution {#sec:relatedWork} ================================= The connection blocking analysis in elastic optical networks has been studied in a few notable works, including [@yu2013first; @peng2013theoretical; @beyranvand2014analytical]. Most of the work previously reported, starts with an analysis of blocking in a single optical link, – which is due to complexity, building it up to a computation of blocking for a network. In [@yu2013first], an exact blocking probability of a single link (with a small scale capacity in number of spectrum slices) was analyzed by modeling the bandwidth occupancy as continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) under a random-fit (RF), which randomly allocates spectrum to connection requests, and a first-fit (FF), which allocates first available slices in an ordered set of slices, spectrum allocation methods. In our previous work [@singh2017analytical], we used that same exact CTMC model with additional reconfiguration states to analyze blocking in a link with a reactive and a proactive connection reconfiguration methods. The network blocking analysis by a so-called exact solution was given by Beyranvand et al. [@beyranvand2014analytical], where network states are defined by a spectrum union operation of exact link states on a multi-hop route, without differentiating among spectrum patterns formed by overlapping routes and without consideration of link-load dependency. Therefore, the presented exact results for a 2-hop network do not generally match simulation results. Because the computational complexity of an exact link model increases exponentially with number of spectrum slices, [@peng2013theoretical] and [@beyranvand2014analytical] presented approximation models. In [@peng2013theoretical], authors used a binomial distribution approach to compute the probability of a required number of free consecutive slices on a link by assuming the average carried load per slice as the slice occupancy probability. The same approach was used in [@beyranvand2014analytical] to approximate an idle slice probability using link state probabilities, which is obtained by a Kaufman’s formula [@kaufman1981blocking] without considering the spectrum fragmentation caused by bandwidth demands and the RSA constraints. More in detail, the Kaufman blocking probability solutions in [@beyranvand2014analytical] were shown to match the exact analysis, and simulation results, for cases where RSA constraints are relaxed. The binomial approach [@peng2013theoretical] was shown useful for cases with a relatively small scale link with capacity in number of spectrum slices, since it tries to estimate the availability of contiguous and continuous free slices on a route. It should be noted that both Kaufman and binomial approaches do not consider valid spectrum patterns (exact states) and that neither on a single link nor on a multi-hop route. Thus, probability of finding a required number of contiguous and continuous free slices would be very inaccurate in these two approaches. Recently, an important step towards reducing an exact link-state description model to a Macrostate model (states are denoted by connections per class) was shown by Reyes et al. [@reyes2016reward]. They estimated the connection setup rates in non-blocking states using a link-simulation approach, and used it for controlling the call admission in EONs. To advance the previous studies, we introduce for the first time an exact Markov model for a network, wherein all possible network states and transition among them are defined to obtain the network state probabilities and connection blocking. Following which, due to scalability issue of the exact network model, we propose a reduced state Markov model, wherein link states are represented by total occupied slices, and the connection setup rates in link states consider spectrum fragmentation factor to compute approximate blocking probabilities in EONs, with and without spectrum conversion, using load-independent and load-dependent approximations. Additionally, we consider a reduced-load approximation, which helps in calculating the effective load of the combined connections on a link, and an independence link assumption, i.e., spectrum occupancies of links are statistically independent, using a multirate loss model. We note that the multirate loss model was originally developed for fix-grid Wavelength Division Multiplexed (WDM) networks [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic] to compute approximate blocking probability. The multirate loss model in [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic] uses a request acceptance probability term to compute connection setup rates and blocking probability. However, without using the exact network model, the exact calculation of the probability that a bandwidth request is accepted on a route in an elastic optical network, which also needs to consider contiguity constraint, is still an unsolved problem. Thus, we propose two different load-independent approximations: (i) Uniform, and (ii) Equiprobable Exact States (EES). While the Uniform approximation assumes that a link occupancy is uniformly distributed over slices without paying attention to valid exact states, the EES approach assumes that observing a link occupancy (denoted by $x$) among exact link states that have same number of occupied slices ($x$) is equiprobable. Notice that these approximations do not handle slice occupancy correlation (SOC) among fragmented and non-fragmented exact states differently, which is important especially in scenarios with low network load, but also in the FF spectrum allocation policy. Therefore, we propose a load-dependent SOC approximation to calculate the probability of acceptance of a request in EONs considering the fragmentation and average link occupancy for a given network load. To illustrate how the proposed models advance the state-of-the-art, Table \[table:RelatedWork\] summaries the main factors of our analysis and the related work in computing exact and approximate blocking probabilities in EONs, all without spectrum conversion (SC). (Spectrum conversion means that if, for instance, two contiguous slices $s_1$ and $s_2$ are used on link 1, they can be converted in an intermediate optical node and allocated to contiguous slices $s_3$ and $s_4$ on subsequent link 2. A comparison of different approaches for blocking probability computation in EONs with SC can be given by omitting the continuity constraint in Table \[table:RelatedWork\].) It should be finally noted that no approximations, including ours, consider exact network states, as shown in Table \[table:RelatedWork\]. However, the EES and SOC approaches consider exact link states only for the RF scenario in a single link system. Furthermore, the contiguity and continuity constraints are shown only partially true for methods in Table \[table:RelatedWork\] if a method does not consider valid spectrum patterns (exact states) while computing the probability of required free contiguous and continuous slices on a route. While the statistical link independence assumption is common and used by all approximations, including this paper, for computing blocking probability in EONs, it is strong and critical, as it ignores the load correlation factor among links. Although we do consider load correlation among slices on each individual link in the SOC approximation, the load-correlation among links are not considered due to complexity and scalability issues. At the same time, nonetheless, the approximate blocking results that we obtain in this paper for different operation modes (based on policies, with/without SC) are promising, as they match closely to the exact, or simulation results for the RF and FF policies for most of the traffic loads and classes of demands. Notably, we use a CTMC model and the multirate loss model [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic] to derive exact and approximate blocking probabilities, respectively, under the following operation modes: RF policy without SC (RF), FF policy without SC (FF), RF policy with SC (RF-SC), and FF policy with SC (FF-SC). It should be noted that all operation modes assume that the spectral contiguity constraint must be satisfied while admitting a request, otherwise it simplifies to WDM scenarios which have been well investigated in the past [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic]. Also notice that the scenarios with SC make sense only in multi-hop routes in EONs, as SC helps in relaxing the continuity constraint. [Notation]{} [Description]{} ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ C $ Total number of spectrum slices (or capacity units) per link $ K $ Number of connection classes. Note that classes $k = 1, 2, \cdots, K$ $ \lambda_k^o $ Arrival rate of class $k$ connections of an OD pair $o \in \mathcal{O}$ $\mu_k$ Service rate of a class $k$ connection; mean service time $t_c=1/\mu_k$ $ \textbf{d}$ $ \equiv (d_1, d_2, \dots, d_K)$, where $d_k$: bandwidth (in slices) of class $k$ $r(o)$ Route of a path request $o \in \mathcal{O}$ consisting of some links $j \in \mathcal{J}$ $\textbf{s}$ $ \equiv (s_1, s_2, \dots, s_C)$, where $s_c$: free or occupied state of an $c^{th}$ slice $\textbf{n}$ $ \equiv (\textbf{n}^1, \textbf{n}^2, \dots, \textbf{n}^\mathrm{r})$, where $\textbf{n}^o$ is the set of connections $\in o$. $\textbf{n}^o$ $ \equiv (n_1^o, n_2^o, \dots, n_K^o)$, where $n_k^o$ is the \# of class $k$ connections $\in o$. $n_k^o(\textbf{n})$ Number of class $k$ connections of an OD pair $o$ in $\textbf{n}$ $n_k^o(V_i)$ Number of class $k$ connections of an OD pair $o$ in a network state $V_i$ $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}$ Set of possible states after a class-$k$ request arrives on route $r(o)$ in $V_i$ $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k-}$ Set of possible states after a class-$k$ connection on $r(o)$ departs from $V_i$ $f_m(\textbf{s}_i)$ Size of the largest block of consecutive free slices in a link state $\textbf{s}_i$ $\Omega_S(x)$ Set of exact link states $\textbf{s}_i$ representing total occupancy of $x$ slices $\mathbb{NB}(x, k)$ Set of non-blocking exact states with occupancy $x$ for class $k$ requests $\mathbb{FB}(x, k)$ Set of fragmentation blocking exact states with occupancy $x$ for class $k$ $\mathbb{RB}(x, k)$ Set of resource-blocking exact states with occupancy $x$ for class $k$ : Notations and the parameters used in the models \[table:Notations\] ![image](NetworkModel.pdf){width="95.00000%"} \[fig:NetworkStates\] Exact Blocking Analysis {#sec:ExactModel} ======================= In the Section, we present an exact CTMC model for computing exact blocking in EONs. The notations and definitions of some of the parameters used in the model are listed in Table \[table:Notations\]. Let us list below all assumptions for the CTMC model for computing exact blocking probability in an arbitrary EON topology with $N$ nodes, $J$ unidirectional fiber links (belongs to set $\mathcal{J}$), and $C$ spectrum slices per link. - Arrivals of class $k \in \{1, 2, \cdots, K\}$ connection path requests between an origin-destination (OD) node-pair $o (\in\mathcal{O})$ follow Poisson process with arrival rate $\lambda_k^o$ , and connection holding (service) time is exponentially distributed with mean $1/\mu_k$. We assume that the arrivals and departures are statistically independent. - Each OD pair path request $o (\in\mathcal{O})$ is routed on a predetermined shortest path $r(o)$, and spectrum is allocated according to a given scenario: RF, RF-SC, FF, or FF-SC. - An OD pair request $o$ with bandwidth demand of $d_k$ slices is accepted in an EON iff there are sufficient ($\geq d_k$) contiguous and continuous free slices on its predetermined route $r(o)$. However, when network nodes are equipped with spectrum converters, then the continuity constraint does not need to be satisfied. Generation of Exact States, and State Transitions ------------------------------------------------- To compute exact blocking in EONs, we need to first define the states of a Markov chain, which are created by the allocation and deallocation of spectrum to various classes of connections between different origin-destination (OD) node-pairs. Let us represent a free slice by 0, and an occupied slice by either $o$ or $\infty$ depending on whether the occupied slice is the start or the remaining bandwidth occupancy of a class $k$ connection on route $r(o)$. For example, an empty network state $V_1$ of a 2-link EON, shown in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](a), with 2 slices fiber link without any connection is represented by $V_1 = (\textbf{s}_1^1,\textbf{s}_1^2) = \{(s_1^1,s_2^1),(s_1^2,s_2^2)\}=\{(0,0),(0,0)\}$, where $\textbf{s}_i^j$ represents the $i^{th}$ network state occupancy on a link $j, j=1,2$, and $s_c^j$ shows the free or occupied status of an ordered (left to right) slice $c, c=1,2$ on a link $j$. Now, to illustrate the formation of a few other states, let us assume that a new class 1 connection request arrives on an OD pair $o=1$ in an empty state $V_1$ with a bandwidth demand $d_1=1$ slice in the 2-link network with link capacity $C=2$ slices. Then, the spectrum can be allocated in one of two different ways under the RF policy, as shown by network states $V_2$ and $V_3$ in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](c), where the top and bottom link states represent spectrum occupancy on links 1 and 2, respectively. Similarly, an arrival of a class 2 request with demand $d_2=2$ consecutive slices on an OD pair $o=2$ ($o=3$) in state $V_1$ will cause the network state to transit to a state $V_9$ ($V_{10}$). On the other hand, under the FF spectrum allocation policy, a new arrival ($d_1=1$ slice) on an OD pair $o=1$ in an empty state $V_1$ will trigger the network transition to only one network state $V_2=\{(1,0),(0,0)\}$, where the first slice is allocated on link 1 in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](d). Note that an exact network state space $\Omega_V$ for a given set of routes, classes of demands and link capacity vary based on the operation modes $M$:= RF, FF, RF-SC, FF-SC. Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] describes a way to create valid network spectrum patterns (exact states), identifying transitions among them using a function $A(\cdot)$ and blocking states using $B(\cdot)$, which is explained below. Given: $M, C, \|\mathcal{J}\|, \textbf{d}=\{d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_K\}, \forall o: r(o)$. Initialize $\Omega_V \leftarrow V_1:= zeros_{\|\mathcal{J}\|\times C} ; i \leftarrow 1; A, B\leftarrow \emptyset$. // due to allocation $B(i,o,k) \leftarrow 1$, if $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}=\emptyset$; otherwise 0 $t \leftarrow \text{index of } L_j \text{in } \Omega_V, A(i,t,o,k)\leftarrow +k$ $\Omega_V \leftarrow [\Omega_V,L_j], A(i,\|\Omega_V\|,o,k)\leftarrow +k$ // due to Deallocation $t \leftarrow \text{index of } L_j \text{in } \Omega_V, A(i,t,o,k)\leftarrow -k$ $\Omega_V \leftarrow [\Omega_V,L_j], A(i,\|\Omega_V\|,o,k)\leftarrow -k$ $i \leftarrow i+1$ \[algo:ExactNetStates\] A network state in the exact Markov chain is represented by a $\|\mathcal{J}\|\times C$ matrix, where an element $(j,c)$ represents the status of a $c^{th}$ slice on link $j$, where $j=1,\ldots, \|\mathcal{J}\|; c=1,\ldots,C$. Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] initializes a network state in an empty state $V_1$, i.e., $(j,c)=0, \forall j, \forall c$. Next, in Steps 4–14 for each combination of routes and classes, i.e., $(o,k)$, a state $V_i$ tries to allocate a class $k$ demand on route $r(o)$ while satisfying the RSA constraint(s) for a given operation mode M (e.g., RF, FF, RF-SC, FF-SC)[^2]. A set of possible states due to arrival of a connection in the state $V_i$ is stored in a set $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}$ in Step 5, and states in $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}$ which are not present in the network state space $\Omega_V$ are appended to $\Omega_V$ in Step 11. Additionally, a function $A(\cdot)$ is updated to track the transition among states. Furthermore, if required free slices can not be allocated to an arrival ($o,k$) (Step 6) then the state $V_i$ is identified as a blocking state for the arrival $(o,k)$ by setting $B(i,o,k)=1$. New network states are also created due to departures of connections (in FF, FF-SC and RF-SC), so Steps 15–24 try to capture new states due to deallocation of spectrum, and also updates the transitions among states. The (de)allocation process in each state $V_i, i\geqslant 1$ is checked until no more new network states are created. Thus, the network state space $\Omega_V$ converges, and the total number of network states is $\|\Omega_V\|$. Exact State Probabilities and Blocking Analysis ----------------------------------------------- After generating all exact states and transitions among them, the global balance equation (GBE) of a network state $V_i, i =1, \cdots, \|\Omega_V\|$ can be obtained by $$\begin{gathered} \left(\sum_{(o,k)=(1,1), \Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}\neq \emptyset}^{(\|\mathcal{O}\|, K)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \lambda_k^o \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, + \sum_{(o,k)=(1,1)}^{(\|\mathcal{O}\|, K)} n_k^o (V_i) \mu_k \right ) \pi(V_i) = \\ \sum_{t=1, t\neq i}^{\|\Omega_V\|} \left(\sum_{(o,k)=(1,1), V_i \in \Gamma_{V_t}^{o,k+}}^{(\|\mathcal{O}\|, K)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \lambda_k^o/\|\Gamma_{V_t}^{o,k+}\| \,\,\,\,\, + \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{(o,k)=(1,1), V_i \in \Gamma_{V_t}^{o,k-}}^{(\|\mathcal{O}\|, K)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \mu_k\right) \pi(V_t) \label{eqn:GBEnetwork}\end{gathered}$$ where, left hand side (LHS) represents the output flow rate from the state $V_i$ having steady state probability $\pi(V_i)$, while the right hand side represents input flow rate into the state $V_i$. More precisely, the first (second) term in LHS of Eq. represents the output rate due to arrivals (departures) in (from) $V_i$, and the first (second) term in RHS is due to arrivals (departures) in (from) other states $V_t$ that lead to the state $V_i$. As an example, under the RF scenario, the GBE for a state $V_1$ in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](c) is given by $(\sum_{o=1,k=1}^{o=3,k=2}\lambda_k^o)\pi(V_1) = \mu_1(\sum_{t=2}^7 \pi(V_t)) + \mu_2(\sum_{t=8}^{10}\pi(V_t))$. Notice that transitions from and into the state $V_1$ occur due to arrivals in $V_1$ and departures from other states, respectively. However, for example, the GBE of a state $V_2$ would also include rate $\lambda_1^1/2$ ($\mu_1$) in its RHS (LHS) due to an arrival (departure) of class 1 connection on OD pair route $1\rightarrow 2 (\text{ i.e., } o=1)$ in (from) the state $V_1$ ($V_2$). Similarly, the GBE of state $V_1$ under the FF scenario in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](d) can be obtain as $(\sum_{o=1,k=1}^{o=3,k=2}\lambda_k^o)\pi(V_1) = \mu_1(\sum_{t=2}^4 \pi(V_t)+\pi(V_{21})+\pi(V_{25})+\pi(V_{27})) + \mu_2(\sum_{t=5}^7\pi(V_t))$, which allocates only first available free slices. Under the RF-SC and FF-SC scenarios, we can also write the GBE of a state, for example, $V_1$ using Eq. by including additional transition rates in the RHS of above given GBE equations for $V_1$ under the RF and the FF, respectively, due to departures of a class 1 (1 slice bandwidth) connection on route $r(o=3)$ from two additional network states {(3,0),(0,3)} and {(0,3),(3,0)}, which are exclusively created because of spectrum conversion at node 2 in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\](a). Under the stationary condition, the network state probabilities $\boldsymbol{\pi} = [\pi(V_1), \pi(V_2), \cdots, \pi(V_{\|\Omega_V\|})]$ can be calculated by solving $\boldsymbol{\pi Q}=0$ subject to $\sum_i \pi(V_i)= 1 $, where $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is the transition rate $\|\Omega_V\| \times \|\Omega_V\|$ matrix with elements $q_{it}$. The individual elements $q_{it}, i\neq t$ is obtained by either arrival or departure of a connection $(o,k)$ between each pair of states $V_i$ and $V_t, t\neq i$, which is given by Eq. , and $q_{ii}=-\sum_{t\neq i}q_{it}, i=1,2,\ldots,\|\Omega_V\|$. $$q_{it}= \begin{cases} \frac{\lambda_k^o}{\|\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}\|} & \text{ if } A(i,t,o,k)=k, \text{ for any } (o, k) \\ \mu_k & \text{ if } A(i,t,o,k)=-k, \text{ for any } (o, k) \\ 0 & \text{ otherwise } \end{cases} \label{eqn:TRMexact}$$ It should be noted that in the FF and FF-SC scenarios, the number of elements in a set $\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}$, i.e., $\|\Gamma_{V_i}^{o,k+}\|$ is 1 if the allocation function $A(i,t,o,k)=k$ for any pair of $(o,k)$, otherwise it is zero 0. We can use an LSQR method [@paige1982lsqr] or by a successive over-relaxation [@young2014iterative] method to solve $\boldsymbol{\pi Q}=0$ and $\sum_i \pi(V_i)= 1$, thus the steady state network state distribution $\pi(V_i), i=1,2,\ldots,\|\Omega_V\|$ can be obtained. Finally, the overall exact blocking probability in an EON with or without SC is given by ensamble averaging over blocking probability ($BP^o_k$) of all classes $k, k=1,\ldots,K$ on all OD pair requests $o \in \mathcal{O}$ using the blocking identification function $B(i,o,k)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:ExactBPinEON} BP &= \frac{\sum_k\sum_o \lambda^o_k BP^o_k}{\sum_k\sum_o\lambda^o_k} \nonumber \\ &=\frac{\sum_k\sum_o \lambda^o_k \times \left[\sum_{i=1}^{\|\Omega_V\|}\pi(V_i)\times B(i,o,k) \right]}{\sum_k\sum_o \lambda^o_k} \end{aligned}$$ ![Exact and simulation blocking results in a 2-hop network with 3 OD pair routes with $C=10$ and demands $d_k=\{3,4\}$ slices, and $\mu_k=1$.[]{data-label="fig:ExactBP2-hops"}](ExactBP2-hop.pdf){width="45.00000%"} ![Exact and simulation blocking results in a 3-node ring network with 6 OD pair routes with $C=7$ and demands $d_k=\{3,4\}$ slices, and $\mu_k=1$.[]{data-label="fig:ExactBP3-ring"}](ExactBP3-ring.pdf){width="45.00000%"} We verify the accuracy of our exact model by comparing exact blocking obtained using Eq. under all four operation scenarios to the simulation results in Figs. \[fig:ExactBP2-hops\] and \[fig:ExactBP3-ring\] for a 2-link and a 3-node ring topology, respectively. We observe that exact blocking probabilities under all scenarios are very close to the simulation (shown as Sim) results, and the FF exhibits lower blocking than the RF scenario. Furthermore, RF-SC and FF-SC produce slightly lower blocking than RF and FF, respectively in a small scale 2-link network. However, the blocking reduction due to spectrum conversion would be more visible in large scale links and networks, for which we next propose an approximation model. Reduced State Model Description {#sec:stateDescription} =============================== In this Section, we present a reduced link state model in order to tackle the intractability of exact blocking analysis, and identify blocking and non-blocking exact states for a given link occupancy, which will be later used in computing probability of acceptance of a connection request, and also in connection setup rates in the reduced state model. The notations and definitions of some of the parameters used in the model are also listed in Table \[table:Notations\]. Exact link state description Macrostate Microstate ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ---------------------------------------- $\textbf{s}=(s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4, s_5, s_6, s_7)$ $X=x= \textbf{n}^1\cdot \textbf{d}^T$ $\textbf{s}_1=(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$ 0 $\textbf{s}_2=(1,\infty,\infty,0,0,0,0)$ $\textbf{s}_3=(0,1,\infty,\infty,0,0,0$) $\textbf{s}_4=(0,0,1,\infty,\infty,0,0$) $\textbf{s}_5=(0,0,0,1,\infty,\infty,0$) $\textbf{s}_6=(0,0,0,0,1,\infty,\infty$) $\textbf{s}_7=(1,\infty,\infty,\infty,0,0,0$) $\textbf{s}_8=(0,1,\infty,\infty,\infty,0,0$) $\textbf{s}_9=(0,0,1,\infty,\infty,\infty,0$) $\textbf{s}_{10}=(0,0,0,1,\infty,\infty,\infty$) $\textbf{s}_{11}=(1,\infty,\infty,1,\infty,\infty,0$) $\textbf{s}_{12}=(1,\infty,\infty,0,1,\infty,\infty$) $\textbf{s}_{13}=(0,1,\infty,\infty,1,\infty,\infty$) $\textbf{s}_{14}=(1,\infty,\infty,1,\infty,\infty,\infty$) $\textbf{s}_{15}=(1,\infty,\infty,\infty,1,\infty,\infty$) : Possible spectrum occupancies (states) of a link with capacity $C=7$ slices, demands $d_k=\{3, 4\}$ slices under RF policy.[]{data-label="table:state description"} Reduced Link State Representation --------------------------------- The exact network state model is computationally intractable for a medium or large scale links and networks. Thus, it is essential to represent a link state by the number of occupied slices on a link. Table \[table:state description\] shows how an exact link state description (formed by a single route) can be equivalently represented by only a few microstates, which represent the corresponding total occupied slices. In this 7-slices link example, there are 15 exact link states under the RF policy. However, for example, all 5 exact states having total occupancy of 3 slices ($\textbf{s}_2$ to $\textbf{s}_6$ in first column) are represented by a single Microstate $x=3$, where $X=x= \textbf{n}^1\cdot \textbf{d}^T=\sum_{k=1}^Kn_k^1d_k$, where $\textbf{n}^1 \equiv (n_1^1, \ldots,n_k^1,\ldots, n_K^1)$, and $n_k^1$ is the number of class-$k$ connections of an OD pair request $o=1$. For example, even in a small-scale link with 20 slices and bandwidth demands $d_k = \{3, 4, 5\}$, under the RF policy the number of exact link states is 5885, which could be reduced to 19 with microstates representation. Thus, the reduced state (Microstate) model presents an opportunity to obtain approximate blocking probabilities even for large scale links and networks, since the maximum number of microstates per link is $C+1$, where $C$ is the number of slices per fiber-link. It should be noted that the term “state” is also used in the context of the models (Exact and Microstate), i.e., a state in the Microstate model has the same meaning as a microstate. Departing from the exact state representation to a microstate representation causes some inaccuracy in finding the connection setup rates in a reduced link state model. The reason is that a microstate could be represented by different class-dependent blocking and non-blocking exact states formed by one or more routes. For example, a microstate with occupancy $x=3$ slices is represented by five ($\textbf{s}_2$ to $\textbf{s}_6$) different exact link states out of which $\textbf{s}_4$ is a blocking state for both classes of demands requiring 3 and 4 consecutive free slices, and $\textbf{s}_3$ and $\textbf{s}_5$ are additional blocking states for a 4-slice demand. Let us first define a set of blocking exact states for an incoming class $k$ request in a microstate $X=x$ by Eq. , which can not admit a demand $d_k$ due to the fact that the size of the largest consecutive free slices ($f_m$) is not sufficient. $$\mathbb{B}(x, k) = \{ \textbf{s}_i \| d_k > f_m(\textbf{s}_i), \, \textbf{s}_i \in \Omega_S(x), \, \forall i\} \label{eqn:blocking states}$$ Therefore, a set of non-blocking exact states can be given by $$\mathbb{NB}(x,k) = \Omega_S(x) \setminus \mathbb{B}(x,k). \label{eqn:NB states}$$ The blocking in a link happens either due to insufficient free spectrum, referred to as resource blocking or due the fragmentation of free spectrum resources, referred to as fragmentation blocking. Fragmentation blocking states ($\mathbb{FB}(x,k)$) do have enough free slices, but they are scattered and the largest block of consecutive free slices ($f_m(\textbf{s}_i)$) can not satisfy demand $d_k$. Thus, a class-dependent set of fragmentation blocking states corresponding to a microstate $X=x$ is given by $$\mathbb{FB}(x,k) = \{ \textbf{s}_i \| f_m(\textbf{s}_i) < d_k \leq C-x, \textbf{s}_i \in \Omega_S(x), \, \forall i\}. \label{eqn:FB states}$$ The set of resource blocking states $\mathbb{RB}(x,k) \!\! \subseteq \! \mathbb{B}(x, k)$ is given by $\mathbb{B}(x, k) \setminus \mathbb{FB}(x, k)$. The number of elements in $\Omega_S(x), \mathbb{NB, FB}$, and $\mathbb{RB}$ sets can be obtained using a simple procedure by generating all exact link states under a given spectrum allocation scenario (e.g., RF, RF-SC) using an approach described in Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] in Section \[sec:ExactModel\] for a small scale single-hop (link) network. However, in medium and large scale links with capacity $C>20$, an algorithmic approach would not be useful, since the time and space complexity increase exponentially. Thus, using the inclusion-exclusion principle, we provide analytical expressions for computing the number of exact states ($\|\Omega_S(x)\|$) on a link with $\mathrm{r}$ traversing routes in Theorem \[theorem:Allstates4microstate\], the number of non-blocking exact link states ($\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|$) in Theorem \[theorem:AllNBstates4microstate\], and the number of fragmentation blocking states ($\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|$) in Theorem \[theorem:AllFBstates4microstate\], where the number of free slices $E(x)=C-x$ and the number of connections $N(\textbf{n})=\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{o=1}^\mathrm{r} n_k^o(\textbf{n})$. The proofs are given in Appendix \[sec:Appendix1\]. The number of resource blocking exact link states is $\|\mathbb{RB}(x,k)\|=\|\Omega_S(x)\|-\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|-\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|$. \[theorem:Allstates4microstate\] Under the RF policy, the number of exact link states in a given occupancy state $x$ is $$\label{eqn:Allstates4microstate} \|\Omega_S(x)\| = \sum_{\textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)}\frac{N(\textbf{n})!}{\prod_{k=1}^K\prod_{o=1}^\mathrm{r} n_k^o(\textbf{n})!}\times\binom{E(x)+N(\textbf{n})}{N(\textbf{n})}.$$ \[theorem:AllNBstates4microstate\] Under the RF policy, the number of non-blocking exact link states for a class $k$ request with demand $d_k$ slices in a given occupancy state $x$ is $$\label{eqn:AllNBstates4microstate} \|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|=\sum_{ \textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)}W(\textbf{n})\times \frac{N(\textbf{n})!}{\prod_{k=1}^K\prod_{o=1}^\mathrm{r} n_k^o(\textbf{n})!}, \text{ where }$$ $$W(\textbf{n}) = \sum_{i=1}^{N(\textbf{n})+1} (-1)^{i+1} \binom{N(\textbf{n})+1}{i} \binom{E(x)+N(\textbf{n})-id_k}{N(\textbf{n})}. \nonumber$$ \[theorem:AllFBstates4microstate\] For any policy, the number of fragmentation-blocking exact link states ($\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|$) for a class $k$ request with demand $d_k$ slices in a given occupancy state $x$ is $$\label{eqn:AllFBstates4microstate} \|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\| = \begin{cases} \|\Omega_S(x)\|-\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|, & 0 \leqslant x \leqslant C -d_k \\ 0, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ For example, in Table \[table:state description\], the number of exact link states corresponding to $x=3$, which is represented by a single route and unique $\textbf{n}^1=(1,0)$, is $\frac{1!}{1!}\times \binom{4+1}{1} =5$. On the other hand, the number of non-blocking exact states for a class 2 demand ($d_k=4$ slices) in a microstate $x=3$ i.e., $\textbf{n}^1=(1,0)$ and $E(x=3)=4$ slices, is $\binom{1+1}{1}\times\binom{4+1-4}{1}=2$, which can be seen in Table \[table:state description\]. Notice that the number of exact link states for a microstate as given by Eq. is only valid under the RF spectrum allocation policy, the number of valid exact link states under the FF policy is generally much lower. Furthermore, as described in Section \[sec:ExactModel\], exact link states are formed according to a given spectrum allocation policy, classes of demands, and the number of routes that traverses a link under consideration, which further increases the complexity. However, we can reduce the complexity, at the expense of some inaccuracy, by assuming that the exact link states are created only due to a single route. To compute approximate blocking in EONs, all exact model assumptions (in Section \[sec:ExactModel\]) are considered in the reduced state model, and below we list two additional assumptions: - Spectrum occupancy in a link $j$ is independent from other links $i\neq j; i,j \in \mathcal{J}$, which is called the independence link assumption. - All exact link states are formed by a single route, i.e., $\textbf{n} \equiv \textbf{n}^1= (n_1,\ldots, n_K)$, where the route number is omitted. Probability of Acceptance of a Connection on a Link {#sec:ProbOfAcceptance} --------------------------------------------------- Let us now use the above assumptions and definitions of non-blocking and blocking states to reduce an exact link state model into a reduced microstate model. Let $X_j$ be the random variable representing the number of occupied slices ($x_j$) on a link $j$. We define the probability that a link $j$ is in state $x_j$ as $$\pi_j(x_j) \equiv Pr[X_j=x_j].$$ Therefore, using the link state probability obtained for a given load, the average occupied slices on a link $j$ is $$\label{eqn:avgOccupiedSlices} \bar{x}_j= \sum_{0 \leq x_j \leq C} x_j\pi_j(x_j).$$ In general, when a route $r$ contains $l$ links, i.e., $r\equiv \{j_1, j_2,\cdots, j_l\}$, we represent the average occupied slices on a route by a vector $\bar{\textbf{x}}_r \equiv (\bar{x}_{j_1}, \bar{x}_{j_2},\cdots, \bar{x}_{j_l})$. Moreover, due to the independence link assumption, the random variables $X_j$’s are independent, i.e., $Pr[X_j=x_j\|X_i=x_i] = Pr[X_j=x_j], i \neq j$. In the reduced model the transition rate from a microstate $X_j=x_j$ to another microstate due to an arrival of a class $k$ request (i.e., connection setup rate) depends on the connection arrival rate and the probability of its acceptance. Noting that only non-blocking exact states corresponding to the microstate $X_j=x_j$ will accept the incoming request, in a single link system (route $r=\{j\}$) the probability of acceptance of a class $k$ connection request with bandwidth $d_k$ in a given occupancy (microstate) $X=x$ (omitting the subscript $j$), i.e., $p_k(x)$ is obtained by $$\begin{gathered} p_k(x) = Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X=x] \\ =\sum_{\textbf{s}_i\in \Omega_S(x)}\!\!\!\!\!Pr[f_m(\textbf{s}_i)\geq d_k\| \textbf{s}_i,X=x]\times Pr[\textbf{s}_i\|X=x] \label{eqn:ProbOfAcceptance}\end{gathered}$$ where the event {$Z_r\geq d_k$} represents that the route $r$ (here a link $j$) must have equal or more than $d_k$ consecutive free slices to accept a class $k$ request. In a given microstate $X=x$, only a subset of exact states representing a microstate $x$ that have sufficient consecutive free slices would accept the class $k$ request ($\forall \textbf{s}_i \in \Omega_S(x): f_m(\textbf{s}_i)\geq d_k$). The first multiplication term in Eq. is a probability function resulting in a value 1 if an exact state $\textbf{s}_i$ is a non-blocking state, 0 otherwise. The second term is the probability of observing the link in an exact state $\textbf{s}_i$ among the set of exact states representing occupancy of $x$ slices, i.e., $\Omega_S(x)$. However, the calculation of exact state probabilities (for the second term) in a large link is analytically intractable. We need, therefore, some kind of approximation to calculate the class- and state-dependent probability of acceptance and connection setup rates. Assuming that all exact states corresponding to a given microstate have uniform state probability distribution, i.e., they are equiprobable. Thus, $Pr[\textbf{s}_i\|X=x]=1/\|\Omega_S(x)\|, \forall \textbf{s}_i \in \Omega_S(x)$. We refer to this approximation as an equiprobable exact states (EES) approach. As only non-blocking exact states ($\mathbb{NB}(x,k)$) would allow a class $k$ connection to be accepted in a microstate $x$, therefore, the first multiplication term in Eq. would add up to the total number of exact non-blocking states ($\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|$) representing an occupancy $x$. Thus, the probability of acceptance in Eq. can be approximated in the EES approach as $$p^{App.EES}_k(x)=\frac{\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|}{\|\Omega_S(x)\|}. \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAccept1}$$ The state-dependent per-class connection setup rate in a link is given as the class $k$ arrival rate ($\lambda_k\equiv \lambda_k^o$) multiplied by the probability of acceptance of an incoming demand $d_k$ in a microstate $x$, i.e., $\alpha_k(x)=\lambda_k \times p^{App.EES}_k(x)$. ![Microstate transition diagram of 7-slice fiber link with two classes of demands $d_k = \{3, 4\}$ slices under RF in (a) and FF in (b) are shown.[]{data-label="fig:StateTransitions"}](MicrostateModel.pdf){width="45.00000%"} To illustrate the transitions and connection setup rates in a reduced state model using the EES approximation, let us consider an example in Fig. \[fig:StateTransitions\], where the microstate transition diagram of a 7-slice link occupancy is shown with two classes of demands $d_k = \{3, 4\}$ slices under the RF policy in Fig. \[fig:StateTransitions\](a), and under the FF policy in Fig. \[fig:StateTransitions\](b). As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:StateTransitions\](a), the overall connection setup rate in the empty microstate $x=0$ is $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ for class-1 (3-slice) and class-2 (4-slice) connection request, respectively, since the corresponding exact empty state $\textbf{s}_1$ is a non-blocking state for both connection classes, under both RF and FF policies. However, in a microstate $x=3$, which represents 5 different exact states of $\textbf{n}=(1,0)$ in the RF policy, four (two) states are non-blocking for class $k=1 (k=2)$, see Table \[table:state description\]. Using the $App.EES$, the connection setup rate for class-1 (class-2) in the microstate $x=3$ is $\frac{4}{5}\lambda_1$ ($\frac{2}{5}\lambda_2$). In contrast, in the FF policy, which allocates only first available slices, generally generates lesser number of exact states as compare to the RF policy. In this example, in the FF policy a microstate $x=3$ is represented by only three exact states $(1,\infty,\infty, 0, 0, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0, 1,\infty,\infty, 0)$ and $(0, 0, 0, 0, 1,\infty,\infty)$, out of which there is only a single exact state $(0, 0, 0, 1,\infty,\infty, 0)$ that blocks a class-2 demand. Thus, using Eq. the class-2 connection setup rate in the microstate $x=3$ is $\alpha_2(x=3)=\frac{2}{3}\lambda_2$ as shown in Fig \[fig:StateTransitions\](b). Notice that the transition rate from a state occupancy $x=6$ to $x=3$ is $2\mu_1$, since the transition occurs due to the departure of a class-1 connection (3 slices bandwidth), and the expected number of class-1 connections in $x=6$ is 2 in both policies, because $x=6$ is represented by only one $\textbf{n}= (2, 0)$ as shown in Table \[table:state description\]. ![Variance of steady state probabilities of a set of exact states representing a link occupancy (microstate) for $C=20, d_k=\{3,4,5\}$.[]{data-label="fig:varianceSP"}](varianceInSP.pdf){width="35.00000%"} To test the EES assumption corresponding to each microstate (occupied slices) under both spectrum allocation policies, we plot the variance of exact state probabilities using the RF and the FF exact models against total occupied slices in Fig. \[fig:varianceSP\]. We can see that the variance is non-zero for all microstates, which should not have been the case for the reduced state model to be accurate. Nevertheless, the variance under the RF policy is not as high as the variance obtained in the FF policy. Thus, we make the following observations. Observation 1: The probability of observing an occupancy state ($x$) in its exact states is not eqiprobable. In fact, it varies in its blocking and non-blocking exact states depending on the load, or equivalently, on the average occupied slices $\bar{x}$. Observation 2: In a lower occupancy state ($x \ll \bar{x}$), the probability of observing occupancy $x$ in its non-blocking exact states is more likely than observing in its blocking exact states. Although both observations are valid for the RF and FF policies, they have huge influence on approximate blocking probabilities obtained under the FF policy, as the distribution of slice occupancy is highly correlated in the FF policy. Thus, the accuracy of $App.EES$ could be compromised under the FF policy. Therefore, next we consider these two observations and propose a load- and state-dependent SOC approximation which could be used to obtain a relatively more accurate approximate blocking under the FF policy. Noting the observations 1 and 2, and the fact that a class $k$ request with demand $d_k$ slices could be accepted in microstates $0 \leqslant x \leqslant C-d_k$, which are represented by non-blocking and fragmentation blocking exact states, we assume that for a class $k$ request in a microstate $x$, the non-blocking exact states are equiprobable, so are the fragmentation blocking exact states. However, the probability of observing a non-blocking state is higher than observing a fragmentation state in a given microstate ($x$) having lower occupied slices as compare to the average occupied slices ($x<\bar{x}$). Therefore, let us assume that the probability of observing a non-blocking exact state in a microstate $x$ is in the form $a=\frac{1}{\|\Omega_S(x)\|}[1+u\exp(-n)]$, and for a fragmentation exact state, it is $b=\frac{1}{\|\Omega_S(x)\|}[1-v\exp(-n)]; 0\leqslant a,b\leqslant 1$. Additionally, in a given microstate $x, 0 \leqslant x \leqslant C-d_k$, $a\times \|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|+b\times \|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|=1$, and $\|\Omega_S(x)\|=\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|+\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|$. Also noting that only non-blocking states would accept an incoming class $k$ request, a load-dependent ($\bar{x}$) approximate ($App.SOC$) probability of acceptance of a request in a link may be given by Eq. . $$p^{App.SOC}_k(x;\bar{x}) =\frac{\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|}{\|\Omega_S(x)\|} +\frac{\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|}{\|\Omega_S(x)\|}\exp(-\frac{\bar{x}}{C}\times \lvert \ln(\frac{x}{\bar{x}}) \rvert) \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAccept2}$$ Notice that $ 0 \leq p^{App.SOC}_k(x ; \bar{x}) \leq 1$, since $\|\Omega_S(x)\|=\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|+\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|$ for $0 \leqslant x \leqslant C-d_k$, and $ p^{App.SOC}_k(x,\bar{x})=0$ for resource blocking states, i.e., $C-d_k < x \leqslant C$, since $\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|=\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|=0, \text{and}\; \|\Omega_S(x)\|=\|\mathbb{RB}(x,k)\|$. As an example, the probability of acceptance of a class $k$ request with demand $d_k \leqslant C$ in an empty state is $p^{App.SOC}_k(0,\bar{x})=1$, since $\|\Omega_S(0)\| =\|\mathbb{NB}(0,k)\|=1$, and $\|\mathbb{FB}(0,k)\|=0$. The difference between the $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ is the second factor in Eq. , which increases the probability of acceptance for lower occupancy states $x$, and decreases it for higher states depending on the average occupied slices ($\bar{x}$) for a given load. At the same time, the computation of $App.SOC$ requires the knowledge of $\bar{x}$, and vice versa, which makes it a coupled equation. Thus, $\bar{x}$ needs to be computed using an iterative procedure described in Sec. \[sec:Methodology4BP\]. Probability of Acceptance on a Multi-hop Route {#sec:PoA-route} ---------------------------------------------- Let $Z_r$ be the random variable (r. v.) representing the size of the largest continuous and contiguous free slices on a route $r=\{j_1, j_2, \cdots, j_l\}$ without SC, where $j_i$ represents a link on the route $r$. In contrast, under the SC operations, $Z_r$ would represent the minimum of the largest size of contiguous free slices on each constituent link of route $r$, i.e, $Z_r=\min(Z_{j_1}, \ldots, Z_{j_l})$, where $Z_{j_i}$ is a r. v. representing the size of the largest contiguous free slices on a link $j_i$, and the $Z_{j_i}$’s are statistically independent due to the independence link assumption. The probability of acceptance of a connection request with demand $d_k$ slices on a route $r$ without SC can be obtain by extending the single-hop approach in Eq. to an $l$-hop route $r$ in a given route occupancy vector $\textbf{x}_r=(x_{j_1},\ldots, x_{j_l})$ with a parameter average route occupancy vector $\bar{\textbf{x}}_r = (\bar{x}_{j_1}, \bar{x}_{j_2},\cdots, \bar{x}_{j_l})$ as follows. $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:ProbOfAcceptInRoute} p_k(\textbf{x}_r;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r) = Pr(Z_r\geq d_k \mid X_{j_1}=x_{j_1},..., X_{j_l}=x_{j_l};\bar{\textbf{x}}_r)\\ =\!\!\!\sum_{V_t\in \Omega_V(\textbf{x}_r)}\!\!\!\!\!Pr[f_m(\cup_{i=1}^l\textbf{s}^{j_i}_t)\geq d_k\| V_t, \textbf{x}_r;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r]\times Pr[V_t\|\textbf{x}_r;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r]\end{gathered}$$ Here, the analogy is similar to that of a single-hop, i.e., in place of an exact state $\textbf{s}$, now a set of $l$ exact link states on the route $r$, belonging to a network state $V_t \in \Omega_V(\textbf{x}_r)$, i.e., $(\textbf{s}^{j_1}_t,\ldots, \textbf{s}^{j_l}_t), \textbf{s}^{j_i}_t\in \Omega_S(x_{j_i})$ determines whether this set of exact link states has equal or more than $d_k$ free contiguous and continuous slices or not, which is given by the first multiplication term in Eq. with probability 1 or 0. Notice that a slice-wise union operation over a set of $l$ exact link states finds the number of aligned free slices, i.e., the continuity constraint, and the function $f_m(\cdot)$ finds the largest free contiguous slices among the aligned free slices. However, even though we assume that network states with route occupancy $\textbf{x}_r$ are equiprobable, i.e., the second probability term is approximated as $1/\|\Omega_V(\textbf{x}_r)\|$, an analytical expression for computing the number of exact network states that could accept a request with demand $d_k$ ( i.e., first summation term) is not possible. Moreover, the probability of acceptance of a request with demand $d_k$ on an $l$-hop route with SC in route occupancy vector $\textbf{x}_r$ and average occupancy vector $\bar{\textbf{x}}_r = (\bar{x}_{j_1}, \bar{x}_{j_2},\cdots, \bar{x}_{j_l})$ is given by Eq. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute-SC} p_{k,sc}(\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r) =\prod_{i=1}^l Pr(Z_{j_i}\geq d_k\|X_{j_i}=x_{j_i}; \bar{x}_{j_i}) \end{aligned}$$ which uses the definition of the r. v. $Z_r$ under the SC operations, i.e., $Z_r=\min(Z_{j_i},\cdots,Z_{j_l})$, and $Z_{j_i}$’s are independent, so $Pr(\min(Z_{j_1},\cdots, Z_{j_l})\geq d_k)=\prod_{i=1}^l Pr(Z_{j_i}\geq d_k)$. To address the above issue, we can assume that the total link occupancy is uniformly distributed over spectrum slices, which we refer to as $\textit{Uniform}$ approximation. In other words, this approach assumes that spectrum patterns (exact states) are created only by a single-slice demand, thus it ignores a given classes of demands while computing the probability of equal or more than $d_k$ free slices on a route $r$ in both with and without SC operations. For the $\textit{Uniform}$ approach, we derive an analytical expression for computing the probability of acceptance term in Eq. in Appendix \[sec:Appendix2\]. Although the $\textit{Uniform}$ approximation considers required RSA constraints in with and without SC operations, it ignores the valid spectrum patterns and fragmentation created due to bandwidth demands, which results in under-estimating the computation of probability of acceptance term. Thus, achieving scalability and accuracy (using valid spectrum patters and RSA constraints) at the same time is hard. Nevertheless, utilizing the independence link assumption and noting that a product-form approximation is also a valid probability distribution [@chow1968approximating; @peng2013theoretical], the approximate probability of acceptance of a request on a route with $l$ hops in an EON without SC may be given by a product of all individual probability of acceptance in constituent links on each hop of an $l$-hop route $r$ as below. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute} p^{App.}_k(\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r) &=\left[\prod_{i=1}^l Pr(Z_{j_i}\geq d_k\|X_{j_i}=x_{j_i}; \bar{x}_{j_i})\right]^l \end{aligned}$$ Notice that the individual link acceptance probability term $Pr(Z_{j_i}\geq d_k\|X_{j_i}=x_{j_i}; \bar{x}_{j_i}$) finds the probability that the route $r$ has equal or more than $d_k$ free consecutive slices on each link $j_i \in r$ in corresponding occupancy state $x_{j_i}$. Although Eq. does not necessarily ensure that the contiguous free slices are aligned over the route $r$, i.e., the continuity constraint, its effect is partially taken into account by considering only a fraction of all possibilities (using power $l$) of having equal or more than $d_k$ consecutive slices on each link of a route $r$. Now, using $App.EES$ in Eq. and Eq. we obtain an approximate probability of acceptance of a request on a route $r$ with $l$ hops (without SC) as follows. $$p^{App.EES}_k(\textbf{x}_r) = \left[\prod_{i=1}^l \frac{\|\mathbb{NB}(x_{j_i},k)\|}{\|\Omega_S(x_{j_i})\|}\right]^l. \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute1}$$ Similarly, for the SC operation modes, using $App.EES$ in Eq. and Eq. , the probability of acceptance is given on a route $r$ with $l$ hops as follows. $$p^{App.EES}_{k,sc}(\textbf{x}_r) = \prod_{i=1}^l \frac{\|\mathbb{NB}(x_{j_i},k)\|}{\|\Omega_S(x_{j_i})\|}. \label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute1-SC}$$ The load-dependent approximate probability of acceptance ($App.SOC$) of a class $k$ request on an $l$-hop route $r$ without SC is obtained by Eq. (using Eqs. and ). Similarly, under the SC operation, it is given by Eq. using Eqs. and . $$\label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute2} p^{App.SOC}_k(\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r) = \left[\prod_{i=1}^l p^{App.SOC}_k(x_{j_i}; \bar{x}_{j_i})\right]^l$$ $$\label{eqn:ApprxProbOfAcceptInRoute2-SC} p^{App.SOC}_{k,sc}(\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r) = \prod_{i=1}^l p^{App.SOC}_k(x_{j_i}; \bar{x}_{j_i})$$ Computing Approximate Blocking Probabilities {#sec:Methodology4BP} ============================================ In this Section, we present the methodology, as adopted for EONs from the known models for circuit-switched optical networks [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic], to compute approximate blocking probabilities in EONs with or without spectrum conversion. Calculating Connection Setup and Departure Rates {#subsec:stateprobAndRates} ------------------------------------------------ Generally, the class $k$ connection setup rate in a given link state is a function of the given link state occupancy, demand class, and spectrum allocation policy [@chung1993computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic]. However, links carry different traffic in EONs, thus taking the average occupied slices ($\bar{x}_j$) into consideration, and assuming that the time until the next connection is setup on a link $j$ with $x_j$ occupied slices is exponentially distributed with parameter $\alpha_k^j(x_j)$, the connection setup rate is given by $$\alpha_k^j(x_j) = \sum_{o: j \in r(o)} \lambda_k^o Pr(Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r) \label{eqn:connection setup rate}$$ where the summation takes into account the effective arrival rates of all OD pairs $o \in \mathcal{O}$ whose routes $r(o)$ pass through the link $j$. It should be noted that the effective (reduced) load contribution of an OD pair $o$ on the link $j$ is considered by a probability function $Pr(Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r)$, which depends on the availability of at least required ($d_k$) free slices (that fulfills the operation-based RSA constraints) on its route $r(o), j \in r(o)$ in a given state with $x_j$ occupied slices on link $j$, and the average occupied slices on its route, i.e., $\bar{\textbf{x}}_r$. Let us consider a 2-hop route $r=\{j_1=j, j_2\}$. Then, the probability term is given as $$\begin{aligned} & Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r=(\bar{x}_{j},\bar{x}_{j_2})] \nonumber \\ &= \sum_{x_{j_2}=0}^C Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j,X_{j_2}=x_{j_2}; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r] \nonumber \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \times Pr[X_{j_2}=x_{j_2}\|X_j=x_j] \nonumber \\ &= \sum_{x_{j_2}=0}^{C-d_k}\pi_{j_2}(x_{j_2}) \times Pr[Z_r \geq d_k\|X_j=x_j,X_{j_2}=x_{j_2}; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r]. \end{aligned}$$ Note that the random variables $X_{j}$ and $ X_{j_2}$ are independent so $Pr[X_{j_2}=x_{j_2}\|X_j=x_j] = Pr[X_{j_2}=x_{j_2}]=\pi_{j_2}(x_{j_2})$. In general, the above term can be calculated as in [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic], for an OD pair traversing route $r=\{j_1=j, j_2, j_3,\ldots, j_l\}$ with $l$ hops, using Eq. . $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:ProbOfAcceptEON} Pr(Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r)=\!\!\!\sum_{x_{j_2}=0}^{C-d_k}\!\!\!\cdots\!\!\!\sum_{x_{j_l}=0}^{C-d_k}\!\!\!\pi_{j_2}(x_{j_2})\!\cdots\pi_{j_l}(x_{j_l})\\ \times Pr(Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j\!=\!x_j, X_{j_2}\!=\!x_{j_2},\cdots, X_{j_l}\!=\!x_{j_l}; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r)\end{gathered}$$ In Eq. , the term after multiplication is referred as the probability of acceptance of a connection path request with demand $d_k$, i.e., $p_k(\textbf{x}_r;\bar{\textbf{x}}_r)$, and it can be approximately given under various scenarios with and without SC by the Uniform, EES, and SOC approaches, as shown in Section \[sec:PoA-route\]. The expected departure rate of a class $k$ connection in a state $x_j$ is obtained by Eq. $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_k^j(x_j) &= \mu_k\times E[n_k\|X_j=x_j] \nonumber \\ &= \mu_k\times \frac{1}{\|\textbf{n}(x_j)\|}\sum_{\textbf{n}:\textbf{d}\cdot\textbf{n}^T=x_j}n_k(\textbf{n}) \label{eqn:expected departure rate}\end{aligned}$$ where $E[n_k\|X_j=x_j]$ is the expected number of class $k$ connections in the state $x_j$, which is given by assuming all $\textbf{n}$ that results into the same $x_j$ (i.e., $\textbf{n}(x_j)$) have uniform distribution $\frac{1}{\|\textbf{n}(x)\|}$, and $n_k(\textbf{n})$ is the number of class $k$ connections in $\textbf{n}$ (remember that in the reduced state model, we assumed that $\textbf{n}\equiv \textbf{n}^1=(n_1, \ldots, n_k)$). Computing Blocking in EONs {#sec:BPw/oDF} -------------------------- Before we calculate blocking probability in EONs, we need to find out the steady state link occupancy distribution $\pi(x_j), 0\leq x_j \leq C$ for all links $j \in \mathcal{J}$, which can be obtained by solving a set of global balance equations (GBEs) with a normalizing condition $\sum_{x_j=0}^C\pi(x_j)=1$ for each link $j \in \mathcal{J}$. The GBE of a microstate $X_j=x_j$ is given as $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:GBEnormalApprox} \!\!\sum_{k=1}^K \left( \alpha_k(x_j)+\gamma_k(x_j) \right)\pi(x_j)=\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{k=1, d_k \leq x_j\leq C}^K \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \alpha_k(x_j-d_k) \pi(x_j-d_k) \\ + \sum_{k=1, 0 \leq x_j\leq C-d_k}^K \!\!\!\!\!\! \gamma_k(x_j+d_k) \pi(x_j+d_k)\end{gathered}$$ where, LHS represents the output flow rate from a microstate $X_j=x_j$ taking into account the connection setup rate $\alpha_k(x_j)$ and departure of connection(s) with expected rate $\gamma_k (x_j)$, while the RHS represents input flow rate into the microstate $x_j$ from other state(s) $x_j-d_k$ ($x_j+d_k$) due to an arrival (departure) of a class $k$ connection demand of $d_k$ slices. Thus, for example, using Eq. the GBE of a microstate $x=3$ in a link in Fig. \[fig:StateTransitions\](a) can be written as $(\frac{4}{5}\lambda_1+\frac{2}{5}\lambda_2 + \mu_1)\pi(x=3)=\lambda_1 \pi(x=0)+ 2\mu_1 \pi(x=6) + \mu_2 \pi(x=7)$. Here, the LHS of the GBE of the state $x=3$ takes into the account of a 3-slice (4-slice) demand arrival in $x=3$ with effective connection setup rate $4\lambda_1/5$ ($2\lambda_2/5$), and the RHS terms are due to an arrival in $x=0$, and departures in states $x=6$ and $x=7$. The above linear equations for all microstates $0 \leq x_j \leq C$ and links $j \in \mathcal{J}$ can also be solved by the LSQR method [@paige1982lsqr] to obtain the steady state link occupancy distribution $\pi(x_j)$. Remember that the connection setup rate ($\alpha_k(x_j)$) depends on state probabilities ($\pi(x_j)$), thus an iterative procedure is required to obtain steady state link occupancy probabilities. The class $k$ blocking probability in an EON with or without SC is given by ensamble averaging over class $k$ blocking probability of all OD pair requests $o \in \mathcal{O}$ opting for respective route $r(o)$, and using Eq. , blocking probability of class $k$ bandwidth requests on an OD pair $o$ with bandwidth $d_k$ in an EON can be given as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:BPinEON} BP_k^o &= Pr[Z_r<d_k] = 1- Pr[Z_r \geq d_k] \nonumber \\ &=1- \sum_{x_j=0}^{C-d_k} Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_j=x_j; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r] \times Pr[X_j=x_j] \nonumber \\ &= 1- \sum_{x_j=0}^{C-d_k}\sum_{x_{j_2}=0}^{C-d_k}\cdots \sum_{x_{j_l}=0}^{C-d_k}(\pi_j(x_j)\pi_{j_2}(x_{j_2})\cdots \pi_{j_l}(x_{j_l}) \nonumber \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \times p_k (\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r))\end{aligned}$$ Notice that blocking probability in a single-hop (link) system is also given by Eq. by omitting $j_i, i\neq 1$ summation and related state probabilities terms, and $p_k (\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r)$ is simplified to $ p_k (x_j; \bar{x}_j)$, by setting the number of hops $l=1$ in Eqs. –. More importantly, we use Eq. to obtain approximate blocking probabilities in an EON with and without SC, by calculating $p_k (\textbf{x}_r; \bar{\textbf{x}}_r)$ separately in with and without SC operation modes. Algorithm for Computing Blocking Probabilities in EONs {#subsec:IterativeAlgo} ------------------------------------------------------ The calculation of approximate blocking probability per class per OD pair ($BP_k^o$) requires the information of steady state link occupancy probabilities ($\pi_j(x_j)$) of each traversed link of a route $r(o)$; and these probabilities $\pi_j(x_j)$ can be obtained by solving the nonlinear coupled equations in Eq. . However, these nonlinear coupled equations, which are a function of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\pi}$, could be made linear by repeated substitution or iterative procedure as follows [@kuppuswamy2009analytic]. 1) For all classes $k \in \{1, 2, \cdots, K\}$ and OD pairs $o \in \mathcal{O}$, initialize blocking probabilities $\hat{BP}_k^o=0$, and set $\alpha_k^j(\cdot)$ for each link $j \in \mathcal{J}$ as $\sum_{o: j \in r(o)} \lambda_k^o$, and $\bar{x}_j=C/2$. 2) Determine the link state occupancy distribution for valid $x_j, 0 \leqslant x_j \leqslant C$ as $\boldsymbol{\pi_j}=\left[\pi_j(x_j=0),\ldots, \pi_j(x_j=C)\right]$ for each link $j \in \mathcal{J}$ by solving $\boldsymbol{\pi_j}\cdot \boldsymbol{Q_j}=0$ and $\sum_{x_j=0}^C \pi_j(x_j)=1$ using LSQR method [@paige1982lsqr]. Here, $\boldsymbol{Q_j}$ is the transition rate matrix formed by the connection setup rates $\alpha_k^j(\cdot)$ and the expected departure rates $\gamma_k^j(\cdot)$. 3) Calculate $\bar{x}_j$ by Eq. and per-class connection setup rate $\alpha_k^j(\cdot) \forall j \in \mathcal{J}, \forall k \in \{1, 2, \cdots, K\}$ using Eq. . 4) Calculate $BP_k^o, \forall$ OD pairs $o$ and classes $k$ by Eq. . 5) If $\max_{o,k}\|\hat{BP}_k^o - BP_k^o\|<\epsilon$ then terminate. Else, let $\hat{BP}_k^o = BP_k^o$ and go to step (2). ------- ---------- ---------- -- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- App.1 App.2 RF 4.7$e$-3 4.7$e$-3 6.5$e$-3 1.9$e$-3 FF 1.7$e$-3 1.7$e$-3 8.7$e$-3 2.1$e$-3 RF-SC 4.6$e$-3 4.5$e$-3 5.1$e$-3 1.7$e$-3 FF-SC 1.7$e$-3 1.7$e$-3 6.7$e$-3 1.8$e$-3 ------- ---------- ---------- -- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- : Comparing various approximation methods.[]{data-label="my-label"} ------- ---------- -- -- -- ------- ------- -- App.1 App.2 RF 4.5$e$-4 FF 6.3$e$-6 RF-SC 1.9$e$-4 FF-SC 4.7$e$-6 ------- ---------- -- -- -- ------- ------- -- : Comparing various approximation methods.[]{data-label="my-label"} To illustrate the effectiveness of approximation approaches, we compare blocking probabilities (BPs) obtained by various approximations, including two approximations (Kaufman as App.1 and Binomial as App.2)[^3] from [@beyranvand2014analytical], under various operation modes, classes of demands, and link capacity, and validate them by exact and/or simulation results (Sim.) in a 2-link network with 3 OD pair routes (shown in Fig. \[fig:NetworkStates\]a) over which connection requests arrive according to a Poisson process. Also note that for a small scale scenario ($C=10$), in addition to exact blocking results we provide approximate blocking probability under all four scenarios (RF, FF, RF-SC, and FF-SC) using the EES and SOC approximation approaches by generating exact link states (by assuming a single traversing route) using the Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] separately for the RF and FF spectrum allocation policies. We observe that the $\textit{Uniform}$ approximation yields very high blocking probabilities in EONs with and without SC. The reason is that it ignores the spectrum fragmentation created by a given classes of demands. On the other hand, the EES approach provides good approximation for the RF policy with and without SC irrespective of the link capacity. Interestingly, the SOC approach is better than the EES approach for the FF policy, thus it can be used to estimate approximate blocking probabity under the FF policy with and without SC. As expected, the approximate (App.1) blocking probability obtained using the Kaufman link state distribution formula in [@beyranvand2014analytical] do not match any scenarios, and the Binomial approach (App.2) is a relatively better approach than the Kaufman approach for lower loads and for small scale EONs, as observed in [@beyranvand2014analytical]. Thus, to evaluate blocking probability in EONs for all scenarios, we present mainly the EES and the SOC approximations in next section. ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios (l)[2-13]{} Exact Sim. App.EES App.SOC Exact Sim. App.EES App.SOC Exact Sim. App.EES App.SOC RF 6.8$e$-3 6.8$e$-3 6.8$e$-3 2.7$e$-3 9.4$e$-2 9.4$e$-2 9.5$e$-2 6.7$e$-2 2.2$e$-1 2.2$e$-1 2.2$e$-1 1.7$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF 2.9$e$-3 2.9$e$-3 8.3$e$-3 2.8$e$-3 6.9$e$-2 6.8$e$-2 8.6$e$-2 6.4$e$-2 1.8$e$-1 1.8$e$-1 2.0$e$-1 1.7$e$-1 ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- --------- --------- (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios (l)[2-13]{} Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. app.1 app.2 Sim App.EES App.SOC (l)[1-13]{} RF 1.6$e$-3 2.3$e$-2 8.1$e$-2 1.6$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF 1.1$e$-4 7.2$e$-3 4.8$e$-2 1.2$e$-1 Scenarios RF 8.4$e$-5 3.4$e$-3 2.3$e$-2 6.5$e$-2 \[0.1cm\] FF 2.0$e$-7 1.3$e$-4 3.7$e$-3 2.4$e$-2 ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- --------- --------- Numerical and Simulation Results {#sec:evaluation} ================================ In this section, we investigate the accuracy of approximate blocking probabilities (obtained by $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$) by comparing them with the discrete event simulation results obtained in a unidirectional fiber link, a 14-node (42 links) NSF network, and a 6-node ring network. Additionally, for a small capacity fiber-link ($C=10$) we compare $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ BPs with the exact blocking results obtained by Eq. under two different spectrum allocation policies, RF and FF. Furthermore, we compare blocking in a multi-hop EON without spectrum conversion (SC) for the RF and the FF policies (simply shown as RF and FF) to the blocking obtained in the same network enabled with SC (shown as RF-SC and FF-SC). For the RF and the RF-SC scenarios, total exact link states, non-blocking, and fragmentation blocking link states are obtained by Eqs. –, and they are used in calculating probability of acceptance and BP results under $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$. On the other hand, for the FF and the FF-SC scenarios, the numbers of these link states are given by generating all valid exact link states (with a single traversing route) obtained by the Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] under the FF policy in small scale links and networks. For medium and large scale links and networks ($C>10$), finding the number of non-blocking, blocking and total exact states under the FF policy are computationally challenging, therefore, the simulation results obtained for the FF and the FF-SC scenarios are compared with approximate BPs obtained under the RF and the RF-SC, respectively. Blocking results are depicted versus offered load, which is defined as $\sum_k \sum_o \frac{\lambda_k^o}{\mu_k}$, where $o\in\mathcal{O}, k=1,2,\cdots,K$. We assume that the service (holding) times of connection requests between an OD pair are exponentially distributed with mean $1/\mu_k=1$ unit [@yu2013first; @beyranvand2014analytical], and per-class, per OD pair connection requests arrive according to a Poisson process with uniformly distributed rate $\lambda_k^o$= offered load$/(\|\mathcal{O}\|\times K)$. We compute the average BP as $\sum_k\sum_o\lambda_k^oBP^o_k/\sum_k\sum_o\lambda_k^o$, i.e., by ensemble averaging over BP of all OD pairs $o \in \mathcal{O}$ and classes $k= 1, 2, \cdots, K$. All exact and simulation results presented here consider both spectrum contiguity and spectrum continuity constraints for the RF and FF scenarios (i.e., without SC), and only contiguity constraint is considered for the RF-SC and FF-SC scenarios. We generated $10^7$ connection requests to simulate small and large scale link as well as EONs. We consider different bandwidth demands $d_k=\{3, 4, 6, 10\}$ slices in EONs, which are equivalent to lightpaths with a guardband on both sides and supporting different bit rates:10, 40, 100 and 400 gigabit per second (Gb/s) using different modulation formats $M=2$ (e.g., QPSK) and $M=4$ (e.g., DP-QPSK), and slice width granularity is 12.5 GHz [@singh2017analytical; @singh2017efficient]. Link Model ---------- Note that for a unidirectional link only one OD pair exists, thus $\lambda_k= \lambda_k^o=$ offered load$/K$. Table \[table:linkresults\] presents exact (denoted by Exact), verifying simulation (Sim.) and approximate ($App.EES$ and $App.SOC$) BPs in a link with different link capacities and set of demands for various offered loads. In a small scale scenario, $C=10, d_k=\{3, 4\}$ slices, it can be seen that verifying simulation results are very close to the exact results, thus in a large scale link or EONs where the exact solution is intractable, simulation results can be used to verify the approximate solutions. From Table \[table:linkresults\] we observe that approximate BP results obtained by $App.EES$ are also very close to the exact solutions under both RF and FF spectrum allocation policies. Interestingly, unlike the RF policy, BPs obtained by $App.SOC$ in the FF policy is even closer to the exact BPs than that of $App.EES$. This is due the fact that the variance of exact state probabilities is much higher in the FF policy (see Fig. \[fig:varianceSP\]), and unlike $App.EES$, $App.SOC$ tries to consider spectrum occupancy correlation by assigning higher acceptance probability for non-blocking states for lower occupancy states ($x < \bar{x}$) using the average occupied slices parameter ($\bar{x}$). Furthermore, as expected, BP under the FF policy is lower than that of RF due to the lower spectrum fragmentation [@rosa2015statistical; @singh2016defragmentation], thus it is suitable in large scale links or networks where the goal is to increase the number of served connections. However, computing approximate yet accurate BPs under the FF policy is not easy. Nevertheless, in the medium and large scale links ($C=100$ and $C=200$), we obtain BPs in $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ by computing probability of acceptance in Eqs. and , respectively using Eqs. –, and show the simulations obtained under the RF policy and the FF policy separately. We see that BPs given by $App.EES$ can be treated as approximate BPs for the RF policy, and $App.SOC$ for the FF policy, since BPs obtained by $App.SOC$ are very close to BPs given by simulation results under the FF policy. Additionally, we observe that the approximate BPs deviate for a large scale link ($C=200$) under lower offered loads. The reason is that approximate BPs involve numerical computation, e.g., $\binom n k$, and for a larger $n$ (w.r.t. $k$), the computation is slightly error prone even in a powerful mathematical software (e.g., Matlab), and also due to the fact that at lower loads all possible link states in a large capacity link could not be sufficiently visited even simulating with large number of events, so simulation results might also not be very accurate. In Table \[table:runTime\] we present computational run time of the exact and approximate solutions, which are obtained on a PC with Intel 6-core i7 3.20 GHz processor with 32 GB RAM. We observe that the run times for the exact and approximate solutions are nearly same for both RF and FF spectrum allocation policies in a link with smaller capacity ($C=10$). However, when capacity of the link increases to $C=20$, finding exact solutions becomes extremely time and resource (memory) consuming and increases exponentially with respect to capacity $C$. On the other hand, the $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ solutions under the RF policy takes only a fraction of seconds for $C=20$, and a few seconds for $C=100$ and $C=200$. Interestingly, $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ solutions for the FF policy is also possible to obtain by generating all possible exact states using the Algorithm \[algo:ExactNetStates\] for capacity $C=20$, but it is time consuming. Also note that BP obtained by $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ for multi-hop EONs with and without SC depends on various factors, including number of OD pair routes, number of links, link capacity, and traffic classes. ------------ ------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- (l)[2-7]{} Exact App.EES App.SOC Exact App.EES App.SOC RF 0.123 0.131 0.163 13971.6 0.369 1.021 FF 0.125 0.134 0.173 1746.7 1717.3 1719.5 \[0.1cm\] ------------ ------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- : The computational run time of different solutions (in seconds) []{data-label="table:runTime"} App.EES (RF) App.SOC (RF) ----------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- $C=100, d_k=\{3,4,6\}$ 6.432 7.058 \[0.2cm\] $C=200, d_k=\{4,6,10\}$ 40.40 40.92 [@ccccccccccccc@]{} &\ (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios & & & &\ (l)[2-13]{} & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim & App.EES & App.SOC\ (l)[1-13]{} RF & 3.9$e$-4 & 9.8$e$-4 & 3.5$e$-5 & 3.3$e$-3 & 6.6$e$-3 & 1.1$e$-3 & 8.4$e$-3 & 1.5$e$-2 & 4.0$e$-3 & 1.1$e$-1 & 1.3$e$-1 & 8.6$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] FF & 2.6$e$-5 & 1.5$e$-3 & 4.6$e$-5 & 9.6$e$-4 & 9.4$e$-3 & 1.3$e$-3 & 3.7$e$-3 & 1.9$e$-2 & 4.5$e$-3 & 8.1$e$-2 & 1.2$e$-1 & 8.1$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] RF-SC & 3.6$e$-4 & 4.8$e$-4 & 2.4$e$-5 & 3.0$e$-3 & 4.1$e$-3 & 8.0$e$-4 & 7.4$e$-3 & 1.1$e$-2 & 3.0$e$-3 & 9.2$e$-2 & 1.3$e$-1 & 7.1$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] FF-SC & 2.3$e$-5 & 7.8$e$-4 & 2.7$e$-5 & 8.9$e$-4 & 5.1$e$-3 & 8.6$e$-4 & 3.5$e$-3 & 1.1$e$-2 & 3.2$e$-3 & 7.3$e$-2 & 9.7$e$-2 & 6.9$e$-2\ ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios (l)[2-13]{} Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim App.EES App.SOC (l)[1-13]{} RF 4.8$e$-3 3.6$e$-2 8.9$e$-2 1.5$e$-1 \[0.1cm\]FF 5.6$e$-4 1.6$e$-2 6.3$e$-2 1.2$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] RF-SC 1.4$e$-3 1.5$e$-2 5.1$e$-2 1.0$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF-SC 3.1$e$-4 9.1$e$-3 3.9$e$-2 8.5$e$-2 RF 5.3$e$-4 9.3$e$-3 3.6$e$-2 7.5$e$-2 \[0.1cm\] FF 2.6$e$-6 7.8$e$-4 1.0$e$-2 3.8$e$-2 \[0.1cm\] RF-SC 1.1$e$-4 2.8$e$-3 1.5$e$-2 3.8$e$-2 \[0.1cm\] FF-SC 2.5$e$-6 4.8$e$-4 6.2$e$-3 2.3$e$-2 ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- Network Model ------------- Firstly, we consider a well known 14-node NSFNET topology with 42 unidirectional links and all possible OD pairs routes ($\|\mathcal{O}\|=182$) over which connection requests arrive according to a Poisson process. Table \[table:NSFresults\] presents the BP results using $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ and verifying simulations in for a 14-node NSFNET under various scenarios. Similar to a single-hop system, here $App.EES$ BPs are very close to Sim. BPs under the RF policy, and interestingly $App.SOC$ BPs are closer to Sim. BPs for the FF policy. On a closer look, we can observe that $App.SOC$ BPs under the RF policy is also very close to the Sim. BPs under the FF policy. This is very helpful in obtaining approximate BPs under the FF policies without the need to generate valid exact states for medium and large scale networks. For the medium and large-scale scenarios in Table \[table:NSFresults\], we see the similar trend, as observed in the link scenario, the $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ BPs are close to Sim. BPs under the RF and the FF policies, respectively. However, again, in a large scale EON ($C=200$) $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ BPs could differ with the simulation results for lower loads. When the network allows the SC operation at intermediate nodes, we observe that BP reduces considerably under the RF-SC scenarios, as compare to the RF operation mode, i.e., without SC. The reason is that RF policy tries to assign random continuous and contiguous free slices to a new request, and with SC, the continuity constraint is relaxed when it does not find the required aligned free consecutive slice over a route. However, the FF-SC operation still offers the lowest BPs as compare to other scenarios. Similar to the RF and the FF, the approximate BPs in RF-SC and the FF-SC operations can also be obtained by $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$, respectively, and they also seem to be very close to the Sim. results for various loads and link capacities. [@ccccccccccccc@]{} &\ (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios & & & &\ (l)[2-13]{} & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim. & App.EES & App.SOC & Sim & App.EES & App.SOC\ (l)[1-13]{} RF & 1.0$e$-3 & 2.3$e$-3 & 2.2$e$-4 & 1.1$e$-2 & 1.8$e$-2 & 6.6$e$-3 & 3.0$e$-2 & 4.3$e$-2 & 2.3$e$-2 & 7.9$e$-2 & 1.0$e$-1 & 6.8$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] FF & 1.7$e$-4 & 3.5$e$-3 & 2.8$e$-4 & 5.5$e$-3 & 2.2$e$-2 & 7.1$e$-3 & 1.9$e$-2 & 4.7$e$-2 & 2.3$e$-2 & 5.8$e$-2 & 9.7$e$-2 & 6.4$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] RF-SC & 9.8$e$-4 & 1.3$e$-3 & 1.6$e$-4 & 1.0$e$-2 & 1.2$e$-2 & 5.2$e$-3 & 2.7$e$-2 & 3.3$e$-2 & 1.8$e$-2 & 7.2$e$-2 & 8.5$e$-2 & 5.7$e$-2\ \[0.1cm\] FF-SC & 1.7$e$-4 & 2.0$e$-3 & 1.8$e$-4 & 5.3$e$-3 & 1.5$e$-2 & 5.3$e$-3 & 1.8$e$-2 & 3.4$e$-2 & 1.8$e$-2 & 5.5$e$-2 & 7.9$e$-2 & 5.5$e$-2\ ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- (l)[2-13]{} Scenarios (l)[2-13]{} Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim. App.EES App.SOC Sim App.EES App.SOC (l)[1-13]{} RF 1.9$e$-2 1.4$e$-1 2.5$e$-1 3.4$e$-1 \[0.1cm\]FF 5.8$e$-3 1.1$e$-1 2.3$e$-1 3.2$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] RF-SC 6.5$e$-3 1.0$e$-1 2.2$e$-1 3.3$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF-SC 2.6$e$-3 8.9$e$-2 2.0$e$-1 3.1$e$-1 RF 4.2$e$-3 7.4$e$-2 1.6$e$-1 2.4$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF 7.8$e$-5 4.2$e$-2 1.2$e$-1 2.0$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] RF-SC 6.3$e$-4 4.6$e$-2 1.3$e$-1 2.2$e$-1 \[0.1cm\] FF-SC 2.7$e$-5 2.6$e$-2 1.0$e$-1 1.8$e$-1 ----------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- Finally, we present approximate and verifying simulation BP results in Table \[table:RingResults\] for a 6-node ring topology with 5 bidirectional links, and with all possible OD pairs routes ($\|\mathcal{O}\|=30$) over which connection path requests arrive according to a Poisson process. Since we route an OD pair request over its shortest path, each of 5 unidirectional (clockwise) links shares 6 OD routes, and each of other 5 unidirectional (anti-clockwise) links shares 3 OD pair routes. Thus, as noted in [@sridharan2004blocking], a ring topology as a sparse network is well suited for verifying the accuracy of approximate BP approaches. We observe that $App.EES$ and $App.SOC$ BPs obtained under the RF and FF operations with and without SC, respectively are acceptable, as they are closer to the simulation results under varying conditions, including link capacities, demands and traffic loads. SC operation is indeed useful in reducing blocking under the RF policy for lower and medium loads. Also, the similar trend is depicted at very low load in a large scale ring network, i.e., approximate BPs could be lower than the simulation results. However, we can not say for surety whether approximate BPs obtained for both NSFNET and the ring network are underestimated or overestimated, due to different effects of the independence model and the reduced load approximation. Nevertheless, irrespective of the loads, classes of demands, and link capacity, $App.EES$ ($App.SOC$) can be used for obtaining BPs under the RF and RF-SC (FF and FF-SC) operations. As both RF and FF policies have some advantages and disadvantages, e.g., FF is preferable for lower blocking, whereas RF is suitable for load balancing, security and lower level of crosstalk in space-division-multiplexing-enabled EONs [@fujii2014demand; @singh2017combined]. Thus both policies can be made useful for deployment of new services. In summary, we can say that $App.EES$ can be used by network operator to estimate BP in EONs with or without SC under the RF policy, and $App.SOC$ for the FF policy. Nevertheless, the accuracy of approximate blocking probability could be further improved by utilizing a more accurate probability of acceptance of a request in EONs without SC, and considering the link correlation model used in WDM networks [@sridharan2004blocking], which is relatively complex compared to the link independence model but essential to analyze the effect of correlation of loads among links under different spectrum allocation policies in a network. At the same time, the scalability of load and link correlation models could be a major issue that needs to be worked on in the future. Conclusions {#sec:conclusion} =========== In this paper, we proposed the first exact Markov model for analyzing blocking probability in EONs, and subsequently the related methods to reducing the exact link state occupancy model into a reduced occupancy model to computing approximate blocking. More in detail, we presented load-independent and load-dependent approximations to compute the probability of acceptance of a request in EONs with and without spectrum conversion, considering bandwidth demands, contiguity constraint and continuity constraint. These approximations use the information of the number of non-blocking and blocking exact states corresponding to an occupancy state, which we derive for a random-fit assignment policy using inclusion-exclusion principle. Additionally, approximate BPs are presented for cases with and without spectrum conversion under random-fit and first-fit spectrum allocation policies. The numerical results obtained show that the exact blocking analysis is accurate, albeit limited to a very small scale EONs, due to complexity. On the other hand, approximate solutions have been shown accurate in a broader range of scenarios. It was shown in fact that the accuracy of the approximation methods proposed depend on the various factors, such as the spectrum allocation policies, link capacity, traffic loads, and topology. The next steps in this line of work include major challenges that have not been solved yet, and are analytically rather complex, most notably the interdependency of network link loads. Derivation of total, Non-blocking and Blocking Exact Link States Under the RF Policy {#sec:Appendix1} ==================================================================================== Without loss of generality, let us assume that there are $\mathrm{r}$ number of routes $o=1,\ldots, \mathrm{r}$ traversing a link under consideration. For a given microstate $x, 0\leq x\leq C$, where the number of empty (free) slices $E(x)=C-x$, we can find connection patterns or macrostates (i.e., connections per class per route) $\textbf{n}=(n_1^1,\ldots,, n_K^1,\ldots, n_1^\mathrm{r},\ldots, n_K^\mathrm{r})$ that satisfies $\textbf{n}\cdot\textbf{d}_\mathrm{r}^T=x$, where $T$ is transpose, and $\textbf{d}_\mathrm{r}=(d_1^1,\ldots,d_K^1,\ldots,d_1^\mathrm{r},\ldots,d_K^\mathrm{r})$ is an array with $r \times K$ elements, and by definition for all routes $o$, $d_k^o=d_k$. Now, for each connection pattern $\textbf{n}=(n_1^1,\ldots, n_K^1,\ldots, n_1^\mathrm{r},\ldots, n_K^\mathrm{r})$, the $E(x)$ empty slices can be distributed at $N(\textbf{n})+1$ places (including the start, end, and in between each two connections), where the total number of connections $N(\textbf{n})= \sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{o=1}^\mathrm{r} n_k^o(\textbf{n})$. Noting that there are $\frac{N(\textbf{n})!}{\prod_{k=1}^K\prod_{o=1}^rn_k^o(\textbf{n})!}$ distinct permutations of connections in $\textbf{n}$, and there are $\binom{E(x)+N(\textbf{n})}{N(\textbf{n})}$ different ways to distribute $E(x)$ empty slices at $N(\textbf{n})+1$ places in each unique permutation of $\textbf{n}$, the number of exact states with all connection patterns representing a microstate occupancy $x$ is, thus, given by $$\|\Omega_S(x)\| = \sum_{\textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)}\frac{N(\textbf{n})!}{\prod_{k=1}^K\prod_{o=1}^\mathrm{r}n_k^o(\textbf{n})!}\times\binom{E(x)+N(\textbf{n})}{N(\textbf{n})}. \nonumber$$ Importantly, only some of the exact link states ($\textbf{s} \in \Omega_S(x) $) are non-blocking states, as defined in Eq. . To compute the number of non-blocking exact link states, let us solve the following equation for each permutation of the connection pattern for all $\textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)$: $$a_1 + a_2 +\cdots + a_{N(\textbf{n})+1} = E(x), s.t., \exists i: a_i \geq d_k \nonumber$$ Using the inclusion-exclusion principle (hint: consider an event $A_i= \{a_i\geq d_k\}, 1\leq i \leq N(\textbf{n})+1$ and find $\|\cup_{i}A_i\|$), the number of non-blocking exact states corresponding to each permutation of connections in $\textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)$ can be given by $$W(\textbf{n}) = \sum_{i=1}^{N(\textbf{n})+1} (-1)^{i+1} \binom{N(\textbf{n})+1}{i} \binom{E(x)+N(\textbf{n})-id_k}{N(\textbf{n})}. \nonumber$$ Now, considering all permutations of $\textbf{n}$, and adding all non-blocking states corresponding to each $\textbf{n}$ belonging to the microstate $x$ would result in the number of class $k$ non-blocking exact states for a given microstate $x$, given by $$\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|= \sum_{ \textbf{n} \in \Omega_S(x)}W(\textbf{n})\times \frac{N(\textbf{n})!}{\prod_{k=1}^K\prod_{o=1}^\mathrm{r}n_k^o(\textbf{n})!}. \nonumber$$ Noting that for a class $k$ request in any occupancy state $x$, $\|\Omega_S(x)\|= \|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|+\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|+\|\mathbb{RB}(x,k)\|$, the number of fragmentation blocking exact states in a microstate $x, 0\leq x \leq C-d_k$ is $\|\mathbb{FB}(x,k)\|=\|\Omega_S(x)\|-\|\mathbb{NB}(x,k)\|$, since $\|\mathbb{RB}(x,k)\|=0$. On the other hand, all exact states representing a microstate $x, C-d_k < x \leq C$ are resource blocking states for class $k$ request, i.e., $\|\mathbb{RB}(x,k)\|=\|\Omega_S(x)\|$, and the number of non-blocking and fragmentation blocking exact states are both zero. Uniform Approximation for Computing Probability of Acceptance {#sec:Appendix2} ============================================================= In this Appendix, we derive an analytical expression for computing approximate probability of acceptance $p_k(\textbf{x}_r)\equiv p_k(x_{j_1},x_{j_2},\ldots, x_{j_l})= Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_{j}=x_{j_1},\ldots, X_{j_l}=x_{j_l}]$ on an $l$-hop route in an EON using a Uniform approach. Considering the independence link assumption, we further assume that the occupancy of slices are independent and identically distributed in each link. This means that total occupied slices are uniformly distributed, i.e., the spectrum patterns are formed by a single slice-demand with a given total occupancy, without considering the contiguous allocation of slices, and are not restricted to the spectrum patterns generated by a given classes of demands and spectrum allocation policy. Now, for a given occupancy of links on a route $r$, the probability that there are $n$ continuous (but not necessarily contiguous) free slices on its route is obtained by the following recursive relationship [@birman1996computing; @kuppuswamy2009analytic]: $$\begin{aligned} g_n(x_{j_1},x_{j_2},\cdots, x_{j_l}) = Pr[Z_r = n\|X_{j_1}=x_{j_1},\cdots, X_{j_l}=x_{j_l}] & \nonumber \\ = \sum_{i=n}^{i^}g_n(C-i, x_{j_l}) g_i(x_{j_1}, x_{j_2},\cdots, x_{j_{l-1}}) &\end{aligned}$$ where $i^=min(C- x_{j_1}, C-x_{j_2},\cdots, C-x_{j_{l-1}})$ and $g_n(x, y)= \binom{C-x}{n}\binom{x}{C-y-n}/\binom{C}{C-y}$. Now, we could find the probability that the route $r$ has equal or more than $d_k$ free contiguous slices $\{Z_r\geq d_k\}$ across links on its route, given the link occupancy vector $\textbf{x}_r$ and also there are exactly $n$ continuous free slices on the route with $\{X_r=n\}$, i.e., $p_k^{Uni.}(\textbf{x}_r, n)= Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_{j_1}=x_{j_1},\cdots, X_{j_l}=x_{j_l}, X_r=n]$. Using the inclusion-exclusion principle, it can be given by $$p_k^{Uni.}(\textbf{x}_r, n) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{C-n+1} (-1)^{i+1} \binom{C-n+1}{i}\binom{C-id_k}{C-n}}{\binom{C}{n}}.$$ The above equation seems to be independent of $\textbf{x}_r$, but actually a factor which is a function of $\textbf{x}_r$ is multiplied in both numerator and denominator, thus cancels the effect of $\textbf{x}_r$. Thus, $p_k^{Uni.}(\textbf{x}_r) = Pr[Z_r\geq d_k\|X_{j_1}=x_{j_1},\cdots, X_{j_l}=x_{j_l}]$ can be given as follows. $$p_k^{Uni.}(\textbf{x}_r) =\sum_{n=d_k}^{min(C- \textbf{x}_r)} p_k(\textbf{x}_r, n)g_n(\textbf{x}_r) \label{eqn:p_k_x_uniform}$$ Under the Uniform approximation, the probability of acceptance in EONs with SC can easily be given by using Eq. . Noting that the spectrum patterns are assumed to be created by a single slice demand in the Uniform approximation. Thus, the probability that a link $j$ in state $x_{j}$ have equal or more than $d_k$ free consecutive slices can be given by the ratio of non-blocking and total exact states in $x_{j}$ as follows, which uses $\textbf{n}=(n_1)=(x_j)$ and $N(\textbf{n})=x_{j}$ in Eqs. and . $$p_{k,sc}^{Uni.}(x_{j}) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{x_{j}+1} (-1)^{i+1} \binom{x_{j}+1}{i} \binom{C-id_k}{x_{j}}}{\binom{C}{x_{j}}}$$ Finally, the probability of acceptance of a request with demand $d_k$ on a route $r(o)$ with $l$-hops in an EON with SC can be obtain by multiplying link acceptance probabilities ($p_{k,sc}^{Uni.}(x_{j})$) on the route $r(o)$, as shown by Eq. . [^1]: The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig 38106, Germany (e-mail: {sandeep.singh, a.jukan}@tu-bs.de). This paper is under submission, and uploaded here only for comments and suggestions, and not for any commercial use. [^2]: Note that the RF-SC (FF-SC) tries to first allocate a multi-hop connection $(o,k)$ over a random (first) set of contiguous and continuous free slices, and when the required free slices are not aligned over the route $r(o)$ then the continuity constraint is relaxed for the allocation. The reason is that an SC operation should help in reducing blocking, and we observe that while allocating spectrum in a state that has sufficient required continuous and continuous free slices, if non-aligned contiguous slices are selected then blocking may become higher (especially in RF-SC) than without SC scenario. [^3]: In [@beyranvand2014analytical], App.1 BP is obtained by Eq. 16 (page 1627), and for App.2, using a slice occupancy probability $\rho$=$\frac{1}{C}\sum_{j=0}^Cjg(j)$ (Eq. 18), the probability of acceptance terms ($f(C,i)$) in Eqs. 17 and 21 [@beyranvand2014analytical] are correctly given in [@peng2013theoretical].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Deep spectropolarimetric observations, obtained with the Very Large Telescope (VLT), are presented for two powerful radio galaxies, 0850–206 (z=1.3373) and 1303+091 (z=1.4093). These observations cover the rest-frame wavelength range $\sim$1450–3750Å. New radio observations and continuum images of the same sources are also presented. These galaxies are the first two observed from a complete sample of nine radio sources with redshifts in the range 1.3$\le$z$\le$1.5 (selected from the equatorial sample of powerful radio sources of Best, R[ö]{}ttgering & Lehnert), as part of a project aimed to investigate the multi-component nature of the UV continuum in radio galaxies and, in particular, any variations of the continuum properties with the radio source age. The larger radio source of the two, 0850–206, presents a high continuum fractional polarization, averaging 17 per cent across the observed wavelength range and reaching 24 per cent at rest-frame wavelengths of ${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}$2000Å. The smaller radio source, 1303+091, shows a lower continuum polarization, averaging 8 per cent and rising to 11 per cent for rest-frame wavelengths ${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$3000Å. For both galaxies, the position angle of the electric vector is generally constant with wavelength and within $\sim$15$^{\circ}$ of perpendicular to the radio axis. Both their total flux spectra and polarized flux spectra reveal the 2200Å dust feature, and comparison with dust scattering models suggests that the composition of the dust in these galaxies is similar to that of Galactic dust. In 0850–206, scattered quasar radiation dominates the UV continuum emission, with the nebular continuum accounting for no more than $\sim$22 per cent and no requirement for any additional emission component such as emission from young stars. By contrast, in 1303+091, unpolarized radiation could be a major constituent of the UV continuum emission, with starlight accounting for up to $\sim$50 per cent and the nebular continuum accounting for $\sim$11 per cent. The emission-line properties of the galaxies are also studied from their total intensity spectra. Comparison of the measured emission-line ratios with both shock- and photo-ionization models shows that the nuclear and extended gas in these galaxies is mainly photoionized by the central active nucleus. author: - \| C. Solórzano-Iñarrea$^{1}$[^1], P. N. Best$^{1}$, H. J. A. Röttgering$^{2}$ and A. Cimatti$^{3}$\ $^{1}$Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK\ $^{2}$Sterrewacht Leiden, Postbus 9513, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands\ $^{3}$Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi 5, 50125 Firenze, Italy bibliography: - 'reference.bib' nocite: - '[@best99b]' - '[@dey97]' - '[@cimatti97]' - '[@thesisvernet2001]' - '[@cimatti94]' - '[@bruzual2003]' - '[@di-serego89; @di-serego93; @di-serego96; @cimatti93; @cimatti96; @cimatti97]' title: 'VLT spectropolarimetry of two powerful radio galaxies at z$\sim$1.4: UV continuum, emission-line properties and the nature of high-redshift dust' --- galaxies: active — galaxies: ISM — polarization — scattering — galaxies: evolution — radio continuum: galaxies — galaxies: emission lines. Introduction ============ The galaxies associated with powerful extragalactic radio sources are uniquely important for understanding the physics of active galactic nuclei (AGN) and for studying the relationship between radio source activity and the properties of the host galaxy and its environment. Powerful distant radio galaxies are thought to be the progenitors of present day, giant ellipticals (e.g. ). However, compared with normal elliptical galaxies, powerful radio galaxies at z${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$0.6 show enhanced optical/UV continuum and line emission, which is generally elongated and aligned along the radio axis (e.g. ). The emission-line structures usually extend large distances from the nucleus (5$\sim$100 kpc; e.g. ); the properties of these extended emission-line regions (EELR) can be greatly influenced by shocks resulting from interactions between the radio source structures and the interstellar/intergalactic medium (ISM/IGM) (e.g. ). Interestingly, the emission-line properties of a sample of z$\sim$1 radio galaxies have been found to evolve strongly as the radio source passes through the host galaxy [@best2000b]: large radio sources (${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$150 kpc) show quiescent ‘rotation-dominated’ velocity profiles and ionization states in agreement with AGN-illumination, while smaller radio sources present highly distorted kinematic profiles and overall ionizations consistent with being shock-dominated. As for the optical/UV continuum excess observed in radio galaxies, several different mechanisms are known to contribute to it (e.g. ), but the relative extent of their contributions remains uncertain. A popular early interpretation for this UV excess was recent star formation, induced by the passage of the radio jet through the ISM of the host galaxy or by merger events linked to the radio source triggering (e.g. ). Jet-induced star formation has been shown to be feasible in numerical simulations (e.g. ). Also, stellar absorption features characteristic of OB stars have been observed inthe radiogalaxy 4C41.17 at z=3.8 (Dey et al.1997). The detection of polarized continuum and polarized broad permitted emission lines in some radio galaxies (e.g. ) suggested that light emitted anisotropically by a hidden quasar nucleus and scattered towards us by dust or electrons in the ISM of the radio galaxy [@tadhunter88; @fabian89] also makes an important contribution to the UV light. This is favoured by orientation-based unified schemes for radio sources [@barthel89], according to which radio galaxies and quasars are drawn from the same parent population but viewed from different angles to the line of sight, with the AGN in radio galaxies obscured by a surrounding dusty torus. Spectropolarimetric studies of a small number of radio galaxies at z$\sim$1 have shown that the polarized emission is spatially extended, with the electric vector oriented perpendicular to the UV continuum emission at all wavelengths, and that, while the permitted MgII2800 emission line is observed to be broad in polarized light, none of the narrow lines shows significant polarization (e.g. , 1997). These results clearly show that the origin of the polarization is scattered quasar light. More recent spectropolarimetric studies of a sample of radio galaxies at z$\sim$2.5 [@vernet2001] have shed light on the nature of the scattering material. These studies show indications of a continuum upturn beyond 2200Å in the composite spectrum of the galaxies in the sample, which is interpreted as a possible detection of the 2200Ådust feature, indicating that the scattering medium is dust. However, caution must be taken because, due to the high redshift of their sample, those wavelengths are redshifted into a region of strong sky lines. Together with the young stellar and scattered AGN components, other processes known to contribute to the UV continuum excess in some sources are nebular continuum emitted by the extended emission-line gas [@dickson95] and direct AGN light [@shaw95]. As with the emission-line gas, some properties of the continuum emission in radio galaxies are observed to vary with radio source size: smaller sources show strings of bright knots aligned along the radio axis, and larger sources present more compact nebulae with fewer bright components [@best96]. Do the contributions of the different components to the UV excess also evolve over the radio source lifetime? For instance, a large variation is seen in the strengths, and to a lesser extent colours, of the polarized emission in radio galaxies. Is this linked to the radio source size? Such questions cannot be answered by existing spectropolarimetric data, because targets were generally selected on the basis of previously detected polarization in imaging observations, an interesting UV morphology or an ultra-steep radio spectrum, making the samples studied biased or incomplete. To remedy this and address many of the issues raised above, such as the nature of the scatterers at high redshift and the variation with radio source size of the different contributions to the UV excess, we have begun a programme to make deep spectropolarimetric observations of a [complete]{} sample of nine radio galaxies with redshifts in the range 1.3$\le$z$\le$1.5 and a wide range in radio sizes. In this paper we present the observations of the first two galaxies from the sample. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the selection criteria of our sample are described. Section 3 contains the details of the observations, data reduction and analysis. The results are presented in Sections 4 and 5. Discussion of the results follows in Section 6. Summary and conclusions are provided in Section 7. Throughout this paper values of the cosmological parameters of H$_{0}$=65kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}$=0.3 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7 are assumed. Sample selection ================ The sources of our full sample comprise all radio galaxies from the equatorial sample of powerful radio sources of [^2], with redshifts in the range 1.3$\le$z$\le$1.5. The redshift range was chosen to be low enough to allow good S/N, but also sufficiently high to ensure that the rest-frame wavelengths studied ($\sim$1400–3800Å) allowed to search for features in the dust scattering cross-section around 2200Å, as well as stellar absorption lines, such as SiIII1417, SV1502 and NIV1720. Further, this wavelength range covers the HeII1640 emission line, which can be used as a replacement for the Balmer lines to derive the amount of nebular continuum emission. Our sample also includes sources with a wide range of radio sizes, from $\sim$ 10 to 400kpc, in order to investigate variations of the emission-line and continuum properties with the radio source age. The results obtained from the first two sources observed from our sample are presented in this paper. Properties of these two sources are listed in Table \[proptab\]. Observations, data reduction and analysis ========================================= VLT observations ---------------- Optical imaging and spectropolarimetric observations were carried out on the 8.2-m ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) Antu (UT1) at Paranal (Chile) on the nights of 2000 January 31 and February 1. The imaging spectrograph FORS1 was used in both direct imaging (IMG) and multi-object spectropolarimetry (PMOS) modes together with the Tek 2048$\times$2048 CCD, which provides a spatial scale of 0.2 arcsecpixel$^{-1}$. Observations were made under good seeing conditions, averaging 0.5 arcsec and 0.7 arcsec for the two nights, respectively. The first night was clear, but part of the second night was non-photometric. Details of the observations are presented in Tables \[vltimgtab\] and \[vltspecpoltab\]. ### Optical imaging Imaging observations were made through the broad-band filters V\_BESS+35 for 0850–206, and I\_BESS+37 for both 0850–206 and 1303+091. The reduction of the imaging data was performed using standard tasks within the [IRAF]{} software package, following the usual steps. The bias was first subtracted and then the images were flat-fielded using sky flats. Photometric calibration was achieved by using observations of the photometric standard stars PG0231+051 and PG1323–086 taken during the nights. The Johnson photometric magnitudes, measured through 2- and 4-arcsec diameter apertures, are given in Table \[vltimgtab\]. ### Optical spectropolarimetry The grism GRIS\_300V was used for the spectropolarimetric observations, providing a spectral dispersion of approximately 2.6 Åpixel$^{-1}$. For the source 0850–206 a 1.4-arcsec slit was oriented along the axis defined by the position of optical objects, which is misaligned by approximately 35$^{\circ}$ with the radio axis \[see Fig. \[vradalpha0850\] (left)\]. In the case of 1303+091, a 1-arcsec slit was oriented parallel to the radio axis \[see Fig. \[iradalpha1303\] (left)\]. Note that the imaging spectrograph FORS has a compensator that corrects for atmospheric dispersion. Four sets of observations were made for each source (two sets on each night), each set consisting of four exposures with the half-wave plate position angle rotated to 0$^{\circ}$, 22$^{\circ}$.5, 45$^{\circ}$ and 67$^{\circ}$.5, consecutively. 0850–206 was observed in three sets of four 1350s exposures and one set of four 900s exposures, with a total integration time of 5.5hr. 1303+091 was observed in two sets of four 1350s, one set of four 900s and one set of three 1150s (the 67$^{\circ}$.5 exposure was lost due to instrument problems), making a total integration time of nearly 5hr. The last two sets of 1303+091 were carried out in non-photometric conditions. The reduction of the spectropolarimetric data was performed using [IRAF]{} in the following way. The frames were first bias-subtracted and then flat-fielded using lamp flats taken through the same optics used in the source and star frames. After removing cosmic-ray events, the different exposures for the same half-wave plate positions were combined for each source. In the case of 1303+091, appropriate weights and scales were applied to account for the non-photometric conditions in which this source was observed during the second night. One-dimensional spectra, with identical aperture widths for the ordinary (o) and extraordinary (e) rays for each of the four half-wave plate orientations, were then extracted. The wavelength calibration was performed using He, HgCd and Ar arc lamps. After that, o- and e-rays were resampled to the same linear spectral dispersion, in order to calculate the polarization over identical spectral bins. The data were then binned, and all eight one-dimensional spectra were combined to determine the Stokes parameters I, Q and U for each galaxy, using the procedures described in Vernet (2001; see also ), which are based on the method outlined in . Observations of polarized (HD245310 and HD111579) and unpolarized (HD64299 and HD94851) standard stars [@turnshek90; @schmidt92] were taken in order to check and calibrate the instrumental polarization and the position angle zero-point offset. Flux calibration was provided by observations of the spectrophotometric standard stars Feige24 and G163–50. The atmospheric extinction correction was achieved by using the extinction curve of La Silla Observatory, since no suitable data for Paranal are available. No second-order filter was used in these observations, but instead the polarized standard star HD245310 was observed both with and without the GG435 filter, which blocks the light below 4200Å, to estimate the effects of any second-order blue light. Residual second-order light, which only affects the spectral region with $\lambda$${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$7000Å, was found to be very low. In addition, the continuum polarization of the star HD245310 was derived for both sets of observations (with and without filter), and it was found that it did not vary in any significant way. Thus, any contamination by second-order blue light does not affect the conclusions of this paper. For the analysis of the total flux spectra, the two-dimensional frames of the o- and e-rays were first corrected for any distortion along the spectral direction, using the Starlink [FIGARO]{} package, and then summed. After that, one-dimensional spectra were extracted, and then analysed using the Starlink [DIPSO]{} spectral analysis package. Emission-line fluxes, velocity shifts and linewidths (FWHM) were obtained by Gaussian fitting of the emission-line profiles. The measured linewidths were corrected for the spectral resolution of the instrument via Gaussian deconvolution. The instrumental resolution was measured from night-sky lines and arc lines, and is listed in Table \[vltspecpoltab\]. The total intensity spectra, emission-line fluxes and ratios have been corrected for Galactic reddening using the extinction curve from and values of colour excess ${\rm E_{B-V}}$ from NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED; see Table \[proptab\]). Radio observations ------------------ New radio observations of all nine sources in the spectropolarimetric sample were carried out using the Very Large Array radio interferometer. Each source was observed using the A-array configuration at both 8.5 and 4.7GHz frequencies, mapping both the total intensity and polarization properties. Sources larger than 10 arcsec in angular extent were additionally mapped using the B-array configuration in order to provide sensitivity to the extended structures. Full details of all of these observations will be provided elsewhere (Best et al., in prep.). Here, only the total intensity data for 0850–206 and 1303+091 are considered, to compare the radio properties with the spectropolarimetric and imaging data and to use the radio spectral index information to locate the radio cores. Details of the observations of these two sources are provided in Table \[raddatatab\]. Data reduction for both sources followed the standard procedures of [CLEAN]{}ing and self-calibration within the [AIPS]{} package (e.g. see ). 8.5GHz total intensity maps were made at full angular resolution ($\approx$ 0.3 arcsec), with rms noise levels of 22$\mu$Jy. Maps were also made at lower angular resolutions matching those of the 4.7GHz data (0.45 arcsec for 1303+091; 0.67 by 0.45 arcsec for 0850–206), by weighting down the outer regions of the UV-plane. These matched-resolution 8.5GHz and 4.7GHz maps were aligned and combined to produce a radio spectral index map of each source. Registration of the radio and optical images -------------------------------------------- The optical and radio maps of the two galaxies were aligned by assuming that the continuum centroid of the optical emission was coincident with the location of the radio core, adopted to be the radio knot with the flattest spectral index \[see Figs. \[vradalpha0850\] (right) and \[iradalpha1303\] (right)\]. As a check, astrometry was also performed on the optical images by using several unsaturated stars present in the observed fields and in the APM [@maddox90] and US Naval Observatory catalogues. 0850–206 ======== The continuum emission {#res:0850con} ---------------------- Fig. \[vradalpha0850\] (left) presents the VLT image of the radio galaxy 0850–206 in the V band, overlaid with contours of the radio emission at 8.5 GHz. The position of the slit for the spectropolarimetric observations is also shown in the figure. The central wavelength of the V-filter in the rest frame of the galaxy was 2370 Å, with a bandwidth of 440 Å (rest-frame). Fig. \[cont0850\] shows the spatial profile of the line-free continuum emission (solid line) along the slit for 0850–206, for the rest-frame wavelength ranges 1700–1850 Å (left) and 2900–3050 Å(right). It appears that the total continuum emission in the UV end is slightly weaker than that at longer wavelengths. ### Polarization of the continuum emission The spectropolarimetric results of 0850–206 are presented in Fig. \[pol0850\]. From top to bottom the following are plotted: the total flux spectrum, the percentage polarization and the position angle of the electric vector. A 2 arcsec-wide ($\sim$18kpc) aperture centred on the continuum centroid was used for the extraction of 1D spectra for the o- and e-rays. The continuum fractional polarization of this source is observed to increase gradually towards shorter wavelengths, with an average value of 17 per cent across the observed wavelength range of the spectrum. The highest polarization is measured in the bin longward of HeII1640, with a value of 24.2$^{+3.9}_{-4.3}$per cent. Note that the polarization measured in the bin shortward of \[OII\]3727, with a value of 6 per cent, may be affected by noise due to the strong sky lines in that spectral region. The position angle of the electric vector is generally constant with wavelength, with an average value of 103$^{\circ}$, which is within $\sim$15$^{\circ}$ perpendicular to the radio axis (PA$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$29$^{\circ}$, defined by the position of the two most distant radio hotspots). For shorter rest-frame wavelengths than 1900Å, the position angle seems to decrease slightly down to a value of $\sim$90$^{\circ}$. Previous studies of high-z radio galaxies show a better perpendicularity between the electric vector and the UV continuum axis than with the radio axis (e.g. ; , 1994; ). There are no rest-frame UV images of 0850–206 available to measure the UV axis with precision, but the UV image published in this paper \[Fig. \[vradalpha0850\] (left)\], although not very deep, suggests that the UV axis is 12$^{\circ}$$\pm$5$^{\circ}$, which is perpendicular to the electric vector orientation. It should also be noted that previous studies of low-z narrow-line radio galaxies have shown that when there is a hidden nucleus and a polarization fan, the measured position angle of the electric vector can depend on the slit orientation [@cohen99]. The line emission ----------------- ### Emission-line structure {#res:line0850} 2D spectra of some of the main emission lines observed for 0850–206 are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[linestudy0850\]. These are HeII1640, CIII\]1909, CII\]2326, \[NeIV\]2425, \[NeV\]3426 and \[OII\]3727. The spatial variation of the flux of the brightest emission line (\[OII\] in this case) along the slit was determined and it is presented in the same figure (bottom panel – top left). The spatial profile was derived by first extracting a spatial slice perpendicular to the dispersion direction and centred on the \[OII\] emission line, with a spectral width of 60Å. Then, to correct for the continuum contamination, a spatial slice extracted from a line-free region of the spectrum, adjacent to the emission line and scaled to have the same spectral width as that of the emission-line slice, was subtracted from the first one. The detected \[OII\] emission extends approximately 6 arcsec ($\sim$54kpc) along the slit. The line emission distribution is observed to be asymmetric with respect to the nucleus, extending further to the south than to the north. ### Emission-line kinematics {#res:kin0850} Kinematic information of the emission-line gas in 0850–206 was obtained by fitting single Gaussians to the profile of \[OII\]3727, which was the emission line with the highest signal-to-noise ratio in the observed spectrum. To try to match the seeing of the observations, one-dimensional spectra with an aperture of 3 pixels (0.6 arcsec) and centred in steps of 2 pixels were extracted from the 2D total intensity spectrum of the galaxy. In the outermost regions of the galaxy the aperture width of the extracted 1D spectra was greater than 3 pixels in order to increase the S/N of these regions. The spatial variation along the slit of the velocity centroids and linewidth of the \[OII\]3727 line for 0850-206 are shown in Fig. \[linestudy0850\] (bottom panel – top right, bottom right). The velocity shifts, which are referred to the velocity of the emission-line gas at the continuum centroid, are observed to vary smoothly along the position of the slit, with an overall velocity amplitude of $\Delta$$v$$\sim$450 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. The velocity curve is, however, highly asymmetric with respect to the nucleus; while the emission-line gas at the north end, about 1 arcsec from the centre, appears to have a velocity comparable to that of the nucleus, the gas at $\sim$3 arcsec to the south of the nucleus is redshifted by about +400 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. The instrumentally-corrected linewidths (FWHM) of the \[OII\] line are found to range between $\sim$300 and 800 [kms$^{-1}$]{} along the location of the slit. The broadest emission lines, with FWHM$\sim$750[kms$^{-1}$]{}, are located about 1 arcsec south of the nucleus. The nucleus itself presents \[OII\] linewiths of FWHM$\sim$620 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. ### Emission-line spectra {#res:spec0850} The total intensity spectrum of 0850–206 (corresponding to an aperture of 2 arcsec centred on the nucleus) is shown in Fig. \[pol0850\] (top). Also, integrated spectra of four different regions defined along the slit (nuclear region, southernmost ‘S2’, southern ‘S1’ and northern EELR) are presented in Fig. \[0850specreg\] (see the caption of the figure for details of the apertures). The emission-line fluxes normalized to the CII\]2326 flux for each region are listed in Table \[tabflux0850cor\]. CII\]2326 was chosen for the normalization of the line fluxes because it is a common line in the observed spectra of both 0850–206 and 1303+091, whose emission is also detectable in the extended regions of the galaxies. The spatial variation of the CIII\]1909/CII\]2326 line ratio along the location of the slit for 0850–206 is shown in Fig. \[linestudy0850\] (bottom panel – bottom left). The emission-line gas with the highest ionization state is found to be at $\sim$0.5 arcsec north of the nucleus, with a line ratio CIII\]/CII\]$\sim$3.6. The nucleus itself presents a moderate ionization state in comparison with the rest of the regions observed. The gas showing the lowest ionization, with CIII\]/CII\]$\sim$1.3, is located at $\sim$2 arcsec south of the nucleus, which coincides with a region of relatively broad emission lines (FWHM$_{\rm [OII]}$$\sim$660 [kms$^{-1}$]{}). ### Polarization of the emission lines {#res:polline0850} In view of the unified schemes for radio sources, it is expected that the forbidden lines are unpolarized, since they are emitted isotropically in the narrow-line region outside the obscuring torus (unless resonantly scattered). On the other hand, the broad permitted lines, emitted in the broad-line region inside the torus, are expected to be polarized. Fig. \[pol0850\] (middle plot) shows the observed fractional polarization for continuum and emission-line bins in 0850–206, for an spatial aperture of 2 arcsec centred on the continuum centroid. It can be seen that the polarization of the emission lines (with the underlying continuum) is lower than the adjacent pure continuum bins. After subtracting the underlying continuum, the polarization of the emission lines with high enough S/N was measured, obtaining the following: P$_{\rm CIII]}$=5.1$^{+3.9}_{-4.6}$ per cent, P$_{\rm [NeIV]}$=3.7$\pm$2.5 per cent, P$_{\rm [NeV]}$=4.1$\pm$2.9 per cent and P$_{\rm [OII]}$=3.6$\pm$1.1 per cent. The position angles of the electric vector for these lines range from 112$^{\circ}$ to 135$^{\circ}$. These low polarizations (if real) could be due to transmission through magnetically aligned dust in either the radio galaxy itself or the ISM of our Galaxy: using the Galactic relation P$_{\rm ISM}$$<$9.0E$_{\rm B-V}$ [@serkowski75], the interstellar polarization due to our Galaxy could be up to $\sim$2.2 per cent. However, the fact that the electric vector position angles of these lines are on average almost perpendicular to the radio axis of 0850–206 (PA$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$29$^{\circ}$), suggests that the low polarization observed in these emission lines could be due to scattering or residuals of the continuum subtraction. The continuum-subtracted polarization of the permitted MgII line was also measured, obtaining P$_{\rm MgII}$=4.6$^{+4.0}_{-4.6}$ per cent and an electric vector position angle of 148$^{\circ}$$\pm$24$^{\circ}$. The errors in the polarization measurements of this line are bigger and thus no significant conclusions can be drawn about its polarization properties. 1303+091 ======== The continuum emission {#res:1303con} ---------------------- Fig. \[iradalpha1303\] (left) shows the VLT I-band image of the radio galaxy 1303+091, overlaid with contours of the radio emission at 8.5 GHz. The position of the slit for the spectropolarimetric observations is indicated in the figure. The central wavelength of the I-filter in the rest frame of the galaxy was 3188 Å, with a bandwidth of 573 Å(rest-frame). Fig. \[cont1303\] shows the spatial profile of the line-free continuum emission (solid line) along the slit for 1303+091, for the rest-frame wavelength ranges 1700 – 1850 Å (left) and 2900 – 3050 Å(right). It can be seen that, unlike 0850–206, 1303+091 presents a stronger continuum emission at the UV end than at longer wavelengths. ### Polarization of the continuum emission Fig. \[pol1303\] presents the spectropolarimetric results of 1303+091, showing from top to bottom: the total flux spectrum, the percentage polarization and the position angle of the electric vector. The aperture used for the extraction of the 1D spectra for the o- and e-rays was 2 arcsec ($\sim$18kpc) wide and centred on the continuum centroid. Compared with 0850–206, 1303+091 presents an overall lower continuum fractional polarization, with an average value of 8 per cent across the observed wavelength range of the spectrum. The highest polarization is found in the bin longward of \[NeV\]3426, with a value of 11.5$^{+5.6}_{-5.2}$ per cent. The polarization then, by contrast with 0850–206, is observed to decrease slightly towards shorter wavelengths. A dip is found in the bin of $\sim$2000Å (rest frame) with a value of 4.8$\pm$1.0 per cent. For shorter wavelengths than $\sim$1900Å, the polarization is observed to increase again up to a value of 7.5$^{+2.4}_{-2.5}$ per cent. The position angle of the electric vector is fairly constant with wavelength, with an average value of 25$^{\circ}$, which is within $\sim$15$^{\circ}$ perpendicular to the radio axis, defined by the position of the two most distant radio hotspots (PA$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$131$^{\circ}$), and within 7$^{\circ}$ perpendicular to the axis defined by the radio core and the south-eastern inner radio knot (PA$_{\rm knot}$$\sim$122$^{\circ}$). For longer rest frame wavelengths than $\sim$3300Å, the position angle of the electric vector has values of 64$^{\circ}$$\pm$10$^{\circ}$ and –5$\pm$14$^{\circ}$ for the two separate bins considered; however these values are not likely to be significant since that region coincides with the presence of strong sky emission lines, and thus it is very noisy. No comparison could be made between the electric vector orientation and the UV continuum axis because there are no rest-frame UV images available of 1303+091 to derive the UV axis. The line emission ----------------- ### Emission-line structure {#emission-line-structure} 2D spectra of some of the main emission lines observed for 1303+091 are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[linestudy1303\]. These are CIV1548, HeII1640, CIII\]1909, CII\]2326, \[NeIV\]2425 and \[NeV\]3426. The spatial profile along the radio axis of the emission line with the highest signal-to-noise ratio in both nuclear and extended regions (CIII\] in this case) was obtained, and it is presented in the same figure (bottom panel – top left). This profile was obtained in the same way as described for 0850–206 in Section \[res:line0850\], but for 1303+091 the spectral width of the CIII\] slice was 40Å. The detected CIII\] emission extends about 3.5 arcsec ($\sim$32 kpc) along the radio axis. The line emission is asymmetrically distributed with respect to the nucleus; in addition to the central nuclear peak, there is a fainter peak at about 1 arcsec ($\sim$9 kpc) to the north-west of the nucleus, close to the radio knot in the north lobe where the radio source appears to bend. ### Emission-line kinematics {#emission-line-kinematics} Kinematic information for the emission-line gas in 1303+091 was obtained following the same procedure as for 0850–206 (see Section \[res:kin0850\]). In this case, the emission line used for the analysis was the CIII\]1909 line, which has the highest S/N in the observed spectrum and a similar ionization state to \[OII\]3727 used for 0850–206. The spatial variation of the velocity centroids and linewidth of CIII\] along the radio axis of 1303+091 are presented in Fig. \[linestudy1303\] (bottom panel – top right, bottom right). The velocity shifts are referred to the velocity of the emission-line gas at the continuum centroid. By contrast with 0850–206, the overall velocity amplitude around the nucleus along the radio axis of 1303+091 changes by $\Delta$$v$${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}$100 [kms$^{-1}$]{} over $\sim$3 arcsec. The CIII\] instrumentally-corrected linewidths (FWHM) along the radio axis of 1303+091 are observed to vary between $\sim$600 [kms$^{-1}$]{} at 2 arcsec north-west of the nucleus and 900[kms$^{-1}$]{} at 1 arcsec south-east of the nucleus. The CIII\] linewidth at the location of the continuum centroid is found to be FWHM$\sim$800 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. It is interesting that the highest linewidths are measured at the location of the south-eastern inner radio knot, and that the narrowest lines are found outside the radio structure of the northern radio lobe (see Fig. \[iradalpha1303\]). This is expected if the broadening of the emission lines is due to interactions with the radio structures. ### Emission-line spectra {#emission-line-spectra} The total intensity spectrum of 1303+091 (corresponding to an aperture of 2 arcsec centred on the nucleus) is shown in Fig. \[pol1303\] (top). In addition, integrated spectra of three regions defined along the radio axis (nuclear region, south-eastern and north-western EELR) are presented in Fig. \[1303specreg\] (see the caption of the figure for details of the apertures). The emission-line fluxes normalized to the CII\]2326 flux (see Section \[res:spec0850\]) for each region are listed in Table \[tabflux1303cor\]. The spatial variation of the CIII\]1909/CII\]2326 line ratio along the radio axis of 1303+091 is shown in Fig. \[linestudy1303\] (bottom panel – bottom left). The nucleus presents the highest ionization state along the radio axis, with a line ratio CIII\]/CII\]$\sim$2.5. There may be a second peak in the ionization state at $\sim$1.2 arcsec north-west of the continuum centroid. The emission-line gas with the lowest ionization is located at $\sim$1 arcsec south-east of the nucleus, with a ratio CIII\]/CII\]$\sim$1.4. Interestingly, this region of low ionization presents the broadest emission lines (FWHM$_{\rm CIII]}$$\sim$950 [kms$^{-1}$]{}), and coincides with the location of a radio knot (see Fig. \[iradalpha1303\]). ### Polarization of the emission lines {#polarization-of-the-emission-lines} Fig. \[pol1303\] (middle plot) shows the observed fractional polarization for continuum and emission-line bins in 1303+091, for a spatial aperture of 2 arcsec centred on the continuum centroid. It can be noticed that the polarization of the emission lines (with the underlying continuum) is similar or lower than the adjacent pure continuum bins. After subtracting the underlying continuum, the polarization of the stronger emission lines was measured. The permitted lines where found to be significantly polarized, P$_{\rm CIV}$=9.4$^{+4.3}_{-4.1}$ per cent, P$_{\rm HeII}$=11.7$^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$ per cent and P$_{\rm MgII}$=5.6$^{+2.6}_{-2.4}$ per cent (note that these values are for the entire emission line: there was insufficient S/N to attempt to separate any broad and narrow components). The low Galactic reddening towards 1303+091 means that the ISM in our Galaxy makes a negligible contribution to the polarization (P$_{\rm ISM}$$<$0.27 per cent; Serkowski et al. 1975). The position angles of the electric vector for CIV and HeII are 42$^{\circ}$$\pm$13$^{\circ}$ and 36$^{\circ}$$\pm$11$^{\circ}$, respectively, which are almost perpendicular to the radio axis of 1303+091 (PA$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$131$^{\circ}$), suggesting that the polarization of CIV and HeII (if real) is dominated by scattering. The electric vector orientation for MgII is, however, found to be 167$^{\circ}$$\pm$13$^{\circ}$. This value is far from perpendicular to the radio axis, and it is probably affected by the low S/N of the MgII line. The polarization of the stronger forbidden and semi-forbidden lines was also measured, finding: P$_{\rm CIII]}$=3.6$^{+2.5}_{-2.4}$ per cent, P$_{\rm [NeIV]}$=4.5$^{+4.9}_{-4.5}$ per cent and P$_{\rm [NeV]}$=6.7$^{+5.5}_{-6.7}$ per cent, all of which are consistent with zero. Discussion ========== The origin of the UV continuum {#diss:uv_origin} ------------------------------ There is evidence that at least four mechanisms contribute to the UV excess observed in powerful radio galaxies \[e.g. and references therein\]; these are: scattered AGN light, young stellar population, nebular continuum and direct AGN light. In this section the relative contribution of the different components to the UV continuum of 0850–206 and 1303+091 is investigated. Direct AGN light is found to contribute significantly to the UV continuum of a source only when broad permitted lines are detected in the intensity spectrum. Such sources are likely to be partially obscured, or low luminosity, quasars and they usually present low levels of polarization of order ${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}$4 per cent (e.g. ). In the cases of 0850–206 and 1303+091, no broad components are detected in the profiles of the permitted emission lines in their spectra; also, for both galaxies the observed polarization is on average ${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$8 per cent. In addition to this, inspection of the broad-band images of 0850–206 and 1303+091 shows no evidence for a point source in the nucleus of either galaxy. Direct AGN light is therefore not an important mechanism in the UV continuum of 0850–206 or 1303+091. Thus, nebular emission, young stars and scattered AGN light will be the main mechanisms contributing to the UV continuum emission of both sources. The theoretical nebular continuum for Case B recombination [@osterbrock89] can be derived from the strength of the recombination lines, H$\beta$ in particular. As the observed wavelength range for 0850–206 and 1303+091 did not cover the H$\beta$ line, the nebular continuum emission of these galaxies was instead derived by using the recombination line HeII1640 and the average line ratio HeII/H$\beta$ $\sim$ 3.18 given by for radio galaxies. The spatial profiles of the nebular continuum emission for 0850–206 and 1303+091 are shown in Figs. \[cont0850\] and \[cont1303\], respectively. To calculate these profiles, a slice perpendicular to the dispersion direction, of 40Å width in the observed frame, containing the HeII emission line was extracted from the total two-dimensional spectrum of each galaxy. Then, adjacent line-free continuum slices were extracted, combined and scaled to have the same spectral width as the HeII slice. The combined continuum slice was then subtracted from the HeII slice to produce a continuum-free HeII spatial profile, which was used to generate the nebular continuum emission profile (using the task [NEBCONT]{} in [DIPSO]{}). For both sources, the nebular contribution is generally more important in the extended regions than in the nucleus. In 0850–206, essentially all of the light south of 2 arcsec from the nucleus is nebular emission. For the apertures used in the polarization analysis, the contribution of the nebular continuum to the total continuum emission in 0850–206 is found to be $\sim$22 per cent for the rest-frame wavelength range 1700–1850 Å, and $\sim$11 per cent for the rest-frame range 2900–3050 Å. In the case of 1303+091, the nebular contribution is $\sim$11 per cent for both rest-frame wavelength ranges 1700–1850 Å and 2900–3050 Å. Thus, at least $\sim$80 per cent of the UV continuum in these galaxies will be a combination of stellar light and scattered AGN light [^3]. It is likely that if the continuum polarization of the source is low, the contribution of a young stellar population will be important. On the other hand, if it is the case that the observed continuum polarization is high, then the scattered quasar light will probably dominate the UV continuum emission of the source. The relative contributions of the continuum components can be roughly quantified by assuming that the observed fractional polarization $P_{obs}$ is diluted by unpolarized radiation, which is mainly composed of nebular continuum emission $F_{neb}$ and stellar light $F_{star}$. Thus we can use the following equation: $$P_{obs} = P_{o} \times \frac{F_{scatt}}{F_{scatt} + F_{neb} + F_{star}} \label{eq:pol}$$ where $P_{o}$ is the intrinsic undiluted polarization and $F_{scatt}$ is the scattered AGN flux. Assuming that dust scattering is the dominant mechanism for 0850–206 and 1303+091 (see Section \[diss:scatterers\] below for a discussion about the scatterers), and taking into account that showed that polarization is almost independent of optical depth, the calculations derived by for optically thin dust scattering can be used to obtain a good estimate of the intrinsic polarization of the scattered radiation. Their model uses the geometry indicated by the unified schemes for radio sources [@barthel89] and assumes that the nuclear radiation is emitted along two diametrically opposed cones with a half-opening angle of 45$^{\circ}$. Depending on the angle between the cone axis and the line of sight, the observed intrinsic polarization for a given wavelength will vary. Using equation (\[eq:pol\]) and assuming that the observer’s viewing angle relative to the cone axis varies between 50$^{\circ}$ and 90$^{\circ}$, the approximate contributions of the different components to the continuum emission of 0850–206 and 1303+091 can be estimated for the rest-wavelengths ranges 1700–1850Å and 2900–3050Å. The results are listed in Table \[poltabboth\]. In the case of 0850–206 the contribution of young stellar population is negligible or null, and the scattered AGN light dominates the continuum emission, with a relative contribution of $\sim$80–90 per cent depending on the nebular contribution for the different wavelength ranges. Based on the results obtained for observer’s viewing angles of 50$^{\circ}$ and 90$^{\circ}$ using equation (\[eq:pol\]), it is likely that the angle between the radio axis and the line of sight for 0850–206 is close to 90$^{\circ}$, given that for angles below 90$^{\circ}$ the resulting unpolarized contribution is negative (particularly in the 1700–1850Å range). This orientation is also consistent with the radio image of this galaxy (see Fig. \[vradalpha0850\]). On the other hand, in the case of 1303+091, the stellar population can account for up to 50 per cent of the continuum emission if the radio axis is on the plane of the sky, or its contribution could be null if the angle between the line of sight and the radio axis is close to 50$^{\circ}$. An alternative analysis consists of fitting the spectra of both galaxies with four components: nebular continuum, scattered quasar light, young stellar population and old stellar population. The quasar spectrum used for the fits was a radio-loud quasar composite (from ; with a power-law index $\alpha_{\nu}$=–0.67 for rest-frame wavelenghts $\lambda$${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}$1300Å, and derived using over 200 spectra taken with the Hubble Space Telescope, with redshifts z$>$0.33). The quasar spectrum was then scattered using dust scattering models, both optically thin and optically thick (see Section \[diss:scatterers\]). Both old and young stellar populations were modelled using the 2000 version of the GISSEL codes of Bruzual & Charlot (cf. , 2003), assuming a Salpeter IMF, solar metallicity and instantaneous burst models of age 4 Gyr and 10 Myr (approximate age of the radio source), respectively. The nebular continuum contribution was fixed by our observations and the other three components were allowed to vary. Another variable was included in the fit to account for any plausible intrinsic reddening in each galaxy. The result of the fits is shown in Fig. \[sedfit\]. The best fit in both cases was obtained when the quasar spectrum had been scattered by optically thin dust, and for both galaxies a small intrinsic reddening was required: E$_{\rm B-V}^{\rm intrin}$=0.087 for 0850–206, E$_{\rm B-V}^{\rm intrin}$=0.020 for 1303+091. This intrinsic reddening could plausibly be due to the same dust that is causing the scattering. The contribution of old stellar population in the best-fitting model is consistent at K-band wavelengths with typical K-band magnitudes for z$\sim$1.4 radio galaxies (see K-z relation; ). The fits are good in general apart from the wavelength region $\sim$ 2000–2200Å where the fit underpredicts the observed continuum emission (for further discussion see Section \[diss:scatterers\]). The results from the fitting show that in 0850–206 the scattered quasar light dominates the UV continuum emission and there is no requirement at all for a young stellar component; whilst in the case of 1303+091, both scattered quasar light and young stellar population have important contributions to the UV light: in the wavelength range 1700–1850Å contributions are comparable, while in the 2900–3050Å range scattered quasar light contributes more than 50 per cent. These results are in complete agreement with our calculation above (see Table \[poltabboth\]). Characteristic photospheric absorption features of OB stars, such as SV1502 and NIV1720, were searched for in the spectra of both sources, especially in 1303+091, where the contribution of a young stellar population is suspected to be significant. No clear evidence for any of these absorption lines was found in any of the spectra, although the S/N of the spectra is insufficient for their absence to rule out a young stellar population. ### The nature of the scatterers {#diss:scatterers} The nature of the scattering material in high-redshift radio galaxies is an important question, still under debate. Both electrons [@fabian89] and dust grains (Tadhunter et al. 1988) have been proposed as possible scattering agents; but dust is generally preferred, mainly because of the greater scattering efficiency of dust grains over electrons. Polarization observations of radio galaxies show that for the implied scattered light to be fully scattered by electrons, the required mass of ionized gas is very large ($\sim$10$^{10}$–10$^{12}$M$_{\sun}$; e.g. ). Thus, although some light might be scattered by electrons (mainly in the central regions), the scattering process is likely to be dominated by the dust grains (provided that some dust is present). present detailed calculations of the scattering and polarization properties of light scattered by both optically thin and optically thick dust, using the Galactic dust model. They find that the spectrum of the scattered light is quite different in the two cases. In the optically thin case the emergent scattered spectrum is bluer than the incident one for $\lambda$$>$2200Å, and it has a broad dip centred at $\lambda$$\sim$1500Å. In the optically thick case the emergent spectrum is generally gray scattered for $\lambda$$>$2200Å, and shows a drop at $\lambda$$<$2200Å. Although the total scattered intensity depends on optical depth, the polarization of the scattered light varies with wavelength in a very similar way for both optically thin and optically thick cases. The polarization tends to decrease slightly from 10000Å to $\sim$2000Å, shows a dip centred at $\sim$1800Å, and then tends to increase sharply towards the far-UV. In the case of quasar light scattered by electrons, the emergent spectrum will be similar to the incident one, since the Thomson scattering cross-section is independent of wavelength. Thus, for $\lambda$$>$2200Å, optically thick dust scattering can mimic electron scattering. In Fig. \[polflux\] continuum polarization properties of 0850–206 (left) and 1303+091 (right) are presented. In each panel, from top to bottom the following are plotted: the total flux spectrum, the observed fractional polarization, the polarized flux with a composite radio-loud quasar spectrum (from ) superimposed, and the ratio between the polarized flux spectrum and the composite quasar spectrum. The dust-scattering predictions from are overplotted on this bottom plot (see caption for details). This composite quasar spectrum can be considered to be an average quasar spectrum, and thus it can be compared with the polarized flux spectra of 0850–206 and 1303+091 (Fig. \[polflux\]). It is found that, for both galaxies, the polarized spectrum is slightly redder than the incident one, which is in agreement with spectropolarimetric studies of other high-redshift radio galaxies (e.g. ). The ratio between polarized and incident spectra can be directly compared with the scattering efficiency $\times$ intrinsic polarization \[cf. equation (\[eq:pol\])\]; the dust scattering predictions of were used for this comparison. It can be seen that the broad dip shortward of $\sim$2200Å (rest-frame) predicted by both optically-thin and optically-thick dust models is found in both galaxies, more pronounced in 1303+091. It therefore appears that dust dominates the scattering process in both 0850–206 and 1303+091. The detection of features in the scattered light spectrum around 2200Å is particularly interesting when compared to the extinction laws of different galaxies. The extinction curve of the Milky Way shows a strong 2200Å dust feature; this feature is less pronounced for the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), is even weaker for the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), and is entirely absent in nearby starburst galaxies (e.g. ). These differences are likely to be related to the metallicity of the galaxy and the composition of the dust. The fact that a 2200Å dust feature is detected in the total flux spectra (Fig. \[sedfit\]) and even more strongly in the polarized flux spectra (Fig. \[polflux\]) of the two radio galaxies studied in this paper, implies that the dust in these distant galaxies is different in nature or composition to that of nearby starburst galaxies, and is much more comparable to Galactic dust. On the other hand, the fits to the total continuum spectra (Fig. \[sedfit\]) show that, although the observed continuum and the model have the same shape around in the wavelength range $\sim$2000–2200Å, the model (which uses a Galactic dust scattering prediction) slightly underpredicts the continuum emission in this range. This suggests that the 2200Å feature is not as strong as in the models, and that the dust in these galaxies, although similar, may not be exactly the same as Galactic dust. Ionization of the emission-line regions --------------------------------------- In the above sections where the results are described, the spatial variation of the line ratio CIII\]1909/CII\]2326 along the position of the slit for 0850–206 and 1303+091 were presented. For 1303+091 it was found that the ionization state peaks in the nuclear region, with a possible second peak at $\sim$1.2 arcsec to the north-west of the nucleus. For 0850–206 the highest ionization state was found $\sim$0.5 arcsec offset of the nucleus to the north, then it decreases at both sides of this location. In order to study in more detail the ionization state of the emission-line gas in the two galaxies, the line ratios (derived from the total intensity spectra) for the different regions have been compared with theoretical predictions of several ionization models. The resulting diagnostic diagrams are presented in Fig. \[regdiag\], which involve the following line ratios: CIII\]1909/HeII1640, CIII\]1909/CII\]2326, and \[NeIV\]2425/\[NeV\]3426. The points correspond to the different emission-line regions defined along the slit (for details of the apertures see captions of Figs. \[0850specreg\] and \[1303specreg\]). The data are compared with the following ionization models: (i) optically-think power-law photoionization, with spectral indexes $\alpha=$ –1.0 and –1.5 (solid lines); (ii) photoionization including matter-bounded clouds (dot-dash-dot line); (iii) shock-ionization, with shock velocities in the range 200$\leq$$v$$\leq$500 kms$^{-1}$ (dashed grid); and (iv) shock-ionization including a photoionized precursor (dotted grid). For details about how the different models were generated, see Solórzano-Iñarrea et al. (2001) and references therein. By comparing the three diagnostic diagrams, it can be seen that the points of the nuclear regions (bigger symbols) of the two galaxies fall close together in the three diagrams, indicating that they have a similar state of ionization. Both nuclei are well reproduced by the photoionization predictions with $\alpha$$\sim$–1.0 and U$\sim$0.025. Note that they could also be explained by the mixed-medium photoionization models, since these models can be slightly tuned to better fit the data. The shock-ionization predictions, however, clearly fail to reproduce the ionization state of the nuclear regions in the two galaxies. The EELR of 1303+091 (open stars) are well explained by the photoionization models with $\alpha$$\sim$–1.0, although the data can also be consistent with low velocity shock-ionization predictions. Note, however, that in the middle and lower diagrams there is no data for the SE region, since none of the neon lines was measurable in this region and therefore the ratio \[NeIV\]/\[NeV\] could not be calculated. Only a lower limit could be derived for the same line ratio for the NW region. Thus, the ionization of the EELR in 1303+091 cannot be well constrained. The EELR of 0850–206 (triangles) fall well apart from each other in the diagrams. Whilst the ionization of the northern region N can be explained by $\alpha$$\sim$–1.5 photoionization predictions and by shock+precursor models with shock velocities of $\sim$500kms$^{-1}$; the southern region S1 is best explained by mixed-medium photoionization models with 0.05$<$A$_{\rm M/I}$$<$0.1. On the other hand, the ionization of the outermost southern region S2 is poorly constrained and thus can be reproduced by either the photoionization models or shock-ionization predictions with or without a precursor gas. In summary, it is found that the ionization state of the nuclear regions in the two galaxies can only be reproduced by photoionization predictions. The photoionization models give also reasonable fits to the data of the extended regions. However, their ionization is less constrained, and with the exception of the S1 region in 0850–206, whose ionization is only consistent with the mixed-medium photoionization models, the ionization of the other EELR could also be explained by shock-ionization predictions. In particular, the SE region of 1303+091, which coincides with the location of a radio knot, was found to have the lowest ionization state and the highest emission linewidths; these features are expected when the gas is perturbed by strong interactions with the radio source structures (e.g. ). Variations with radio source size --------------------------------- Clearly, continuum studies of only two sources are not enough to draw significant conclusions about the evolution of the continuum properties of radio galaxies with radio source age. Nevertheless, the results presented in this paper are in line with what might have been expected. If a jet-induced starburst occurs when the radio hotspots pass through the host galaxy, by a few $\times$10$^{7}$ years later (typical age of a radio source) the starburst luminosity will have decreased to $\sim$10 per cent of its peak value [@best96]. Therefore, the presence of a young stellar population, possibly jet-induced, may dilute the scattered AGN light in smaller (younger) radio sources and, consequently, the observed continuum polarization would be lower. On the other hand, for larger (older) radio sources, in which the contribution of a starburst to the total optical flux will be dramatically decreased, the scattered AGN light dominates the UV continuum emission. Our findings are consistent with this scenario. 0850–206, the larger radio source of the two (D$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$118 kpc), presents a high continuum polarization, averaging $\sim$17 per cent; scattered quasar light dominates the UV continuum emission and the starlight contribution is null or negligible. By contrast, 1303+091 (D$_{\rm rad}$$\sim$73 kpc) presents a lower continuum polarization, averaging $\sim$8 per cent, and in this galaxy the young stellar population could account for up to $\sim$50 per cent of the UV continuum emission. These results can be combined with those of previous polarization studies of high-redshift radio galaxies, in order to explore if there is any correlation between continuum polarization and size of the radio source. Fig. \[polsize\] shows the fractional continuum polarization versus radio source size for a sample of high-redshift radio galaxies taken from the literature (see caption of the figure for details). It must be emphasized that this set of radio galaxies consists of several different subsamples, many of which are biased (e.g. towards high polarization objects). In addition, these samples are at different redshifts, making the wavelength range studied different and bringing evolution effects into play, thus making the objects not directly comparable. However, even despite this, it is intriguing that there is a hint of a weak correlation between polarization and radio source size (Spearmann-Rank test gives a 97 per cent significance level): smaller radio sources do not show high polarizations, and the larger the radio source the higher its polarization can be. The relation between radio source size and polarization will be better tested when our full sample of radio galaxies at the same redshift (z$\sim$1.4), with a large range of radio sizes, has been observed. Also, it will be interesting to sum the spectra of the smaller radio sources in the full sample, with similar characteristics to 1303+091, to search at higher S/N for photospheric absorption features of OB stars, which would directly prove the presence of a young stellar population. Summary and conclusions ======================= This paper presents the results obtained from VLT spectropolarimetric observations of two powerful radio galaxies at z$\sim$1.4. Analysis of their scattered flux spectra and their polarization properties indicates that the scattering process in these galaxies is dominated by dust, whose 2200Å feature suggests that it is similar to Galactic dust in nature. The larger radio source (0850–206) presents a continuum fractional polarization reaching as high as $\sim$24 per cent at $\sim$2000Å (rest-frame). For this galaxy, scattered AGN light must dominate the UV continuum, the nebular emission contributes up to $\sim$22 per cent and there is no requirement for any young starlight contribution. The smaller radio source (1303+091) presents a lower continuum polarization averaging $\sim$8 per cent across the observed wavelength range, and its nebular continuum contribution to the UV continuum is $\sim$11 per cent. For this galaxy, the starlight could contribute between 0 and 50 per cent, depending on the radio axis orientation, with multi-component fit to the spectral energy distribution favouring the upper end of this range. In both galaxies, the position angle of the electric vector is almost independent of wavelength and within 15$^{\circ}$ of perpendicular to the radio axis. The emission-line properties of the galaxies are also analysed. Illumination by the central AGN is likely to be the dominant ionization mechanism of the nuclear and EELR in both galaxies, although the region coincident with the radio knot in 1303+091 shows features reminiscent of jet-cloud interactions. A compilation of polarimetric observations from the literature shows hints of a correlation between continuum polarization and radio source size, albeit for incomplete and biased samples. This is broadly in line with what might have been expected; that in smaller radio sources the presence of a young stellar population (possibly jet-induced) may dilute the scattered AGN light, while in larger (older) radio sources the presence of young stars is negligible and the scattered AGN light dominates the UV continuum. It is clearly necessary to observe and analyse the rest of our sample to confirm this result with a complete and unbiased sample, in order to allow significant conclusions to be drawn about the evolution of the continuum properties of radio galaxies with radio source size. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We are very grateful to Joel Vernet for kindly providing his IDL spectropolarimetric reduction code and to Carlos De Breuck for providing his modified version of the code and for a constructive discussion about reduction of VLT spectropolarimetric data. We are also indebted to Viktor Zubko for kindly supplying us with the results of their dust scattering models in digitised form. CSI thanks Makoto Kishimoto for useful discussions. We also thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments that helped to improve the paper. This work is based on observations made at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC. This research has also made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/). [^1]: E-mail:[email protected] [^2]: Following the additional identifications and redshifts of and , this radio source sample is now 100 per cent spectroscopically complete. [^3]: The stellar light will include both the old stellar population of the galaxy and any young stellar population. Based on K-magnitudes at these redshifts (K-z relation; e.g. ), the old stellar population is likely to contribute ${\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}$10 per cent of the light at 3000Å, and will be negligible at wavelengths $<$2500Å.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Based on previous studies that support the important role of the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, and $\bar{K}^{}_{2}(1430)$ resonances in the $J/\psi [\psi(2S)] \to \phi (\omega) VV$ decays, we make an analysis of the analogous decays of $\Upsilon (1S)$ and $\Upsilon (2S)$, taking into account recent experimental data. In addition, we study the $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ radiative decays and we also made predictions for the radiative decay of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ into $\gamma f_2(1270)$, $\gamma f'_2(1525)$, $\gamma f_0(1370)$ and $\gamma f_0(1710)$, comparing with the recent results of a CLEO experiment. We can compare our results for ratios of decay rates with eight experimental ratios and find agreement in all but one case, where experimental problems are discussed. author: - 'Lian-Rong Dai' - 'Ju-Jun Xie' - Eulogio Oset title: 'Study of the $f_2(1270)$, $f''_2(1525)$, $\bar{K}^_{2}(1430)$, $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$ production from $\psi (nS)$ and $\Upsilon (nS)$ decays' --- Introduction ============ Properties of mesons are key issues for understanding the confinement mechanism of QCD. Within the traditional constituent quark models, mesons are described as quark-antiquark ($q\bar{q}$) states. This picture could explain successfully the properties of the ground states of the flavor SU(3) vector meson nonet. However, there are many meson (or mesonlike) states that could not be explained as $q\bar{q}$ states. Depending on their coupling to specific production mechanisms and their decay pattern, these states are interpreted as molecular-type excitations or as tetraquark states. But, there is debate on their exotic structure, unlike for states that carry spin-exotic quantum numbers, e.g. $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, and hence cannot be $q\bar{q}$ states. One has an example in the sector of light mesons with mass below $1$ GeV, where the scalar mesons $\sigma(500)$, $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ [@Agashe:2014kda] have been largely debated. Long ago it was suggested that the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances could be weakly bound states of $K \bar K$ [@Weinstein:1982gc]. The advent of chiral unitary theory has brought new light into this issue and by now the $\sigma(500)$, $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ are accepted as dynamically generated states from the interaction of coupled channels $\pi \pi, K \bar K, \eta \eta, \pi \eta$ in $S$ wave [@Oller:2000ma; @npa; @ramonet; @kaiser; @markushin; @juanito; @rios]. Similarly, in Refs. [@Geng:2008gx; @Geng:2009gb], the former work of Ref. [@Molina:2008jw] on the $\rho \rho$ interaction was extended to SU(3) using the local hidden gauge formalism for vector-vector interaction and a unitary approach in coupled channels. This interaction generates resonances, some of which can be associated to known resonances, namely the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, and $\bar{K}^{}_{2}(1430)$, as well as the $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$. The results obtained in those former works gave support to the idea of the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, $\bar{K}^{}_{2}(1430)$, $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$ as being quasimolecular states of two vector mesons. In reactions producing these resonances, a pair of vector mesons are primary produced and these two vector mesons rescatter after the production, giving rise to the resonances that can be observed in the invariant mass distributions. In Ref. [@daizou], the important role of the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, and $\bar{K}^{}_{2}(1430)$ in the $J/\psi \to \phi (\omega) VV$ decays was studied based on the vector-vector molecular structure of those resonances. Related work was also done in Ref. [@hanhart] interpreting the $J/\psi$ radiative decay into these resonances. Those latter works were then extended in Ref. [@Dai:2013uua] to study the decay of $\psi(2S)$ into $\omega (\phi)$ and $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$ and $\psi(2S)$ into $K^{\,0}$ and $\bar{K}^{\,0}_{2}(1430)$. At the same time, in this latter work the ideas of Ref. [@hanhart] in the radiative decay were extended to the decay of $\Upsilon (1S)$, $\Upsilon (2S)$ and $\psi(2S)$. These hadronic and radiative decays for $J/\psi$ have also been addressed within a scheme where the $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ states emerge as a result of glueball quarkonia mixing [@gutsche]. With the steady accumulation of experimental data, new results are now available that can test these theoretical ideas and an update of the theoretical predictions has become timely. In particular the very recent CLEO data on $J/\psi$, $\psi (2S)$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$ radiative decays [@seth] are most welcome. In the present work, we make a reanalysis of those decays taking into account the recent report of the CLEO data. In addition to the $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ decays, we also made predictions for the radiative decay of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ into $\phi (\omega) f_2(1270)$, $\phi (\omega) f'_2(1525)$, or $K^{\,0}$ and $\bar{K}^{\,0}_{2}(1430)$. We evaluate ratios of decay rates and can compare with eight experimental ratios. The agreement found with experiment is good, with one exception that will require future test due to present experimental difficulties. Hadronic decay ============== Formalism for $\Upsilon (1S)$ decay into $\omega(\phi) VV$ ---------------------------------------------------------- ![image](f1.eps) We extend here the formalism used in Refs. [@daizou; @Dai:2013uua] to study the decay of $\Upsilon (1S)$ into $\omega(\phi)$ and two interacting vectors, $V V$, that lead to the tensor state. The mechanism is depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\]. We follow the approach of Ref. [@Roca:2004uc] and write the $\phi$ and $\omega$ as a combination of a singlet and an octet of SU(3) states $$\begin{aligned} \omega&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}V_1+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}V_8 \nonumber \\ \phi&=&s\bar{s}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}V_1-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}V_8\end{aligned}$$ The two $VV$ states combine to $I=0$, either with a $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})$ or $s\bar{s}$ SU(3) structure to match the SU(3) singlet nature of the $b \bar b$ state. One obtains matrix elements for the $\Upsilon(1S) \to \omega \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}) \to \omega VV$ and $\Upsilon(1S) \to \omega s\bar{s} \to \omega VV$ amplitudes with the results $$\begin{aligned} \frac{2}{3}T^{(1,1)}+\frac{1}{3}T^{(8,8)} \quad\quad \mbox{and}\quad\quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}T^{(1,1)}-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}T^{(8,8)}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $T^{(1,1)}$ is the $T$ matrix for the singlet of $\phi$ and the one of $VV$ giving the vacuum and $T^{(8,8)}$ the corresponding part for the octet. Similarly, for the $\Upsilon(1S) \to \phi \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}) \to \phi VV$ and $\Upsilon(1S) \to \phi s\bar{s} \to \phi VV$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}T^{(1,1)}-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}T^{(8,8)} \quad\quad\mbox{and}\quad\quad \frac{1}{3}T^{(1,1)}+\frac{2}{3}T^{(8,8)}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. It was found in Ref. [@daizou] that in terms of $VV$ the $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})$ and $s\bar{s}$ components could be written as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}) \to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho^0\rho^0+\rho^+\rho^-+\rho^-\rho^+ + \omega \omega \nonumber \\ + K^{+}K^{-} + K^{0}\bar{K}^{0}), \\ s\bar{s} \to K^{-}K^{+}+\bar{K}^{0}K^{0}+\phi\phi.\end{aligned}$$ Only the terms in Fig. \[Fig1\] where the $VV$ interact lead to the tensor resonance. Then we remove the first diagram of Fig. \[Fig1\] corresponding to the tree level and this leads to the diagram depicted in Fig. \[Fig2\]. ![Selection of diagrams of Fig. \[Fig1\] that go into resonance formation, omitting the coupling to $V V$ without interaction.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](f2.eps) The final transition matrix for $\Upsilon (1S) \to \omega(\phi,{K^}^0)R$, with $R$ the resonance under consideration, is given by $$\begin{aligned} t_{\Upsilon (1S)\to \omega R}=\sum_{j}W_{j}^{(\omega)}G_{j}g_{j} , \label{tJ}\end{aligned}$$ with $W_{j}^{(\omega)}$ the weights given in Ref. [@daizou], $G_{j}$ the $VV$ loop functions and $g_{j}$ the couplings of the resonance considered to the corresponding $VV$ channel $j$. We proceed similarly for $\Upsilon(1S) \to \phi R$ or $\Upsilon(1S) \to {K^}^0 R$ and all values of $W, G, g$ are tabulated in Ref. [@daizou]. The $\Upsilon(1S)$ partial decay width is then given by $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma=\frac{1}{8\pi}\frac{1}{M^2_{\Upsilon (1S)}}\|t\|^2q \label{Gama}\end{aligned}$$ with $q$ the momentum of the $\omega (\phi, K^{\,0})$ in the $\Upsilon(1S)$ rest frame. We apply the formalism to the same decay channels but from the $\Upsilon(2S)$ state. In terms of quarks the $\Upsilon(2S)$ state is the $b\bar{b}$ state with the same quantum numbers as the $\Upsilon (1S)$, with a radial excitation to the $2S$ state of a $b\bar{b}$ potential. We then expect the same behavior as for the $\Upsilon(1S)$, which stands as the $1S$ $b\bar{b}$ state. In the derivation we have only used two properties from the $\Upsilon (1S)$ concerning these decays. First that it is an SU(3) singlet, which can also be said of the $\Upsilon (2S)$ state. The other dynamical feature is related to the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) violation and the weight going into $\phi s\bar{s}$ or $\phi\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})$ in its decay, that we parametrize in terms of $\nu = T^{(1,1)}/T^{(8,8)}$ [@daizou; @Dai:2013uua]. Given the fact that this is also a dynamical feature not related to the internal excitation of the $b\bar{b}$ quarks in the potential well, we shall also assume that the $\nu$ parameter is the same for $\Upsilon (2S)$ as for $\Upsilon (1S)$. The normalization of the $W_{j}^{(\omega)}$ weights can be different but this will cancel in the ratios. With these two reasonable assumptions we can make predictions for the following four ratios that are discussed in the next subsection. Numerical results of hadronic decay ----------------------------------- We collect the new results on these two sets of reactions, which are $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ hadronic decays, respectively. In Ref. [@Dai:2013uua] results were given for the ratios $\widehat{R}_1$, $\widehat{R}_2$, $\widehat{R}_3$, and $\widehat{R}_4$, for $\psi(2S) \to \omega (\phi, K^{\,0}) R$, and the ratios were found compatible with experiments. We generalize them here to the $\Upsilon(1S)$ decay. $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{R_{1}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\phi f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\phi f^\prime_{2}(1525)}}, \\ \widehat{R_{2}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\omega f^\prime_{2}(1525)}}, \\ \widehat{R_{3}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\phi f_{2}(1270)}}, \\ \widehat{R_{4}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to K^{0} \bar{K}^{0}_{2}(1430)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (1S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}. \label{Upsilon1S}\end{aligned}$$ Here we bring new data for new decays reported in Ref. [@Shen:2012iq] on $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ decays. Concretely, $Br[\Upsilon(1S) \to \phi f'_2(1525)]$, $Br[\Upsilon(1S) \to \omega f_2(1270)]$, $Br[\Upsilon(1S) \to K^{0}(892) \bar{K}^{0}_2(1430)]$, and the same decays for $\Upsilon(2S)$. In Table \[Tab:upsilon1sdecays\] we show the new numbers for the $\Upsilon(1S)$ decays. The criteria used to obtain the theoretical errors are the same as in Ref. [@Dai:2013uua]. For this case, we have three data and can obtain two ratios, and as we can see, we find agreement with experiment within errors. [ccc]{} & Theory & Experiment \ \ $\widehat{R_{1}}$ & $0.11-0.52 ~(0.24^{+0.28}_{-0.13})$ &\ $\widehat{R_{2}}$ & $2.58-11.99 ~(5.19^{+6.80}_{-2.61})$ &\ $\widehat{R_{3}}$ & $5.64-17.46 ~(9.67^{+7.77}_{-4.06})$ &\ $\widehat{R_{4}}$ & $0.94-2.37 ~(1.50^{+0.87}_{-0.56})$ & 1.75-10.9\ $\widehat{R_{1}}\cdot\widehat{R_{3}}~~~$ & $0.73-5.61 ~(2.32^{+3.29}_{-1.59})$ & 0.0-8.76\ \[Tab:upsilon1sdecays\] For the case of $\Upsilon(2S)$ hadronic decays, we define the equivalent four ratios, $$\begin{aligned} \overline{R_{1}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\phi f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\phi f^\prime_{2}(1525)}},\\ \overline{R_{2}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\omega f^\prime_{2}(1525)}}, \\ \overline{R_{3}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\phi f_{2}(1270)}}, \\ \overline{R_{4}} & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to K^{\,0} \bar{K}^{\,0}_{2}(1430)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon (2S)\to\omega f_{2}(1270)}}. \label{Upsilon2S}\end{aligned}$$ The values of these ratios are shown in Table \[Tab:upsilon2sdecays\]. For the case of $\Upsilon(2S)$ the datum for $\omega f_2(1270)$ with negative width and large errors cannot be used for ratios and hence we can only construct one ratio. We can see that we find agreement of the theoretical numbers with the only experimental ratio that we can form. [ccc]{} & Theory & Experiment \ \ $\overline{R_{1}}$ & $0.11 - 0.51 ~(0.24^{+0.27}_{-0.13})$ &\ $\overline{R_{2}}$ & $2.58 - 11.99 ~(5.19^{+6.79}_{-2.61})$ &\ $\overline{R_{3}}$ & $5.63 - 17.45 ~(9.69^{+7.76}_{-4.06})$ &\ $\overline{R_{4}}$ & $0.94 - 2.37 ~(1.50^{+0.87}_{-0.56})$ &\ $\overline{R_{1}}\cdot\overline{R_{3}}\cdot\overline{R_{4}}~~~$ & $0.77 - 8.71 ~(3.49^{+5.22}_{-2.72})$ & $0.0 - 7.92$\ \[Tab:upsilon2sdecays\] Radiative decay =============== Formalism for $\psi(nS)$ and $\Upsilon (nS)$ decay into $\gamma VV$ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Another successful test on the vector-vector nature of the $f_2(1270)$ and $f'_2(1525)$ was done in Ref. [@hanhart] by looking at the decay of $J/\psi$ into $\gamma T$, where T is any of these two tensor resonances. A justification was given in Ref. [@hanhart] for the photon being radiated from the initial $c\bar{c}$ state. The remaining $c\bar{c}$ gave rise to a pair of vector mesons which upon rescattering produced the tensor resonances. The only dynamical assumption made in Ref. [@hanhart] was that the photon was radiated from the $c\bar{c}$ state, not from the final $VV$ state. Translated to the present problem, the argument is based on the dominance of the diagram of Fig. \[Fig3\](a) over the one of Fig. \[Fig3\](b), which require two, versus three, gluon exchange as discussed in Ref. [@Kopke:1988cs] for the $J/\psi$ case. ![image](f3.eps) In the present work the $b\bar{b}$ state is assumed to be an SU(3) singlet in $\Upsilon$ decay, like in the case of the $c\bar{c}$ state. Both assumptions hold equally here and hence the only difference in the results stems from an overall normalization, which disappears when ratios are made, and the momenta $q$ in the formula of the width, since now the $\Upsilon$ mass is different to the one of the $J/\psi$. It is easy to extend the results of $J/\psi$ to the decay of the $\Upsilon$. The mechanism is depicted in Fig. \[Fig4\] for $\Upsilon (1S)$ radiative decay. When this is taken into account, we can evaluate the same ratios for $\Upsilon(nS)$ radiative decay as those for $J/\psi$ case. ![image](f4.eps) The extended formalism for the transition amplitudes of $\Upsilon(1S)$ decay into $\gamma T$ provides the amplitudes $$\begin{aligned} \label{radi} t_{\Upsilon (1S)\rightarrow \gamma \mathrm{R}}=\sum_j \widetilde{w_j} G_j g_j \ .\end{aligned}$$ and the weights $\widetilde{w_j}$ are the same as those obtained in Ref. [@hanhart] and given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cg} \widetilde{ w_i} = c~\left\{\begin{array}{ll} -\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}&\quad\mbox{for $\rho\rho$}\\ -\sqrt{2}&\quad\mbox{for $K^\bar{K}^$}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\quad \mbox{for $\omega\omega$}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\quad\mbox{for $\phi\phi$} \end{array} \right. .\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a normalization constant, which cancels in the ratios, and $G_j$, $g_j$ are again the loop functions of the intermediate $VV$ states and the couplings of the resonance to these $VV$ channels. All these quantities are given in Table 1 of Ref. [@hanhart]. The same theoretical framework allows us to evaluate the $\Upsilon (1S)$ radiative decay into the scalar meson $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$ which are also obtained from the interaction of $VV$, mostly $\rho\rho$ and $K^{0} \bar{K}^{\,0}$ respectively. The decay width is given again by Eq. (\[Gama\]) where $q$ is the momentum of the photon in the $\Upsilon (1S)$ rest frame. Numerical results of radiative decays ------------------------------------- For the radiative decays, we find in the PDG new results for $\Upsilon(1S)$. For the $\Upsilon(2S)$ there are only upper bounds and we cannot compare ratios. There is also a new set of data on $J/\psi \to \gamma T$ and $\psi(2S) \to \gamma T$ from Ref. [@seth], and similarly going to $\gamma S$, where $S$ is any of the scalar mesons $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1710)$. We have taken advantage of the fact that these data for $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ radiative decays come from the same experiment, so they are advantageous for the evaluation of ratios since they usually cancel systematic uncertainties. The data of Ref. [@seth] are given for $J/\psi [\psi(2S)] \to \gamma R \to \gamma \pi \pi$ or $J/\psi [\psi(2S)] \to \gamma R \to \gamma K \bar{K}$. In order to convert those numbers in partial decay widths we divide by the $V \to \pi \pi$ or $V \to K \bar{K}$ branching ratio and add relative errors in quadrature. In Table \[Tab:pipikkbr\] we show the branching ratios that we used in the present work. Some of these branching ratios are not well known, and there are different values for them, such as for $f_0(1370) \to K \bar{K}$ and $f_0(1710) \to K \bar{K}$. We take an approximate average value, compatible with the different results. ---------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- $f_2(1270) \to \pi \pi$ $f'_2(1525) \to K \bar{K}$ $f_0(1370) \to K \bar{K}$ $f_0(1710) \to K \bar{K}$ Ref. [@Agashe:2014kda] [@Agashe:2014kda] [@Bugg:1996ki; @Bugg:2007ja] [@Albaladejo:2008qa] [@Albaladejo:2008qa] [@Longacre:1986fh] [@Geng:2008gx] Branching ratios (%) $84.8^{+2.4}_{-1.2}$ $88.7 \pm 2.2$ $35 \pm 13$ $\sim 20$ $36 \pm 12$ $38^{+9}_{-19}$ $55$ Adopted value (%) $84.8 \pm 1.3$ $88.7 \pm 2.2$ $30 \pm 15$ $35 \pm 15$ ---------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- \[Tab:pipikkbr\] Then we evaluate the ratios, $$\begin{aligned} R_T &=& \frac{\Gamma_\mathrm{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma f'_2(1525)}}, \\ R_S &=& \frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma f_0(1370)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma f_0(1710)}}, \\ \widetilde{R_T} &=& \frac{\Gamma_\mathrm{\psi(2S)\rightarrow \gamma f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\psi (2S)\rightarrow \gamma f'_2(1525)}} , \\ \widetilde{R_S} &=& \frac{\Gamma_{\psi (2S)\rightarrow \gamma f_0(1370)}}{\Gamma_{\psi(2S)\rightarrow\gamma f_0(1710)}}, \\ \widehat{R_T} &=& \frac{\Gamma_\mathrm{\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma f'_2(1525)}} , \\ \widehat{R_S} &=& \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma f_0(1370)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow\gamma f_0(1710)}} ,\\ \overline{R_T} &=& \frac{\Gamma_\mathrm{\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow \gamma f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow \gamma f'_2(1525)}} , \\ \overline{R_S} &=& \frac{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow \gamma f_0(1370)}}{\Gamma_{\Upsilon(2S)\rightarrow\gamma f_0(1710)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The numerical results are summarized in Table \[Tab:ratios\] compared with the experimental data. We note that the comparison with the experimental results is particularly valuable since the theoretical results were predictions done before (see Ref. [@Dai:2013uua]) that can be contrasted with data observed later. We see that we have agreement in all numbers except for the ratio of $\widetilde{R_T}$ where even within errors there is a discrepancy of about a factor two. Actually, the reason for the large experimental value of this ratio is the small value for $Br[\psi(2S) \to \gamma f'_2(1525)]$. One can see in Ref. [@seth] that this rate is small in absolute value since the ratio $\mathfrak{B}_2[\psi(2S)]/\mathfrak{B}_2[J/\psi]$ is of $4.1\%$ (see more details of Table VI in Ref. [@seth]) and is the smallest one of the eight ratios tabulated there, diverging significantly from the $13\%$ rule for this ratio. We have consulted the authors of Ref. [@seth], who admit problems in this datum for the $\psi(2S)$ transitions, as we can see in Fig. 9 of Ref. [@seth], where the relative strength of $f'_2(1525)$ and $f_0(1710)$ are quite different in the decay modes $\psi(2S) \to \gamma K^+ K^-$ and $\psi(2S) \to \gamma K_s K_s$, when they should be the same. Molecular picture Data ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $R_T~(J/\psi)$ $2\pm 1 $ (Ref. [@hanhart]) $3.18^{+0.58}_{-0.64}$ (Refs. [@CLEO1; @CLEO2; @CLEO3]) $2.57 \pm 0.5$ (Ref. [@seth]) $R_S~(J/\psi)$ $1.2\pm 0.3$ $0.51 \pm 0.41 $ (Ref. [@seth]) $\widetilde {R_T}~(\psi (2S))$ $1.94 \pm 0.97$ $8.6 \pm 3.0$ (Ref. [@seth]) $\widetilde{R_S}~(\psi (2S))$ $1.14\pm 0.28$ $ 0.81^{+0.84}_{-0.73}$ (Ref. [@seth]) $\widehat{R_T}~(\Upsilon (1S))$ $1.84\pm 0.92$ $2.66 \pm 0.67$ (Ref. [@seth]) $\widehat{R_S}~(\Upsilon (1S))$ $1.05\pm 0.26$ $\overline{R_T}~(\Upsilon (2S))$ $ 1.83\pm 0.92$ $\overline{R_S}~(\Upsilon (2S))$ $1.05\pm 0.26$ The problem for this $\psi(2S)$ transition, together with the discrepancy with the theoretical results, which have otherwise been successful in the other cases, should serve as incentive to have a further experimental look into this transition. Conclusion ========== A further test on the molecular nature of the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$ and $K^_2(1430)$ has been made, using the decay of $\Upsilon(nS)$ into $\phi (\omega)$ and any of the $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$ resonances, or $K^(892)$ and $K^_2(1430)$. We have also studied the same decays from the $\psi(nS)$ state. The theory only makes use of the fact that both $\psi(nS)$ and $\Upsilon(nS)$ are singlets of SU(3). A dynamical factor for the OZI violation into the strange and nonstrange sectors, the $\nu$ parameter, is taken from other experiments. The needed modifications due to kinematics with respect to the analogous cases of $J/\psi$, $\psi(2S)$ decays have been done and results for the decays of the $\Upsilon(nS)$ are found in agreement with experiment for the cases where experimental information is available. We also analyzed the radiative decay $J/\psi$, $\psi(2S)$, $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ into a photon and a tensor $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$ or a photon and a scalar $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1710)$. New data on these decays has been reported recently from the CLEO Collaboration which has allowed us to compare with predictions for these decays made prior to the experiment. The agreement found with experiment is good in all cases except in one ratio involving the $Br[\psi(2S) \to \gamma f'_2(1525)]$ decay which was found exceptionally small in the experiment and was admitted as problematic there. Those problems and the discrepancy with the theory, which otherwise is in agreement with the data, calls for a further reanalysis of this datum. The overall agreement found with the data on different experiments provides extra support for the picture in which the tensor states $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, $\bar{K}^{}_{2}(1430)$, as well as the scalar ones $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$ are dynamically generated states from the vector-vector interaction. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We would like to thank K.K. Seth for calling our attention to the experiment of Ref. [@seth] and for very useful discussions. One of us, E. O., wishes to acknowledge support from the Chinese Academy of Science in the Program of Visiting Professorship for Senior International Scientists (Grant No. 2013T2J0012). This work is partly supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad and European FEDER funds under the contract number FIS2011-28853-C02-01 and FIS2011-28853-C02-02, and the Generalitat Valenciana in the program Prometeo, 2009/090. We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity Study of Strongly Interacting Matter (acronym HadronPhysics3, Grant Agreement n. 283286) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU. This work is also partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11475227, 11375080, and 10975068, and the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Scientific Committee under Grant No. 2013020091. [99]{} K. A. Olive [et al.]{} (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C [38]{}, 090001 (2014). J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [48]{}, 659 (1982). J. A. Oller, E. Oset and A. Ramos, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [45]{}, 157 (2000), and references therein. J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A [620]{}, 438 (1997) \[Erratum-ibid. A [652]{}, 407 (1999)\]. J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D [59]{}, 074001 (1999) \[Erratum-ibid. D [60]{}, 099906 (1999)\] \[Erratum-ibid. D [75]{}, 099903 (2007)\]. N. Kaiser, Eur. Phys. J. A [3]{}, 307 (1998). M. P. Locher, V. E. Markushin and H. Q. Zheng, Eur. Phys. J. C [4]{}, 317 (1998). J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Nucl. Phys. A [679]{}, 57 (2000). J. R. Pelaez and G. Rios, Phys. Rev. Lett. [97]{}, 242002 (2006). L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [79]{}, 074009 (2009). L. S. Geng, E. Oset, R. Molina and D. Nicmorus, PoS EFT [09]{}, 040 (2009). R. Molina, D. Nicmorus and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [78]{}, 114018 (2008). A. Martinez Torres, L. S. Geng, L. R. Dai, B. X. Sun, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B [680]{}, 310 (2009). L. S. Geng, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. A [44]{}, 305 (2010). Lian-Rong Dai and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A [49]{}, 130 (2013). P. Chatzis, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D [84]{}, 034027 (2011). S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao and K. K. Seth, Phys. Rev. D [91]{}, 052006 (2015). L. Roca, J. E. Palomar, E. Oset and H. C. Chiang, Nucl. Phys. A [744]{}, 127 (2004). C. P. Shen [et al.]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [86]{}, 031102 (2012). D. V. Bugg, B. S. Zou and A. V. Sarantsev, Nucl. Phys. B [471]{}, 59 (1996). D. V. Bugg, Eur. Phys. J. C [52]{}, 55 (2007). M. Albaladejo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [101]{}, 252002 (2008). R. S. Longacre, A. Etkin, K. J. Foley, W. A. Love, T. W. Morris, A. C. Saulys, E. D. Platner and S. J. Lindenbaum [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [177]{}, 223 (1986). D. Besson et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [75]{}, 072001 (2007). D. Besson et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [83]{}, 037101(2011). S. B. Athar et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [73]{}, 032001(2006). L. Kopke and N. Wermes, Phys. Rept. [174*]{}, 67 (1989).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'A. Rainot, M. Reggiani, H. Sana, J. Bodensteiner, C. A. Gomez-Gonzalez, O. Absil[^1], V. Christiaens, P. Delorme, L. A. Almeida, S. Caballero-Nieves, J. De Ridder, K. Kratter, S. Lacour, J.-B. Le Bouquin, L. Pueyo, H. Zinnecker' date: Accepted subtitle: 'I. Methodology and proof of concept on QZ Car ($\equiv$ HD93206)' title: 'The Carina High-Contrast Imaging Project for massive Stars (CHIPS)' --- [Massive stars like company. However, low-mass companions have remained extremely difficult to detect at angular separations ($\rho$) smaller than 1" (approx. 1000-3000 au considering typical distance to nearby massive stars) given the large brightness contrast between the companion and the central star. Constraints on the low-mass end of the companions mass-function for massive stars are however needed, for example to help distinguishing between various scenarios for the formation of massive stars.]{} [To obtain statistically significant constraint on the presence of low-mass companions beyond the typical detection limit of current surveys ($\Delta \mathrm{mag} \lesssim 5$ at $\rho \lesssim 1$"), we initiated a survey of O and Wolf-Rayet stars in the Carina region using the SPHERE coronagraphic instrument on the VLT. In this first paper, we aim to introduce the survey, to present the methodology and to demonstrate the capability of SPHERE for massive stars using the multiple system QZ Car.]{} [We obtained VLT-SPHERE snapshot observations in the IRDIFS\_EXT mode, which combines the IFS and IRDIS sub-systems and simultaneously provides us four-dimension data cubes in two different field-of-view: 1.73“ $\times$ 1.73” for IFS (39 spectral channels across the $YJH$ bands) and 12“ $\times$ 12” for IRDIS (two spectral channels across the $K$ band). Angular- and spectral-differential imaging techniques as well as PSF-fitting were applied to detect and measure the relative flux of the companions in each spectral channel. The latter are then flux-calibrated using theoretical SED models of the central object and are compared to a grid of ATLAS9 atmosphere model and (pre-)main-sequence evolutionary tracks, providing a first estimate of the physical properties of the detected companions.]{} [Detection limits of 9 mag at $\rho > 200$ mas for IFS and as faint as 13 mag at $\rho > 1\farcs8$ for IRDIS (corresponding to sub-solar masses for potential companions) can be reached in snapshot observations of only a few minutes integration times, allowing us to detect 19 sources around the QZ Car system. All but two are reported here for the first time. With near-IR magnitude contrasts in the range of 4 to 7.5 mag, the three brightest sources (Ab, Ad and E) are most likely physically bound, have masses in the range of 2 to 12 M$_\sun$ and are potentially co-eval with QZ Car central system. The remaining sources have flux contrast of $1.5\times10^5$ to $9.5 \times 10^6$ ($\Delta K \approx 11$ to 13 mag). Their presence can be explained by the local source density and they are thus probably chance alignments. If they are members of the Carina nebula, they would be sub-solar-mass pre-main sequence stars. ]{} [ Based on this proof of concept, we showed that VLT/SPHERE allows us to reach the sub-solar mass regime of the companion mass function. This paves the way for this type of observation with a large sample of massive stars to provide novel constraints on the multiplicity of massive stars in a region of the parameter space that has remained inaccessible so far.]{} Introduction {#s:intro} ============ The formation of massive stars remains one of the most important open questions in astronomy today [e.g., @zinnecker; @tan]. Observing the early phases of massive stars formation remains challenging at best: forming massive stars are rare and found at large distances, their formation timescale is short and they are born in an environment strongly obscured by gas and dust. Several formation scenarios have been proposed, among others: formation through stellar collisions and merging [@bonnel1998], competitive accretion [@bonnel2001; @bonnel2006], monolithic collapse [@mckee; @krumholz]. Except for the merger process, most theories agree on the need for dense and massive accretion disks to overcome the radiation barrier. These disks likely fragment under gravitational instabilities [@kratter] which may result in the formation of companions, however model predictions are still scarce. Studying the correlations between multiplicity characteristics may provide crucial observational constraints to distinguish between the different scenarios of massive star-formation and help in the development of future theoretical models. The multiplicity properties of massive stars have already been the subject of recent surveys in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies [for a recent overview, see e.g. @sana2017]. Some studies focused on the spectroscopic analysis of young massive stellar clusters [@sana2012; @almeida2017] and OB associations [@kobulnicky2012] and others on the high-angular astrometric observations of massive stars [@mason09; @sana2014; @aldoretta2015; @gravity2018] in order to determine the binary fraction of massive stars in these regions. Among those previous studies, the Southern MAssive Stars at High angular resolution survey [SMaSH+, @sana2014] was an ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) Large Program (P89-P91) that combined optical interferometry (VLTI/PIONIER) and aperture masking (NACO/SAM) to search for mostly bright companions ($\Delta H<4$) in the angular separation regime $0.001\arcsec <\rho$$<$ $0.2$ around a large sample of O-type stars. The entire NACO field of view was further analysed to search for fainter ($\Delta H<8$) companions up to 8. The SMaSH+ results showed the importance of such studies for the understanding of massive star formation. They concluded that almost all massive stars in their sample have at least one companion and that over 60% have two or more. In addition, a larger number of faint companions are seen at large separations, corresponding roughly to the outer edge of the accretion disk. This is in agreement with expectations from the theory of disk fragmentation. These companions may correspond to outward migrating clumps resulting from the fragmented accretion disk or from tidal capture. Investigating whether low-mass companions exist at closer separations or if there is a characteristic length at which the flux [vs.]{} separation distribution changes is therefore critical. Nevertheless, there remain large areas in the parameter space that have not been probed by these surveys, mostly due to instrumental limitations. In particular and while a rather complete view of companions down to mass ratio of about 0.3 has now been achieved, the existing surveys have so-far failed to probe the lower-mass end of the companion mass-function. In the last few years, extreme Adaptive Optics (AO) instruments have come online, peering far deeper and more accurately than previously possible. Extreme AO, implemented at the VLT through the Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch instrument [SPHERE, @beuzit2019] provides the necessary spatial resolution and dynamics to search for faint companions to nearby massive stars. In this context, the Carina High-contrast Imaging Project of massive Stars (CHIPS) aims to characterise the immediate environment of a large sample of massive stars within 3 from $\eta$ Car. Ninety-three O- & Wolf-Rayet type stars were selected from the Galactic O-Star Catalogue [GOSC, @maiz2013] and the Galactic Wolf-Rayet catalogue [@crowther2015]. So far about half of the potential targets have been observed, which will be sufficient to obtain constraints on the occurrence rate of companions in the SPHERE separation range with a precision better than 7%. SPHERE will allow us to investigate the presence and properties of massive star companions in the angular separation range of $0\farcs15$ to $5\farcs5$ (approx. 350-12,500 au) and $\Delta \mathrm{mag} \approx 12$ (mass-ratios > 0.03 on the main sequence). The range below a couple thousand au is particularly important as it corresponds to the approximated size of the accretion disk, where faint companions formed from the remnant of the fragmented disk could be found. The present paper is the first in a short series. Here, we aim to establish a proof-of-concept using the first VLT/SPHERE observations of the multiple system. QZ Car ($\equiv$ HD 93206) is a high-order multiple system composed of two spectroscopic binaries (Aa & Ac) and three previously resolved companions within $7\arcsec$ (Ab, E & B). The pair (Aa1,Aa2) has a spectral type O9.7 I + B2 V, and an orbital period of 20.7 days. The pair (Ac1,Ac2) has a spectral type O8 III + O9 V, and a period of 6 days. These two binaries make up the central system (Aa,Ac), separated by roughly 30 milli-arcsec (mas) [@sana2014; @sanchez2017], and have a combined $H$ and $K_\mathrm{s}$-band magnitudes of 5.393 and 5.252, respectively. The companions Ab, E & B were detected by the SMaSH+ survey at separations of $1\farcs00$, $2\farcs58$ and $7\farcs07$ from the central system, respectively. This paper is organized as follows. Sect. \[s:data\] presents the observations and data reduction. Sect. \[s: analysis\] describes the image post-processing algorithms as well as additional functionalities developed for our current studies. Results are discussed in Sect. \[s: results\] and our conclusions are presented in Sect. \[s:Ccl\] Observations and data reduction {#s:data} =============================== Observations {#s:obs} ------------ The QZ Car observations were obtained on Jan 25th, 2016 using the second generation VLT instrument SPHERE, situated on the Unit Telescope 3 at the Paranal observatory in Chile. SPHERE is a high-contrast imaging instrument combining an extreme adaptive optics system, coronagraphic masks and three different sub-systems with specific science goals. Our observations were executed in the IRDIFS extended mode (IRDIFS\_EXT) mode using the Integral Field Spectrograph [IFS, @claudi2008] and the Infra-Red Dual-beam Imaging and Spectroscopy [IRDIS, @dolhen2008] sub-systems. [l c c ]{}\ Instrument & IFS & IRDIS\ Number of DITs (NDIT) (O) & 16 & 4\ Detector Integration Time (DIT) (O) \[s\] & 4 & 4\ Number of DITs (NDIT) (F) & 4 & 4\ Detector Integration Time (DIT) (F) \[s\] & 16 & 8\ Neutral Density Filter & – & ND\_2\ Airmass & 1.3 & 1.3\ Parallactic Angle variation () & 3.4 & 3.5\ Seeing at zenith & 0.9 & 0.9\ Average Coherence time $\tau_{0}$ (ms) & 3 & 3\ IFS images have a size of 290 $\times$ 290 pixels and a pixel size of 7.4 mas, hence corresponding to a field-of-view (FoV) of 173 $\times$ 173 on the sky. The IRDIS camera has 1024 $\times$ 1024 pixels, covering a 12 $\times$ 12 FoV with a pixel size of 12.25 mas. The IRDIFS\_EXT mode was chosen to allow combining the $YJH$-band observations with IFS to dual-band $K$-band observations with IRDIS. With its small FoV and spectroscopic capabilities, IFS allowed us to both detect and characterise companions at short separations. The larger FoV of IRDIS provided additional information on the local density of faint objects. The observation sequence was composed of three types of observations: (i) [centre (C)]{}, allowing us to compute the centroid location of the coronagraph; (ii) [flux (F)]{}, to obtain a reference flux point-spread function (PSF) of the central objects; and (iii) [object (O)]{}, with the central star blocked by the coronagraph, hence delivering the scientific images that will be scrutinised to search for faint, nearby companions. [flux]{} observations were performed with the central star outside the coronagraph. The F-C-O sequence was repeated three times. Due to the brightness of QZ Car ($ H < 5.5$), we used the neutral density filter ND2.0 – delivering a transmission of the order of $10^{-2}$ – for the F and C observations of both instruments. The telescope was set to pupil tracking, i.e. the centroid of the field is fixed on the science object and the sky rotates around it, as required for the later post-processing algorithm which uses the angular information of the movement of companions on an image, or angular differential imaging [@marois06]. For the IFS [object]{} observations, we used 16 DITs of $4$ s, for a total exposure time of $\sim$64 s. With IRDIS we chose 4 DITs of $4$ s, giving an integration time of $16$ s. Similarly we adopted NDIT $\times$ DIT of 4 $\times$ 16 s and NDIT $\times$ DIT of 4 $\times$ 8 s for the [flux]{} exposures with IFS and IRDIS, respectively. The observing setup and atmospheric conditions are detailed in Table \[table:Obs\]. As a result of the [object]{} observations, we have obtained four-dimensional (4D) IFS and IRDIS data cubes of the QZ Car system. The IFS cubes are composed of spatial (2D) images of the IFS FoV for each of the 39 wavelengths channels (from 0.9 to 1.6 $\mu$m) and 48 sky rotations (due to the pupil tracking). The IRDIS data cubes contain 2D pixel images at each of the two wavelengths channels ($K_1$ and $K_2$) and 48 sky rotations, covering a total parallactic angle variation of about 3.5. Science data reduction {#s: reduction} ---------------------- The data reduction of IRDIS and IFS images was processed by the SPHERE Data centre [@delorme2017 DC] at the Institut de Planetologie et d’Astrophysique de Grenoble (IPAG)[^2]. The SPHERE-DC process is standardised in terms of astronomical data reduction: removing bad pixels, dark and flat frames and estimating the bias in each exposure. They also calibrate the astrometry associated to the science frames using the on-sky calibrations from @maire2016, i.e. a True North correction value of $1.75\pm0.08^\circ$ and a plate scale of $7.46\pm0.02$ mas/pixel for IFS and $12.255\pm0.009$ mas/pixel for IRDIS. The system uses a modified version of the SPHERE Esorex pipeline[^3] that is functional, automated and can be accessed by the user if requested. The end result from this data reduction is the reduced 4D science data cube, tables containing the wavelengths and rotational angles, and the 3D PSF cubes (see Sect. \[s:psf\]). The point spread function of QZ Car {#s:psf} ----------------------------------- The [flux]{} observations are images of the central star taken without the coronagraph to estimate the PSF and flux of the central star. Three such PSF observations were taken during our observing sequence and delivered data cubes that contained the 2D images of the field at each of the instruments’ respective wavelength channels. To increase the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) of the PSF frames and to average out the observing conditions, the median of the three PSF frames at each wavelength was computed so only a single 3D data cube was left. The obtained PSF is to be used for the companion modelling and characterisation techniques introduced in Sect. \[s: analysis\]. However, in the case of QZ Car, additional complication arose in the IFS PSF frames. The pair of close binaries at the core of QZ Car’s multiple system is separated by roughly 30 mas. This is just about the diffraction limit of an 8.2 m telescope in the $Y$ to $H$ band and sufficient for QZ Car’s point spread function (PSF) in IFS to display an elongated shape in the [flux]{} images. This had unintended consequences in the data processing as the reference PSF obtained from the IFS [flux]{} images is used to create a normalised PSF needed to inject artificial companions at different stages in the analysis, hence propagating the PSF’s deformation and leading to a number of artefacts. Therefore we adopted another reference PSF from an IFS observation of HD 93129A taken on the night of February 10, 2016. While HD 93129A is itself a long period binary, it was unresolved at the time of the observations [@maiz2017]. The flux of HD 93129A’s PSF is not the same as the original PSF of QZ Car. It was therefore scaled so that the new reference IFS PSF images have the same integrated flux as the QZ Car IFS PSF frames. This allows us to retain the original flux information while adopting a more representative PSF shape. Error estimation of the total flux measured from the PSF was accomplished by computing the standard deviation of the flux for all the [flux]{} images. Data Analysis {#s: analysis} ============= ![image](Plots/QZ_car_IRDIS.png){width=".95\columnwidth"} ![image](Plots/Qz_car_IFS.png){width=".96\columnwidth"} Once the data were reduced, image post-processing algorithms for high-contrast imaging were used on the target frames. In this study, we made use of the Vortex Imaging Processing package[^4] [VIP, @carlos2017] and a PSF-fitting technique [@bodensteiner19]. VIP is an open-source python package for high-contrast imaging data processing that is instrument-agnostic. It was developed for exoplanet research, disk detection and characterization. It is able to perform Angular, Reference and Spectral Differential Imaging (ADI, RDI, SDI respectively) and ADI-SDI simultaneously based on matrix approximation with Principal Component Analysis [@amara2012; @soummer2012]. We contributed to the implementation of 4D data analysis and IFS support. For comparison, a PSF fitting approach was also used to obtain the photometry of sources on IRDIS images and on companions which VIP could not characterise because too close to the edges of the detector (see section \[s: PSF-fit\]). Post-processed PCA/ADI images for the IRDIS and IFS science cubes are presented on Fig. \[f: fov\]. From the IRDIS image, previously known companions Ab and E are clearly distinguishable. However, these are not the only detected companions as over a dozen of other point sources are now clearly visible on the image. The IFS image gives a close-up view of the system. The Ab companion is still present at the top of the image though cropped and cannot be analysed. On the South of the IFS image, a previously unknown companion (Ad) is clearly visible and delivering enough flux for a first spectral analysis (see Sect. \[s: SED\]). [l c c c c c ]{} Source & Ad & Ab & E & S1 & S2\ $\rho$ (mas) & 729.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 1002.9 $\pm$ 1.7 & 2590.4 $\pm$ 4.4 & 2429.4 $\pm$ 6.9 & 2475.8 $\pm$ 5.9\ $d$ ($10^3$ au) & 1.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 2.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 5.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 5.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 5.7 $\pm$ 0.1\ PA ($^\circ$) & 169.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 335.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 314.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 343.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 197.8 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{1}$ (mag) & 7.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 7.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.2 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{2}$ (mag) & 7.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 7.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 11.1 $\pm$ 0.1\ $P_\mathrm{spur}$ (%) & 0.2 & 0.1 & 1.5 & 39.0 & 26\ \ Source & S3 & S4 & S5 & S6 & S7\ $\rho$ (mas) & 2470.8 $\pm$ 6.8 & 2661.4 $\pm$ 7.5 & 2955.7 $\pm$ 5.7 & 3298.6 $\pm$ 5.9 & 3553.9 $\pm$ 6.6\ $d$ ($10^3$ au) & 5.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 6.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & $6.8\pm0.1$ & $7.6\pm0.1$ & $8.2\pm0.1$\ PA ($^\circ$) & 205.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 221.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 334.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 191.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 89.1 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{1}$ (mag) & 11.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.5 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{2}$ (mag) & 11.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.3 $\pm$ 0.1\ $P_\mathrm{spur}$ (%) & 33.0 & 44.0 & 33.0 & 36.0 & 52.0\ \ Source & S8 & S9 & S10 & S11 & S12\ $\rho$ (mas) & 3836.2 $\pm$ 7.6 & 4114.0 $\pm$ 10.0 & 4722.8 $\pm$ 11 & 5401.2 $\pm$ 11.0 & 5537.3 $\pm$ 10.0\ $d$ ($10^3$ au) & 8.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 9.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.7 $\pm$ 0.1\ PA ($^\circ$) & 42.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 266.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 269.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 87.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 222.8 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{1}$ (mag) & 11.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 13.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 11.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.4 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{2}$ (mag) & 11.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 13.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 12.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 11.1 $\pm$ 0.1\ $P_\mathrm{spur}$ (%) & 60.0 & 78.0 & 92.0 & 90.0 & 81.0\ \ Source & S13 & S14 & S15 & S16\ $\rho$ (mas) & 5611.2 $\pm$ 10.1 & 5866.5 $\pm$ 10.3 & 6313.1 $\pm$ 11.0 & 6327.1 $\pm$ 11.0\ $d$ ($10^3$ au) & 12.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 13.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 14.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 14.5 $\pm$ 0.1\ PA ($^\circ$) & 172.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 103.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 164.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 155.1 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{1}$ & 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.2 $\pm$ 0.1\ $\Delta K_{2}$ & 12.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 12.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & 12.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.1 $\pm$ 0.1\ $P_\mathrm{spur}$ (%) & 94.0 & 96.0 & 96.0 & 95.0 &\ Companion Detection {#s: detect} ------------------- A visual inspection of the final IRDIS and IFS PCA images displayed in Fig. \[f: fov\] reveals a handful of rather bright companions and a larger number of much fainter point sources. To evaluate which ones are true detections, we first estimated their signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) using the $S/N$ map function implemented in VIP. This module computes the $S/N$ at every pixel of the frame as defined in @mawet2014. From this map we set our detection limit to $S/N = 5$. As expected, companions Ab and E as well as the new companion Ad (detected in both IFS and IRDIS) have large $S/N$. 16 other companion candidates are at separations beyond the IFS FoV and are detected in the IRDIS image with $S/N > 5$. They are marked S1 to S16 in Fig. \[f: fov\], yielding a total of 19 individual sources detected within $6\farcs2$ from the QZ Car central quadruple system. Source characterisation {#s: charact} ----------------------- Once we identified the true sources, we retrieved their position and contrast with respect to the central star. Starting from guess positions estimated from the post-processed frames, we measured accurate angular separations ($\rho$), position angles (PA) and flux contrast in each wavelength channel and for each companion with three different methods described below. Two methods included in the VIP package were used for Ad, Ab and E companions and PSF fitting for all S sources. Final results are provided in Table \[table:2\] and App. \[a: Adspec\] for IRDIS and IFS respectively. ### VIP {#s: VIP} We first measured the flux of the stars using aperture photometry spectral channel by spectral channel, which provided us with a first estimate of the spectrum. This initial guess was then passed onto the Simplex Nelder-Mead optimisation (hereafter referred to as the Simplex method) of VIP which estimated position and flux parameters by applying a NEGative Fake Companion technique (NEGFC). This method consists in inserting negative artificial sources in the individual frames, varying at the same time their brightness and position (starting from the values measured by aperture photometry). The artificial companions are obtained from the unsaturated PSF of the central star, measured in the [flux]{} observations. The residuals in the final images are then computed and compared to the background noise, measured in an annulus at the same radial distance. The combination of brightness and location that minimizes the residuals are estimated through a Nelder-Mead minimization algorithm. This provides reference fluxes for each spectral channel. Dividing the fluxes of the different companions by the reference fluxes from the PSF data cubes, we obtained flux or magnitude contrasts at each wavelength channel. Results from this simplex method were then injected into the MCMC engine (also available in VIP) to estimate confidence intervals for the angular separations, PAs and fluxes for each wavelength channel and each target. In this way we obtained an (uncalibrated) IFS low-resolution spectrum for companion Ad and two flux values for all IRDIS sources. For sources with small radial distance difference between each other ($\Delta \rho < 200$ mas), masks were applied on sources other than the target. This was to prevent issues with parameter estimation when multiple sources are in the same annulus when applying the simplex optimisation routine. For this purpose, circular masks were taken at the same radial distance as the source we wished to mask, but at a different position angle to preserve the noise properties. A rotation was then applied on the mask in order to preserve the radial dependence of the noise. For Ab, the MCMC algorithm failed to retrieve the $K_{1}$ uncertainties. The MCMC failed to converge for S13 to S16 while nor Simplex nor MCMC could be used for S15 and S16. In either case, this is caused by the fact that the field-of-view is too small to contain the full annulus at the target separation, i.e. the sources are too close to the edge of the field. [.5]{} ![image](Plots/dmag_K1_all.png) [.5]{} ![image](Plots/dmag_K2_all.png) [c c c c c c c c c ]{}\ Component & Spectral Type & $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ & $\log g$ & $R_{\ast}$ & $M_{\ast}$ & $\log L_{\ast}$ & $\log\dot{M}$ & $v_{\infty}$\ & & (K) & & (R$_{\odot}$) & (M$_{\odot}$) & \[L$_{\odot}$\] &\[M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$\] & (kms$^{-1}$)\ Aa1 & O9.7 I & 30463 & 3.2 & 22.1 & 27.4 & 5.6 &$-5.7$ & 1794\ Aa2 & B2 V & 20000 & 4.3 & 3.0 & 6.5 & 3.1 & $-9.7$ & 1186\ Ac1 & O8 III & 33961 & 3.6 & 13.7 & 25.4 & 5.3 & $-6.2$ & 2191\ Ac2 & O9 V & 32882 & 3.92 & 7.53 & 17.1 & 4.7 & $-7.3$ & 2427\ In order to test the accuracy of the MCMC confidence intervals for IRDIS sources, we further implemented a Monte Carlo (MC) method. Firstly, all detected sources are masked. Secondly, a number (25 for our case) of artificial sources are injected at the same radial distance and with the same flux as a given companion, but at varying position angles. The flux and position of the artificial companions are then measured using the Simplex algorithm and compared to the input values. The corresponding standard deviations finally yield an estimate of the 1$\sigma$ error on the flux and positions of the considered companion. The process in then repeated for all sources. The results will be discussed in the next section. The previous methods only take into account the statistical uncertainties from the image processing. For the final photometric errors we took into account the flux variations of the unsaturated images of the central star described in Sect. \[s:psf\]. For the calculation of the astrometric uncertainties, we adopted the plate scale and astrometric calibration precision given by [@maire2016] and the ESO SPHERE user manual. The final astrometric errors are obtained by a quadratic sum of the Simplex-MC measurement errors, the star centre position uncertainty [1.2 mas, from @zurlo2016], the plate scale precision of 0.021 mas/pix for IRDIS and 0.02 mas/pix for IFS, the true north uncertainty ($\pm 0.08\deg$), and the dithering procedure accuracy [0.74 mas, @zurlo2016]. ### PSF fitting {#s: PSF-fit} For all IRDIS candidates beyond 2, the central star’s influence is limited and the background noise dominates (see Sect \[s: limits\]). Therefore the use of ADI and SDI techniques is not necessarily needed to derive precise astrometry and photometry. A more widely used strategy in astronomical imaging is to use a PSF-fitting technique which provides accurate position and flux values for the S sources (Ad, Ab & E $< 2\farcs$). Our PSF-fitting method is based on the `photutils`[^5] python package along with an effective PSF model developed by @anderson2000 and is described in @bodensteiner19. For this, we used the derotated and collapsed images which maximise the S/N in both $K_1$ and $K_2$. The [flux]{} observations with IRDIS are used to establish an accurate PSF model. This is then fitted to each source individually in order to obtain accurate positions and flux estimates. This technique is very useful for sources that are detected in the collapsed images but are too close to the edges of the frames for ADI techniques, i.e. S15 and S16. However, in the $K_2$ band, PSF fitting could not converge to a good solution for sources S10, S13 and S14 as they are too close to the detection limit and do strongly benefit from the ADI post-processing. A comparison plot of the magnitude contrasts obtained between the three methods used in this paper is shown in Fig. \[f: dmag\] for the $K$ bands. A comparison between the $X,Y$ coordinates can be found in App. \[a: comparison\]. These figures show that the positions and (in most cases) contrast values from the three methods are in excellent agreement, for sources S1 to S8, beyond which discrepancies arise. Sources too close to the edge could not be fit with Simplex (S15-S16) nor MCMC (S13-S16), while the PSF-fitting approach failed for the faintest object in the $K_2$-band (S10, S13, S14). Aside from these differences in the best-fit values, MCMC usually yields magnitude contrast errors that are a factor of few larger than those obtained with the Simplex+MC approach and with PSF-fitting. It is likely that the true errors lay somewhat in the middle. From the model atmosphere-fit in the next section, we have strong evidence that the MCMC contrast errors are likely overestimated by a factor of three to four while the Simplex+MC and PSF-fitting uncertainties are too small by a factor of about two. The order of magnitudes is however correct. For future work and given the fact that the MCMC is much more computationally intensive, the present comparison certainly favours the use of PSF-fitting for most sources, but the one that are the closest to the detection limit. Final results adopted from the Simplex+MC or from the PSF fitting techniques are given in Table \[table:2\]. ![IFS+IRDIS flux-calibrated spectrum of QZ Car Ad at a reference distance of 100 R$_\odot$. The plain line gives the best-fit ATLAS9 model with $T_\mathrm{eff}=8896$ K, $\log g=4.27$ and $R=1.72$ R$_\odot$. Shaded area represents the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties on the observed spectra.[]{data-label="f: sed"}](Plots/SED_Ad_bestfit.png){width="\hsize"} Flux calibration {#s: flux-cal} ---------------- To obtain the absolute fluxes of the companions, we would require a flux calibrated spectrum of the central QZ Car system in the same wavelength range as that of our SPHERE observations ($Y$ to $K$). Unfortunately no such spectrum is available. To circumvent this issue, we modelled the spectral energy distribution of QZ Car’s central quadruple system using the non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) atmosphere code FASTWIND [@puls2005; @rivero2011]. Each component of the QZ Car’s central system was modelled separately and their contribution within the PSF then combined. The parameters for the computation were obtained using the spectral types from @sanchez2017 and the corresponding O-star calibration tables from @martins05. Parameters for the Aa2 component were found using a combination from @trundle2007 and @parkin2011. We also calculated the mass-loss rate ($\dot{M}$) and terminal wind velocities ($v_\infty$) for each stellar component following @vink2001 as these are needed input for FASTWIND. Results are summarised in Table \[table:1\]. Once spectra for all the four central components were calculated and combined, we multiplied the contrast fluxes calculated previously by the model spectrum of QZ Car to obtain the absolute fluxes of each companion in the different wavelength bands. In particular, the IFS+IRDIS flux-calibrated spectrum of the Ad companion is displayed in Fig. \[f: sed\]. Throughout this process and later on in Sect. \[s: results\], one needed to adopt a reference radius for the sphere at the surface of which the flux is computed. Without loss of generality, we arbitrarily adopted a value of 100 . We emphasize that this value has no physical meaning. [.5]{} ![image](Plots/contrast_IRDIS.png) [.5]{} ![image](Plots/contrast_IFS.png) Detection limits {#s: limits} ---------------- In this section, we estimate the sensitivity of our observations in terms of magnitude difference as a function of the angular separation $\rho$ to the central object. Using the VIP contrast curve modules we computed the contrast limits for a chosen $\sigma$ level by injecting artificial stars (based on the scaled PSF of HD 93129A, see Sect. \[s:psf\]) and calculating the noise at different radial distances from the centre. This implementation takes into account the small sample statistics correction proposed in @mawet2014. In order to avoid interference from the bright companions, all sources were masked (see Sect. \[s: VIP\]). Although this significantly increases the quality of the contrast curves, small artefacts with a 0.2 mag amplitude remain visible in the contrast curves at a radial separation of 3. The 5-$\sigma$ sensitivity curves that we obtained are presented in Fig. \[f: contrast\]. A contrast better than 8 mag is achieved at 200 mas with IFS, and as large as 11 mag at $\rho > 600$ mas. These magnitude differences correspond to flux contrasts of $1.5\times10^{-4}$ and $4\times10^{-5}$, respectively. Such detection limits are in line with past SPHERE observations [@zurlo2016; @mesa2019] in IRDIFS\_EXT mode, if we consider that our total exposure time was roughly a minute with both IFS and IRDIS. Using a mass scale from @siess2000’s evolutionary tracks, stars with masses $ < 1 M_{\odot}$ could be easily detected by this system. Similarly, IRDIS delivers contrast better than 9 mag at $0\farcs4$ and of better than 13 mag at separations larger than $2\farcs0$. This is about 5 magnitudes deeper than previously achieved with SMaSH+, and up to 8 mag deeper in the poorly mapped region around 400 mas demonstrating the complementing capabilities of SPHERE with respect to previously obtained high-angular resolution observations of massive stars. ![ $\chi^2$-surface resulting from ATLAS model fit to Ad’s IFS+IRDIS SED projected onto the HRD plane. The thick black and red lines are ZAMS and early-MS according to @siess2000 definitions$^5$. Thin black lines are the evolutionary PMS tracks for stars with masses increasing from bottom to top from 1.1 to 3.5 M$_\odot$. The 4 to 8 Myr parts of the respective evolutionary tracks are displayed with a thicker line. Finally, the red dashed lines give, from top to bottom, the 1, 5 and 10 Myr isochrones. The best fit model is indicated with a white diamond. []{data-label="f: chi2"}](Plots/Ad-IFS_APR2020.png){width="\hsize"} Distance of QZ Car {#s: gaia} ------------------ Knowledge of the distance of QZ Car with respect to the observer is crucial to convert the angular separation in physical (projected) separations. In an attempt to improve on the distance of QZ Car, we retrieved its astrometric information from the Gaia DR2 catalogue [@gaia2016; @gaia2018; @Lindegren2018], including positions, parallax, proper motion, their uncertainties and correlations. We used a galactic prior with a length scale of 2.5 kpc [@walborn12] and performed an MCMC fit to the distance and proper-motion vector as described by @bailerjones17. We obtained a distance of $1.17^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ kpc. Similar results are obtained with a flat prior. This is in contrast with prior estimates of about 2.3 kpc [@walborn1995; @smith2006]. We also computed a spectral distance modulus yielding a distance of about 2.0 to 2.1 kpc. Given these discrepancies, we scrutinised further the Gaia measurements. We computed the quality of the astrometric fit the so-called RUWE indicator of @Lindegren2018, leading to RUWE = 2.54, which reveals a poor astrometric fit despite the reasonable relative uncertainty of 11% on the parallax, and the 299 good astrometric measurements. This poor RUWE is likely caused by the multiplicity of the central object, which biases the Gaia parallax. This issue could be resolved in the next Gaia data release, where binarity will be taken into account when deriving the parallax. In the remainder of the paper, we adopt 2.3 kpc as the reference distance to convert the measured angular separations to (projected) physical distances. The results are given in Table \[table:2\]. We note that the only results in this work that depend on the adopted distance are the projected physical separations, so that there is no impact on the presented results if the adopted distance to QZ Car turned out to be incorrect. ![image](Plots/Ab_APR2020.png){width=".45\hsize"} ![image](Plots/E_APR2020.png){width=".45\hsize"} Results and Discussion {#s: results} ====================== Probabilities of spurious association {#s: Pspur} ------------------------------------- While over a dozen faint sources are clearly resolved around QZ Car in Fig. \[f: fov\], additional information such as common proper motion would be needed to confirm their physical connection to QZ Car. Unfortunately, we only have one observation of QZ Car so far and the closest object to QZ Car that was also detected by Gaia is at 7.2", i.e. outside the IRDIS field-of-view. In the absence of such information, we resorted to a statistical argument. To this aim, we define the probability of spurious association ($P_\mathrm{spur}(\rho_i\|\Sigma(K_i))$) as the probability that at least one source is found by chance at a separation $\rho$ equal or closer to QZ Car than that of the companion $i$ ($\rho \le \rho_i$) given the local source density $\Sigma$ of stars at least as bright as $i$ ($K \le K_i$)[^6]. A query of the VISTA Carina Nebula catalogue [@Preibisch2014] yielded $N_\mathrm{obj} = 1864$ within a $r=2$ radius around QZ Car down to magnitudes of $K_\mathrm{s} \approx 19$. To compute $P_\mathrm{spur}$, we first estimate the local source density $\Sigma(K_i)=N_\mathrm{obj}(K \le K_i)/(\pi r^2)$ of objects at least as bright as the companion $i$. We then use a Monte Carlo approach and randomly generate 10,000 populations of $N_\mathrm{obj}(K \le K_i)$ stars uniformly distributed in $\pi r^2$. The probability of spurious association is finally obtained as the fraction of populations in which at least one star is to be found at $\rho \le \rho_i$. This simple exercise confirms the very low probability of spurious association ($P_\mathrm{spur}<0.02$) – hence the high confidence of physical association – of companions Ab, Ad and E while the presence of most of the fainter ’S’ sources are best explained by chance alignment given the overall surface density of sources in QZ Car’s surroundings. In addition to computing the probability of spurious associations, we ran the Besançon model of the Galaxy [@robin2003] in the direction of QZ Car. The model predicts about 20 stars with $K$-band magnitude brighter than 19 mag in an area corresponding to our IRDIS field of view. All of them have $K> 15.5$ and the vast majority (18/21) are background stars (distance $>$ 3 kpc). To the first order, this is compatible with the properties of the S sources in the IRDIS field of view and provides an additional argument to consider (most of) them as chance alignments. It also supports the fact that Ad, Ab and E are physically connected as the Besançon model cannot explain the presence of such bright objects around QZ Car. Sources S1 to S6 have $0.25<P_\mathrm{spur} < 0.50$, so that, statistically, some of these could still be physically linked. In summary, and accounting for the four inner objects, QZ Car consists of seven likely physical companions within an $\approx$ 25-radius, as well as additional three to four fainter candidate companions within a similar angular separation. Confirmation of common proper motion and characterization of orbital motion are of course crucial to definitely prove any physical association. For the closest companion, Ad, given the precision of our astrometry (see Table \[table:2\]) and the proper motion of the central star [@gaiadr2], one should be able to prove common proper motion and measure a significant orbital rotation [excluding contamination by high proper motion background objects, see @nielsen2017] with observations separated by 1 and 7 yr, respectively (assuming a circular orbit). Spectral modelling of Ad {#s: SED} ------------------------ The flux calibrated low-resolution IFS+IRDIS spectrum of Ad provides us with information about its spectral energy distribution (SED). Here we attempt to use that information to constrain the stellar parameters of the Ad companion for the first time. The uncalibrated IFS spectrum is mostly flat, except for two broad absorption features at 1120 nm and 1372 nm (also seen on the calibrated spectrum on Fig. \[f: sed\]). These correspond to the expected location of Earth telluric bands. To check this, we adjusted a synthetic telluric spectrum to the Ad data using MolecFit [@smette2015; @kausch2015]. We used the atmospheric conditions at the time of the observations and only consider telluric lines resulting from water. Once corrected for the telluric bands, and aside from (unphysical) edge effects, the Ad spectrum is feature-less as can be expected from its very-low spectral resolution. The present exercise is useful to confirm the origin of the broad absorption in the IFS Ad spectrum and to verify spectral ranges that can in principle be well corrected from telluric absorption. The MolecFit telluric corrected spectrum is however not used in the following as the division by the spectrum of the central object actually take care of the telluric correction automatically. To constrain the stellar parameters from the spectrum, we used ATLAS9 LTE atmosphere models [@castelli2004]. We associated an ATLAS9 model to each time step in the pre-main sequence (PMS) evolutionary tracks of @siess2000 and quantitatively compared it to Ad’s SED. For numerical reasons in the computation of the $\chi^2$-contour curves, we also interpolated the ATLAS9 grid along the $\log g$-axis. Each ATLAS9 model was converted into flux at the reference distance of 100 and integrated over the width of each IFS and IRDIS wavelength channels, allowing us to compute the corresponding $\chi^2$ accounting for the error-bars on Ad’s SED. Adopting the MCMC errors, the best-fit $\chi^2$ has a reduced value of 0.1, suggesting that the error bars are heavily overestimated. Adopting the Simplex+MC values yields a best-fit reduced- $\chi^2$ of about 4.4 suggesting that the latter are underestimated by a factor of about two. In the following we rescale the Simplex+MC errors so that the best-fit reduced- $\chi^2$ is equal to unity. The obtained $\chi^2$-map is displayed in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD) of Fig. \[f: chi2\]. As expected, our fit results in multiple possible combinations but the allowed mass remains limited in the range of 1.8 to 2.2 M$_\odot$. The best fit model is obtained for a 2.0 M$_\odot$ star with $T_\mathrm{eff}=8896$ K, $\log g=4.27$, $L=17.7$ L$_\odot$ and $R=1.72$ R$_\odot$. The best fit spectrum from ATLAS9 shows a nice fit with the measured spectrum of Ad in Fig. \[f: sed\]. However, the precision of the model retrieval is limited by two factors: the anticipated degeneracy between physical surface properties and evolutionary stage and the density of the model grid. The first is clearly illustrated in Fig. \[f: chi2\] by the elongated $\chi^2$-valley in the HRD. Focusing on the location of the best-fit model, there are statistically significant differences in the goodness-of-fit between the 2.0 M$_\odot$ PMS-tracks and the neighbouring 1.9 and 2.2 M$_\odot$-tracks. All other things being kept equal, these translates into statistical uncertainties of the order of 300 K and 0.2 dex in $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\log L/L_\odot$, respectively. Should we have adopted the MCMC errors, $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $L/L_\odot$ values of 7500 to 9600 K and 11 to 23 $L_\odot$ would have been obtained within a 68% confidence interval, respectively. According to our best-fit solution, the star’s evolutionary stage seems to be somewhere between @siess2000’s ZAMS and early-main sequence[^7]. Its age of 9.7 Myr is probably in fair agreement with QZ Car age estimates [@walker2017]. The best-fit ATLAS9 model is displayed in Fig. \[f: chi2\] and should correspond to stars of spectral type of A3 according to @siess2000 calibrations. ![QZ Car’s sources detected with SPHERE (star symbol) overlaid on the SMaSH+ [@sana2014] and HST-FGS [@aldoretta2015] companion detections in the magnitude contrast vs. angular separation plane. The thick lines give the limiting contrast curves of the different instruments (see legend). []{data-label="f: smash"}](Plots/smash_sphere2020.pdf){width="\hsize"} Physical properties of the IRDIS companions {#s: irdis} ------------------------------------------- IRDIS observations only provide us with two independent wavelength channels, $K_1$ and $K_2$ with central wavelengths of 2.110 and 2.251 $\mu$m, respectively. While this is insufficient to constrain the shape of the SED, it provides an important anchor point to assess the objects absolute $K$-band magnitude [assuming]{} that the objects are located at the same distance and suffer from the same $K$-band reddening as QZ Car. As for the data of QZ Car Ad, we computed $\chi^2$ maps by comparing the $K_1$ and $K_2$ absolute fluxes of each companion sources to ATLAS9 LTE models. Good fits were obtained for most sources. The Ab companion seems to be more massive and we used the @brott main-sequence evolutionary tracks rather than the PMS-tracks from @siess2000. The resulting $\chi^2$-maps, over-plotted in the HRD together with @siess2000’s PMS evolutionary tracks and isochrones are displayed in Fig. \[f: chi2\] and \[f: chi2\_irdis1\]. In this exercise, there is of course a degeneracy between the age and the mass. While more wavelength channels would be desirable, our results show that the companions Ab, Ad and E are compatible with the hypothesis of co-eval formation together with the central OB quadruple system in QZ Car. Adopting the QZ Car age range, i.e. 4 to 8 Myr, first-order constraints on the masses of the individual companions can be obtained. With only 4.4 mag contrast with QZ Car central system, companion Ab is the most massive object and has a mass estimate of 10 to 12 M$_\odot$. The solution for E is fully degenerate with multiple minima on the $\chi^2$-map. We emphasise two of the extremer solutions: the best fit is a low mass (0.5 M$_\odot$) very young (2.5 Myr), cool ($T_{eff}=3770$K) and rather large ($R=3.7R_\odot$) PMS star. This solution is at the limit of the grid towards the low $T_{eff}$ so that it is possible cooler model may provide an even better fit. The other minimum is a 2.5 M$_\odot$, 5.5 Myr-old star with $T_{eff}=10$ kK which is also a valid solution within 3-sigma. The latter is compatible with co-evality. We also performed this exercise for the faintest S sources, implicitly assuming that they are located in the Carina region. Under this hypothesis, sources S1 to S16 are compatible with being low-mass pre-main sequence stars with masses in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 M$_\odot$. But for S6 that could be as young as 10 to 15 Myr if its mass is on the low-side of the confidence interval, all the other sources seem to be older than 20 Myr. Alternatively, they are even younger, lower-mass PMS star falling outside of the ATLAS9 model-grid or they are foreground/background sources unconnected to the Carina region as discussed in Sect. \[s: Pspur\]. Comparison with previous high-angular resolution surveys {#s: smash} -------------------------------------------------------- Our results can be directly compared to previous high-angular resolution campaigns such as those provided by the SMaSH+ and HST-FGS surveys [Fig. \[f: smash\], @sana2014; @aldoretta2015]. Clearly, by enabling the detection of sources at least 5 magnitudes fainter than previously possible, SPHERE opens a new discovery space to investigate the low-mass end of the companion mass function of massive stars. In this context, we note a clear clustering of the ’S’ sources in Fig. \[f: smash\], that are all located at angular separations larger than 2" (i.e., projected physical separation $>4.6\times 10^3$ au). Furthermore, there is a clear gap of 4- to 5-mag between the more massive, very likely physical and probably co-eval companions Ab, Ad and E and the rest of the ’S’ sources, most of which are either older or unconnected, as suggested by the large spurious alignment probabilities that we derived. ![Spectrum of QZ Car Ad (blue). Same figure as Fig. \[f: sed\] with the ATLAS9 [@castelli2004] models downgraded to the resolution of IRDIS-LSS (orange; $\lambda / \Delta \lambda=350$).[]{data-label="f: LSS"}](Plots/SED_Ad_bestfit_LSS.png){width="1.05\hsize"} Future prospects {#s: future} ---------------- The spectrum of QZ Car Ad that we obtained with IFS in the IRDIFS\_EXT mode has a spectral resolving power ($\lambda / \Delta \lambda$) of $\sim$50 only. At such low resolution, all spectral features but the telluric bands are smeared out (see Fig. \[f: sed\]). To better characterise the companion physical properties and age, a higher-resolution spectrum is desirable. However, seeing-limited spectrographs such as VLT/XSHOOTER will not be able to resolve the Ad companion. Very few AO-assisted spectrographs exist and, among those, almost none can deliver the require flux contrast. In Fig. \[f: LSS\], we investigate the resolving power of the Long Slit Spectroscopic (LSS) mode of IRDIS, delivering a spectral resolving power of 350, which would provide a valuable improvement to the current IFS SED and help us to estimate the parameters of the companion with greater accuracy. Conclusions {#s:Ccl} =========== We have presented the first SPHERE observations of QZ Car, a known quadruple system in the Carina region. Using the IRDIFS\_EXT mode, we detected 19 sources in a 12“$\times$12” field-of-view; all but two (Ab and E) are newly detected. We used the high-contrast imaging software VIP used for planet detection, to characterise the detected sources. Three of our sources (Ab, Ad and E) are moderately bright, with $K$-band magnitude contrasts in the range of $\sim4$ to 7.5. The remaining sources have magnitude contrast from 10 to 13. Most of the latter can be explained by spurious alignment given the source number density around QZ Car. We further determined the limiting contrast curves, showing that SPHERE detection capabilities can reach contrasts better than 9 mag at only 200 mas and better than 13 mag at angular separations larger 2". Our observations are sensitive to sub-solar mass companions over most of the angular separation range provided by SPHERE. Finally, we used the known distance to QZ Car, a grid of ATLAS9 models and pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks to obtain a first estimate of the physical properties of the detected objects. This determination implicitly assumes that the companions are located at the same distance and suffer from the same NIR reddening than QZ Car central system. We found masses across the entire mass range, from a fraction of a solar mass up to 12 M$_\odot$, including a $\sim2.0$ M$_\odot$ companion at a (projected) physical separation less than 1700 au. While there is a degeneracy in the physical parameter vs. age determination given the limited constraints, the three most massive, likely physical companions (Ab, Ad and E) can be fitted with ages of 4 to 9 Myr, i.e. their formation is potentially contemporaneous to that of the inner quadruple system making QZ Car one of the highest order multiple system known. Future work can follow two directions. On the one hand, a better characterisation of the detected companions is desirable and will ultimately provide an independent age diagnostic. This will help to confirm physical connection of the companion through proper motions as well as high-resolution spectroscopy and may be possible with the SPHERE Long Slit Spectrograph (LSS) for the brightest companions of QZ Car. On the other hand, and based on the present results, it is clear that SPHERE is opening a new parameter space to investigate the presence and physical properties of faint companions within only a few 1000 au from massive stars. Performing similar observations of the entire sample of massive stars may allow us to investigate the outcome of the massive star formation process as well as to investigate the pairing mechanism of these faint companions. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This work is based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory under programs ID 096.C-0510(A). We thank the SPHERE Data Centre, jointly operated by OSUG/IPAG (Grenoble), PYTHEAS/LAM/CeSAM (Marseille), OCA/Lagrange (Nice) and Observatoire de Paris/LESIA (Paris) and supported by a grant from Labex OSUG@2020 (Investissements d’avenir a ANR10 LABX56). We especially thank P. Delorme and E. Lagadec (SPHERE Data Centre) for their help during the data reduction process. We acknowledge support from the FWO-Odysseus program under project G0F8H6N. This project has further received funding from the European Research Council under European Union’s Horizon 2020 research programme (grant agreement No 772225) and under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (ERC Grant Agreement n. 337569). LAA acknowledges financial support by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [Gaia]{} (<https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [Gaia]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the [Gaia]{} Multilateral Agreement. JDR acknowledges the BELgian federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) through PRODEX grants Gaia and PLATO. VC acknowledges funding from the Australian Research Council via DP180104235. Facilities: VLT UT3 (SPHERE) Almeida, L.A. et al. 2017, A&A 598, A84 Aldoretta, E.J. et al. 2015, ApJ 149, 26 Amara, A., & Quanz, S. P. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 948 Anderson, Jay, & King, Ivan R., 2000 PASP 112, 1360A Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2017, Technical report GAIA-C8-TN-MPIA-CBJ-081 Beuzit, J.-L. et al. 2019, A&A in press., arXiv:1902.04080 Bodensteiner, J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2020, A&A 634, A51 Bonnell, I.A., Bate, M.R., Zinnecker, H. 1998, MNRAS 298, 93 Bonnell, I.A., Bate, M.R., Clarke, C.J., Pringle, J.E. 2001, MNRAS 323, 785 Bonnell, I.A., & Bate, M.R. 2006, MNRAS 370, 488 Brott, I., de Mink, S.E., Cantiello, M., Langer, N., et al. 2011, A&A 530, A115 Brown, A.G.A, et al. 2018, A&A 616, A1 Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, Modeling of stellar atmosphers, IAU Symp., eds. N. Piskunor et al. \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405087\] Claudi R.U. et al. 2008, SPIE 7014 Crowther P. A., 2015, wrs..conf, 21, wrs..conf Cutri, R. M. et al. 2003, The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive Delorme, P., Meunier, N., Albert, D., et al. 2017, SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 347 Dolhen K. et al. 2008, SPIE 7014 Evans, D. W., et al., 2018, A&A 616, A4 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A.G.A., Vallenari, A., et al., 2016, A&A 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A.G.A., Vallenari, A., et al., 2018, A&A 616, A1 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., Wertz, O., Absil, O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 154, 7 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A. et al. 2016, A&A 589, A54 Gravity Collaboration, Karl, M. et al. 2018, A&A 620, A116 Kausch, W., Noll, S., Smette, A., et al., 2015, A&A 576, A78 Keto, E., Zhang, Q. 2010, MNRAS 406, 102 Kiminki, D.C., Kobulnicky, H.A. 2012, ApJ 751, 1 Kratter, K.M., Matzner, C.D.; Krumholz, M.R.; Klein, R.I. 2010, ApJ 708, 1585 Kraus, S., Hofmann, K.H., Menten, K.M., Schertl, D., Weigelt, G., et al. 2010, Nature 466, 339 Krumholz, M.R. 2009, Science 323, 754 Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G, et al. 2010, Science, 329, 5987 Le Bouquin, J.-B., Sana, H. et al. 2017, A&A 601, A34 Lindegren, L., Hern[á]{}ndez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2 Maire, A.-L., Langlois, M., Dohlen, K., et al. 2016, SPIE, Vol. 9908 Maíz Apellániz, J., Sota, A., Morrell, N. I., Barbá, R. H., et al. 2013, First whole-sky results from the Galactic O-Star Spectroscopic Survey, Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega Maíz Apellániz, J., Sana, H., Barbá, R.H., Le Bouquin, J.-B. & Gamen, R.C. 2017, MNRAS 464, 3561 Marois, C., David Lafrenière, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ 641, 1 Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Véran, J.-P. 2010, SPIE 7736 Martins, F., Schaerer, D., Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A 436, 1049...1065 Mason, B.D., Hartkopf, W.I., Gies, D.R., Henry, T.J., Helsel, J.W. 2009, ApJ 137, 3358 Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97 McKee, C.F., Tan, J.C. 2003, ApJ 585, 850 Mesa, D., Langlois, M., Garufi, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 37 Moe, M., & Kratter, K.M. 2018, ApJ, 854 Moeckel, N., Bally, J. 2007, ApJ 661, 2 Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Rameau, J., et al. 2017, , 154, 218 Parkin, E. R., et al. 2011, ApJ 194, 8 T. Preibisch, P. Zeidler, T. Ratzka, V. Roccatagliata, M.G. Petr-Gotzens 2014, A&A 572, A116 Puls, J., Urbaneja, M. A., Venero, R., Repolust, T., Springmann, U., Jokuthy, A., Mokiem, M. R. 2005, A&A 435, 669...698 Rainot, A., et al. 2017, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, Volume 329, pp.436, Rivero-González, J. G., Puls, J., Najarro, F. 2011, A&A 536, A58 Robin, A. C., Reyl[é]{}, C., Derri[è]{}re, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, , 409, 523 Sana, H., De Mink, S.E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science Vol 337, pp. 444-446 Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J.-B, Lacour, S., Berger, J.-P., et al. 2014, ApJ 215, 1 Sana, H., et al. 2017, A&A Letters, 599, 9 Sanchez-Bermudez, J., Alberdi, A., Barbá, R., et al. 2017, ApJ 845, 57 Sanchez-Monge, A., Beltran, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Etoka, S., Galli, D., et al. 2014, A&A 596, 11 Schneider, F.R.N., Langer, N., de Koter, A., Brott, I., Izzard, R.G., Lau, H.H.B. 2014, A&A 570, 66 Siess, L., Dufour, E., Forestini, M. 2000, A&A, 358, 593 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., 2006, ApJ, 131:1163...1183 Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77 Smith, N. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1151 Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJ 755, L28 Sota, A., Maíz Apellániz, J., Walborn, N.R., Shida, R. Y. 2008, RevMexAA 33, 56 Sota, A., Maíz Apellániz, J., Morrell, N. I., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 10 Tan, J. C., BeltrÃ¡n, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, Eds. Beuther et al., 149 Trundle, C., et al. 2007, A&A, 471, 625T Vink, J. S., de Koter, A.. Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A 369, 574...588 Walborn, N. R. 1995, Revista Mexicana De Astronomia Y Astrofisica Conference Series, 51 Walborn, N. R. 2012, Eta Carinae and the Supernova Impostors, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 384 Walker, W. S. G., Blackford, M., Butland, R., Budding, E. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2 Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1506.001 Wertz, O., Absil, O., Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., et al. 2017, A&A 598, A8 Zinnecker, H., & Yorke, H. W. 2007, ARA&A 45, 481 Zurlo, A., Vigan, A., Galicher, R., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 587, A57 Spectrum of QZ Car Ad {#a: Adspec} ===================== ------------------ ------------------- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------- -------- Wavelength Contrast spectrum Flux calibrated spectrum Aa1 Aa2 Ac1 Ac2 ($\mathring{A}$) ($10^{-4}$) 957 $6.20\pm0.48$ $2.96\pm0.23$ 2571.51 25.85 1123.46 336.55 972 $6.27\pm0.97$ $2.83\pm0.44$ 2430.00 24.51 1060.55 318.00 987 $6.44\pm0.85$ $2.75\pm0.36$ 2293.54 23.10 999.97 300.05 1002 $6.31\pm0.29$ $2.54\pm0.12$ 2164.20 21.93 942.70 282.86 1018 $6.73\pm0.31$ $2.55\pm0.12$ 2039.48 20.71 887.51 266.30 1034 $7.02\pm0.33$ $2.50\pm0.12$ 1920.56 19.55 834.97 250.57 1051 $7.06\pm0.27$ $2.37\pm0.09$ 1807.16 18.43 784.91 235.61 1068 $6.95\pm0.25$ $2.19\pm0.08$ 1699.00 17.37 737.20 221.35 1085 $6.76\pm0.30$ $2.01\pm0.09$ 1598.02 16.36 692.90 207.96 1103 $6.88\pm0.37$ $1.92\pm0.10$ 1501.89 15.41 650.65 195.31 1122 $7.42\pm0.38$ $1.94\pm0.10$ 1410.82 14.50 610.65 183.32 1140 $7.53\pm0.32$ $1.85\pm0.08$ 1326.19 13.65 573.49 172.18 1159 $7.52\pm0.30$ $1.74\pm0.07$ 1247.08 12.84 538.78 161.75 1178 $7.53\pm0.28$ $1.63\pm0.06$ 1172.49 12.08 506.07 151.93 1197 $7.48\pm0.27$ $1.53\pm0.05$ 1102.32 11.37 475.38 142.71 1216 $7.46\pm0.34$ $1.43\pm0.07$ 1036.57 10.71 447.04 134.16 1235 $7.41\pm0.41$ $1.34\pm0.07$ 974.82 10.09 420.42 126.12 1255 $7.34\pm0.31$ $1.25\pm0.05$ 918.27 9.51 395.74 118.70 1274 $7.32\pm0.25$ $1.17\pm0.04$ 866.50 8.97 372.89 111.85 1294 $7.53\pm0.30$ $1.14\pm0.04$ 817.91 8.46 351.46 105.43 1313 $7.63\pm0.26$ $1.09\pm0.04$ 772.53 7.99 331.65 99.48 1333 $7.97\pm0.44$ $1.07\pm0.04$ 730.03 7.55 313.19 93.93 1352 $8.24\pm0.95$ $1.05\pm0.06$ 690.47 7.14 295.98 88.758 1372 $7.59\pm1.22$ $0.92\pm0.12$ 653.73 6.76 280.05 83.98 1391 $8.51\pm1.29$ $0.97\pm0.15$ 619.62 6.41 265.25 79.54 1411 $7.64\pm1.24$ $0.83\pm0.15$ 591.79 6.25 253.05 75.98 1430 $7.62\pm0.59$ $0.79\pm0.13$ 562.40 5.94 240.32 72.13 1449 $7.71\pm0.44$ $0.76\pm0.06$ 534.93 5.65 228.43 68.55 1467 $7.39\pm0.41$ $0.69\pm0.04$ 509.27 5.37 217.33 65.20 1486 $7.55\pm0.42$ $0.67\pm0.04$ 485.46 5.12 207.04 62.10 1503 $7.55\pm0.32$ $0.64\pm0.04$ 463.61 4.88 197.60 59.26 1522 $7.69\pm0.31$ $0.63\pm0.03$ 443.21 4.67 188.79 56.62 1539 $7.79\pm0.27$ $0.61\pm0.02$ 424.17 4.46 180.57 54.15 1556 $7.93\pm0.32$ $0.59\pm0.02$ 406.42 4.27 172.92 51.85 1573 $8.00\pm0.34$ $0.58\pm0.02$ 393.71 4.14 167.47 50.21 1589 $8.04\pm0.32$ $0.56\pm0.02$ 385.65 4.05 164.04 49.18 1605 $8.15\pm0.41$ $0.54\pm0.02$ 378.05 3.97 160.81 48.21 1621 $8.20\pm0.49$ $0.53\pm0.03$ 370.89 3.90 157.76 47.30 1636 $8.23\pm0.74$ $0.51\pm0.04$ 364.15 3.83 154.89 46.44 2110 $9.72\pm0.18$ $0.22\pm0.04$ 141.87 1.54 61.69 17.70 2251 $9.20\pm0.77$ $0.16\pm0.13$ 110.05 1.20 47.84 13.66 ------------------ ------------------- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------- -------- Comparison between parameter estimation techniques: Simplex, MCMC & PSF-fitting {#a: comparison} =============================================================================== ![image](Plots/x_K1_all.png){width=".45\hsize"} ![image](Plots/x_K2_all.png){width=".45\hsize"} ![image](Plots/y_K1_all.png){width=".45\hsize"} ![image](Plots/y_K2_all.png){width=".45\hsize"} [^1]: F.R.S.-FNRS Research Associate [^2]: <http://ipag.osug.fr/?lang=en> [^3]: <http://eso.org/sci/software/pipelines> [^4]: <https://github.com/vortex-exoplanet/VIP> [^5]: <https://photutils.readthedocs.io> [^6]: The definition of the probability of spurious association is modified compared to @sana2014 in the sense that the present definition is an actual probability while the formula of @sana2014 gives the expected number of companions within a given an angular separation and minimum brightness resulting from chance alignment from the local surface density of sources at least as bright. [^7]: ZAMS: defined as the time, after deuterium burning, when the nuclear luminosity provides at least 99% of the total stellar luminosity. Early MS: defined as the time, when the star settles on the main sequence after the CN cycle has reached its equilibrium (this only affects stars with $M>~1.2$ M$_\odot$).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The generation of zonal magnetic fields in laboratory fusion plasmas is predicted by theoretical and numerical models and was recently observed experimentally. It is shown that the modification of the current density gradient associated with such corrugations can significantly affect the stability of the tearing mode. A simple scaling law is derived that predicts the impact of small stationary current corrugations on the stability parameter $\Delta''$. The described destabilization mechanism can provide an explanation for the trigger of the Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) in plasmas without significant MHD activity.' author: - \| F. Militello, M. Romanelli, R.J. Hastie, N.F. Loureiro\ [EURATOM/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB, UK]{} title: 'Effect of current corrugations on the stability of the tearing mode.' --- Introduction ============ In nature as well as in experimental devices, plasma turbulence generates coherent structures, which can significantly affect the overall behavior of the system. An example in magnetic fusion plasmas is the occurrence of zonal electric fields or zonal flows (the velocity is generated through $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ drifts). The zonal flows are predicted by electrostatic turbulence theory [@Diamond2005] and are observed as mesoscale oscillations in the velocity field, which fluctuates in the radial direction while being homogeneous in the toroidal and poloidal direction (i.e. $m=0$, $n=0$, where $m$ and $n$ are the toroidal and poloidal wave numbers in a toroidal geometry). Such structures are peculiar to turbulent systems since they are linearly stable and can only exist as a result of nonlinear wave interaction. The importance of the zonal flows as a self-regulating mechanism for the turbulence and plasma transport is widely accepted. Only recently, however, experimental observations [@Fujisawa2007; @Fujisawa2008] and nonlinear electromagnetic simulations Ref.[@Thyagaraja2005; @Waltz2006; @Bruce] have highlighted that turbulence in fusion plasmas can also generate, together with the well documented zonal flows, zonal fields. These, similar to the zonal flows, are axisymmetric sheared band-like structures in the magnetic field. The zonal fields were predicted by several theoretical works, a detailed review of which can be found in Ref.[@Diamond2005]. In these works, zonal magnetic fields are shown to arise from finite $\beta$ (the ratio between the thermal and the magnetic pressure) drift-wave turbulence when electron inertia effects are included. The radial oscillation of the zonal magnetic field is associated with zonal currents flowing in the direction of the confining magnetic field. These turbulence generated current corrugations perturb the $m=0$, $n=0$ component of the current density and its gradient, therefore affecting the stability of the modes driven by it, such as the tearing mode [@FKR]. The reconnection of the magnetic flux caused by the tearing instability leads to the formation of so-called magnetic islands which, if macroscopic, can significantly affect the performance of fusion experimental device, as their particular topology enhances the radial transport and therefore reduces the confinement. The stability of the tearing mode is conveniently measured by the stability parameter $\Delta'$, a positive value of which corresponds, in the simplest theoretical models, to an unstable mode [@FKR; @Rutherford]. When pressure effects are neglected and the boundary conditions of the problem are fixed, $\Delta'$ is a function of the $m=0$, $n=0$ component of the current density and of the wave vector of the perturbation, $\mathbf{k}$, only. In Refs.[@Zakharov1989; @Westerhof1990; @Connor1992] it was shown that, even if $\Delta'$ depends on the global features of the current density profile, it is strongly affected by the local structure of the current density at the resonant surface where $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. This observation suggested the possibility of controlling the tearing mode by applying small localized current perturbations around the reconnecting surface. In a similar way, however, turbulence generated current corrugations can provide a source of free energy for the tearing mode and modify its stability [@Adler1980]. As a consequence, the zonal fields could be a possible triggering mechanism for Neoclassical Tearing Modes, as they could push the island above the seed limit. Implied in this reasoning is the assumption that the corrugations are sufficiently coherent for the tearing mode to have time to respond. In this work we describe the effect of current corrugations of given shape and amplitude on the calculation of $\Delta'$. By using a simple slab model for the zonal fields we obtain an analytical scaling for the variation of the stability parameter, $\delta\Delta'$, with respect to the amplitude and the wave length of the “zonal” flows that generate the current corrugations. We then show numerically that the scaling applies also to more relevant cylindrical cases. We find that even relatively small current corrugations can induce large modifications of $\Delta'$ and therefore strongly affect the stability of the tearing mode. A limitation of our work is the assumption, done for sake of simplicity, that the pressure is flat in the island region. Pressure gradients at the reconnecting surface, however, can play an important role in the definition of the stability parameter, as shown in Refs.[@FKR; @Coppi1966]. We will address this subject, together with a discussion of the generation of the “zonal” pressure, in a future publication. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the basic model behind the calculation of $\Delta'$ for a given equilibrium current density. We then describe the effect of small modifications of the current density on the stability parameter by using a perturbative approach. These results are applied to a slab configuration in Section III, where a simple analytic scaling for $\delta\Delta'$ is found. In Section IV we apply the scaling to a cylindrical problem and we verify its validity using a numerical code. Our results are used to investigate the onset of the NTMs in the presence of current corrugations in Section V. Finally, in Section VI we draw our conclusions. Model ===== The 2D fluid equations employed in our analysis are well suited to describe plasmas confined by a large toroidal magnetic field. We restrict our attention to configurations with small inverse aspect ratio, $\epsilon=a/R_0$, where $a$ and $R_0$ are the minor and major radius of the machine. This leads to a simplification of the geometry and, in particular, it allows the use of a cylindrical tokamak approximation. In the following, the cylindrical coordinates $(r,\theta,z)$ represent the radial, poloidal and “toroidal” direction, respectively. Furthermore, we order $\beta$ as $\epsilon$, which implies that the electromagnetic effects are relatively small, although not negligible. We represent the magnetic field as: $$\label{1} \textbf{B}=B_z \textbf{e}_z + \nabla \psi_p \times \textbf{e}_z.$$ where $B_z\cong const$ is the component of the magnetic field in the “toroidal” direction (i.e. along the cylinder axis) and $\psi_p$ is the poloidal magnetic flux. In order to describe a single helicity tearing mode it is convenient to introduce an helical coordinate: $\xi= \theta-\frac{n}{mR_0}z$. In the same way, we express the magnetic flux in terms of its helicoidal component, which is given by: $\psi=\psi_p+\frac{r^2nB_z}{2mR_0}$. Finally, the helicoidal magnetic flux can be decomposed in its equilibrium and perturbed part (the tearing mode) and the latter can be expressed by a Fourier series: $\psi=\psi_{eq}(r)+\displaystyle\sum_m \widetilde{\psi}_m(r) e^{i(\gamma t - m \xi)}$. The magnetic flux and the “toroidal” current density, $J$, are related through Ampere’s law, so that $(4\pi/c)J=-\nabla_{\perp}^2 \psi_p=-\nabla_{\perp}^2 \psi+\frac{2nB_z}{mR_0}$, where $\nabla_{\perp}^2 \psi=r^{-1}\partial_r (r\partial_r \psi)+ r^{-2}\partial^2_\xi \psi$ and $c$ is the speed of light. The mode resonant surface, where the flux reconnects, is such that the magnetic winding number (the safety factor), $q(r)=\frac{rB_z}{R_0B_\theta}$, is equal to $m/n$ ($B_\theta$ is the poloidal magnetic field). The safety factor then can be easily expressed as a function of the equilibrium “toroidal” current, $(4\pi/c)J_{eq}=-r^{-1}\partial_r (r \partial_r\psi_{eq})+\frac{2nB_z}{mR_0}$: $$\label{2} q=\frac{c}{4\pi}\frac{r^2B_z}{R_0\int dr [r J_{eq}(r)]}.$$ In a high temperature plasma with low resistivity, and within our approximations, the structure of the linear tearing mode far from the resonant surface can be obtained by solving the scalar equation $\mathbf{e}_z \cdot \nabla \times (\mathbf{J} \times \mathbf{B}) =0$ (i.e. the projection of the curl of the plasma momentum balance without inertial or viscous effects). Using Eq.\[1\] [@Strauss1976] and the definition of the helicoidal flux it is possible to cast this equation in the following form: $$\label{3} [J,\psi]=0,$$ where the operator $[A,B]=r^{-1}(\partial_r A\partial_\theta B - \partial_\theta A\partial_r B)$. The linear version of Eq.\[3\] is: $$\label{4} \frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{d r}\left(r\frac{d\widetilde{\psi}}{dr}\right)-\left(\frac{m^2}{r^2}-\frac{J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\right)\widetilde{\psi}=0,$$ where the helicoidal magnetic field is given by: $-\psi_{eq}'=\frac{rB_z}{R_0}(\frac{1}{q}-\frac{n}{m})$, the prime represents derivation with respect to $r$, the subscript $m$ is dropped and the factor $4\pi/c$ is absorbed in the definition of the current. It is clear now that the ideal MHD approximation employed so far does not hold in the neighborhood of the resonant surface, as the term proportional to $1/\psi_{eq}'$ in Eq.\[4\] yields a singularity. The singular behavior is regularized by allowing for a small but finite resistivity, which smooths out the current divergence within a narrow boundary layer centered around the resonant surface. As a consequence, we can identify two separated regions, where different simplifications of the model equations apply: an “outer” linear ideal region, where Eq.\[4\] holds, and an “inner” linear or nonlinear resistive boundary layer, the narrowness of which allows geometrical simplifications, although non-ideal physics must be retained. The solutions of the equations in the two regions must match in a so called overlapping region. In other words, the “outer” solution provides the boundary conditions for the “inner” solution. To simplify the matching procedure, it is convenient to introduce the stability parameter, $\Delta'$: $$\label{5} \Delta'=\frac{1}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\left(\left.\frac{d \widetilde{\psi}}{d r} \right\|_{r=r_{s}+\epsilon} - \left.\frac{d \widetilde{\psi}}{d r}\right\|_{r=r_{s}-\epsilon} \right),$$ where $\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}$ is the value of the perturbed magnetic flux at the resonant surface. Clearly, $\Delta'$ is fully determined once the outer magnetic flux is found by solving Eq.\[4\], and is a function of $m$, of $J_{eq}'/\psi_{eq}'$ and of the boundary conditions imposed on $\widetilde{\psi}$. The stability parameter defines the stability of the linear tearing mode since, generally, a positive $\Delta'$ corresponds to an unstable mode [@FKR]. Similarly, also in non-linear theory, $\Delta'$ can be considered a measure of the stability of the mode [@Rutherford; @MP]. We focus now on the modifications to the stability parameter due to local changes of the profile of $J_{eq}'/\psi_{eq}'$. We first assume a given equilibrium magnetic flux $\psi_{eq0}$, associated with current density $J_{eq0}$ (and therefore to a safety factor $q_0$). We then superimpose a “zonal” field, $\delta\psi_{eq}$, which can be thought as the $m=0$, $n=0$ component of the magnetic flux perturbation (and is accompanied by a “zonal” current $\delta J_{eq}$ and a $\delta q$). The physical origin of the corrugations, as discussed in the introduction, is suggested to arise due to a combination of short scale turbulence and zonal flows. We again emphasize that, in this calculation, we assume that they are sufficiently consistent in time and space such that a new “equilibrium” is temporarily created (hence the subscript eq). Obviously, there needs to be a constant source of corrugations or otherwise they would dissipate on a time scale proportional to $a^2/\eta$, where $a$ (of the order of the collisionless skin depth) is the characteristic length scale of the zonal field. In other words, $\delta\psi_{eq}$ directly modifies $\psi_{eq0}$, thus generating the new “equilibrium”: $\psi_{eq}=\psi_{eq0}+\delta\psi_{eq}$ (together with $J_{eq}=J_{eq0}+\delta J_{eq}$ and $q=q_{0}+\delta q$). This new configuration affects the perturbed magnetic flux through Eq.\[4\] and therefore the stability parameter through Eq.\[5\]. In order to explicitly separate the effect of the “zonal” field, we write the solution of Eq.\[4\] as $\widetilde{\psi} = \widetilde{\psi}_0 + \delta \widetilde{\psi}$, where $\widetilde{\psi}_0$ is the eigenfunction associated with the old equilibrium, while $\delta\widetilde{\psi}$ is the net effect of the corrugations on the mode. Similarly, also the stability parameter becomes: $\Delta' = \Delta'_0 + \delta \Delta'$. Following Refs.[@Zakharov1989; @Westerhof1990], we assume that the localized current density corrugation is such that $\delta \widetilde{\psi} \ll \widetilde{\psi}_0$, while $\delta \widetilde{\psi}' \sim \widetilde{\psi}'_0$. Furthermore, we assume that $\delta q \ll q_0$, which is valid when $\int dr (r \delta J_{eq}) \ll \int dr (r J_{eq0})$ (as in the case of a localized zero-average oscillating $\delta J_{eq}$). With these approximations \[i.e. neglecting terms $O(\delta \widetilde{\psi}/\widetilde{\psi}_0,\delta q/q_0)$\] we obtain from Eq.\[4\]: $$\label{6} \frac{d}{dr}\left(r\frac{d}{dr}\delta\widetilde{\psi}\right)= -r \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\widetilde{\psi}_0,$$ and consequently, after integration: $$\begin{aligned} \label{6a} \left.\frac{d}{dr}\delta\widetilde{\psi}\right\|_{r_s-\epsilon}&=& -\int^{r_s-\epsilon}_{0} dr\frac{r}{r_s-\epsilon} \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\widetilde{\psi}_0,\\ \label{6b} \left.\frac{d}{dr}\delta\widetilde{\psi}\right\|_{r_s+\epsilon}&=&\int^{\infty}_{r_s+\epsilon} dr \frac{r}{r_s+\epsilon} \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\widetilde{\psi}_0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have employed the fact that any change in the perturbed flux function must vanish far from the region where the current corrugation is located (i.e. $d\delta \widetilde{\psi}/dr= 0$ both for $r = 0$ and for $r = \infty$). From Eqs.\[5\], \[6a\] and \[6b\] we obtain: $$\label{7} \delta \Delta'=\frac{1}{r_s}\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\left[\int_{0}^{r_s-\epsilon} rdr \left( \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right)+\int_{r_s+\epsilon}^{\infty} rdr \left( \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right)\right]= \frac{1}{r_s}P\int_{0}^{\infty} rdr \left( \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq}'}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right),$$ where $P$ stands for the principal value of the integral (necessary because the integrand is singular around the resonant surface). In the next Section we explicitly calculate $\delta\Delta'$ for a given current density corrugation in slab geometry. This allows us to obtain a semi-analytic scaling of $\delta \Delta'$ with respect to the features of $\delta \psi_{eq}$. Slab case and $\delta \Delta'$ scaling ====================================== In order to understand how a current corrugation affects the stability parameter, we first investigate its effect in a simple slab configuration. The problem is analyzed in a double periodic rectangular box, where the normalized “radial” variable is $-\pi \leq x \leq \pi$, and the normalized “helicoidal” variable is $-\pi/k_y \leq y \leq \pi/k_y$, where $k_y$ is the aspect ratio of the box (and also the wave number of the mode). We assume a given normalized equilibrium current density, $J_{eq0}=\cos(x)$ \[consequently, $\psi_{eq0}=\cos(x)$\]. With this choice, resonant surfaces form in the center of the box at $x=0$, and at the edge at $x=\pm\pi$, where $\psi_{eq0}'=0$. In this Section we study an elementary current corrugation, $\delta J_{eq}= A K^2 \cos(Kx+\alpha)$, generated by a “zonal” magnetic field [@Diamond2005] of given shape: $\delta \psi_{eq}= A \cos(Kx+\alpha)$. Here $A$ is the (normalized) amplitude of the “zonal” field, $K$ its wavelength, and $\alpha$ its phase with respect to the resonant surface. In order to investigate its effect on the central resonance, we reduce Eq.\[7\] to a form that is appropriate to slab geometry: $$\label{8} \delta \Delta'=P\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx \left( \frac{\delta J_{eq}'}{\psi_{eq0}'}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right).$$ Note that $x$ is normalized to a typical length scale and so is $\delta \Delta'$. Furthermore, slab geometry requires symmetric boundaries far from the reconnecting surface, so that the lower extreme in Eq.\[7\], $r=0$, is replaced by $x=-\infty$ in Eq.\[8\]. For the equilibrium and the corrugation studied here, it is straightforward to obtain: $$\label{8a} \delta \Delta'= AK^3\left\{\cos(\alpha) \int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}dx\left[\frac{\sin(Kx)}{\sin(x)}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right]+\sin(\alpha) P \int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}dx\left[\frac{\cos(Kx)}{\sin(x)}\frac{\widetilde{\psi}_0}{\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s}}\right]\right\}.$$ As a consequence of the parity of the integrand, the second term on the right hand side of the previous equation is equals to zero. At the same time, the first term on the right hand side does not contain any singularity at the resonance, which implies that the principal value notation can be dropped. Note also that the integration limits are reduced to $x=\pm\pi/2$, which is halfway between the edge and the central resonance but still asymptotically far from the resistive layer (supposed to be infinitesimally small). We restrict our attention to tearing modes close to marginal stability, for which the constant-$\psi$ approximation [@FKR] is valid, i.e. $\widetilde{\psi}'_0 \ll \widetilde{\psi}_0$ in the vicinity of the resonant surface. As a consequence, for these modes we can assume that $\widetilde{\psi}_0(x)/\widetilde{\psi}_{r_s} \cong 1$. Therefore, the integral $\int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}dx[\sin(Kx)/\sin(x)]$ can be calculated for different values of $K$. For $K\geq 5$ its value is roughly constant and can be approximated with $\pi$ (the maximum error in this range is around $10\%$, and it reduces for large $K$). We remark that the matching theory described here is valid if $1/L \ll K \leq 1/\lambda$, where $L$ is a macroscopic length scale and $\lambda$ is the resistive boundary layer width. Indeed, if $K\lambda$ is too large the scale of the corrugation is of the same order of the boundary layer, thus making impossible to employ a perturbative technique, while if it is too small the effect of the corrugations is evanescent. To summarize, the modification of the stability parameter of a constant-$\psi$ tearing mode depends linearly on the amplitude of the “zonal” magnetic field and has a strong cubic dependence on its wavelength : $$\label{9} \delta \Delta' \approx C\cos(\alpha) A K^3,$$ where $C$ is a constant depending on the equilibrium and the system configuration (in the simple case treated here $C=\pi$). When considering the features of the current corrugation, the scaling is linear both in its wavelength ($K$) and amplitude ($AK^2$). Although this scaling was obtained with a basic model, it applies also to more complicated geometries, as will be shown in Section IV. As an application, which is also useful to verify the validity of Eq.\[9\], we study numerically the dispersion relation of a tearing mode generated by a corrugated equilibrium. The calculation is performed in the same 2D slab double periodic box, equilibrium and corrugation described above. The equation that we solve are the plasma vorticity equation and Ohm’s law (resistive reduced MHD model): $$\begin{aligned} \label{10} \frac{d U}{dt}&=&\nabla_{\\|}J,\\ \label{11} \frac{d \psi}{dt}&=&S^{-1}(J_{eq}-J),\end{aligned}$$ where all the quantities are normalized: the lengths with respect to typical macroscopic scale, the time to the relevant Alfven time, $S$ is the Lundquist number, and all the other variables accordingly. The operator $d\cdots/dt=\partial\cdots/\partial t + \mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}}\cdot\nabla\cdots$ contains the $\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}$ drift velocity, $\nabla_{\\|}=\mathbf{B}/\|\mathbf{B}\|\cdot\nabla$ is the parallel gradient, and the vorticity $U=\mathbf{e}_z\cdot\nabla\times \mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}}$. The current density is related to the magnetic flux through Ampere’s law, which in a slab gives: $J=-\nabla^2 \psi$. The theoretical dispersion relation appropriate for this model is [@Militello2003]: $$\label{12} \gamma^{5/4}-\gamma^{1/4}b S^{-1}=0.48(\Delta'_0+\delta\Delta') S^{-3/4}k_y^{1/2},$$ where $b=[J_{eq0}''(0)+\delta J_{eq}''(0)]/[J_{eq0}(0)+\delta J_{eq}(0)]$ (note that for $b=0$ we recover the classic solution of Ref.[@FKR], called FKR solution in the following). Inspection of Eq.\[12\] shows that current corrugation affects the growth rate through both $\delta\Delta'$ and $b$. The linearized version of the system \[10\]-\[11\] is solved using a finite difference eigenvalue numerical code, benchmarked with analytical cases. In all the simulations, the Lundquist number is $S=10^{3}$. In absence of corrugations, the stability parameter is uniquely defined by $k_y$ according to the relation: $\Delta'_0=2(1-k_y^2)^{1/2}\tan[(1-k_y^2)^{1/2}\pi/2]$ (see e.g. Ref.[@Grasso2001]). We start by choosing $k_y=0.94$, so that the “smooth” equilibrium is characterized by $\Delta'_0=0.41$ and it is therefore tearing mode unstable. Solving Eq.\[12\], we find that the perturbation has growth rate $\gamma=0.0033$ (note that the growth rate is normalized with respect to the Alfven frequency) and the resistive layer has a width $\lambda\cong 0.045$. The presence of a corrugation with wavelength $K$ can significantly change the growth rate of the mode, as shown in Fig.\[fig3\]. In the figure the crosses, circles and squares represent the numerical solutions obtained with the linear code for corrugations of amplitude $5\times 10^{-5}$, $1\times 10^{-4}$, $2\times 10^{-4}$, respectively. When $K<40$ (i.e. $K\lambda<1.82$), these values lead to current corrugations of maximum amplitude smaller than 7%, 15% and 30% of the equilibrium current density. We remark that even small amplitude corrugations can strongly modify the growth rate of the mode. For example, in the case shown here a corrugation that amounts to 4% of the amplitude of the equilibrium current density (e.g. $A=1\times 10^{-4}$ and $K\lambda=0.91$) can lead to a growth rate three times as large than in the “smooth” case. For values of $K\lambda$ smaller than 1 ($K<20$ in our example), the theoretical predictions obtained from the dispersion relation Eq.\[12\] together with the scaling Eq.\[9\], are in excellent agreement with the numerical data. The disagreement for larger values of the corrugation’s wavelength is due to the limitations of the validity of the scaling. Furthermore, also the dispersion relation Eq.\[12\] is not correct when the constant-$\widetilde{\psi}$ approximation does not hold anymore. To complement this analysis, we have independently calculated with a different numerical code the value of $\delta\Delta'$ associated to the corrugations and the equilibrium described above. The code, that is also used to obtain the cylindrical results presented in the next Section, can solve Eq.\[4\] or its slab version by using a “shooting” algorithm. As Fig.\[fig4\] shows, the numerical values of $\delta\Delta'$ perfectly match the cubic behavior predicted by the scaling in Eq.\[9\], thus confirming its validity. We complete this study by showing that a current corrugation with the appropriate phase can drive a linear tearing mode even when the “smooth” equilibrium would assure stability. In Fig.\[fig5\] we describe three cases, with $\Delta'_0=0$ (red squares), $\Delta'_0=-0.29$ (blue circles) and $\Delta'_0=-0.8$ (green crosses), for a corrugation of amplitude $A=1\times 10^{-4}$. As expected, if the wavelength of the corrugation exceeds a critical threshold, depending on $\Delta_0'$, the instability can be excited. We conclude remarking that, for $\alpha=0$, the choice of a positive $A$ leads to destabilization, while a negative value would produce the opposite effect. Effect in cylindrical geometry ============================== The analytic results in Section III suggest the possibility that the stability of the tearing mode can be significantly affected by the presence of small scale, small amplitude current corrugations. The scaling that we have obtained is verified by numerical codes in slab geometry, and its validity is confirmed in this Section for cylindrical geometry, which is more relevant for experimental applications. In order to proceed, we perform a numerical study with the “shooting” code introduced in the previous Section. We assume a “rounded” equilibrium current density [@Furth1973] given by: $J_{eq0}=J_0/[1+(r/r_0)^4]^{3/2}$, which implies an equilibrium magnetic flux: $\psi_{eq0}=-0.25 J_0r_0^2\sinh^{-1}[ (r/r_0)^2]$. Here $J_0$ represents the current density at the cylinder axis and $r_0$ is a measure of the width of the current channel. In the following we take $J_0=2/0.7$ and $r_0=\sqrt{1/5}$, so that the mode $m=2$, $n=1$ resonates at $r_s\cong0.73$ and $m=3$, $n=2$ at $r_s\cong0.61$. In our model, the “zonal” field that generates the current corrugation is sinusoidal and localized around a radius $R$ by a Gaussian envelope of width $\rho$ (taken as $0.2$ in all the simulations): $\delta\psi_{eq}=A\cos[K(r-R)]e^{-(r-R)^2/\rho^2}$. We investigate the effect of the corrugation on $m=2$, $n=1$ and $m=3$, $n=2$ modes, which are stable in the “smooth” configuration since $\Delta'_{2,1}\cong-2.19$ and $\Delta'_{3,2}\cong-3.28$. We observe that the effect produced by $\delta\psi_{eq}$ on the stability parameter changes as the localization radius of the corrugation is modified and it reaches its maximum when $R\cong r_s$ (see Figs.\[fig6\] and \[fig7\]). This is expected, since the rigid shift around the resonance of the sinusoidal perturbation is equivalent to a change in the phase $\alpha$ in in the slab model. Furthermore, the comparison between the solid ($A=5\times 10^{-5}$) and dashed lines ($A=2.5\times 10^{-5}$) in Figs.\[fig6\] and \[fig7\] confirm also in cylindrical geometry the linear dependence of $\delta\Delta'$ on the perturbation amplitude, as given in Eq.\[9\]. Similarly, also the scaling in the cube of the corrugation wavelength is verified by measuring the maximum amplitude of the solid ($K=40$) and the dash-dot ($K=30$) lines. Finally, it is interesting to evaluate the constant $C$ for the cylindrical equilibrium investigated. In order to do that, we divide the maximum value of $\delta\Delta'$ (obtained at $R=r_s$) by the amplitude of the corrugation and the cube of its wavelength. With this procedure we find that $C\cong 2.5$ for $m=2$, $n=1$ and $C\cong 1.7$ for $m=3$, $n=2$. While both values are pretty close to the slab estimate, this result suggest a dependence of the effect of the corrugation on the wave-vector of the driven perturbation. This dependence is easily explained by the presence of the $n/m$ term in the definition of $\psi_{eq0}'$ that, in cylindrical geometry, appears in the integral of Eq.\[8\]. NTM triggering mechanism ======================== In this Section, we analyze how the zonal fields affect the onset of the Neoclassical Tearing Modes. In order to do that, we employ a reduced version of the generalized Rutherford equation [@Rutherford; @LeHaye2006; @Itoh2004]: $$\label{13} \tau_\eta\frac{dw}{dt}\propto \Delta_0'+\delta\Delta'+C_0\left(\frac{w}{w^2+w_{boot}^2}-\frac{ww_{pol}^2}{w^4+w_{pol}^4}\right),$$ Consistently with Section III, the island width and the stability parameter are normalized to a macroscopic length scale (e.g. the resonant radius). For sake of simplicity, we retain in the model only the fundamental terms responsible for the stabilization/destabilization of the NTM. In particular, we neglect the current shape term, that strongly affects the island saturation but has little effect on the seed island problem [@Militello2004; @Escande2004] and the stabilizing toroidal curvature effects [@Glasser1975]. Furthermore, we do not take into account the rotation of the magnetic island in a self-consistent manner [@CWW; @Militello2008]. Indeed, in Eq.\[13\] neither the bootstrap term (third on the RHS), nor the polarization term (fourth on the RHS) are explicit functions of the island rotation. The coefficient $w_{boot}$, is a measure of the reduction of the drive associated with the perpendicular transport [@Fitzpatrick1995], $w_{pol}$ is the cut-off due to the banana orbit effect [@Bergmann2002] and $C_0$ is a constant proportional to the poloidal $\beta$ [@LeHaye2006]. We remark that our purpose is to sketch with an heuristic model the mechanism that could allow NTM formation. A detailed analysis would require a self consistent treatment of Rutherford equation coupled with an equation for the rotation frequency of the magnetic island. The theoretical uncertainties on the exact form of this coupling make an attempt to employ more complicated models to study the problem at hand a futile exercise. In absence of zonal fields and if $\Delta_0'<0$, Eq.\[13\] predicts a minimum island width, $w_{seed}$, below which the perturbation is always stabilized and the NTM does not reach macroscopic size. Conversely, when the threshold is exceeded, the dynamical evolution takes the island to its stationary saturation amplitude, $w_{sat}$. To destabilize the NTM an island of sufficient size is therefore required. This “seed” island could be produced by some other MHD activity in the plasma, such as sawteeth, fishbone instabilities or Edge Localized Modes. In the following we investigate NTM dynamics without a seed \[i.e. $w(0)=0$\] island but in presence of zonal fields. From experimental observations [@Fujisawa2007; @Fujisawa2008], we expect that the zonal fields maintain their coherence for a limited amount of time, $\tau_{zf}$. This fact is modelled by assuming a temporal variation of the modified stability parameter, so that $\delta\Delta'=\delta\Delta_{max}'\cos[(2\pi/\tau_{zf}) t]$, where $\delta\Delta_{max}'$ is a constant. A critical parameter of the problem is therefore the ratio between this time scale and that typical of the evolution of the NTM. From Eq.\[13\] we infer that this time is a fraction of the local resistive time (calculated with the neoclassical resistivity and the minor radius) $\tau_{NTM}\sim 0.1 \tau_\eta$, since the saturated island width can be usually estimated around one tenth of $r_s$. We expect that rapidly varying zonal fields, such that $\zeta\equiv\tau_{zf}/\tau_\eta\ll 1$, will not be an efficient trigger for the NTM as their effect is averaged to zero. On the other hand, if $\tau_{zf}/\tau_\eta$ is of the order or greater than one (although the latter possibility is difficult to achieve in fusion plasmas) the zonal fields can drive $w$ above its seed island limit. The solution of Eq.\[13\] leads to three basic dynamic behaviors for a stable configuration ($\Delta_0'<0$) in the presence of a corrugation. When $\delta\Delta'_{max}<\|\Delta'\|$ the corrugation is not strong enough to produce any island (region $1$ in Fig.\[fig8\](a)). If the modified stability parameter is sufficiently large, but smaller than a critical value $\delta\Delta_{max}^{'crit}$, or $\tau_{zf}/\tau_\eta<\zeta_{crit}$, an oscillating island appears (region $2$ in Fig.\[fig8\](a)). Its maximum width remains below $w_{seed}$ and is roughly proportional to $\tau_{zf}$. Finally, when the critical values are exceeded, the full NTM is triggered and the system settles in a state with $w$ oscillating around $w_{sat}$ (region $3$ in Fig.\[fig8\](a)). The approximate boundaries of these regimes \[obtained solving Eq.\[13\] numerically\] are sketched in Fig.\[fig8\](a), for a case with $\Delta'=-1$, $C_0=0.25$, $w_{boot}=w_{pol}=0.025$, which correspond to reasonable experimental values [@LeHaye2006; @Buttery2002]. For clarity, in Fig.\[fig8\] (b) we show the time evolution of two cases with $\delta\Delta'_{max}=2.94$, one just below $\zeta_{crit}$ ( $\zeta=0.05$ for the solid line) and one above ($\zeta=0.1$ for the dashed line). For the same two solutions, we plot in Fig.\[fig8\] (c) the phase diagram, which describes how $dw/dt$ and $w$ are related during the evolution of the perturbation. Two dots in Fig.\[fig8\](a) display the position of these cases in the $\delta\Delta'_{max}-\zeta$ space. Obviously, in a realistic situation the time evolution of $\delta\Delta'$ would be erratic and Eq.\[13\] would become a stochastic differential equation. We expect that this would make the triggering mechanism easier, with a lower threshold for both the critical $\zeta$ and $\delta\Delta'$. An interesting discussion of the stochastic behavior of Rutherford equation was given by Itoh et al. in Ref.[@Itoh2004]. Furthermore, the calculation presented here is conservative and the critical values obtained are very stringent, since we have assumed an initial condition for Eq.\[13\] with no magnetic island. In reality, the presence of a small, but finite seed island island \[$w(0)<w_{seed}$\] would move the stability boundaries in Fig.\[fig8\], broadening the unstable region 3. Conclusions =========== We have investigated the effect of current corrugations on the stability of the tearing mode. We have obtained a theoretical scaling which relates the change of $\Delta'$ to the characteristics of the corrugation, such as its amplitude, typical scale length and phase with respect to the resonant surface. The scaling has been tested on a simple slab linear problem, giving excellent agreement between theoretical predictions and numerical data. Then, by using a shooting code, we have investigated the effect of the corrugations in cylindrical geometry, and found qualitative and quantitative agreement with the analytic scaling. Finally, we have addressed the problem of the seedless trigger of a NTM through a current corrugation. From our results we conclude that even small modifications of the original equilibrium can lead to significantly different values of the stability parameter and can therefore strongly affect the onset and the dynamics of the mode. For example, a current corrugation of amplitude around $5\%$ of the equilibrium and with scale length comparable with the resistive layer can triple the growth rate of the tearing instability. The study presented in this paper has two clear implications for tokamak experiments. First, it implies that the calculation of the stability parameters from experimental data is an extremely delicate procedure. Indeed, the current density profiles used to evaluate $\Delta'$ cannot be directly measured. While the magnetic field can be deduced from Motional Stark Effect measurements, the best spatial resolution achievable is around 5cm, too coarse to rule out the possibility of current corrugations. Another option is to reconstruct the current profile from temperature and density data by using equilibrium codes. However, the error bars of the measurement and the approximations used in the current reconstruction make it virtually impossible to obtain a precise value of the stability parameter. The second implication is related to the trigger of the NTMs in a relatively quiescent plasma. Experiments in several machines [@Gude1999; @Buttery2002; @Fredrickson2002] have reported Neoclassical Tearing Modes growing without strong MHD precursors (sawteeth, fishbones or ELMs) which could generate seed islands. The theory presented in this paper suggests the possibility of NTMs triggered by the microscopic turbulence via the generation of slowly evolving (on the NTM time scale) current corrugations. The corrugated configuration could be linearly unstable and generate a seed island, which would then be sustained by Neoclassical physics. At this point, the pressure flattening in the island region could remove the drive for the turbulence and therefore for the zonal field, which would decay, leaving the island at the NTM saturated level. The heuristic model that we have employed shows that a seedless NTM can indeed be excited if the zonal flow that produces the corrugation is sufficiently strong and slowly evolving. Furthermore, even when the zonal field is not able to directly drive the NTM, it can significantly reduce the seed island width (i.e. the plasma becomes more sensitive to the presence of small islands). It is useful here to give some experimental values for the parameters of our NTM trigger theory. For a typical tokamak plasma, the resistive time is of the order of a few second, hence the islands saturate in roughly 50-100 ms, while the peak frequency for the plasma turbulence is around 100 KHz (as observed for example in Ref.[@Romanelli2006]). According to experimental observation of zonal fields by Fujizawa et al. [@Fujisawa2008], current corrugations evolve roughly 50 times slower than the drift-wave turbulence. This is in agreement with the theoretical prediction that zonal fields are mesoscale objects. The extrapolation of these results to typical tokamak plasmas leads to an expected coherence time for the corrugations around 1-2 ms. As a consequence, in standard conditions, the value of $\zeta$ is in general below the critical value predicted with our model, which is in agreement with the fact that, in tokamaks, seedless NTMs are the exception rather than the rule. However, current corrugation of sufficient amplitude occurring in particular plasmas (e.g. where the local resistivity is particularly high or the zonal fields are slow) could explain the results in Refs.[@Gude1999; @Buttery2002; @Fredrickson2002]. Furthermore, assuming that the zonal field time scale will be roughly unchanged in the next generation tokamaks, such as ITER, our results seem to suggest that these machines should be stable to spontaneous NTMs, as their resistive time is of the order of hundreds of seconds. A limitation of this work is the assumption that the pressure profile (and therefore the pressure perturbations) does not play any role in the calculation of $\Delta'$. A “zonal” pressure is generated by drift-waves when Finite Larmor Radius effects are considered and should become significant when ITG instabilities are present. Pressure gradients might be relevant as they contribute to Eq.\[4\] with a term that is inversely proportional to $(\psi_{eq}')^2$, and are therefore very important in the neighborhood of the resonant surface. As pointed out in Refs.[@Bishop1991] this could make even harder to properly evaluate the stability parameter. The inclusion of this effect in our calculation will be discussed in a future publication. The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with Dr. J.W. Connor, Prof. S.C. Cowley and Dr. A. Thyagaraja. This work was funded by the United Kingdom Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and by the European Communities under the contract of Association between EURATOM and UKAEA. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. [99]{} P.H. Diamond, S-I Itoh, K. Itoh, and T.S. Hahm, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion [47]{}, R35 (2005). A. Fujisawa, K. Itoh, A. Shimizu, H. Nakano, S. Ohshima, H. Iguchi, K. Matsuoka, S. Okamura, T. Minami, Y. Yoshimura, K. Nagaoka, K. Ida, K. Toi, C. Takahashi, M. Kojima, S. Nishimura, M. Isobe, C. Suzuki, T. Akiyama, Y. Nagashima, S.-I. Itoh, and P. H. Diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. [98]{}, 165001 (2007). A. Fujisawa, K. Itoh, A. Shimizu, H. Nakano, S. Ohshima, H. Iguchi, K. Matsuoka, S. Okamura, T. Minami, Y. Yoshimura, K. Nagaoka, K. Ida, K. Toi, C. Takahashi, M. Kojima, S. Nishimura, M. Isobe, C. Suzuki, T. Akiyama, T. Ido, Y. Nagashima, S.-I. Itoh, and P. H. Diamond, Phys. Plasmas [15]{}, 055906 (2008). A. Thyagaraja, P.J. Knight, M.R. de Baar, G. M. D. Hogeweij, and E. Min, Phys. Plasmas [12]{}, 090907 (2005). R.E. Waltz, J. Candy, F.L. Hinton, C. Estrada-Mila and J.E. Kinsey, Nuclear Fusion [45]{}, 741 (2005). B.D. Scott, Private communication (2008). H.P. Furth, J. Killeen and M.N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Fluids [6]{},459 (1963). P.H. Rutherford, Phys. Fluids [16]{}, 1903 (1973) L.E. Zakharov and A.A. Subbotin, “Tearing-Mode stabilisation by generation of an additional current layer in Tokamaks”, ITER-IL-Ph11-9-S-2 (available from ITER Secretariat, Max-Plank-Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching bei München, Germany) (1989). E. Westerhof, Nuclear Fusion [30]{}, 1143 (1990) J.W. Connor, S.C. Cowley, R.J. Hastie and T.J Martin, Proceedings of the 19th EPS Conference, Innsbruck, 1393 (1992) E.A. Adler, R.M. Kulsrud and R.B. White, Phys. Fluids [23]{}, 1375 (1980). B. Coppi, J.M. Greene, J.L. Johnson, Nuclear Fusion [6]{}, 101 (1966). H.R. Strauss, Phys. Fluids [19]{}, 134 (1976). P.N. Guzdar, R.G Kleva and L. Chen, Phys. Plasmas [8]{}, 459 (2001). P.N. Guzdar, R.G Kleva, A. Das and P.K. Kaw, Phys. Rev. Lett. [87]{}, 150001 (2001). L. Chen, Z. Lin, R.B. White and F. Zonca, Nuclear Fusion [41]{}, 747 (2001). F. Militello and F. Porcelli, Phys. Plasmas [11]{}, L13 (2004). F. Militello, G. Huysmans, M. Ottaviani and F. Porcelli, 11, 125 (2003). D. Grasso, M. Ottaviani and F. Porcelli, 8, 4303 (2001). H.P Furth, P.H Rutherford, H. Selberg 16, 1054 (1973). R.J. La Haye, Phys. Plasmas [13]{}, 055501 (2006). S.-I. Itoh, K. Itoh and M. Yagi Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion [46]{} 123-143 (2004). F. Militello and F. Porcelli, Phys. Plasmas [11]{}, L13 (2004). D.F. Escande and M. Ottaviani, Phys. Lett. A [323]{}, 278 (2004). A.H. Glasser, J.M. Greene and J.L. Johnson, Phys. Fluids [18]{}, 875 (1975). J.W. Connor, F.L. Waelbroeck and H.R. Wilson, Phys. Plasmas [8]{}, 2835 (2001). F. Militello M. Ottaviani and F. Porcelli, Phys. Plasmas [15]{}, 042104 (2008). R. Fitzpatrick, Phys. Plasmas [2]{}, 825 (1995). A. Bergmann, E. Poli and A.G. Peeters, 19th IAEA Conf. on Fusion Energy (IAEA, Lyon, 2002), paper TH/P1-01. A. Gude, S. Günter, S. Sesnic, ASDEX Upgrade Team, 39, 127 (1999). R.J. Buttery, T.C. Hender, D.F Howell, R.J. La Haye, O. Sauter, D. Testa and contributors to the EFDA-JETWorkprogramme, Nucl. Fusion [43]{}, 69 (2003). E.D. Fredrickson, 9, 548 (2002). M. Romanelli, M. De Benedetti, B. Esposito, G. Regnoli, F. Bombarda, C. Bourdelle, D. Frigione, C. Gormezano, E. Giovannozzi, G.T. Hoang, M. Leigheb, M. Marinucci, D. Marocco, C. Mazzotta, C. Sozzi and F. Zonca, 46, 412 (2006). C.M. Bishop, J.W. Connor, R.J. Hastie, S.C. Cowley, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion [33]{}, 389 (1991).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| In this letter we will use higher-order supersymmetric quantum mechanics to obtain several families of complex solutions $g(x;a,b)$ of the Painlevé IV equation with real parameters $a,b$. We shall also study the algebraic structure, the eigenfunctions and the energy spectra of the corresponding non-hermitian Hamiltonians.\ [Keywords:]{} quantum mechanics, non-linear differential equations, Painlevé equations, complex potentials with real spectra author: - \| David Bermúdez[^1] and David J. Fernández C.[^2]\ [Departamento de Física, Cinvestav, A.P. 14-740, 07000 México D.F., Mexico]{} title: \| Non-hermitian Hamiltonians and\ Painlevé IV equation with real parameters --- Introduction ============ Since its birth, supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSY QM) catalyzed the study of exactly solvable Hamiltonians and gave a new insight into the algebraic structure characterizing these systems. Historically, the essence of SUSY QM was developed first as Darboux transformation in mathematical physics [@MS91] and as factorization method in quantum mechanics [@IH51]. On the other hand, there has been an increasing interest in the study of non-linear phenomena, which in many cases leads to the analysis of Painlevé equations [@VS93; @Adl94]. Although these were discovered from strictly mathematical considerations, nowadays they are widely used to describe several physical phenomena [@AC92]. In particular, the Painlevé IV equation ($P_{IV}$) is relevant in fluid mechanics, non-linear optics and quantum gravity [@Win92]. As it has been shown, there is a natural connection between quantum systems described by second-order polynomial Heisenberg algebras (PHA), whose Hamiltonians have the standard Schrödinger form and their differential ladder operators are of third order, and solutions $g(x;a,b)$ of $P_{IV}$ [@Adl94; @ARS80; @Fla80]. Moreover, these algebras can be realized by the $k$-th order SUSY partners $H_k$ of the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian $H_0$, which leads to a simple method for generating solutions of $P_{IV}$, since the SUSY technique provides explicit expressions for the extremal states of $H_k$ and connecting formulae relating them with the corresponding $P_{IV}$ solutions [@ACIN00; @FNN04; @CFNN04; @MN08]. It is worth to note, however, that the need to avoid singularities in the new potential $V_k(x)$ and the requirement for the Hamiltonian $H_k$ to be hermitian lead to some restrictions [@BF11]: (i) first of all, the relevant transformation function has to be real, which implies that the associated factorization energy is real; (ii) as a consequence, the spectrum of $H_k$ consists of two independent physical ladders, an infinite one departing from $E_0 = 1/2$ (the ground state energy of $H_0$) plus a finite one with $k$ equidistant levels, all of which have to be placed below $E_0$. Regarding $P_{IV}$, these two restrictions imply that non-singular real solutions $g(x;a,b)$ can be obtained for certain real parameters $a,b$. From the point of view of spectral design, it would be important to overcome restriction (ii) so that some (or all) steps of the finite ladder could be placed above $E_0$. In this way we would be able to manipulate not just the lowest part of the spectrum (as we did previously [@FNN04; @CFNN04; @BF11]), but also the excited state levels, which would endow us with new tools for spectral design. In this article we are going to show that this can be achieved if one relaxes restriction (i) as well, which will force us to use complex transformation functions (see [@ACDI99]) and will lead to the generation of complex solutions to $P_{IV}$. This letter is organized as follows: in Section 2 we shall present the general framework of SUSY QM and PHA. In the next Section we will generate the complex solutions to $P_{IV}$, specifically, we shall analyze the domain of the parameter space $(a,b)$ for which we obtain real or complex solutions; then, in Section 4 we will study the eigenfunctions and the energy spectra of the non-hermitian Hamiltonians. We shall present our conclusions in Section 5. General framework of SUSY QM and PHA ==================================== In the $k$-th order SUSY QM one typically starts from a given solvable Hamiltonian $$H_0 = -\frac12 \frac{d^2}{d x^2} + V_0(x),$$ and generates a chain of standard (first-order) intertwining relations [@AIS93; @MRO04; @Fer10] $$\begin{aligned} H_j A_j^{+} & = A_j^{+} H_{j-1}, \quad H_{j-1}A_j^{-} = A_j^{-}H_j, \\ H_j & = -\frac12 \frac{d^2}{d x^2} + V_j(x),\\ A_j^{\pm} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\mp \frac{d}{d x} + \alpha_j(x,\epsilon_j)\right], \quad j = 1,\dots,k. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, the following equations must be satisfied $$\begin{aligned} & \alpha_j'(x,\epsilon_j) + \alpha_j^2(x,\epsilon_j) = 2[V_{j-1}(x) - \epsilon_j], \label{rei} \\ & V_{j}(x) = V_{j-1}(x) - \alpha_j'(x,\epsilon_j). \label{npi}\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in the final Riccati solution $\alpha_{k}(x,\epsilon_{k})$, which turns out to be determined, either by $k$ solutions $\alpha_1(x,\epsilon_j)$ of the initial Riccati equation $$\alpha_1'(x,\epsilon_j) + \alpha_1^2(x,\epsilon_j) = 2 [V_0(x) - \epsilon_j], \quad j=1,\dots,k,$$ or by $k$ solutions $u_j$ of the associated Schrödinger equation $$H_0 u_j = - \frac12 u_j'' + V_0(x)u_j = \epsilon_j u_j, \quad j=1,\dots,k, \label{usch}$$ with $\alpha_1(x,\epsilon_j) = u_j'/u_j$. Thus, there is a pair of $k$-th order operators interwining the initial $H_0$ and the final Hamiltonians $H_k$, namely, $$H_k B_k^{+} = B_k^{+} H_0, \quad H_0 B_k^{-} = B_k^{-} H_k,$$ where $$B_k^{+} = A_k^{+}\dots A_1^{+}, \quad B_k^{-} = A_1^{-}\dots A_k^{-}.$$ The normalized eigenfunctions $\psi_n^{(k)}$ of $H_k$, associated to the eigenvalues $E_n$, are proportional to the action of $B_k^{+}$ onto the corresponding ones of $H_0$ ($\psi_n$, $n=0,1,\dots$). Moreover, there are $k$ additional eigenstates $\psi_{\epsilon_j}^{(k)}$ associated to the eigenvalues $\epsilon_j$ ($j=1,\dots ,k$), which are simultaneously annihilated by $B_k^{-}$. Their corresponding explicit expressions are given by [@BF11; @FH99]: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_n^{(k)} = \frac{B_k^{+}\psi_n}{[(E_n-\epsilon_1)\dots (E_n-\epsilon_k)]^{1/2}}, & \quad E_n, \label{psin}\\ \psi_{\epsilon_j}^{(k)} \propto \frac{W(u_1,\dots , u_{j-1},u_{j+1},\dots , u_k)}{W(u_1,\dots , u_k)}, & \quad \epsilon_j. \label{psie}\end{aligned}$$ Let us note that, in this formalism the obvious restriction $\epsilon_j < E_0=1/2$ naturally arises since we want to avoid singularities in $V_k(x)$. On the other hand, a $m$-th order PHA is a deformation of the Heisenberg-Weyl algebra of kind [@CFNN04; @FH99]: $$\begin{aligned} [H,L^\pm] &= \pm L^\pm , \\ [L^-,L^+] & \equiv Q_{m+1}(H+1) - Q_{m+1}(H) = P_m(H) , \\ Q_{m+1}(H) &= L^+ L^- = \prod\limits_{i=1}^{m+1} \left(H - \mathcal{E}_i\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{m+1}(x)$ is a $(m+1)$-th order polynomial in $x$, which implies that $P_m(x)$ is a polynomial of order $m$ in $x$ and $\mathcal{E}_i$ are the zeros of $Q_{m+1}(H)$, which correspond to the energies associated to the extremal states of $H$. Now, let us take a look at the differential representation of the second-order PHA ($m=2$). Suppose that $L^+$ is a third-order differential ladder operator, chosen by simplicity as: $$\begin{aligned} L^+ &= L_1^+ L_2^+ , \\ L_1^+ &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[-\frac{d}{d x} + f(x) \right], \\ L_2^+ &= \frac12\left[ \frac{d^2}{d x^2} + g(x)\frac{d}{d x} + h(x)\right].\end{aligned}$$ These operators satisfy the following intertwining relationships: $$\begin{aligned} HL_1^+ & = L_1^+ (H_{\rm a} + 1), \quad H_{\rm a} L_2^+ = L_2^+ H,\\ \Rightarrow \quad & [H,L^+] = L^+,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\rm a}$ is an auxiliary Schrödinger Hamiltonian. Using the standard equations for the first and second-order SUSY QM and decoupling the resulting system gives rise to $$\begin{aligned} & f = x + g, \label{fdependg} \\ & h = - x^2 + \frac{g'}{2} - \frac{g^2}{2} - 2xg + a, \\ & V = \frac{x^2}2 - \frac{g'}2 + \frac{g^2}2 + x g + \mathcal{E}_1 - \frac12 , \label{Vpivs}\end{aligned}$$ where $$g'' = \frac{g'^2}{2g} + \frac{3}{2} g^3 + 4xg^2 + 2\left(x^2 - a \right) g + \frac{b}{g}.$$ Note that this is the Painlevé IV equation ($P_{IV}$) with parameters $$a =\mathcal{E}_2 + \mathcal{E}_3-2\mathcal{E}_1 -1,\quad b = - 2(\mathcal{E}_2 - \mathcal{E}_3)^2.\label{abe}$$ Hence, if the three quantities $\mathcal{E}_i$ are real, we will obtain real parameters $a,b$ for the corresponding $P_{IV}$. Let us note that the potential of equation (\[Vpivs\]) contains a harmonic oscillator term. In addition, three terms can be identified ($-g'/2 + g^2/2 + xg$) which in general lead to an anharmonicity in the potential and are completely determined by the solution to $P_{IV}$. As a consequence, one could say that the solution $g$ to $P_{IV}$ is the main responsible for the spectral differences which the Hamiltonian $H$ could have with respect to the harmonic oscillator (compare with [@DEK94]). Complex solutions to $P_{IV}$ with real parameters ================================================== It is well known that the first-order SUSY partner Hamiltonians of the harmonic oscillator are naturally described by second-order PHA, which are connected with $P_{IV}$, as we have shown in the previous section. Furthermore, there is a theorem stating the conditions for the hermitian higher-order SUSY partners Hamiltonians of the harmonic oscillator to have this kind of algebras (see [@BF11]). The main requirement is that the $k$ Schrödinger seed solutions have to be connected in the way $$\begin{aligned} u_j=(a^{-})^{j-1}u_1,& \quad \label{us}\\ \epsilon_j=\epsilon_1-(j-1), & \quad j=1,\dots , k,\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{-}$ is the standard annihilation operator of $H_0$ so that the only free seed $u_1$ has to be a real solution of Eq. without zeros, associated to a real factorization energy $\epsilon_1$ such that $\epsilon_1<E_0=1/2$. In this work we intend to overcome this restriction, although if we use the formalism as in [@BF11] with $\epsilon_1 > E_0$, we would obtain only singular SUSY transformations. In order to avoid this we will instead employ complex SUSY transformations. The simplest way to implement them is to use a complex linear combination of the two standard linearly independent real solutions which, up to an unessential factor, leads to the following complex solutions depending on a complex constant $\lambda + i \kappa$ ($\lambda, \kappa \in \mathbb{R}$) [@ACDI99]: $$u(x;\epsilon ) = e^{-x^2/2}\left[ {}_1F_1\left(\frac{1-2\epsilon}{4},\frac12;x^2\right) + x(\lambda + i\kappa)\, {}_1F_1\left(\frac{3-2\epsilon}{4},\frac32;x^2\right)\right], \label{u1}$$ where $_1F_1$ is the confluent hypergeometric (Kummer) function. The known results for the real case [@JR98] are obtained by making $\kappa=0$ and expressing $\lambda$ as $$\lambda= 2 \nu\frac{\Gamma(\frac{3 - 2\epsilon}{4})}{\Gamma(\frac{1-2\epsilon}{4})}, \label{nu}$$ with $\nu \in \mathbb{R}$. Hence, through this formalism we will obtain the $k$-th order SUSY partner potential $V_k(x)$ of the harmonic oscillator and the corresponding $P_{IV}$ solution $g(x;\epsilon_1)$, both of which are complex, in the way $$\begin{aligned} V_k(x) &= \frac{x^2}2 - \{\ln [W(u_1,\dots,u_k)]\}'' , \\ g(x;\epsilon_1) &= - x - \{\ln[\psi_{\mathcal{E}_1}(x)]\}'. \label{solg}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the extremal states of $H_{k}$ and their corresponding energies are given by $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{\mathcal{E}_1} \propto \frac{W(u_1,\dots,u_{k-1})}{W(u_1,\dots,u_k)}, & \quad \mathcal{E}_1 = \epsilon_k = \epsilon_1 - (k - 1), \label{edo1}\\ \psi_{\mathcal{E}_2} \propto B_k^+ e^{-x^2/2}, & \quad \mathcal{E}_2 = \frac{1}{2}, \label{edo2}\\ \psi_{\mathcal{E}_3} \propto B_k^+ a^{+} u_1, & \quad \mathcal{E}_3 = \epsilon_1 + 1. \label{edo3}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that all the $u_j$ satisfy Eq. and $u_1$ corresponds to the general solution given in Eq. . For $k=1$, the first-order SUSY transformation and Eq. lead to what is known as one-parameter solutions to $P_{IV}$, due to the restrictions imposed by Eq. onto the two parameters $a,b$ of $P_{IV}$ which makes them both depend on $\epsilon_1$ [@BCH95]. For this reason, this family of solutions cannot be found in any point of the parameter space $(a,b)$, but only in the subspace defined by the curve $\{\left( a(\epsilon_1), b(\epsilon_1)\right),\ \epsilon_1 \in \mathbb{R}\}$ consistent with Eqs. . Then, by increasing the order of the SUSY transformation to an arbitrary integer $k$, we will expand this subspace to obtain $k$ different families of one-parameter solutions. This procedure is analogous to iterated auto-Bäcklund transformations [@RS82]. Also note that by making cyclic permutations of the indices of the three energies $\mathcal{E}_i$ and the corresponding extremal states of Eqs. (\[edo1\]-\[edo3\]), we expand the solution families to three different sets, defined by $$\begin{aligned} a_{1}=-\epsilon_1 + 2k -\frac{3}{2}, \quad & b_{1}=-2\left(\epsilon_1+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2}, \label{ab1}\\ a_2= 2\epsilon_1 -k, \quad & b_2=-2k^2, \\ a_3=-\epsilon_1-k-\frac{3}{2}, \quad & b_3=-2\left(\epsilon_1 - k +\frac{1}{2}\right)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we have added an index corresponding to the extremal state (Eqs. (\[edo1\]-\[edo3\])) taken to build up the $P_{IV}$ solution in Eq. . The first pair, $a_1,b_1$, can provide non-singular real or complex solutions, while the second and third ones can give just non-singular complex solutions, due to singularities in the real case. A part of the non-singular solution subspace for both real and complex cases is shown in Fig. \[parameterspace\]. One can check that those points which belong to two different sets have associated the same $P_{IV}$ solutions. ![Parameter space $(a,b)$ of the $P_{IV}$ solutions. The curves represent the solution subspace for non-singular real or complex (solid curves) and only complex (dashed curves) solutions.[]{data-label="parameterspace"}](figpspace.eps) In turn, let us analyze some of the $P_{IV}$ solutions obtained by this method. The real solutions arise by taking $\kappa=0$, and expressing $\lambda$ as in Eq. with $\epsilon_1<1/2$. They can be classified into three relevant solution hierarchies, namely, confluent hypergeometric, complementary error and rational hierarchies. Let us note that the same set of real solutions to $P_{IV}$ can be obtained through inverse scattering techniques [@AC92] (compare the solutions of [@BCH95] with those of [@BF11]). In Fig. \[greal\], three real solutions to $P_{IV}$ are presented, which belong to the complementary error hierarchy. ![Some real solutions to $P_{IV}$, corresponding to $a_1=1$, $b_1=0$ ($k=1$, $\epsilon_1=-1/2$, $\nu=0.7$) (solid curve), $a_1=4$, $b_1=-2$ ($k=2$, $\epsilon_1=-3/2$, $\nu=0.5$) (dashed curve), and $a_1=7$, $b_1=-8$ ($k=3$, $\epsilon_1=-1/2$, $\nu=0.3$) (dotted curve).[]{data-label="greal"}](figgreal.eps) Next, we study the complex solutions subspace, i.e. we allow now that $\epsilon_1 \geq 1/2$. The real and imaginary parts of the complex solutions $g(x;a,b)$ for two particular choices of real parameters $a,b$, which belong to different solution sets, are plotted in Fig. \[gcomplex\]. ![Real (solid curve) and imaginary (dashed curve) parts of some complex solutions to $P_{IV}$. The upper plot corresponds to $a_2=12$, $b_2=-8$ ($k=2$, $\epsilon_1=7$, $\lambda=\kappa=1$) and the lower one to $a_3=-5$, $b_3=-8$ ($k=1$, $\epsilon_1=5/2$, $\lambda=\kappa=1$).[]{data-label="gcomplex"}](figgcomplex2.eps "fig:") ![Real (solid curve) and imaginary (dashed curve) parts of some complex solutions to $P_{IV}$. The upper plot corresponds to $a_2=12$, $b_2=-8$ ($k=2$, $\epsilon_1=7$, $\lambda=\kappa=1$) and the lower one to $a_3=-5$, $b_3=-8$ ($k=1$, $\epsilon_1=5/2$, $\lambda=\kappa=1$).[]{data-label="gcomplex"}](figgcomplex3.eps "fig:") Note that, in general, $\psi_{\mathcal{E}_i}\neq 0\ \forall\ x \in \mathbb{R}$ , i.e., the solutions $g(x;a,b)$ are not singular. Moreover, both real and imaginary parts have an asymptotic null behaviour ($g\rightarrow 0$ as $\|x\|\rightarrow \infty$). This property becomes evident in Fig. \[gcomplex\], as well as in the parametric plot of the real and imaginary parts of $g(x;a,b)$ of Fig. \[complexpara\]. ![Parametric plot of the real and imaginary parts of $g(x;a,b)$ for $a_1=-6$, $b_1=-2$ ($k=1$, $\epsilon_1=5/2$, $\lambda=1$, $\kappa=5$) and $\|x\| \leq 10$. For bigger values of $x$, the curve approaches the origin in both sides.[]{data-label="complexpara"}](figcomplexpara.eps) Non-hermitian Hamiltonians ========================== Let us analize the Hamiltonian $H_k$ obtained by the complex SUSY transformation. Note that the real case, which leads to hermitian Hamiltonians, has been studied previously [@AIS93; @Mie84], allowing to obtain some criteria related to the structure of the associated energy spectrum $\text{Sp}(H_k)$, the number of zeros of the eigenfunctions of $H_k$, and the way in which they are connected by the third-order ladder operators $L^{\pm}$. This action is in agreement with the fact that $\text{Sp}(H_k)$ consists of an infinite ladder plus a finite one: there are two extremal states (both annihilated by $L^{-}$) from which the two ladders start, one associated to $\epsilon_k$ and the other one to $E_0=1/2$; since the ladder starting from $\epsilon_k$ ends at $\epsilon_1$, the eigenfunction associated to $\epsilon_1$ is annihilated by $L^{+}$. The actions of $L^{\pm}$ onto any other eigenstate of $H_k$ are non-null, and connect only the eigenstates belonging to the same ladder. As far as we know, complex SUSY transformations with real factorization energies were used for the first time by Andrianov et al. to obtain non-hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra [@ACDI99]. These topics have been of great interest in the context of both parity-time (PT) symmetric Hamiltonians (see Bender et al. [@BB98]) and pseudo-hermitian Hamiltonians (see Mostazafadeh et al. [@MB04]). Next, we will examine the structure of non-hermitian SUSY generated Hamiltonians $H_k$. First of all, the new Hamiltonians necessarily have complex eigenfunctions, although the associated eigenvalues are still real. In previous works, the factorization energy associated to the real transformation function $u_1$ was bounded, $\epsilon_1<E_0=1/2$. In this paper we are using complex transformation functions to be able to overcome this restriction and yet obtain non-singular solutions. This naturally leads to complex solutions to $P_{IV}$ generated through factorization energies which could be placed now above $E_0$. The resulting spectra for the non-hermitian Hamiltonians $H_k$ obey the same criteria as the real case, namely, they are composed of an infinite ladder plus a finite one, which now could be placed, either fully or partially, above $E_0$. The eigenfunctions associated to the energy levels of the original harmonic oscillator are given by Eq. and the ones associated to the new energy levels by Eq. , all of them square-integrable. A diagram of the described spectrum is shown in Fig. \[espectros\]. ![Spectrum of the SUSY partner Hamiltonians $H_0$ (right) and $H_k$ (left) for $\epsilon_1>1/2$, $\epsilon_1\neq E_j$; Sp($H_k$) still contains one finite and one infinite ladders. The dark bars represent the original and mapped eigenstates of $H_0$ and $H_k$, while the light ones the $k$ new levels of $H_k$ introduced by the $k$-th order SUSY transformation. All of them have associated square-integrable eigenfunctions.[]{data-label="espectros"}](figespectros.eps) The extremal states of the SUSY generated Hamiltonian $H_k$ are given by Eqs. (\[edo1\]-\[edo3\]). These are non-singular complex eigenfunctions of $H_k$ and, from their asymptotic behaviour, we conclude that those given by Eqs. (\[edo1\],\[edo2\]) are square-integrable. Note that in this case the oscillatory theorem does not hold anymore, neither for the real nor for the imaginary parts, although a related node structure emerges. The absolute value and the real and imaginary parts of $\psi_{\mathcal{E}_1}(x)$ for two particular cases are shown in Fig. \[waves\]. ![Plot of the absolute value, the real, and the imaginary parts (solid, dashed and dotted lines, respectively) of the eigenfunction $\psi_{\mathcal{E}_1}(x)$ given by Eq. for the values $k=2$, $\epsilon_1=-1$, $\lambda=1$, $\kappa=1/2$ (up) and $k=2$, $\epsilon_1=4$, $\lambda=1$, $\kappa=6$ (down).[]{data-label="waves"}](figwave1.eps "fig:")\ ![Plot of the absolute value, the real, and the imaginary parts (solid, dashed and dotted lines, respectively) of the eigenfunction $\psi_{\mathcal{E}_1}(x)$ given by Eq. for the values $k=2$, $\epsilon_1=-1$, $\lambda=1$, $\kappa=1/2$ (up) and $k=2$, $\epsilon_1=4$, $\lambda=1$, $\kappa=6$ (down).[]{data-label="waves"}](figwave2.eps "fig:") On the other hand, complex transformations for $\epsilon_1=E_j$ are worth of a detailed study, namely, when the factorization energy $\epsilon_1$ belongs to the spectrum of the original harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian. For instance, let us consider a first-order SUSY transformation with $\epsilon_1=E_j$ and $u_1$ given by Eq. , i.e., $u_1$ is a complex linear combination of the eigenfunction $\psi_j$ of $H_0$ and the other linearly independent solution of the Schrödinger equation. It is straightforward to see that the action of the ladder operator $L^{-}=A_1^{+}a^{-}A_1^{-}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} E_{l},&\quad L^{-}(A_1^{+}\psi_{l}) \propto A_1^{+}\psi_{l-1},\\ E_j, &\quad L^{-}(A_1^{+}\psi_{j}) = 0,\\ E_{0}, &\quad L^{-}(A_1^{+}\psi_{0}) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $l \neq j$, $l \neq 0$, the shown energies correspond to the departure state, and we have used that $A_1^{+}\psi_j \propto 1/u_1 $. For $L^{+}=A_1^{+}a^{+}A_1^{-}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} E_{l},&\quad L^{+}(A_1^{+}\psi_{l}) \propto \psi_{l+1},\\ E_j, &\quad L^{+}(A_1^{+}\psi_{j}) =0,\end{aligned}$$ which does not match with the established criteria for the non-singular real and complex cases with $\epsilon_1 \neq E_j$ since now it turns out that: $$\begin{aligned} E_{j+1},&\quad L^{-}(A_1^{+}\psi_{j+1}) \propto A_1^{+}\psi_{j} \propto \frac{1}{u_1}\neq 0,\\ E_{j-1},&\quad L^{+}(A_1^{+}\psi_{j-1}) \propto A_1^{+}\psi_{j} \propto \frac{1}{u_1}\neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ The resulting Hamiltonian is isospectral to the harmonic oscillator but with a special algebraic structure because now one state (the one associated to $E_j$) is connected just in one way with the adjacent ones (associated to $E_j \pm 1$). A diagram representing this structure is shown in Fig. \[1susy\]. We are currently studying the $k$-th order case and expect to find the new criteria which will be valid for these special transformations. ![Spectra of the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian $H_0$ and of its first-order SUSY partner $H_1$ when we use the factorization energy $\epsilon_1=E_j \in \text{Sp}(H_0)$. The level $E_j$ of $H_1$ is connected with its adjacent ones just in one way.[]{data-label="1susy"}](fig1susy.eps) Conclusions =========== In this letter, based on PHA and higher-order SUSY QM, we have introduced a method to obtain real and complex solutions $g(x;a,b)$ of the $P_{IV}$ with real parameters $a,b$. We have studied the properties of the resulting solutions, including the analysis of the subspace of the parameter space $(a,b)$ were non-singular real or complex solutions can be found. In addition, we have analyzed the algebras, the eigenfunctions and the spectra of the non-hermitian SUSY generated Hamiltonians. Further investigation on the description of the analytic structure of the complex solutions and on the way in which the ladder operators $L^{\pm}$ map between different eigenstates and their corresponding energy levels is needed. Besides, we are looking for extensions of this technique to obtain $P_{IV}$ solutions associated to complex parameters $a,b$. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== The authors acknowledge the support of Conacyt. [99]{} V.E. Matveev, M.A. Salle. [Darboux transformation and solitons]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1991. L. Infeld, T. Hull. The factorization method, [Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [23]{} (1951) 21-68. A.P. Veselov, A.B. Shabat. Dressing chains and spectral theory of the Schr[ö]{}dinger operator, [Funct. Anal. Appl.]{} [27]{} (1993) 81-96. V.E. Adler. Nonlinear chains and Painlevé equations, [Physica D]{} [73]{} (1994) 335-351. M.J. Ablowitz, P.A. Clarkson. [Solitons, nonlinear evolution equations and inverse scattering]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992. P. Winternitz. Physical applications of Painlevé type equations quadratic in highest derivative, in [Painlevé trascendents, their asymptotics and physical applications]{}, NATO ASI Series B, New York (1992) 425-431. M.J. Ablowitz, A. Ramani, H. Segur. A connection between nonlinear evolutions equations and ordinary differential equations of P-type. II. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [21]{} (1980) 1006-1015. H. Flaschka. A commutator representation of Painlev[é]{} equations. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [21]{} (1980) 1016 -1018. A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, M. Ioffe, D. Nishnianidze. Systems with higher-order shape invariance: spectral and algebraic propierties, [Phys. Lett. A]{} [266]{} (2000) 341-349. D.J. Fernández, J. Negro, L.M. Nieto. Elementary systems with partial finite ladder spectra, [Phys. Lett. A]{} [324]{} (2004) 139-144. J.M. Carballo, D.J. Fernández, J. Negro, L.M. Nieto. Polynomial Heisenberg algebras, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} 37 (2004) 10349-10362. J. Mateo, J. Negro. Third order differential ladder operators and supersymmetric quantum mechanics, [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.]{} [41]{} (2008) 045204, 28 pages. D. Bermúdez, D.J. Fernández. Supersymmetric quantum mechanics and Painlevé IV equation, [SIGMA]{} [7]{} (2011) 025, 14 pages. A.A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, J.P. Dedonder, M.V. Ioffe. SUSY quantum mechanics with complex superpotentials and real energy spectra, [Int. J. Mod. Phys. A]{} [14]{} (1999) 2675-2688. A.A. Andrianov, M. Ioffe, V. Spiridonov. Higher-derivative supersymmetry and the Witten index, [Phys. Lett. A]{} [174]{} (1993) 273-279. B. Mielnik, O. Rosas-Ortiz. Factorization: little or great algorithm?, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [37]{} (2004) 10007-10035. D.J. Fernández. Supersymmetric quantum mechanics, [AIP Conf. Proc.]{} [1287]{} (2010) 3-36. D.J. Fernández, V. Hussin. Higher-order SUSY, linearized nonlinear Heisenberg algebras and coherent states, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [32]{} (1999) 3603-3619. S.Y. Dubov, V.M. Eleonskii, N.E. Kulagin. Equidistant spectra of anharmonic oscillators, [Chaos]{} [4]{} (1994) 47-53. G. Junker, P. Roy. Conditionally exactly solvable potentials: a supersymmetric construction method, [Ann. Phys.]{} [270]{} (1998) 155-164. A.P. Bassom, P.A. Clarkson, A.C. Hicks. Bäcklund transformations and solution hierarchies for the fourth Painlevé equation, [Stud. Appl. Math.]{} [95]{} (1995) 1-75. C. Rogers, W.F. Shadwick. [Bäcklund transformations and their applications]{}, Academic Press, London, 1982. B. Mielnik. Factorization method and new potentials with the oscillator spectrum, [J. Math. Phys.]{} [25]{} (1984) 3387-3389. C.M. Bender, S. Boettcher. Real spectra in non-Hermitian Hamiltonians having PT symmetry, [Phys. Rev. Let.]{} [80]{} (1998) 5243-5246. A. Mostazafadeh, A. Batal. Physical aspects of pseudo-Hermitian and PT-symmetric quantum mechanics, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [37]{} (2004) 11645-11679. [^1]: [email:]{} [email protected] [^2]: [email:]{} [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Redundancy and noise exist in the bands of hyperspectral images (HSIs). Thus, it is a good property to be able to select suitable parts from hundreds of input bands for HSIs classification methods. In this letter, a band attention module (BAM) is proposed to implement the deep learning based HSIs classification with the capacity of band selection or weighting. The proposed BAM can be seen as a plug-and-play complementary component of the existing classification networks which fully considers the adverse effects caused by the redundancy of the bands when using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for HSIs classification. Unlike most of deep learning methods used in HSIs, the band attention module which is customized according to the characteristics of hyperspectral images is embedded in the ordinary CNNs for better performance. At the same time, unlike classical band selection or weighting methods, the proposed method achieves the end-to-end training instead of the separated stages. Experiments are carried out on two HSI benchmark datasets. Compared to some classical and advanced deep learning methods, numerical simulations under different evaluation criteria show that the proposed method have good performance. Last but not least, some advanced CNNs are combined with the proposed BAM for better performance.' author: - 'Hongwei Dong, Lamei Zhang, Bin Zou, [^1] [^2]' bibliography: - 'IEEEabrv.bib' - 'refference.bib' title: Band Attention Convolutional Networks For Hyperspectral Image Classification --- \[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{} [Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{} Deep learning, hyperspectral image (HSI) classification, convolutional neural network (CNN), band attention. Introduction ============ images (HSIs) contain hundreds of near-continuous spectral bands and this benefits not only attracts the attention in the field of remote sensing, but also arouses great interest in some other fields. With the development of hyperspectral sensors, the intelligent interpretation of HSIs has become an important research issue in the field of remote sensing. However, this problem has not been well solved due to many factors. One important reason for this is that the high-dimensional data of HSIs contains a considerable degree of noise and redundancy, although some traditional band selection methods based on prior knowledge or data characteristics have been extensively studied [@Su2018A; @Wei2018Matrix]. The deep learning technique, represented by convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [@Lecun2014Backpropagation], has attracted extensive attention due to its good performance in recent years. As a continuation of statistical machine learning [@Vapnik1995], deep learning has powerful ability of data fitting under sufficient supervisory information. As this technique drives to maturity, some CNNs based methods [@vgg; @ResNet; @DenseNet] have been able to match the accuracy of human recognition in some specific visual tasks. Naturally, we think about using the capability of CNNs to solve the problem of HSI classification. In [@Chen2014Deep], deep learning method was firstly applied to HSIs for classification. The two-stream and 3D networks [@twostream; @C3D] used for video processing in computer vision has been widely used in HSIs classification [@Yang2016]. Because HSIs contain spectral dimension and spatial dimension [@Li2018], which is similar to the relationship between spatial dimension and temporal dimension in videos. Although some fairly advanced algorithms have been applied to HSI classification, there are still two major problems of deep learning in HSIs. One is the lack of weakly supervised algorithms, which is caused by the difficulty in obtaining data and labels of HSIs. The other, also studied in this letter, is that the network models are mostly borrowed from the mainstream networks in RGB image processing rather than customized for HSIs. The connotation of deep learning lies in that: models are constructed to adapt to the input data in different types, and the deep representations can be obtained through the model so as to get accurate generalization performance. Therefore, it is necessary to design a network model which is highly compatible with the characteristics of HSIs. Based on the above analysis, the purpose of this letter is to construct a classification network for HSIs, which can adapt to the problem of band redundancy. Inspired by the attention mechanism [@attention1; @attention2; @SENET], we propose a band attention based HSIs classification framework in this letter. In detail, a band attention module (BAM) embedded in the classification network is proposed. The proposed BAM obtains the global information through a series of convolutions and generates the required weight vector for the processing of input bands. It aims to be a plug-and-play complementary component of the existing HSIs classification networks and also orthogonal and complementary to methods that focus on spatial attention [@chen2019]. For the input data, the proposed model firstly carries out band selection (or weighting, which is determined by the last activation before the weight vector is obtained) through BAM, then obtains the recognition results through the classification module. The whole network is training end-to-end and the processing of bands shares supervisory information with image classification. The validity of the proposed method is demonstrated by the numerical experiments on HSIs benchmark datasets. The rest of this letter is organized as follows: The proposed strategies are listed in Sections . Experimental results are exhibited in Section . Conclusion and future directions are given in Section . Proposed Method {#sec:2} =============== Fig. 1 shows the flowchart of the proposed band attention convolutional neural network (BACNN). ![General flow chart of BACNN. The part of red dotted line is unique to the proposed method compared with the ordinary CNNs.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="8.5cm"} As shown in Fig. 1, compared with the ordinary CNN, the proposed BACNN has a BAM which can selectively select the input bands. In this way, the adverse effects of redundancy and noise of the bands on CNN classification are reduced and the accuracy is improved. Specifically, a $c\times 1$ weight is obtained by the BAM for a $h\times w\times c$ (c is the number of input bands) HSI and the input is channel-wise multiplied with the weight to obtain the band-processed HSI. Then we use a CNNs based network to classify the band-processed HSI. We think that this end-to-end model has better adaptive ability than the phased classification methods. Band attention module --------------------- Attention mechanism has been widely used in image processing [@attention2] since it can adaptively stimulate or suppress the input information. Its core lies in infusing global information into the algorithm through the learning of an image mask, so as to accelerate the areas which are beneficial to improving accuracy. We use the attention mechanism as a tool for choosing wanted bands. The structure of BAM is depicted in Fig. 2. ![The structure of the proposed BAM for attention based band processing.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="8.0cm"} As shown in Fig. 2, we use a series of convolutions and sub-sampling. The aim of these operations is to obtain the global information by reducing the resolution while expanding the receptive field and finally obtain the required weight vector. The used BAM consists of five $3\times 3$ 2D convolution layers which can be divided into three stages by two pooling layers, and each stage with the depth of 16, 32 and 32. Then two 1D convolution layers are used for further nonlinear learning between channels. Here has a hyperparameter $r$ to control the degree of information aggregation in 1D convolution layers. The first 1D kernel should be of size $1\times1\times 32\times c/r$ and the second with $1\times1\times c/r\times c$. Thus, a $c$ dimensional weight vector with global information of bands is learned, which can be seen as the mask of bands. Then the band mask is applied to the input HSI and the band-processed image can be obtained. The forward propagation of BAM can be expressed as: $$H_{out}=\sigma_2(W_{22}\sigma_1(W_{21}f_{globalpool}(W_1H_{in})))\label{1}$$ where $H_{in},H_{out}$ denote the input HSI and the output of BAM, $W_1,W_2$ represent 2D kernel matrix and 1D kernel matrix, $f_{globalpool}(\cdot)$ is used to fully fuse the spatial information contained in the feature maps and provides the basis for forming the band masks, which can be defined as: $$f_{globalpool}(x_z)=\frac{1}{h' \times w'}\sum_{i=1}^{h'} \sum_{j=1}^{w'} x_z(i,j)\label{2}$$ where $x_z$ means the $z$th feature map and $h',w'$ denote its current hight and width. $\sigma_1$ is rectified linear unit (ReLu) [@ReLU]. Maybe not the optimal, $\sigma_2$ is set to be sigmoid activation because this option performs better than other alternatives in the experiments. This design is similar to the “squeeze-and-excitation block” in SENet [@SENET]. The difference is that we use convolutions instead of the SE block’s global pooling to reduce the spatial resolution of the input. The reason for this change is that the BAM and SE block act on different objects. For an image, the value of each pixel represents only physical meaning, but not the feature. So using SE block with global pooling for band selection can not inject spatial global information. Besides, the goal of SE block is to adaptively select useful features while suppressing less useful ones in channel dimension of the feature maps so SE block is embedded in every convolution layer in SENet. Our aim is to process the input bands in order to reduce the side-effects of noise and redundancy in bands on classification. Therefore, the BAM only appears once in the proposed BACNN. In fact, the design of BAM implies the idea of re-weighting [@IRLS] in statistical robust learning. Visual attention mechanism is essentially similar to the idea of re-weighting, the former is currently used in some deep learning models [@attention1], while the latter is mostly used in shallow learning models. This also proves that the BAM embedded classification model has better robustness to the noise of the input bands. Depth fixed vanilla convolution is considered to observe the effectiveness of the BAM in this letter, while various depth settings and advanced convolution operations such as dilated [@Yudilated], 3D [@C3D] or depthwise separable [@xception] convolution also can be considered for better classification performance. BAM based HSI Classification ---------------------------- With the former module for band selection, a classification module (CM) is also essential to classify the processed HSIs. It is worth to note that although the description is separate, BAM and CM are in the same network and training end-to-end. This integration of separated components can share supervisory information and has better generalization performance. In this letter, a basic CM based on VGGNet [@vgg] is mainly used, which can be seen from Fig. 3. ![The structure of the CM for classifying the band-processed HSIs.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="8.0cm"} It can be seen from Fig. 3 that a eight layers VGGNet is chosen as the CM. In most of the experiments in this letter, we use such a fairly simple classification network to classify the band-processed HSIs. The reason for this is that our aim is to infuse the capability of band selection into existing classification networks, rather than to study a more advanced one. A simple designed CM is enough to observe the improvement of accuracy after adding the proposed BAM. Nevertheless, some advanced CNNs also can be involved to achieve better classification performance, including two-stream CNN [@twostream; @Li2018; @Yang2016], ResNet [@ResNet; @8445697], DenseNet [@DenseNet] and so on. Implementation details ---------------------- For the classical methods which require lots of engineering by hand, band selection or band weighting are two different stories. In the proposed method, we can selectively do band selection or band weighting by changing the last activation function in the BAM. There are several options: ReLu activation to achieve the weights with the value of zero or one for band selection; Sigmoid or softmax activation to let the weights in $[0,1]$ for band weighting. In order to accelerate the convergence of training, we followed some mainstream designs: Before each convolution layer, we add a batch normalization layer [@Ioffe2015Batch] and a ReLU layer. Adam optimization method [@adam] with the learning rate of 0.0001 is chosen to achieve good training. Besides, $20\%$ neurons of fully connected layers in CM are randomly discarded to prevent overfitting in the training stage. Experiments {#sec:3} =========== Datasets -------- Numerical experiments are carried out on two benchmark HSI datasets including Indian Pines dataset and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) dataset to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Several state-of-the-art alternatives are chosen for comparison. The experiment environment: PC with Intel i7-7700 CPU, Nvidia GTX-1060 GPU (6 GB memory), and 16 GB RAM. Overall accuracy (OA), average accuracy (AA), and kappa coefficient are chosen as criteria to evaluate the performance in our experiments. The Indian Pines dataset was acquired by the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) sensor over the Indian Pines test site in North-western Indiana and contains 200 bands after removing water absorption bands. The image consists of $145\times145$ pixels and there are 16 classes of land covers. 10249 pixels are selected for manual labeling according to the ground truth map. For the Indian Pines dataset, the number of labeled samples varies greatly among different classes. The smallest class “Oats” with only 20 labeled pixels, and the largest class “Soybean-mintill” with 2455 labeled pixels. The imbalance between categories undoubtedly brings difficulties for subsequent processing. Thus, $30\%$ samples of the classes with fewer samples and 80 samples of the richer classes are randomly chosen as training set, the remaining as testing set. In addition, for the classes with fewer samples, replication operations have been carried out to mitigate the negative impact of imbalanced classification. The false-color composite image and the corresponding ground reference map are demonstrated in Fig. 4. The KSC dataset was acquired by the NASA AVIRIS sensor over the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The HSI contains 176 bands after removing water absorption and low SNR bands. $512\times614$ pixels and 13 classes of land covers exist in the image. The number of labeled samples in this dataset is roughly same among different classes and 5211 pixels are selected for manual labeling according to the ground truth map. $10\%$ of the total are randomly chosen as training set and the remaining as testing set. The false-color composite image and the corresponding ground reference map are demonstrated in Fig. 5. ![Indian Pines dataset. (a) Three-channel false-color composition (bands 17, 27, and 50 for RGB). (b) Ground truth map.[]{data-label="fig3.1"}](fig_indian.pdf){width="9.0cm" height="5.0cm"} ![KSC dataset. (a) Three-channel false-color composition (bands 10, 19, and 28 for RGB). (b) Ground truth map.[]{data-label="fig3.2"}](fig_src.pdf){width="9.0cm" height="5.0cm"} [p[104pt]{}\|cp[54pt]{}c]{}\ Class &Numbers\ Alfalfa &46\ Corn-notill &1408\ Corn-min &623\ Corn &204\ Grass-pasture &391\ Grass-trees &730\ Grass-pasture-mowed &28\ Hay-windrowed &430\ Oats &20\ Soybean-notill &880\ Soybean-mintill &2308\ Soybean-clean &537\ Wheat &205\ Woods &1225\ Buildings-Grass-Trees-Drives &215\ Stone-Steel-Towers &93\ Total &9343\ \[tab:tab1\] Analysis of experimental results -------------------------------- Table shows the classification results of the proposed BACNN and other classification methods on the Indian Pines dataset. The size of the image slice is set to $15\times 15$ during the experiments. In order to test the effect of BAM on classification, we used an eight layers VGGNet as the CM in the experiments. The CM in the table means directly use VGGNet for classification and not to do any processing for input bands. The other three methods use different ways to select or weight the input bands, including SE block [@SENET] (SE+CM), band weighting module [@BandWeighting] (BW+CM) and the proposed BAM (BAM+CM). Although the band weighting module (BW) also uses the attention mechanism to adapt to HSIs, it only acts on the spectral dimension and ignores the abundant information in the spatial dimension. In order to maintain the persuasiveness of the experiments, we keep a same depth and conduct ten times experiments for all involved models to eliminate randomness. From Table we know that the proposed BAM achieves the optimal classification performance on Indian Pines dataset. The 1D-BW is not enough to improve the classification results, but its accuracy is inferior to that of 2D no band processing network. Further, since the SE block is designed for feature but not for bands, it does not improve the classification accuracy of CM. What’s worse is that it degrades the CM by $1\%$ of OA and $1.2\%$ of Kappa. The performance of these two shows that an improper band selection module not only fails to improve the performance of CM, but also has the opposite effect. In contrast, the accuracy of CM has been improved to a certain extent after adding BAM since the BAM is not only tailored for HSI, but also considers spatial and spectral information. The $2\%$-$3\%$ improvement of each criterion confirms the validity of the proposed BAM. [C[0.5cm]{}C[1.5cm]{}C[1.55cm]{}C[1.62cm]{}C[1.5cm]{}]{} Class &CM &SE+CM [@SENET] &BW+CM [@BandWeighting] &BAM+CM\ 1 &97.88(2.05) &98.18(2.12) &90.30(9.98) &97.88(2.05)\ 2 &85.89(2.62) &83.46(3.44) &55.70(10.28) &89.82(1.82)\ 3 &92.65(3.12) &90.32(3.09) &72.50(9.71) &95.68(1.47)\ 4 &98.68(1.16) &98.26(1.28) &89.65(4.98) &98.54(1.20)\ 5 &93.63(1.90) &93.29(2.40) &79.34(6.06) &94.92(1.61)\ 6 &97.18(1.67) &97.07(1.13) &80.67(9.97) &98.27(0.86)\ 7 &99.50(1.58) &100.00(0.00) &92.5(10.07) &100.00(0.00)\ 8 &99.97(0.09) &100.00(0.00) &96.24(3.81) &100.00(0.00)\ 9 &98.57(4.52) &99.29(2.26) &95.00(7.57) &100.00(0.00)\ 10 &88.29(1.93) &88.22(1.99) &68.98(10.02) &93.22(1.33)\ 11 &83.63(2.20) &82.46(2.29) &63.02(3.59) &87.87(1.38)\ 12 &89.72(1.27) &89.47(2.13) &78.36(4.49) &94.55(2.37)\ 13 &100.00(0.00) &99.93(0.22) &98.41(2.28) &100.00(0.00)\ 14 &96.45(0.80) &96.39(1.06) &84.58(4.79) &97.26(0.77)\ 15 &98.65(1.71) &96.90(3.52) &90.39(5.48) &99.74(0.62)\ 16 &96.82(1.81) &93.79(2.62) &89.24(3.88) &95.30(1.51)\ OA &90.39(0.70) &89.36(1.36) &72.10(3.63) &93.22(0.49)\ AA &94.84(0.40) &94.19(0.93) &82.80(3.78) &96.44(0.21)\ Kappa&88.94(0.81) &87.75(1.56) &68.31(4.05) &92.17(0.56)\ \[tab:tab1\] Experiments on KSC datasets are carried out to further validate the proposed method. The same experimental settings are retained and the detailed classification results can be seen in Table . The optimal results under each class and criterion are shown in bold among the table. [C[0.5cm]{}C[1.5cm]{}C[1.55cm]{}C[1.62cm]{}C[1.5cm]{}]{} Class &CM &SE+CM [@SENET] &BW+CM [@BandWeighting] &BAM+CM\ 1 &99.06(0.72) &99.21(0.77) &92.22(4.34) &99.00(1.12)\ 2 &66.67(6.41) &72.79(10.9) &52.79(8.24) &86.80(6.23)\ 3 &91.99(3.20) &91.56(3.81) &81.52(6.35) &93.64(3.59)\ 4 &66.43(6.32) &67.18(8.15) &57.40(4.95) &78.59(5.58)\ 5 &63.45(4.50) &63.52(8.21) &65.66(3.33) &71.24(6.44)\ 6 &72.51(3.67) &73.48(3.03) &41.11(5.44) &76.38(4.38)\ 7 &96.11(3.40) &97.58(3.14) &92.53(5.31) &94.00(4.79)\ 8 &84.93(7.46) &96.77(2.54) &70.41(6.55) &95.84(1.91)\ 9 &96.65(2.22) &98.42(1.36) &93.85(1.04) &99.79(0.46)\ 10 &97.06(2.02) &97.50(1.50) &89.62(3.02) &99.01(1.01)\ 11 &97.70(1.59) &97.62(1.63) &84.52(2.23) &98.04(1.78)\ 12 &96.58(1.79) &98.32(1.62) &96.09(0.56) &99.21(0.93)\ 13 &100.00(0.00) &100.00(0.00) &99.27(0.94) &100.00(0.00)\ OA &91.38(0.95)&93.12(0.91)&84.19(0.88)&95.06(0.51)\ AA &86.86(1.31)&88.76(1.53)&78.23(1.39)&91.66(0.95)\ Kappa &90.40(1.06)&92.34(1.01)&82.36(0.99)&94.50(0.57)\ \[tab:tab2\] Through the analysis of Table , we can see that the trend of comparison between the accuracy of each method is similar to the former. The proposed method still achieves the best classification results on KSC dataset. Compared with the CM, the proposed method achieves $4\%$-$5\%$ improvement under involved criteria. Unlike before, although SE block does not consider the application background of band selection, its addition has also achieved a slight performance improvement. However, the effect of SE block is still at least $2\%$ less than it of BAM. Based on the experimental results of the above two parts, we can see that the proposed BAM can be directly added to a CM without deliberate design to improve its performance. Compared with the existing modules with similar roles, BAM can improve the accuracy more greatly. Thus, the proposed BAM can be regarded as a plug-and-play supplementary component to most of the mainstream CNNs in HSIs classification. Effect of hyperparameters ------------------------- In this section, we present a detailed analysis and evaluation of the influence of hyperparameters on the performance of the proposed method. In the analysis, Indian Pines dataset and the VGGNet based CM are used to explore the changing trend of the classification accuracy. The experimental results are shown in Fig. 4. ![Effect of two hyperparameters epoch and $r$ (ratio of information aggregation in 1D convolution layers) of the proposed method on Indian Pines dataset.[]{data-label="fig4"}](epoch.pdf){width="4.5cm" height="3.0cm"} (a) ![Effect of two hyperparameters epoch and $r$ (ratio of information aggregation in 1D convolution layers) of the proposed method on Indian Pines dataset.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ratio.pdf){width="4.50cm" height="3.0cm"} (b) Fig. 4(a)-(b) shows the OA of the proposed method under different value of epoch and $r$. From Fig. 4(a), it can be seen that the loss of the proposed model changes slightly when the epoch is greater than 500, which means that the training process is close to convergence. Besides, too many training times lead to the increase of the loss on both training and testing set, and reduce the testing accuracy to a certain extent. Further, we can see from Fig. 4(b) that hyperparameter $r=0.5$ and $r=2$ obtain better classification results. Based on the above empirical knowledge, the training set is reused 1000 times and the information compression ratio $r$ is set to 2 to achieve better performance in the experiments. Combination with advanced CNNs ------------------------------ In this section, we test the performance of some advanced CNNs combined with the BAM in order to further verify the general applicability of the proposed BAM, and also to obtain the better results of HSIs classification. Four advanced backbones including two-stream CNN (TSCNN) [@twostream; @Yang2016], the network with depthwise separable convolutions (Xception) [@xception], the network with residual connection (ResNet) [@ResNet] and the network with densely connection (DenseNet) [@DenseNet] are chosen for testing. ![Experimental results of different CNN backbones combined with the proposed BAM on Indian Pines and KSC datasets.[]{data-label="fig5"}](advancedindian.pdf){width="5.0cm" height="3.0cm"} (a) ![Experimental results of different CNN backbones combined with the proposed BAM on Indian Pines and KSC datasets.[]{data-label="fig5"}](advancedksc.pdf){width="5.0cm" height="3.0cm"} (b) As shown in Fig. 7, the backbone with the BAM achieves higher classification accuracy in both datasets, which proves that the BAM has wider applicability and can be used as a plug-and-play module to improve the performance of most models for HSI classification. Conclusion {#sec:4} ========== In this letter, we propose a novel deep learning based HSIs classification framework which fully considers the redundancy and noise in the band of HSIs. A well-designed BAM is embedded in the ordinary CNN to implement an end-to-end network with the capability of band selection. This module absorbs the experience of visual attention mechanism so it can adaptively stimulate the bands which are beneficial to the improvement of classification accuracy, while suppressing the invalid bands. The proposed band attention based deep classification framework has better adaptability to the task of HSIs classification than the mainstream CNNs since it is customized according to the characteristics of HSIs. Abundant numerical experiments not only reveal the influence of hyperparameters on classification accuracy, but also show that the proposed BAM can be a plug-and-play module to improve the accuracy of CNNs in HSIs classification. [^1]: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61401124 and 61871158, in part by Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Scholars of Heilongjiang Province under Grant LC2018029. [^2]: The authors are with the Department of Information Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China (e-mail :[email protected]).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The treatment of crowded fields in Gaia data will only be a reality in a few years from now. In particular, for globular clusters, only the end-of-mission data (public in 2022–2023) will have the necessary full crowding treatment and will reach sufficient quality for the faintest stars. As a consequence, the work on the deblending and decontamination pipelines is still ongoing. We describe the present status of the pipelines for different Gaia instruments, and we model the end-of-mission crowding errors on the basis of available information. We then apply the nominal post-launch Gaia performances, appropriately worsened by the estimated crowding errors, to a set of 18 simulated globular clusters with different concentration, distance, and field contamination. We conclude that there will be 10$^3$–10$^4$ stars with astrometric performances virtually untouched by crowding (contaminated by $<$1 mmag) in the majoritiy of clusters. The most limiting factor will be field crowding, not cluster crowding: the most contaminated clusters will only contain 10–100 clean stars. We also conclude that: (i) the systemic proper motions and parallaxes will be determined to 1% or better up to $\simeq$15 kpc, and the nearby clusters will have radial velocities to a few km s$^{-1}$ ; (ii) internal kinematics will be of unprecendented quality, cluster masses will be determined to $\simeq$10% up to 15 kpc and beyond, and it will be possible to identify differences of a few km s$^{-1}$ or less in the kinematics (if any) of cluster sub-populations up to 10 kpc and beyond; (iii) the brightest stars (V$\simeq$17 mag) will have space-quality, wide-field photometry (mmag errors), and all Gaia photometry will have 1–3% errors on the absolute photometric calibration.' author: - \| E. Pancino$^{1,2}$[^1], M. Bellazzini$^{3}$, G. Giuffrida$^{4,2}$, S. Marinoni$^{4,2}$\ $^{1}$INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo Enrico Fermi 5, 50125, Firenze, Italy\ $^{2}$ASI Science Data Center, Via del Politecnico SNC, I-00133 Rome, Italy\ $^{3}$INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Ranzani 1, 40127, Bologna, Italy\ $^{4}$INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via di Frascati 33, 00044 Monteporzio Catone, Italy bibliography: - 'bib\_GGC\_draft.bib' title: Globular clusters with Gaia --- \[firstpage\] astrometry – parallaxes – globular clusters: general Introduction ============ The ESA[^2] (European Space Agency) space mission Gaia[^3] [@perryman01; @mignard05; @gaia1; @gaia2] is the successor of Hipparcos [@perryman97], with the goal of providing astrometry for billions of point-like sources across the whole sky, with an error of 24 $\mu$as-level for stars of G$\simeq$15 mag. Gaia will also provide broadband magnitudes and colours for all sources, down to the Gaia white-light magnitude of G=20.7 mag (V$\simeq$21 mag). Low-dispersion spectra will also be obtained in two broad bands with the red and blue spectrophotometers (BP and RP). Finally, Gaia will produce spectra in the calcium triplet region with the RVS (the Radial Velocity spectrometer) down to G$\simeq$17 mag, from which radial velocities (RVs). Object classification and parametrization will be possible for all sources. Gaia was launched in December 2013 [@debruijne14], and the first data release was in September 2016 [@gaia2], containing positions and white-light magnitudes for the best behaved stars, and additional information like parallaxes and proper motions for $\simeq$2 million stars observed previously with Tycho-2 [@hog00; @michalik15; @tgas]. Gaia will observe not only stars, but also tens of thousands of quasars, unresolved galaxies, Solar system objects, many transient and variable objects like supernovae, and finally the interstellar medium [@altavilla12; @ducourant14; @eyer14; @debruijne15; @proft15; @zwitter15; @bachchan16; @tanga16]. Gaia will also pose a challenge because of its data amount and complexity, pushing the astrophysical community farther into the path of big data and data mining [@gaia1]. Gaia is limited in dense stellar fields, owing to the on-board and downstream telemetry bandwidth. For spectroscopy, an additional limitation is provided by the large physical size of the dispersed images and spectra on the focal plane. This has particular relevance for studies of the Galactic plane, the bulge, and globular clusters (hereafter, GCs). In the first few Gaia data releases, disturbed sources like binaries, multiple stars, and stars in crowded fields will likely not be part of the released material [@gaia2]. In any case, the inclusion of a sufficient sample of stars at the main sequence turn-off point or fainter – with good quality measurements – is very important for GC research. Therefore, only the latest few Gaia releases (2020–2023) are expected to provide a significant breakthrough in GC research. To prepare the work, we explore in this paper the expected behaviour of Gaia data in several simulated Galactic GCs, adopting the official post-launch Gaia science performances and some simplified recipes to describe additional deblending error components, based on the Gaia deblending pipelines. A very preliminary – and now outdated – version of this work was presented by @pancino13. The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:gaia\] we describe the current status of crowding treatment in Gaia; in Section \[sec:crowderr\] we present our crowding errors modeling; in Section \[sec:ggc\_simu\] we describe our simulated clusters and the computation of Gaia observed quantities and final errors; in Section \[sec:res\] we explore the simulations and show the potential of Gaia data for GC studies; in Section \[sec:concl\] we summarize the main results and draw our conclusions. ![The Gaia nominal passbands for the astrometric field (G-band), the blue and red spectrophotometers (BP and RP), and the radial velocity spectrometer (RVS). Figure courtesy of C. Jordi.[]{data-label="fig:filters"}](fig_bands.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="5.4cm"} Crowding in Gaia data {#sec:gaia} ===================== As mentioned in the previous section, Gaia is a complex space mission, with two different telescopes projecting their light on a large common focal plane, captured by 106 different CCDs (Charged-Coupled Devices), and passing through different instruments. Gaia scans the whole sky by precessing its spin axis, and describing great circles on the sky that slowly drift with its precession. Each region is scanned from a minimum of $\simeq$40 times, to a maximum of $\simeq$250 times, with an average number of $\simeq$70 passages for the AF, BP and RP, and $\simeq$40 passages for RVS. All the CCDs in the focal plane are read in TDI (Time-Delayed Integration) mode to closely follow Gaia’s movement across the sky. On the focal plane, stars “move" along the scanning direction, encountering different instruments: - [the first two columns of the CCD array are called Sky Mappers (SM), and they are used for the on-board detection of point-like sources; each of the SM columns sees only light from one of the two telescopes;]{} - [the AF (Astrometric Field), provides astrometry and photometry of point-like sources in the G-band, a white-light passband defined by the telescope and instrument transmission and by the CCD quantum efficiency (Figure \[fig:filters\]);]{} - [the BP and RP provide low resolution spectra (R=$\lambda/\delta\lambda$=20-100) in the ranges shown in Figure \[fig:filters\], and the integrated G$_{\rm{BP}}$ and G$_{\rm{RP}}$ magnitudes; the spectra are necessary for the chromaticity displacement correction in astrometric measurements;]{} - [the RVS, provides R$\simeq$11700 spectra in the calcium triplet region, for stars down to G$\simeq$17 mag, depending on the object.]{} To save telemetry bandwidth, given the enormous amount of data produced daily by Gaia, observations in each instruments are only transmitted for pixels contained in rectangular windows, that follow the detected point-like objects along the focal plane. For the faint stars, data in the allocated windows are binned in the AC direction by the on-board processing software. The adopted window sizes and relevant quantities for our treatment of crowding are listed in Table \[tab:numbers\]. More information can be found in the Gaia mission paper [@gaia1]. Gaia deblending and decontamination pipelines --------------------------------------------- Crowding treatment ideally requires a preliminary evaluation of the crowding conditions of each source and transit, based on knowledge of the [scene]{}, i.e., the distribution and characteristics of all the neighbouring sources, as collected before the current observation. Different pipelines are employed for different instruments and to treat different cases. Here below we describe the current status of the ones that are relevant for the present study. [rrl]{}\ Size & Size & Description\ (") &(pix) &\ 0.176789 & 1 (AC) & Across scan (AC) pixel size\ 0.058933 & 1 (AL) & Along scan (AL) pixel size\ 0.176789 & 3 (AL) & Gaia PSF\ 2.121468 & 12 (AC) & AC window size (AF, BP, and RP)\ 0.070720 & 12 (AL) & AL window size (AF)$^a$\ 1.767890 & 10 (AC) & AC window size (RVS)\ 3.535980 & 60 (AL) & AL window size (BP and RP)\ 74.785977 & 1269 (AL) & AL window size (RVS)\ \ \ ### AF deblending {#sec:nss} Stars closer than the Gaia PSF width (which is assumed here[^4] to be 0.177", see also Table \[tab:numbers\]) can be recognized as blends already in the astrometric processing of AF data. These blends can be detected, for example, from the high errors in the centroid determination and its wobbling from one transit to another, or by photometric variability, radial velocity variability, or in general because the fits of the PSF or LSF to the data show large residuals or require more than one component. Assessing whether a star is isolated or has detected or suspected companions is a crucial task. Multiple or blended objects are redirected to the NSS (Non-Single Stars) pipeline where an attempt to model them as binary systems is carried out [@gaia1; @pourbaix11]. If none of the available binary models or configurations produces a good fit to the data, then a stochastic model is employed to derive preliminary parameters of the secondary (or tertiary and so on) source. Therefore we can assume that – considering also the small Gaia PSF – the vast majority of NSS will be known. ![An illustration of the crowding effects on BP and RP dispersed images, with their assigned windows (black rectangles). Different cases are represented, some going beyond the scope of the present paper. Stars are represented by their surface density profiles (solid contours), with the outmost contours at the background level. The brightest star (G=15 mag) is in window (2), while the faintest one (G=20 mag) is in window (1). Stars fainter than the Gaia magnitude limit (G=20.7 mag) are assigned no window, like for star (3). The coloured portions of the windows are the background samples, in green when they are free from contamination, and in red when they are contaminated and cannot be used. When stars are too close, they can be assigned to the same widow or two (or more) truncated windows, like in cases (9), (10), and (11). There are also empty windows (virtual objects) like in case (6). Figure courtesy of A. Brown.[]{data-label="fig:anthony"}](fig_anthony.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Stars that are further apart than the tiny Gaia PSF are easily deblended by the PSF fitting algorithms, with results much more similar to HST (Hubble Space Telescope) than to typical ground-based telescopes. This is the main reason why – as we will see in the following – astrometric measurement uncertainties (and G magnitudes) are in general less affected by crowding, unlike BP/RP and RVS measurements. ### BP and RP deblending and decontamination pipelines {#sec:bprp} BP and RP transits of sources that are not isolated will be called here either [blended]{} or [contaminated]{}. The idea is that when the sources are so close that they occupy the same window or interfering windows in the vast majority of the transits ([blends]{}, with D$<$2.12“), they will require a different treatment than objects that will often be assigned well separated windows, or transits that are just altered by the flux of a bright source that is well outside of the window ([contaminants]{}, with D$<$3.54”). This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:anthony\], where different cases are shown together with the background evaluation regions, and in Figure \[fig:classify\], showing how the differing orientation and AL projected distance between sources affects window assignment. For blended sources, there are different pipelines that can be used in different phases of the mission. Blind pipelines (without knowledge of the scene) can be applied in the initial phases, when the history of each source in different instruments has not built up to a sufficient level. The two (or more) blended sources can be roughly modeled without [a priori]{} knowledge of their exact positions, astrophysical parameters, and fluxes, just by modeling them with two overlapping spectral energy distributions. This approach was successfully applied to Gaia commissioning data[^5] of bright stars, recovering the vast majority of the Ticho-2 binary and double stars. Once a few transits are accumulated, they can be better disentangled if they are modeled simultaneously ([per source]{} rather than [per transit]{}), even if there is still not enough information on the scene, improving the quality of the reconstruction. Finally, once the scene is well characterized and the history of the source is well developed, other parameters of the modeling like the spectral type, the projected distance of the sources along scan, and the relative fluxes, can be used to further improve the involved sources reconstruction. ![Simplified description of transits in BP/RP. In case (a), two stars are closer than half the AC window size, and no matter the orientation of the satellite, they will always be assigned the same window (or truncated windows). In case (b), two stars have a distance that is in between the AC and AL half window sizes, and depending on the orientation, they are sometimes assigned the same window (or truncated window), sometimes different windows. Depending on their brightness, they can still contaminate each other’s window. In case (c), the stars are farther apart than the AL window size, and they are always assigned two different windows but, if one of the two stars is very bright, it can still contaminate the other significantly.](fig_classify.pdf){width="7cm"} s\[fig:classify\] For contaminated sources, it is necessary to know well the flux of the contaminating sources around, thus knowledge of the scene is necessary. Each known source is modeled to reconstruct the flux even at large distances from the window (especially for bright stars). The amount of reconstructed contaminating flux from neighboring sources is computed in each pixel of the contaminated source window, and subtracted. For all these reasons, decontamination will have to be performed contextually with the scene reconstruction and crowding evaluation. ### RVS deblending and decontamination pipelines {#sec:rvs} The deblending phylosophy adopted by RVS is slightly different from the one adopted in AF, or BP and RP. The deblending pipelines are being adapted and reweitten to mitigate the stray light issues found after launch[^6] [@mora16] that impact mostly on RVS spectra, with an expected loss of $\simeq$1.4 mag in sensitivity [@seabroke16]. We therefore based our modeling of deblending errors on a previous algorithm that was based on general geometrical considerations [@allende08]. The treatment of contamination is instead part of the background treatment, that is a vital part of RVS processing, because of the length of the spectra (see Table \[tab:numbers\]). The background is divided in diffused and point-like, and treated separately. In both cases, a modeling takes place based on knowledge of the scene and all available data on stray light and nearby objects. The model produces an estimate of the total background in the RVS windows that is subtracted from the source signal. Clearly, the model becomes more and more accurate as Gaia data are progressively accumulated and therefore the best results will be obtained towards the end of the mission (K. Janssen, H. E. Huckle, and G. Seabroke, 2015, private communication). ![Effect of the on-board detection on completeness. The BP/RP image of a GC was simulated with GIBIS [Gaia Instrument and Basic Image Simulator, @babusiaux05]. The green rectangles are the assigned windows. There is an apparent loss of stars above and below the cluster center, where the AC stellar density is lower and windows have a lower probabiliy of being assigned to a source. The percentage of stars lost is roughly constant with stellar density in each transit, but each transit has a different orientation. As a results, the end-of-mission incompleteness will tend to be flatter with distance from the center than in usual GC photometries. []{data-label="fig:completeness"}](fig_completeness.jpeg){width="\columnwidth"} ### Image reconstruction and future possibilities {#sec:diana} To facilitate the study of crowded areas, two paths are being followed. On the one hand, some crowded regions like the center of $\omega$ Centauri or NGC 1818 in the Magellanic Cloud were imaged and transmitted to the ground in 2D mode in the SM[^7], during commissioning, and further regions might be observed in 2D during the mission lifetime. The goal of these 2D images is to fully reconstruct the [scene]{} around each Gaia source to help improving and testing the deblending algorithms in crowded areas. On the other hand, pipelines for the 2D image reconstruction from individual Gaia transits are being developed. One such pipeline, called Source Environment Analysis (SEA) pipeline, is based on the FastStack image reconstruction [@harrison11; @gaia1]. The initial tests are promising and the reconstructed images could be useful, among other things, to test and improve the deblending and decontamination pipelines as well. Therefore, the simulations presented in this paper, being based on the current status of the deblending and decontamination pipelines, have to be seen as generally pessimistic. A note about completeness in Gaia data {#sec:comp} -------------------------------------- A particular limitation of the Gaia design is related to the number of simultaneous object and background (virtual object) windows that can be allocated by the on-board detection algorithm in each CCD and in any given moment. This number varies from $\simeq$35000 to 1050000 objects per square degree, depending on the instrument [see @gaia1 for more details]. Areas of the sky that can suffer from this limitation are clearly the Galactic bulge and plane, and all other fields of view that happen to overlap them on the Gaia focal plane[^8]. More relevant to the present study, the limitation applies to the central regions of GCs, where the local star density can be very high. At the single transit level, completeness is also influenced by the on-board detection algorithm. Every source that enters the SM is assigned a window, prioritizing brighter objects down to the limiting magnitude. The windows follow the stars along the focal plane as Gaia scans the sky, and when the stars exit the field, the window-slots are “freed" and can be assigned to new sources again. For this reason, the central dense areas of the clusters will – statistically speaking – contain more (bright) stars, and thus obtain more windows with respect to the periphery of the cluster, in the AC direction. Different scans, oriented in the sky with different angles, will loose different stars and thus at the end-of-mission, each star that is not entirely lost will have lost part of its transits. This is illustrated in the simulated cluster in Figure \[fig:completeness\], and is also visible in the $\omega$ Centauri actual Gaia data shown in a press release[^9]. We do not attempt to simulate these completeness effects in the present paper, as they would require a full end-of-mission simulation of different lines of sight in the sky, including the detailed behaviour of the on-board detection algorithms. Modeling of crowding errors {#sec:crowderr} =========================== As mentioned above, our goal is to illustrate what Gaia can do for GC studies, rather than attempting a rigorous simulation of deblending errors. Therefore, we will model available simulations of crowded Gaia data, to derive simple formulaes with as few free parameters as possible. The crowding error models derivation for different Gaia instruments and different types of blends are described in the following sections. The models describe the expected percentage errors on flux caused by crowding as a function of relevant parameters like the contaminating flux, contaminating colour, and distance of the contaminating object(s). Later, in Section \[sec:ggc\_simu\] we will transform our flux errors into errors on other parameters like positions, parallaxes, proper motions, and radial velocities. We will then use these errors to worsen the nominal Gaia post-launch science performances, depending on the crowding level suffered from each of our simulated GC stars. ‘Classic’ blends ---------------- We term in this paper [classic blends]{} those stars that are closer than the AF Gaia PSF (0.177", see Table \[tab:numbers\]), and that will remain so along the five years of Gaia observations. Stars that will move apart thanks to their parallax or proper motion differences, or that have radial velocity differences that allow to deblend them, will not be considered as classic blends, but treated as normal Gaia blends (see below). ![The simulated BP deblending errors as a function of distance (circles), based on a G=15 mag star with T$_{\rm{eff}}$=4000 K, and our derived error models (curves). The dotted vertical lines mark the applicability range, from the Gaia PSF size (0.177“) to half the length of the BP/RP windows (1.76”). Blends with different characteristics are shown: cooler by 2000 K (small circles and solid curves), with the same temperature (medium circles and dashed curves), and hotter by 2000 K (large circles and dotted curves). The colours refer to the relative contaminating flux: 17% (blue), 50% (green), 200% (yellow), and 630%(red).[]{data-label="fig:XPsimu"}](fig_XPsimu.pdf){width="8.7cm"} The precession of Gaia has an important implication for crowding treatment: each time Gaia scans a particular region of the sky, it is oriented differently, and thus the projected distance of two stars in the SM columns, on which the on-board object detection and window assignment are based, are different (see Figure \[fig:classify\]). Therefore, as described in Section \[sec:nss\], even the closest classic blends have a chance to be deblended, although it is difficult to simulate realistically the errors caused by deblending when so many observables enter iteratively the deblending procedure along the whole mission. In this paper, we will assume that all blends of stars closer than the Gaia PSF will be recognized as such, thanks to the mission long lifetime, its tiny astrometric and photometric errors, and sophisticated data analysis methods. Because of the limited number of classic blends[^10], this assumption is not going to have a significant impact on the following analysis. If the relatively small number of classic blends comes as a surprise, it has to be noted that Gaia observations only reach V$\simeq$21 mag in GCs, and thus the actual crowding levels are much lower than those of the typically deeper photometry from the ground or with HST. We will also assume that the actual deblending errors follow the relation adopted for the BP and RP blends (see below), extrapolating the present simulations towards smaller source distances. While highly uncertain, this is our only available estimate of the Gaia deblending capabilities at the present stage. For RVS there currently are no plans to attempt deblending of sources closer than 0.17", and therefore we will not attempt to simulate the effect of crowding in these RVS sources. ‘Gaia’ blends ------------- As discussed in Section \[sec:bprp\], Gaia blends are all those cases in which two stars are closer than half the AC window size of the relevant instrument (Table \[tab:numbers\], these all fall into case (a) of Figure \[fig:classify\]). Because the AF image deblending will be simpler (the AL profile is sharper) than that of BP, RP, and RVS spectra, we will conservatively base our estimate of crowding errors for deblending on a set of BP and RVS simulations. ![The simulated pre-launch RVS deblending errors, for different contamination levels, and our simplified exponential fits. The shaded area (D$<$0.17") is not yet treated in the current RVS deblending pipelines, and our fits there are extremely uncertain, therefore we will not provide any simulation for classic blends in RVS.[]{data-label="fig:RVSsimu"}](fig_RVSsimu.pdf){width="8.7cm"} For the BP and RP blending simulations, we used a per-transit, partially informed deblending pipeline[^11] on the GIBIS [Gaia Instrument and Basic Image Simulator, @babusiaux05] simulated BP spectra of a typical GC red giant, with T$_{\rm{eff}}$=4000 K and G=15 mag. The star was blended with other similar stars, having either T$_{\rm{eff}}$=4000 or 6000 K, G=15.75 or 17.00 mag, and at different distances equal to 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0$^{\prime\prime}$ (see Figure \[fig:XPsimu\]). We then modeled the deblending (relative) errors on the recovered flux as an exponential $\alpha~e^{~\beta\,\rm{D}}$, where D is the distance between the two blended stars. The coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ vary with the temperature difference and the relative contaminating flux, respectively, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:XPsimu\]. For RP, the deblending errors were arbitrarily multiplied by 1.5, owing to the generally wider AL shape of the spectra, that produces worse deblending results than in BP. These simplified recipes are intentionally pessimistic, to accommodate for unexpected sources of error. The approximate range of validity of the model (highlighted in Figure \[fig:XPsimu\]) goes from the Gaia PSF size to half the AL size of the BP and RP windows. As discussed in the previous section, we applied an extrapolation of this relation to D$<$0.17" to classic blends, for lack of a more detailed study at this stage. [lccl@rrrrrrll]{}\ Cluster & $c$ & distance & background & $n_{tot}$ & $n_{GC}$ & $n_{classic}$ & $n_{blends}$ & $n_{contam}$ & $n_{clean}$ & Designation & Similar to\ & (dex) & (kpc) & &&&&&\ \ \# 1 & 1.0 & 5 & halo & 73385 & 72510 & 4621 & 45101 & 52142 & 16093 & [Easy case]{} & M13, M92\ \# 2 & 1.0 & 10 & halo & 30200 & 29325 & 3521 & 21550 & 23754 & 4275 & & M92\ \# 3 & 1.0 & 15 & halo & 14027 & 13152 & 2203 & 10312 & 11203 & 1495 & & NGC 5053\ \# 4 & 1.0 & 5 & disk & 54923 & 26816 & 1028 & 14115 & 17289 & 7379 & & M71\ \# 5 & 1.0 & 10 & disk & 33435 & 5328 & 326 & 3302 & 3812 & 1164 & [Intermediate case]{} & M56, NGC 2298\ \# 6 & 1.0 & 15 & disk & 29737 & 1630 & 123 & 1048 & 1208 & 311 & & M79\ \# 7 & 1.0 & 5 & bulge & 1537592 & 71996 & 9833 & 69887 & 71600 & 218 & & M22, NGC 6553\ \# 8 & 1.0 & 10 & bulge & 1494601 & 29005 & 5620 & 28497 & 28919 & 36 & & M9, NGC 6638\ \# 9 & 1.0 & 15 & bulge & 1478538 & 12942 & 2998 & 12762 & 12911 & 15 & & Pal 11\ \# 10 & 2.5 & 5 & halo & 73385 & 72510 & 11902 & 47043 & 53029 & 15623 & & M5\ \# 11 & 2.5 & 10 & halo & 30200 & 29325 & 6914 & 21977 & 23944 & 4117 & & M3\ \# 12 & 2.5 & 15 & halo & 14027 & 13152 & 3663 & 10407 & 11176 & 1525 & & NGC 5466\ \# 13 & 2.5 & 5 & disk & 54923 & 26816 & 3236 & 15372 & 18085 & 6946 & & M92, Pal 10\ \# 14 & 2.5 & 10 & disk & 33435 & 5328 & 906 & 3491 & 3968 & 1055 & & M79, NGC 1851\ \# 15 & 2.5 & 15 & disk & 29737 & 1630 & 292 & 1097 & 1250 & 300 & & M15\ \# 16 & 2.5 & 5 & bulge & 1537592 & 71996 & 16564 & 70125 & 71648 & 190 & & NGC 6540, NGC 6558\ \# 17 & 2.5 & 10 & bulge & 1494601 & 29005 & 8726 & 28556 & 28924 & 40 & & NGC 6325, NGC 6342\ \# 18 & 2.5 & 15 & bulge & 1478538 & 12942 & 4378 & 12770 & 12914 & 13 & [Difficult case]{} & M54, NGC 6517\ For RVS, the only available deblending simulations were computed before launch [@allende08 see also Figure \[fig:RVSsimu\]], when the windowing scheme and backgound treatment were different (see Section \[sec:rvs\]). Thus, the error modeling presented here will be much more uncertain for RVS than for BP and RP, or for AF. The temperature or colour difference between two sources has little impact on the deblending ability of the RVS pipelines, because the spectral shape is approximately flat along the RVS windows. What mostly counts is the relative contaminating flux. As a result, the best-fitting exponential laws had a constant $\beta$, and $\alpha$ varying with the relative contaminating flux. As mentioned above, we did not extend the model below the PSF size for RVS (shaded region in Figure \[fig:RVSsimu\]). Contaminants {#sec:contam} ------------ For contaminated stars (cases (b) and (c) in Figure \[fig:classify\]), the reconstruction of star fluxes at distances larger than the window size is subject to a variety of uncertainty sources, and the relevant pipelines will be effective only when a sufficient history is accumulated to build a scene. Not only the stars positions are needed, but also their spectral energy distributions. Additionally, a complete characterization of the PSF profiles AC and AL, at different wavelengths and positions on the focal plane will be fundamental. Therefore no detailed simulations are available at the moment (Section \[sec:bprp\]). However, we do know that a step-like behaviour is expected in the errors at 1.76$^{\prime\prime}$, where the processing switches from decontamination to deblending, in the sense that decontamination pipelines perform slightly worse than the deblending ones. There will be, on purpose, a ‘grey area’ in projected distance between sources, where both pipelines will be applied, for cross-validation purposes. Some tests were performed to develop the current decontamination algorithms [@piersimoni11, and De Luise, private communication]. According to those tests, we decided to roughly approximate the decontamination errors with a factor of 2 worsening with respect to deblending errors. This is a pessimistic assumption. Our modeling of decontamination residual errors is applied to contaminant stars with distances ranging from half the AC window size to the full AL window size or to the contaminating star’s ‘size’, whichever is larger. We modeled the contaminating stars sizes as a linear function of G magnitude (L. Pulone and P. M. Marrese, 2008, private communication, see also Figure \[fig:anthony\]). Stars fainter than G$\simeq$15 mag are generally smaller than the BP and RP AL window size[^12]. For RVS, the discrete background pipelines are being presently integrated and tested, so no simulations are available at the moment and we just extended our simplified treatment of the RVS blends (previous section) to RVS contaminants, as done for BP and RP, using the appropriate window sizes. ![The logarithmic density profiles (left panels) and radial velocity dispersion profiles (right panels) for the two synthetic clusters with concentration parameter c=1.0 (top panels) and c=2.5 (bottom panels). The red lines are the corresponding theoretical density profiles (left panels) and $\pm$3$\sigma$ contours about the systemic velocity for @king66 models with the same parameters.[]{data-label="fig:clusters"}](verify.jpg){width="\columnwidth"} Cluster simulations {#sec:ggc_simu} =================== We simulated 18 different globular clusters, as summarized in Table \[tab:clusters\], with different concentration, background contamination, and distance. The final simulated clusters, after the Gaia science performances and the crowding error simulations are included, are presented in Table \[tab:cat\]. 3D simulated clusters {#sec:3Dsimu} --------------------- The simulated clusters were computed with the McLuster code[^13] [@kupper11], that is designed to produce initial conditions for N-body simulations. We used the code version ([mcluster\_sse]{}) which implements the stellar evolution recipes by @hurley00. We produced two clusters containing 800000 stars, with positions and velocities drawn from equilibrium @king66 models. The two clusters differed only in their concentration parameter, c=log(r$_{\rm{t}}$/r$_{\rm{c}}$), one having c=1.0 and the other c=2.5. Among the key input parameters for the simulation, the half-mass radius was chosen to produce a (projected) half-light final radius similar to what typically observed for Galactic globular clusters: 4 pc for the c=1.0 cluster and 3 pc for c=2.5 one [see also @harris96 and following updates]. Among the key input stellar population parameters, we adopted an age of 12 Gyr, a metallicity of Z=0.0003, corresponding to \[Fe/H\]=–1.79 dex, and a @kroupa01 IMF (Initial Mass Function). The simulations were performed without including binaries, for simplicity, and the resulting clusters are spherical and non-rotating. The main implications of our choices of input parameters are: [(i)]{} a blue HB (Horizontal Branch) morphology, which may be useful to test the performance of Gaia on relatively hot stars, and [(ii)]{} a stellar M/L$_{\rm{V}}$ ratio larger ($\geq$3 instead of $\leq$2) than what typically observed in Galactic globular clusters having a present day mass function compatible with a low-exponent power law [@paust10]. The high M/L$_{\rm{V}}$ ratio is also due to a relatively large fraction of dark remnants: $\simeq$25% of the cluster mass is contributed by objects with M$>$M$_{\odot}$[^14]. Independently of the recipes giving raise to such a large fraction of dark remnants and their actual nature, this is not a concern for our purpose: the only effect is that the potential well may be slightly deeper than for most real clusters and, consequently, the velocity dispersion is slightly larger, at fixed total luminosity and scale radius. What is relevant for us is that the central velocity dispersion is still in the right range and that the model is self-consistent. The resulting simulated clusters have absolute integrated magnitudes of M$_{\rm{V}}$=–7.6 mag, i.e., just above the peak of the clusters luminosity function [M$_{\rm{V}}$=–7.4 mag, according to @brodie06]. The clusters projected surface density distributions are well fitted by a @king66 profile, when obtaining r$_{\rm{c}}$ (the core radius) from the fit. Finally, the derived central velocity dispersions agree well with the predictions by @king66, where the total mass is obtained by summing the masses of all individual stars. Simulated field contamination ----------------------------- We simulated the field Galactic population in three directions using the Besanco̧n models[^15] [@robin03 and references therein], including kinematics and without observational errors. The models produced catalogues of magnitudes (in the Johnson-Cousins system), 3D positions, and 3D motions. We adopted the “standard" extinction law offered by the Besanco̧n simulator, a mean and diffused absorption of 0.7 mag/kpc, neglecting small scale variations, and decreasing away from the Galactic plane with a smooth Einasto profile [for more details, see @robin03]. We selected all available spectral types in a magnitude range of 0$<$V$<$25 mag. The simulations were computed in a 0.7$\times$0.7 deg square centred on each of the following three directions (see also Table \[tab:clusters\]): - [a rather empty [“halo"]{} field at l=150 and b=80 deg, containing $\simeq$2300 stars in total; this is meant to represent the best cases of low background contamination in Gaia observations;]{} - [an extremely dense [“bulge"]{} field at l=5 and b=5 deg, containing almost 6 millions of stars, which should cover even the most crowded Gaia observations, when two relatively crowded lines of sight overlap on the focal plane (see also Section \[sec:gaia\]);]{} - [a crowded [“disk"]{} field in the anticenter direction, at l=180 and b=0, containing roughly 140000 stars, with a relatively high extinction of up to $\simeq$2 mags in V band [even if these values are only reached in $\simeq$25% of the known GCs in @harris96]; while not as extreme as the bulge line of sight, this direction provides still severe crowding levels – on the Galactic plane – coupled with significant reddening.]{} [lrcl]{}\ Content & Column & Units & Description\ \ Cluster & (1) & & Cluster number\ Star & (2) & & Star ID\ RA$^\prime$ & (3) & (deg) & Position along the RA direction\ Dec$^\prime$ & (4) & (deg) & Position along the Dec direction\ $\delta$coord & (5) & (deg) & Error on RA$^\prime$ and Dec$^\prime$\ $\mu_{\rm{RA^\prime}}$ & (6) & (mas yr$^{-1}$) & RA$^\prime$ proper motion\ $\mu_{\rm{Dec^\prime}}$ & (7) & (mas yr$^{-1}$) & Dec$^\prime$ proper motion\ $\delta \mu$ & (8) & (mas yr$^{-1}$) & Error on proper motion\ $\varpi$ & (9) & (mas) & Parallax\ $\delta \varpi$ & (10) & (mas) & Parallax error\ G & (11) & (mag) & G-band integrated magnitude\ $\delta$G & (12) & (mag) & G magnitude error\ G$_{\rm{BP}}$ & (13) & (mag) & G$_{\rm{BP}}$ integrated magnitude\ $\delta$G$_{\rm{BP}}$ & (14) & (mag) & G$_{\rm{BP}}$ magnitude error\ G$_{\rm{RP}}$ & (15) & (mag) & G$_{\rm{RP}}$ integrated magnitude\ $\delta$G$_{\rm{RP}}$ & (16) & (mag) & G$_{\rm{RP}}$ magnitude error\ Membership & (17) & & True membership\ ![Results of the crowding evaluation on simulated GCs. Each panel displays the relative fraction of classic blends, Gaia blends, and contaminants as a function of distance from the GC center. Only stars that are blended or contaminated by at least 0.01 mags in total (i.e., $\simeq$1% of their flux) are shown in the figure. Only classic blends have a significant effect on the astrometric performances, while BP/RP and RVS are significantly affected also by Gaia blends and contaminants.[]{data-label="fig:counts"}](fig_counts.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Simulated Gaia measurements --------------------------- Each of the two clusters (see Section \[sec:3Dsimu\]) was projected at three different distances of 5, 10, and 15 kpc and combined with each of the three backgrounds, to produce the 18 clusters in Table \[tab:clusters\]. A typical systemic radial velocity of 100 km s$^{-1}$ was assigned to each cluster [broadly compatible with the values listed in the @harris96 catalogue, in its most recent version], while a proper motion of –5 mas yr$^{-1}$ in both the RA and Dec was assigned to all clusters [broadly compatible with the values measured by, e.g., @dinescu99]. Distances were also converted into parallaxes. Integrated Gaia magnitudes G, G$_{\rm{BP}}$, and G$_{\rm{RP}}$ (see also Section \[sec:gaia\] and Figure \[fig:filters\]) were obtained for each star using the formulae provided by @jordi10 [using their coefficients from Table 3], starting from the B–V colour. For extinction, we adopted the pessimistic hypothesis that the cluster reddening was equal to the corresponding background field’s highest value (i.e., as if the cluster was entirely behind the field population). While this assumption is not completely realistic, it gave us the possibility of exploring higher reddening conditions, at least for the disk projections. This yielded an A$_{\rm{V}}$ of 0.062 mag for the halo projections, 0.080 mag for the bulge projections, and of 2.149 mag for the disk projections. Crowding evaluation {#sec:crowdeval} ------------------- For each simulated star in each GC, we counted all neighbors (with flux above 0.1% of the star) within a specified distance, depending on the considered instrument and on the types of blends (Section \[sec:crowderr\]). We adopted an exhaustive algorithm for neighbors search[^16]. The relative number of each type of neighbours (classic blends, Gaia blends, contaminants) for the 18 simulated clusters is shown in Figure \[fig:counts\] as a function of distance from the GC center. As can be seen, the parameter that dominates the fraction of classic blends is the GC concentration: core collapsed clusters have more than twice the number of classically blended stars in their central parts compared to normal GCs. The vast majority of classic blends are in the GC central regions, and are blends of GC members with other GC members. Distance and reddening have a curious effect: because GCs become fainter with increasing distance and reddening, their luminosity function crosses the detection limit of Gaia where it is less populous. As a consequence, not only the number of stars detected by Gaia decreases, but also the probability of blending, and so the blends and contaminant fractions. On the other hand, the effect of field contaminants is to increase the fraction of Gaia blends and contaminants at all distances from the center. Extreme cases are the bulge background GCs, where the vast majority of stars are blended and/or contaminated to some degree at all radii, mostly by field stars. We listed in Table \[tab:clusters\] some key quantities resulting from the crowding evaluation. As can be seen, the number of stars that are clean (i.e., contaminated by less than 1 mmag) can be substantial when the background is not extreme. The vast majority of Gaia blends and contaminants will be known, as a large fraction of the classic blends (see Section \[sec:nss\]). Therefore, it will always be possible to select a reliable sample of clean stars from Gaia data. Additionally, we report here that already in the first Gaia release, which does not contain stars in truncated windows or stars with low-quality measurements [@gaia2], more than 200000 stars were actually detected in the $\omega$ Cen field. This compares well with our \#1 cluster, which is reasonable considering the higher mass of $\omega$ Cen, and gives support to the figures discussed above and reported in Table \[tab:clusters\]. Simulated Gaia errors {#sec:errors} --------------------- To compute the Gaia errors, we combined the post-launch Gaia science performances [@gaia1] with our crowding error estimates. For the magnitudes we combined the two errors in quadrature, because they are fully independent. For the astrometric and spectroscopic measurements, the crowding errors are not fully independent from the Gaia science performances, because they both depend on the star magnitude. Therefore we conservatively summed the errors in modulus. ### Crowding errors {#sec:crowd2} We used the modeling described in Section \[sec:crowderr\], which provided a relative error on the flux of each star, caused by the various type of blends and contaminants affecting it. These modeled errors represent well the crowding errors for G, G$_{\rm{BP}}$, and G$_{\rm{RP}}$, i.e., on the photometry. To evaluate the crowding errors on astrometry, we considered two components: the error on centroiding and a chromatic shift. For the centroiding errors, only classic blends were considered, because only stars closer than the PSF are expected to have a significant impact on the final centroid measurement of a star. We expect that the PSF of a star will be perturbed by the residual flux left by the close companions after the deblending procedure, and these residuals will depend on the contaminating flux and distance of the blending stars, as modeled in Section \[sec:crowderr\]. We therefore computed the percentual flux in the residuals as an average of the bended star and the blending ones, weighted on distance and flux of the blending stars. We then assumed that the percentual centroiding error caused by blending was equal to this residual contaminating flux, a pessimistic assumption. The resulting centroiding errors caused by crowding are typically of the order of $\sim$10 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (with maximum values of $\sim$100), but they affect a relatively low number of stars in each GC (see Table \[tab:clusters\]). For the chromaticity correction, we know that chromatic effects for Gaia are relevant, because of its high accuracy, and they are corrected using the BP/RP information. If an error is made on that colour determination because of blends, the error is transported into the astrometric measurements as well. It was estimated that the shift on the single Gaia measurement could amout to 500–800 $\mu$as, depending on the spectral type and on the position along the focal plane. By averaging out transits and by correcting the effect of spectral type with G$_{\rm{BP}}$-G$_{\rm{RP}}$, the residual end-of-mission errors would amount to 0.4–1.4 $\mu$as [@jordi06][^17] in most of the well-behaved stars. However, for objects with non-stellar or peculiar colours, such as a Quasar or a (multiple) stellar blend, the residual error could be still be roughly 30 $\mu$as, as computed from the typical residual centroid shift difference between a B and an M star, after chromaticity correction [@jordi06]. We thus approximated linearly[^18] the additional chromatic error as 0.002 $\mu$as for each K of temperature difference between each blended stars pair (both classic and Gaia blends), multiplied by the relative contaminating flux. The typical residuals from chromatic errors caused by crowding are of a few $\mu$as, but can be substantially higher for companions that are very bright or have a very different colour (up to $\simeq$30–50 $\mu$as in our simulations). For RV error computations, the first consideration is that everytime a star is contaminated by another star with a net RV difference above $\simeq$30 km s$^{-1}$ (roughly the Gaia resolution element FWHM), there is a chance of separating the two RVs, depending on the relative flux contamination. The percentage of flux contamination (obtained as in Section \[sec:crowderr\]) was used to degrade the signal of the contaminated (or blended) star. We thus recomputed the magnitude of each blended or contaminated star, taking into account the residual errors after deblending or decontamination. We similarly recomputed the colours taking into account the residual colour errors. The recomputed colours and magnitudes were fed into the RV error equation [@gaia1], to derive the error on RV implied by the magnitude and colour deblending errors. The second consideration is that an artificial RV shift of roughly 30 km s$^{-1}$ can also be obtained if two blended stars are offset, in the AL direction, by at least 4 AL pixels (or 0.235“), therefore we treated these stars as in the above case. We finally did not attempt to simulate any RV measurement for stars closer than the Gaia PSF (i.e., one AC pixel or 0.177”) as explained previously. Moreover, we did not compute RVs or RV errors for stars fainter than G=16 mag. ![Histograms of differences between the final and error-free simulated proper motions of the easy (green histogram), intermediate (yellow histogram), and difficult cases (red histogram). Only cluster members are shown. The resulting absolute displacements in the systemic proper motion determination is of about 1–10 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to errors of $<$0.1%. We note that the intrinsic dispersion is of the order of 100 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, and the final, simulated one is 300–600 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, when including all stars down to G$\simeq$20.7 mag.[]{data-label="fig:hpm"}](fig_hpm1.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![Histograms of differences between the final and error-free simulated proper motions of the easy (green histogram), intermediate (yellow histogram), and difficult cases (red histogram). Only cluster members are shown. The resulting absolute displacements in the systemic proper motion determination is of about 1–10 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to errors of $<$0.1%. We note that the intrinsic dispersion is of the order of 100 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, and the final, simulated one is 300–600 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, when including all stars down to G$\simeq$20.7 mag.[]{data-label="fig:hpm"}](fig_hpm2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![Histograms of differences between the final and error-free simulated proper motions of the easy (green histogram), intermediate (yellow histogram), and difficult cases (red histogram). Only cluster members are shown. The resulting absolute displacements in the systemic proper motion determination is of about 1–10 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to errors of $<$0.1%. We note that the intrinsic dispersion is of the order of 100 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, and the final, simulated one is 300–600 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, when including all stars down to G$\simeq$20.7 mag.[]{data-label="fig:hpm"}](fig_hpm3.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} Results {#sec:res} ======= We illustrate in the following sections the type of data quality we expect from Gaia at the end of the mission, based on our simulations. As mentioned already, given all the conservative assumptions and the use of preliminary deblending pipelines, the presented results have to be considered pessimistic, in the sense that the pipelines will be more sophisticated in a few years from now. We will show in all figures three simulated GCs: an [easy case]{} with D=5 kpc, c=1.0, and a halo background (cluster \#1, plotted in green in all figures); an [intermediate case]{} with 10 kpc, c=1.0, and a disk background, with a relatively high reddening for GCs (cluster \#5, plotted in yellow); and a [difficult case]{} with D=15 kpc, c=2.5, and a bulge background, which is an extreme condition for Gaia (cluster \#18, plotted in red). Proper motions {#sec:pm} -------------- Because proper motions are determined with AF, the impact of crowding is less severe than on BP/RP spectro-photometry, or on RVS spectra. Figure \[fig:hpm\] shows the histogram of the differences between the final proper motion – including all error sources – and the initial error-free simulated one, for the known cluster members. The median systemic proper motion can be recovered with a bias of 5–10 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, i.e., with a systematic error of roughly 0.1–0.2%. The intrinsic spread of the simulated GCs is of the order of 100 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, depending on the GC. The observed spread is around 400–500 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, if one includes all the simulated stars down to the magnitude limit. It is almost entirely explained with the nominal post-launch performances applied on top of the intrinsic spread, especially when including faint stars. In fact (see Section \[sec:crowd2\]) the crowding errors [on the affected stars]{} are in the worst cases a few 100 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ for the centroiding determination, and $\simeq$30 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ for chromaticity errors caused by G$_{\rm{BP/RP}}$ crowding errors. ![Final simulated proper motion errors, including the effect of crowding) for the easy (green points), intermediate (yellow points), and difficult cases (red points), as a function of final simulated G magnitude. Only cluster members are shown.[]{data-label="fig:epm"}](fig_epm1.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![Final simulated proper motion errors, including the effect of crowding) for the easy (green points), intermediate (yellow points), and difficult cases (red points), as a function of final simulated G magnitude. Only cluster members are shown.[]{data-label="fig:epm"}](fig_epm2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![Final simulated proper motion errors, including the effect of crowding) for the easy (green points), intermediate (yellow points), and difficult cases (red points), as a function of final simulated G magnitude. Only cluster members are shown.[]{data-label="fig:epm"}](fig_epm3.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![image](fig_pm1.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_pm2.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_pm3.pdf){width="33.00000%"} Concerning individual stars, Figure \[fig:epm\] shows the behaviour of the final simulated errors as a function of G magnitude. It can be useful to compare these simulations with the first results from the HST PROMO project for M15 [Hubble Space Telescope PROper MOtion project, @bellini14]. Their typical error around the G=15 mag is 5–10 times higher than the error expected from Gaia, about 0.1 mas yr$^{-1}$, but at G=21 mag they are about half the Gaia error, at 0.5 mas yr$^{-1}$. Moreover, HST proper motions can reach several magnitudes below the Gaia limit. On the other hand, the advantage of Gaia’s proper motions is that they cover a larger area around each GC – actually, the whole sky – and that they are [absolute]{} proper motions. We show in Figure \[fig:pm\] the typical vector diagrams of all simulated stars, including faint stars and background contaminants. The clusters are always easily separated from the field population, except in the case of the extreme bulge background. In the following sections, we will select the probable members with a [loose]{} criterium, i.e., stars within 1 mas yr$^{-1}$ from the systemic GC motion, and with a [strict]{} criterium, i.e., within 0.3 mas yr$^{-1}$ from the systemic GC motion. ### Measurement of derived quantities To assess the derived quantities that will be measurable from Gaia data, we performed a basic test on the easy case GC. We excluded all stars that were clearly unrelated to the GC with a very loose proper motion selection ($\pm$3 mas yr$^{-1}$) and all the classic blends. We then converted proper motions in the RA and Dec directions into velocities, using the GC distance and propagating its error (see Section \[sec:par\]). We then estimated the RV spreads $\sigma_{\rm{RA}}$ and $\sigma_{\rm{Dec}}$ as a function of distance from the GC center with their errors. We used the maximum likelihood estimation method (MLE) with the likelihood formulation described by @pryor93, @walker06 and @martin07, which takes into account the errors on measurements as well. The actual errors on the RV dispersions in each radial bin are of about 0.4–1.4 km s$^{-1}$. The result is displayed in Figure \[fig:sig\], showing that Gaia will be able to determine the radial profile of the RV dispersion of nearby GCs with errors of about 1 km s$^{-1}$ in the nearest GCs. ![RV dispersion profile in RA and Dec for the easy case cluster.[]{data-label="fig:sig"}](fig_sig.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} More in general, we can say that: 1. [Proper motions obtained by Gaia in GCs will allow the study of dynamical relaxation in the 5–10 closest GCs (see also Section \[sec:phot\] and Figure \[fig:cmd\]). This is because at least a few magnitudes below the GC turn-off point are required to adequately sample a range of stellar masses. Figure \[fig:cmd\] clearly shows that this is possible only for clusters at $\simeq$5 kpc or less, because of the Gaia detection limit. Therefore, these studies will have to rely on deeper proper motion data sets for more distant GCs[^19].]{} 2. [Two past studies dealt with the determination of masses in GCs with Gaia data [@an12; @sollima15] yielding somewhat conflicting results. The main problem is to break the mass-anisotropy degeneracy, with the anisotropy signal being stronger outside the central regions where relaxation has the highest effect. Therefore, blends by cluster members are irrelevant there, as discussed in Section \[sec:crowdeval\] and shown in Figure \[fig:counts\]. And even in the case of heavy background contamination, proper motions will be only mildly affected (Figure \[fig:epm\]). The assumption by @sollima15 that one can only use stars contaminated by less than 10% of the flux by objects more distant than 3.54", is far too pessimistic. The simulations by @an12, prove that 10% mass estimates can be provided for GCs if one can count on at least 100 tracers (we can use red giants) with proper motion errors $<$100 $\mu$as. As shown in Table \[tab:clusters\] and Figure \[fig:epm\], the number of stars per GC with these errors will be more like a few 10$^3$–10$^4$, except maybe for the most extreme cases of bulge clusters. Moreover, our test with the easy GC above shows that RV spreads can be measured as a function of distance from the center with 1 km s$^{-1}$ errors at 5 kpc. Therefore, as concluded by [@an12], it will be possible to determine GC masses with an error of 10% or less at least up to 15 kpc. This requires ground-based RVs to complement Gaia proper motions[^20].]{} 3. [Gaia will be able to provide the necessary quantities for computing accurate GC orbits within the Galaxy, because, as we saw, it will provide high-quality systemic proper motions for each GC, with a bias of a few $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ and errors of the order of 1%. Distances will be obtained with similar errors, as discussed below (Section \[sec:par\]).]{} 4. [Once the orbits are obtained they could in turn be used to look for extra tidal stars and tidal tails. Even if the G$<$20.7 mag limit reduces the density of targets that will be actually measured by Gaia around GCs, the proper motion signal of escaped GC stars should be very sharp, and in most cases significantly different – within the uncertainties – from that of the surrounding field population (see also Figure \[fig:pm\]).]{} 5. [Gaia could be able to help in the open and hotly debated problem of multiple populations [@kraft94; @gratton04], in particular by revealing kinematical differences among different GC sub-populations, if they are present. For example, @bellazzini12 reported the possible detection of a different rotation pattern between the Na-rich and Na-poor stars in some of the GCs in their sample, with rotation amplitude differences not larger than $\simeq$5 km s$^{-1}$. Depending on the distance and the inclination of the rotation axis, this would correspond, in terms of proper motions, to a difference in rotatation of the order of 1 mas yr$^{-1}$, which would be detectable for those GCs having at least 100 stars with measurement errors of a few 10 $\mu$as.]{} ![Histograms of the parallaxes for the easy (top panel), intermediate (middle panel), and difficult (lower panel) clusters. The vertical dotted line in all panels marks the zero parallax limit, while the solid line marks the true parallax of each simulated GC. Lighlty shaded histograms show the member stars selected with the loose criterium and heavily shaded ones with the strict criterium (see Section \[sec:pm\]).[]{data-label="fig:par"}](fig_par1.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Histograms of the parallaxes for the easy (top panel), intermediate (middle panel), and difficult (lower panel) clusters. The vertical dotted line in all panels marks the zero parallax limit, while the solid line marks the true parallax of each simulated GC. Lighlty shaded histograms show the member stars selected with the loose criterium and heavily shaded ones with the strict criterium (see Section \[sec:pm\]).[]{data-label="fig:par"}](fig_par2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Histograms of the parallaxes for the easy (top panel), intermediate (middle panel), and difficult (lower panel) clusters. The vertical dotted line in all panels marks the zero parallax limit, while the solid line marks the true parallax of each simulated GC. Lighlty shaded histograms show the member stars selected with the loose criterium and heavily shaded ones with the strict criterium (see Section \[sec:pm\]).[]{data-label="fig:par"}](fig_par3.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} [lcrrrrrrrrllll]{}\ Cluster & c & D$_0$ & $\varpi_0$ & field & $\varpi_{\rm{strict}}$ & $\varpi_{\rm{loose}}$ &\ & & (kpc) & ($\mu$as) & & ($\mu$as) & ($\mu$as)\ \ \# 1 & 1.0 & 5 & 200.0 & halo & 200.2$\pm$2.6 & 200.2$\pm$0.6\ \# 2 & 1.0 & 10 & 100.0 & halo & 101.6$\pm$2.1 & 99.3$\pm$0.8\ \# 3 & 1.0 & 15 & 66.7 & halo & 69.2$\pm$2.6 & 69.1$\pm$1.0\ \# 4 & 1.0 & 5 & 200.0 & disk & 203.9$\pm$6.1 & 197.4$\pm$1.3\ \# 5 & 1.0 & 10 & 100.0 & disk & 95.6$\pm$4.4 & 98.5$\pm$1.5\ \# 6 & 1.0 & 15 & 66.7 & disk & 74.0$\pm$5.6 & 65.8$\pm$1.9\ \# 7 & 1.0 & 5 & 200.0 & bulge & 206.8$\pm$2.3 & 200.8$\pm$0.6\ \# 8 & 1.0 & 10 & 100.0 & bulge & 100.1$\pm$1.9 & 99.1$\pm$0.6\ \# 9 & 1.0 & 15 & 66.7 & bulge & 63.9$\pm$2.3 & 67.9$\pm$0.7\ \# 10 & 2.5 & 5 & 200.0 & halo & 197.5$\pm$0.7 & 198.4$\pm$0.4\ \# 11 & 2.5 & 10 & 100.0 & halo & 101.4$\pm$1.3 & 101.2$\pm$0.6\ \# 12 & 2.5 & 15 & 66.7 & halo & 62.2$\pm$1.5 & 66.4$\pm$0.9\ \# 13 & 2.5 & 5 & 200.0 & disk & 200.0$\pm$1.6 & 200.2$\pm$0.8\ \# 14 & 2.5 & 10 & 100.0 & disk & 100.0$\pm$3.1 & 102.8$\pm$1.3\ \# 15 & 2.5 & 15 & 66.7 & disk & 74.3$\pm$3.2 & 70.5$\pm$1.8\ \# 16 & 2.5 & 5 & 200.0 & bulge & 199.3$\pm$0.7 & 198.6$\pm$0.4\ \# 17 & 2.5 & 10 & 100.0 & bulge & 101.6$\pm$1.3 & 99.5$\pm$0.5\ \# 18 & 2.5 & 15 & 66.7 & bulge & 65.8$\pm$1.4 & 67.0$\pm$0.7\ Parallaxes {#sec:par} ---------- The major problem in deriving distances from parallaxes, especially when the error is comparable to the measurement, is that the errors on distances are not symmetric: by simply inverting the parallax one could obtain a very wrong distance estimate [@bailer15]. Statistically speaking, it is also possible to obtain negative parallaxes, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:par\], which would result in meaningless distance estimates if not treated properly. When one is interested in the systemic distance of a GC, however, negative parallaxes are useful to assess the uncertainty on the measurements and their distribution. Figure \[fig:par\] shows the distribution of parallaxes for probable members, as defined in Section \[sec:pm\]. As can be seen, not only the average parallax of the clusters is very well recovered, but also its uncertainty, provided that one makes use also of the negative parallaxes. The exception is the case of the difficult cluster, which has a background contamination that overwhelms the signal from the cluster members. As can be seen, the recovered parallax is strongly biased by the background contaminants. A more strict members selection apparently produces better results (but see below). However, the resulting distribution of strict members is still asymmetric, because of the blends between cluster and field stars. This type of problem is not specific of Gaia data, of course, but it is extremely important to employ a reliable membership selection and robust statistical modeling of the parallax distribution, which can be skewed and is heteroscedastic. We employed an MLE analysis of the 18 simulated GCs using the strict and loose membership criteria described above. We used the likelihood estimator described by @pryor93, @walker06, and @martin07, which takes into account the highly variable errors, and we computed the most probable parallax $\varpi$ and its error $\delta\varpi$. The result is displayed in Table \[tab:dist\]. We first note that the depth of a GC, as measured with parallaxes, can correspond at most to a few $\mu$as for the nearest GCs that have large radii, even if one considers the tidal radius, and in the majority of cases is well below 1 $\mu$as. Thus the observed spread is caused almost entirely by measurement errors. The bias itself, i.e., the difference between the true input parallax and the recovered one, is always 1% or smaller, even for the difficult case GC. The formal error on the recovered $\varpi$ is of the same order. We also note that choosing a more restrictive membership selection can often increase the formal errors without resulting in a better $\varpi$ determination. On the contrary, the bias is slightly increased when applying a more restrictive membership selection [see also @bailer15]. ![image](fig_cmd1a.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_cmd2a.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_cmd3a.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_cmd1b.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_cmd2b.pdf){width="33.00000%"} ![image](fig_cmd3b.pdf){width="33.00000%"} The scientific implications of $\simeq$1% distances for most of the GCs in the Galaxy are far reaching. They directly help in the determination and modeling of GC orbits, that can then be used for dynamical studies of the MW, of the GC themselves, and of the interactions between the two. For example they would help simulations that use the GC orbits and tidal tails and streams to constrain the Galactic potential [@penarrubia12; @price14], or they can help discerning the origin of the GC themselves through dinamical modeling. But the area in which significant breakthrough is expected lies in the determinations of stellar ages [@gratton97] and masses [@feuillet16]. Distance has in fact a similar effect as age when using high-quality CMDs (from HST or ground-based observations) to estimate the [absolute ages]{} of GCs. By reducing the distance determination errors by more than a factor of 10, we can expect a significant improvement on the age determinations, obtaining absolute ages with errors below 10%. On the other hand, $\simeq$1% distances can help in constraining the stellar masses and more importantly, the surface gravities. When trying to determine [relative ages]{} in GCs with multiple stellar populations, one needs to disentangle the effects of chemical composition – mainly Helium and C+N+O abundance – from age effects. A very accurate surface gravity determination would remove one of the major sources of uncertainty in the determination of stellar chemistry from spectroscopy. Photometry {#sec:phot} ---------- The Gaia colour magnitude diagrams (CMD) of the three example clusters are shown in figure \[fig:cmd\]. The top panels show all the simulated stars, including the background, while the bottom panels show only the probable members, selected with the loose criterium described in the previous section. As can be seen, background contamination is the first obvious cause of crowding errors for Gaia photometry. A large reddening (like in the case of the disk cluster) or a distance larger than 10 kpc also impact the quality of the CMD, because the photometric errors, especially those on the G$_{\rm{BP}}$–G$_{\rm{RP}}$ colour, increase quite rapidly with magnitude. It will therefore not be possibile to reach the nominal photometric errors promised by Gaia in those clusters that lie on a bulge or disk background. This is mainly caused by the extended shape of the BP and RP dispersed images, while the G magnitudes will not suffer significantly from crowding. However, for clusters that are relatively free from background contamination, the BP/RP photometry of stars brighter than G$\simeq$15 mag will have an extremely good quality, comparable to HST photometry. Fainter stars down to G$\simeq$18–19 mag will still have a BP/RP quality that is comparable with the best ground-based catalogues. While HST photometry will certainly be preferable for some applications, Gaia photometry will have a few advantages: (1) the field of view of Gaia is not limited by any field size: it covers the whole sky; (2) each star that has Gaia astrometry from AF, also has BP/RP spectra from which rough stellar parameters and a reddening estimate can be obtained [@gaia1]; (3) brighter stars, generally red giants in the case of GCs, will also have RVs and more accurate estimates of parameters and reddening from RVS spectra[^21] [@kordopatis12]; and (4) the absolute photometric calibration of Gaia will be based on one the largest, most homogeneous, and and most accurate set of spectro-photometric standard stars to date [@pancino12; @altavilla15; @marinoni16], that will grant an accuracy of $\simeq$1–3% with respect to Vega [@bohlin04]. Radial velocities {#sec:rvsres} ----------------- ![RV as a function of magnitude for the easy (top panel), medium (middle panel), and difficult (bottom panel) cases. The entire samples of available RV measurements are plotted in grey. The dotted lines mark zero and the true systemic velocity of the simulated clusters, 100 km s$^{-1}$. Only true cluster members are coloured in green, yellow, and red, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:vrad"}](fig_RV1.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![RV as a function of magnitude for the easy (top panel), medium (middle panel), and difficult (bottom panel) cases. The entire samples of available RV measurements are plotted in grey. The dotted lines mark zero and the true systemic velocity of the simulated clusters, 100 km s$^{-1}$. Only true cluster members are coloured in green, yellow, and red, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:vrad"}](fig_RV2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![RV as a function of magnitude for the easy (top panel), medium (middle panel), and difficult (bottom panel) cases. The entire samples of available RV measurements are plotted in grey. The dotted lines mark zero and the true systemic velocity of the simulated clusters, 100 km s$^{-1}$. Only true cluster members are coloured in green, yellow, and red, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:vrad"}](fig_RV3.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} Stars brighter than G$\simeq$17 mag will have RVs measurements. Gaia has already produced billions of RVS spectra and by the end of the mission, each star will be observed on average 40 times. This can be compared with the extremely successful RAVE survey [Radial VElocity Experiment, @rave], which measured RVs for half a million stars with V$<$12 mag. The Gaia end-of-mission errors will vary with the star’s colour and will be of the order of 1 km s$^{-1}$ for the bright red stars (G$<$12.5 mag and cooler than F types) and will be about 15–20 km s$^{-1}$ or more for fainter and bluer stars. Crowding will affect RVS more than any of the other instruments on board. Even if the magnitude limit is brighter, the AL size of the spectra is more than an arcminute on the sky (see Table \[tab:numbers\]). ![End-of-mission error distribution for all member stars (defined as in Figure \[fig:vrad\]) down to G=20.7 mag, within the central arcminute of the simulated GCs. The top panel shows proper motion errors, the middle one parallax errors, and the bottom ones G magnitude errors. The easy cluster is represented in green in all panels, the intermediate one in yellow, and the difficult one in red.[]{data-label="fig:core"}](fig_core1.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![End-of-mission error distribution for all member stars (defined as in Figure \[fig:vrad\]) down to G=20.7 mag, within the central arcminute of the simulated GCs. The top panel shows proper motion errors, the middle one parallax errors, and the bottom ones G magnitude errors. The easy cluster is represented in green in all panels, the intermediate one in yellow, and the difficult one in red.[]{data-label="fig:core"}](fig_core2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![End-of-mission error distribution for all member stars (defined as in Figure \[fig:vrad\]) down to G=20.7 mag, within the central arcminute of the simulated GCs. The top panel shows proper motion errors, the middle one parallax errors, and the bottom ones G magnitude errors. The easy cluster is represented in green in all panels, the intermediate one in yellow, and the difficult one in red.[]{data-label="fig:core"}](fig_core3.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:vrad\] shows the simulated RV measurements, as a function of the G magnitude, for the three example cases. Given the limitations of our simulations, we immediately note that only a handful of reliable members in the intermediate case have meaningful RV determinations, because of the combined effect of high reddening – for a GC – and background contamination. We also note the large scatter in RV for the faintest stars in the difficult case, where background contamination takes its toll. However, for the easy case, we notice that a sample of more than 100 stars with magnitudes above $\simeq$13–14 mag is available, with errors around 1 or few km s$^{-1}$. This will happen for the closest 10–20 GCs. The stars with large errors between 13.5 and 14.5 mag are hotter horizontal branch stars. To conclude, we note that a mission extension would increase the quality of the RVS spectra. The central arcminute --------------------- As discussed in Section \[sec:comp\], it is not feasible to simulate the degree of completeness of Gaia data, because it varies across the sky, based on the number of different passages and on their respective orientation. As discussed in that section, nearby and relatively sparse GCs like $\omega$ Cen should be 100% complete down to V$\simeq$16 mag, even in the very core. This might appear surprising, but it is a beneficial byproduct of the relatively shallow Gaia magnitude limit. However, still the question remains: [how far into the GC core can we obtain reliable measurements, at least for the stars that we will be able to measure?]{} Figure \[fig:core\] shows the end-of-mission error distributions for all member stars, down to G=20.7 mag, for the central arcminute of the simulated clusters. As can be seen, astrometry is not too badly affected by crowding: the maximum errors are of 1 mas yr$^{-1}$ for proper motions and 0.7 mas for parallaxes (to compare with Figure \[fig:epm\]). The majority of stars have performances of the order of a few hundred $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ or $\mu$as, and this including also the faintest stars. If this appears surprising, we recall that what mostly governs the end-of-mission astrometric errors caused by crowding in Gaia is the PSF size, which is comparable to that of HST. The situation is different for BP/RP photometry or RVS, because even if the PSF in the AC direction is still small, and thus allows to detect blends quite efficiently, the AL size of the window is larger, and aligned with the dispersion axis of the spectra. The performances in the central arcminute are in fact significantly worse for these instruments than for the AF and the G band magnitude in the case of crowded fields. Summary and conclusions {#sec:concl} ======================= We used all the available information on the presently available Gaia deblending pipelines, along with their results on simulated data, to model the behaviour of Gaia in crowded areas. We computed additional crowding errors that were combined with the post-launch science performances of Gaia and applied to a set of simulated GCs with different concentration (c=1.0 and 2.5), distance (5, 10, and 15 kpc), and field population (halo, disk, and bulge). We showed that: 1. [Gaia will provide estimates of the parallax and systemic motion of GCs with unprecedented accuracies: $\simeq$1% and $<<$1%, respectively, for all GCs as far as 15 kpc at least. Also, systemic RVs with errors of a few km s$^{-1}$ will be obtained for the 10–20 closest GCs, although our RVS simulations are not as accurate as for the other Gaia instruments. This will allow for a very accurate modeling of GC orbits.]{} 2. [The astrometry, obtained through the AF together with G magnitudes, will be only marginally affected by crowding, having performances not too dissimilar from the nominal Gaia performances even for the most field-contaminated bulge GCs. This is an effect of the tiny Gaia PSF (0.17") in AF. The G magnitudes will have mmag performances and space quality to G$\simeq$17–18 mag.]{} 3. [The proper motions of individual stars within GCs have sufficient quality to obtain mass estimates with 10% errors for GCs as far as 15 kpc at least, and to identify small variations of the properties (rotations, spreads) of a few km s$^{-1}$ for GCs as far as 10 kpc.]{} 4. [The distances of GCs will be obtained with errors of $\simeq$1%, and for GCs heavily contaminated by field stars to a few percent. The impact on the determinations of stellar masses and ages will be significant. It is expected that GC absolute ages with errors below 10% will be obtained. Also, better estimates of surface gravities for GC stars with known distances will remove one of the major uncertainty sources from abundance determinations with high-resolution spectroscopy.]{} 5. [While it is difficult to simulate the exact completeness level of Gaia in GCs, we have shown that the astrometric performances are still exceptional in the central arcminute of the simulated GCs: most of the stars have errors around a few 100 $\mu$as or $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$.]{} 6. [The BP/RP photometry and the RVS spectra, on the other hand, have larger AL sizes and therefore suffer more from crowding effects. The most important factor for these intruments is crowding by field stars, especially in the most extreme cases like the bulge field, which acts at all distances from the GC center and combines with the crowding effects from GC stars in the central regions.]{} The imminent decision of whether to extend the Gaia mission lifetime will certainly have a beneficial impact on all the above measurements. However, the simulations presented here are already pessimistc and the pipelines are expected to evolve significantly in the next few years. Therefore, we conclude that Gaia measurements will revolutionize our kowledge of GCs. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We warmly thank A. Brown, M. Castellani, A. Di Cecco, F. De Luise, D. Harrison, H. E. Huckle, K. Janssen, C. Jordi, P. M. Marrese, D. Pourbaix, L. Pulone, and G. Seabroke, for providing useful information about Gaia BP, RP, and RVS deblending and decontamination, and for enlightening discussions about Gaia and crowded fields treatment in general. This work used simulated data provided by the Simulation Unit (CU2) of the Gaia Data Processing Analysis Consortium (DPAC), run with GIBIS at CNES (Centre national d’études spatiales). This research made use of the R programming language (https://www.r-project.org/) and more specifically of its ‘data.table’ package, for the treatment of very large datasets. Some of the figures were prepared with TopCat [@topcat]. [8]{} Altavilla G., Botticella M. T., Cappellaro E., Turatto M., 2012, Ap&SS, 341, 163 Altavilla G., et al., 2015, AN, 336, 515 Allende Prieto C., 2008, Gaia Technical Note number GAIA-C6-SP-MSSL-CAP-003 An J., Evans N. W., Deason A. J., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2562 Babusiaux C., 2005, ESASP, 576, 417 Bachchan R. K., Hobbs D., Lindegren L., 2016, A&A, 589, A71 Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2015, PASP, 127, 994 Bellazzini M., Bragaglia A., Carretta E., Gratton R. G., Lucatello S., Catanzaro G., Leone F., 2012, A&A, 538, A18 Bellini A., et al., 2014, ApJ, 797, 115 Bohlin R. C., Gilliland R. L., 2004, AJ, 127, 3508 Brodie J. P., Strader J., 2006, ARA&A, 44, 193 de Bruijne J. H. J., Rygl K. L. J., Antoja T., 2014, EAS, 67, 23 de Bruijne J. H. J., Allen M., Azaz S., Krone-Martins A., Prod’homme T., Hestroffer D., 2015, A&A, 576, A74 Dinescu D. I., van Altena W. F., Girard T. M., L[ó]{}pez C. E., 1999, AJ, 117, 277 Ducourant C., Krone-Martins A., Galluccio L., Teixeira R., 2014, sf2a.conf, 421 Eyer L., et al., 2014, EAS, 67, 75 Fabricius C., Bastian U., Portell J., others, 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1609.04273 Feuillet D. K., Bovy J., Holtzman J., Girardi L., MacDonald N., Majewski S. R., Nidever D. L., 2016, ApJ, 817, 40 Gaia Collaboration, 2016a, arXiv, arXiv:1609.04153 Gaia Collaboration, 2016b, Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J., Mignard F., Drimmel R., co-authors 5., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1609.04172 Gratton R. G., Fusi Pecci F., Carretta E., Clementini G., Corsi C. E., Lattanzi M., 1997, ApJ, 491, 749 Gratton R., Sneden C., Carretta E., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 385 Harris W. E., 1996, AJ, 112, 1487 Harrison D. L., 2011, ExA, 31, 157 Hendra Gunadi, A., 2011, Master Thesis, Australian National University H[ø]{}g E., et al., 2000, A&A, 355, L27 Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543 Jordi C., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 290 Jordi C., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, A48 King I. R., 1966, AJ, 71, 64 Kordopatis G., Recio-Blanco A., de Laverny P., Bijaoui A., Hill V., Gilmore G., Wyse R. F. G., Ordenovic C., 2012, EPJWC, 19, 09010 Kordopatis G., et al., 2013, AJ, 146, 134 Kraft R. P., 1994, PASP, 106, 553 Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 K[ü]{}pper A. H. W., Maschberger T., Kroupa P., Baumgardt H., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2300 Lindegren L., et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A4 Marinoni S., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3616 Martin N. F., Ibata R. A., Chapman S. C., Irwin M., Lewis G. F., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 281 Michalik D., Lindegren L., Hobbs D., 2015, A&A, 574, A115 Mignard F., 2005, ASPC, 338, 15 Mora A., et al., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1608.00045 Pancino E., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1767 Pancino E., Bellazzini M., Marinoni S., 2013, MmSAI, 84, 83 Paust N. E. Q., et al., 2010, AJ, 139, 476 Pe[ñ]{}arrubia J., Koposov S. E., Walker M. G., 2012, ApJ, 760, 2 Perryman M. A. C., et al., 1997, A&A, 323, 49 Perryman M. A. C., et al., 2001, A&A, 369, 339 Piersimoni A., De Luise F., Busso G., 2011, Gaia Technical Note number GAIA-C5-TN-OATE-AP-001 Pourbaix D., 2011, AIPC, 1346, 122 Price-Whelan A. M., Hogg D. W., Johnston K. V., Hendel D., 2014, ApJ, 794, 4 Proft S., Wambsganss J., 2015, A&A, 574, A46 Pryor C., Meylan G., 1993, ASPC, 50, 357 Puspitarini L., et al., 2015, A&A, 573, A35 Robin A. C., Reyl[é]{} C., Derri[è]{}re S., Picaud S., 2003, A&A, 409, 523 Seabroke G., et al., 2016, IAUS, 317, 346 Sollima A., Baumgardt H., Zocchi A., Balbinot E., Gieles M., H[é]{}nault-Brunet V., Varri A. L., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2185 Sollima A., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1937 Tanga P., et al., 2016, P&SS, 123, 87 Taylor, M. B. 2005, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, 347, 29 Walker M. G., Mateo M., Olszewski E. W., Bernstein R., Wang X., Woodroofe M., 2006, AJ, 131, 2114 Zwitter T., Kos J., 2015, MmSAI, 86, 541 List of acronyms {#sec:acr} ================ Table \[tab:acr\] lists all the acronyms used. [ll]{}\ Acronym & Description\ AC & ACross scan\ AF & Astrometric field\ AL & ALong scan\ BP & Blue spectro-Photometer\ CCD & Charge Coupled Device\ CDS & Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg\ CMD & Color Magnitude Diagram\ CNES & Centre National d’Études Spatiales\ DPAC & Data Processing and Analysis Consortium\ ESA & European Space Agency\ FWHM & Full Width at Half Maximum\ GIBIS & Gaia Instrument and Basic Angle Simulator\ GC & Globular Cluster\ HB & Horizontal Branch\ HST & Hubble Space Telescope\ IMF & Initial Mass Function\ LSF & Line Spread Function\ MLE & Maximum Likelihood Estimator\ MW & Milky Way\ NSS & Non Single Stars\ PSF & Point Spread Function\ RAVE & RAdial Velocity Experiment\ RP & Red spectro-Photometer\ RV & Radial Velocity\ RVS & Radial Velocity Spectrometer\ SEA & source Environment Analysis\ SM & Sky Mapper\ TDI & Time Delayed Integration\ \ \[lastpage\] [^1]: email:[email protected] [^2]: A list of the acronyms used in this paper (Table \[tab:acr\]) can be found in Appendix \[sec:acr\]. [^3]: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia [^4]: The value we adopted is a conservative estimate. The Gaia [effective]{} PSF varies across the field of view and has a median value of 0.103" [@fabricius16]. [^5]: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/iow\_20150226 [^6]: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/news\_20141217 [^7]: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/iow\_20140206 [^8]: We recall that to obtain absolute astrometric measurements, Gaia projects two different lines of sight on a common focal plane. To disentangle sources coming from the two projected lines of sight, each of the SM (Sky Mapper) CCD columns sees only one of the lines of sight. Therefore, there will be some fields that – even with low stellar background – will happen to overap crowded areas in some fraction of their transits. [^9]: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/iow\_20141113 [^10]: From 5 to 8% of the total number of stars in our simulations, including field stars, are classic blends, depending on the particular cluster. The classic blends are mostly in the inner parts of GCs, within 1’ approximately. For more details see Section \[sec:crowdeval\]. [^11]: For a detailed description of the various BP/RP deblending pipelines, see Section \[sec:bprp\]. What we mean here by ‘partially informed’ is that we used information on the blended stars positions in AF, but we did not use any other information, such as astrophysical parameters (T$_{\rm{eff}}$, log$g$, A$_V$, \[Fe/H\]) and therefore we assumed we did not know the spectral energy distribution of the involved sources. This is still a pessimistic assumption, because towards the end of the mission this kind of information will become available and iteratively improved with every data processing cycle. [^12]: With our linear relation, a G=2 mag star would be able to significantly contaminate stars up to 34.4$^{\prime\prime}$. These bright stars are rare: in our eighteen simulated GCs there is only one field star brighter than that, appearing in the six disk GCs. [^13]: http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/$\sim$akuepper/mcluster/mcluster.html [^14]: Dark remnants are white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes. Recently, comparable fractions of dark remnants were obtained with state-of-the-art cluster modeling by @sollima15 and @sollima16. [^15]: http://model.obs-besancon.fr/js [^16]: In other words, we looped over the list of (relevant) stars and computed distances with all other (relevant) stars, one object at a time. This was necessary because smarter neighbour searches pre-compute a distance matrix to increase computation speed, and therefore tend to saturate computer memory for datasets containing more than 10$^5$ objects [@hendra]. Our bulge simulated GCs contain a few million stars, and several tens of millions of relevant pairs. [^17]: These estimates were computed using the Gaia filter system, now abondoned, but there are no other estimates available of the Gaia residual chromatic displacement in the literature at the moment. [^18]: The entity of the chromatic correction errors caused by crowding is small for the simulated GCs (a few $\mu$as or $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$) compared to the Gaia science performances (see also Figure \[fig:epm\]), and therefore a linear approximation was considered adequate. [^19]: Deeper measurements could be obtained if the mission lifetime is extended beyond its nominal 5-year duration. The SEA pipelines also have the potential of recovering faint stars. Finally, the use of the 2D images obtained for some crowded fields will help by directly recovering some faint stars and by improving the deblending pipelines, thus recovering more faint stars also in other regions. [^20]: For the closest GCs, Gaia will provide some good RVs as well, see also Section \[sec:rvsres\], for more details. [^21]: Accurate reddening estimates can also be obtained from diffuse interstellar bands, that are included in the Gaia RVS wavelength range [see for example @puspitarini15 and references therein].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This article studies the quasi-stationary behaviour of multidimensional birth and death processes, modeling the interaction between several species, absorbed when one of the coordinates hits 0. We study models where the absorption rate is not uniformly bounded, contrary to most of the previous works. To handle this natural situation, we develop original Lyapunov function arguments that might apply in other situations with unbounded killing rates. We obtain the exponential convergence in total variation of the conditional distributions to a unique stationary distribution, uniformly with respect to the initial distribution. Our results cover general birth and death models with stronger intra-specific than inter-specific competition, and cases with neutral competition with explicit conditions on the dimension of the process.' author: - 'Nicolas Champagnat$^{1,2,3}$, Denis Villemonais$^{1,2,3}$' bibliography: - 'biblio-bio.bib' - 'biblio-denis.bib' - 'biblio-math.bib' - 'biblio-math-nicolas.bib' title: 'Quasi-stationary distribution for multi-dimensional birth and death processes conditioned to survival of all coordinates' --- Keywords: [multidimensional birth and death process; process absorbed on the boundary; quasi-stationary distribution; $Q$-process; uniform exponential mixing property; Lyapunov function; strong intra-specific competition; neutral competition.]{} 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: [60J27; 37A25; 60B10]{}. Secondary: [92D25; 92D40]{}. Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ This article is devoted to the study of quasi-stationary behavior of multi-type birth and death processes absorbed when one of the types goes extinct. More specifically, we consider a continuous-time Markov process $(X_t,t\geq 0)$ taking values in $\ZZ_+^r$ for some $r\geq 1$, where we use the notations $\ZZ_+=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and $\NN=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$. The transition rates of $X$ are given by $$\text{from }n=(n_1,\ldots,n_r)\text{ to } \begin{cases} n+e_j & \text{with rate }n_j b_j(n),\\ n-e_j & \text{with rate }n_j\left[d_j(n)+\Big(\sum_{k=1}^r c_{jk}(n) n_k\Big)^\gamma\right] \end{cases}$$ for all $1\leq j\leq r$, with $e_j=(0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)$, where the nonzero coordinate is the $j$-th one, $\gamma>0$, $b(n)=(b_1(n),\ldots,b_r(n))$ and $d(n)=(d_1(n),\ldots,d_r(n))$ are functions from $\ZZ_+^r$ to $\RR_+^r$ and $c(n)=(c_{ij}(n))_{1\leq i,j\leq r}$ is a function from $\ZZ_+^r$ to the set of $r\times r$ matrices with nonnegative coefficients. In other words, the infinitesimal generator of the process $X$ is defined for all bounded function $f$ on $\ZZ^r_+$ and all $n\in \ZZ_+^r$ as $$\begin{gathered} Lf(n)=\sum_{j=1}^r[f(n+e_j)-f(n)]n_j b_j(n) \\ +\sum_{j=1}^r[f(n-e_j)-f(n)]n_j\left[d_j(n)+\left(\sum_{k=1}^r c_{jk}(n) n_k\right)^\gamma\right] \label{eq:generator}\end{gathered}$$ This model represents a density-dependent population dynamics with $r$ types of individuals (say $r$ species), where $b_j(n)$ (resp.$d_j(n)$) is the individual birth (resp. death) rate of an individual of type $j$ in the population $n$, and $c_{ij}(n)$ represents the competition exerted by an individual of type $j$ on an individual of type $i$ in the population $n$. The global competition $\sum_{k=1}^r c_{jk}(n) n_k$ felt by an individual of type $i$ influences its death rate at a power $\gamma$, which represents the strength of the competition. The larger $\gamma$ is, the stronger is the influence of the competition in large populations. The case $\gamma=1$ is very common in biology and is known as logistic (or competitive Lotka-Volterra) competition. Other values of $\gamma>0$ are also relevant in ecological applications. Note that the forms of the birth and death rates imply that, once a coordinate $X^j_t$ of the process hits 0, it remains equal to 0. This corresponds to the extinction of the population of type $j$. Hence, the set $\d:=\ZZ_+^r\setminus\NN^r$ is absorbing for the process $X$. Let us denote by $\tau_\d$ its absorption time. Our goal is to study the process $(X_t,t\geq 0)$ conditioned to non-aborption, and in particular its quasi-stationary distribution, i.e. a probability measure $\alpha$ on $\NN^r$ such that $$\PP_\alpha(X_t\in\cdot\mid t<\tau_\d)=\alpha,\quad\forall t\geq 0.$$ More precisely, we shall give conditions ensuring the uniform exponential convergence of conditional distributions to the quasi-stationary distribution, independently of the initial condition. This means that there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that $$\label{eq:conv} \left\\|\PP_\mu(X_t\in\cdot\mid t<\tau_\d)-\alpha\right\\|_{TV}\leq C e^{-\lambda t},\quad\forall \mu\in\mathcal{P}(\NN^r),\quad t\geq 0,$$ where $\\|\cdot\\|_{TV}$ is the total variation norm and $\mathcal{P}(\NN^r)$ is the set of probability measures on $\NN^r$. This implies in particular the uniqueness of the quasi-stationary distribution. In particular, when is satisfied, regardless of the initial condition, the quasi-stationary distribution describes the state of the population when it survives for a long time. One of the most notable features of quasi-stationary populations is the existence of a so-called mortality/extinction plateau: there exists $\lambda_0>0$ limit of the extinction rate of the population (see [@meleard-villemonais-12]). The constant $-\lambda_0$ is actually the largest non-trivial eigenvalue of the generator $L$ and satisfies $$\PP_\alpha(t<\tau_\d)=e^{-\lambda_0 t},\quad\forall t\geq 0.$$ Many properties can be deduced from , as the uniform convergence of $e^{\lambda_0 t}\PP_x(t<\tau_\d)$ to $\eta(x)$, where $\eta$ is the eigenfunction of $L$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014 Prop.2.3], and the existence and the exponential ergodicity of the associated $Q$-process, defined as the process $X$ conditionned to never be extinct (see [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014 Thm.3.1] for a precise definition). Quasi-stationary distributions for population processes have received much interest in the recent years (see the surveys [@meleard-villemonais-12; @vanDoorn2013]). One of the most understood case concerns birth and death processes on $\Z_+$ absorbed at $0$: it has been shown in [@vanDoorn1991] that there are either zero, one or an infinite continuum of quasi-stationary distributions for such processes. More recently, it has been shown in [@Martinez-Martin-Villemonais2012] that there exists a unique quasi-stationary distribution for one dimensional birth and death processes if and only if holds. This result has been extended in the recent paper [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014] to birth and death processes with catastrophes (among other applications). The specific question of estimates on the speed of convergence to quasi-stationary distributions for one dimensional birth and death processes has been studied in [@diaconis-miclo-09; @chazottes-al-15]. The multi-dimensional situation, which takes into account the existence of several types of individuals in a population, is much less understood, except in the branching case of multi-type Galton-Watson processes (see [@Athreya1972; @penisson-11]) and for specific cooperative models with bounded absorption rate (see [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014]). Another originality of the models studied in the present paper is the fact that the absorption rate is not uniformly bounded. To handle this natural situation, we develop original Lyapunov function arguments that might apply to other situations with unbounded killing rates. For results on the quasi-stationary behaviour of continuous-time and continuous state space models, we refer to [@CCLMMS09; @Littin2012; @ChampagnatVillemonais2015] for the one dimensional case and to [@Pinsky1985; @Gong1988; @Cattiaux2008; @KnoblochPartzsch2010; @DelMoralVillemonais2015; @ChampagnatCoulibalyVillemonais2015] for the multi-dimensional situation. Infinite dimensional models have been studied in [@Collet2011; @ChampagnatVillemonais2014]. Several papers studying the quasi-stationary behaviour of models applied to biology, chemistry, demography and finance are listed in [@Pollett]. We are going to prove under two sets of assumptions. The first one (Section \[sec:one\]) considers stronger intra-specific competition than inter-specific competition (i.e. $c_{ii}(n)$ larger than $c_{ij}(n)$ for large $\|n\|$ and for $i\neq j$). We make no particular assumption on the dimension $r$ of the process and on the birth, death and competition functions. The second one (Section \[sec:two\]) considers a case of equal inter- and intra-specific competition (neutral competition), which leads to specific difficulties that we can solve for dimension $r\leq 3$ in the logistic case. The last section \[sec:ext\] is dedicated to a few extensions of our methods to other models. General birth and death functions with strong intra-specific competition {#sec:one} ======================================================================== The first case we study corresponds to the following assumptions, where $\|n\|$ denotes $n_1+\ldots+n_r$, for all $n=(n_1,\ldots,n_r)$. \[hyp1\] : There exist constants $\bar b$, $\bar d$ and $\underline{c}$ in $(0,\infty)$ and $\beta_1\geq 0,\beta_2\in(-\infty,1)$ with $\beta_1+\gamma\beta_2<\gamma$ such that, for all $n\in\NN^r$ and $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $$0<b_i(n)\leq \bar b\|n\|^{\beta_1},\quad 0\leq d_i(n)\leq\bar d\|n\|^{\beta_1},\quad c_{ii}(n)\geq\underline{c}\|n\|^{-\beta_2}.$$ : For all $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, when $\|n\|\rightarrow+\infty$, $$\label{eq:hyp} c_{ii}(n)\gg\sum_{1\leq j\neq k\leq r} c_{jk}(n)+\frac{1}{\|n\|}\sum_{j=1}^r c_{jj}(n),$$ where the notation $f(n)\gg g(n)$ means that $f(n)/g(n)\rightarrow+\infty$ when $\|n\|\rightarrow+\infty$. The first assumption is standard for population models, typically with $\beta_1=\beta_2=0$. From the biological point of view, the second assumption corresponds to a stronger intra-specific competition than interspecific competition. For example it holds if all the functions $c_{ii}(\cdot)$ for $1\leq i\leq r$ have the same order of magnitude when $\|n\|\rightarrow+\infty$ and all the $c_{ij}(\cdot)$ for $i\neq j$ are asymptotically negligible w.r.t. the $c_{ii}(\cdot)$. The positivity of $b_i(n), c_{ii}(n)$ ensures that the process is irreducible away from $\d$ (in the sense that $\P_n(X_1=m)>0$ for all $n,m\neq\d$). \[thm:one\] Under Assumptions \[hyp1\], there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that holds true. We explain in Section \[sec:ext\] how to generalize this result to cases with killing or with multiple births. \[rem:one\] In fact, Assumption (H2) and the statement about $c_{ii}(n)$ in Assumption (H1) can be replaced by $$\sum_{j=1}^r \frac{n_j}{\|n\|}\mathbbm{1}_{n_j\neq 1}\left(\sum_{k=1}^r c_{jk}(n)n_k\right)^\gamma\geq C_r \sum_{j=1}^r \mathbbm{1}_{n_j=1}\left(\sum_{k=1}^r c_{jk}(n)n_k\right)^\gamma\gg\|n\|^{\beta_1\vee\gamma}$$ when $\|n\|$ large enough, for some (explicit) constant $C_r$ depending only on $r$ and $\gamma$. This allows to cover other biological settings than the strong intra-specific competition. For example, assuming $\beta_1=0$, it is satisfied when, for all $i$, $c_{ij}(n)=n_i^{1+\delta}$ for at least some $j\neq i$ for some $\delta>0$, and $c_{ij}(n)=1$ otherwise. This corresponds to a situation of strong competition exerted on other species by large species (a kind of collective aggressivity against other species). Hybrid situations can also fit this assumption, for example when $r=2$, $c_{12}(n)=n_1^{1+\delta}$, $c_{22}(n)=n_2^{\delta'}$ and $c_{11}(n)=c_{21}(n)=1$ for some $\delta,\delta'>0$. More complex structures of interaction can of course fit our assumptions. This also allows to cover classical biological cases, with comparable inter- and intra-specific competition, for example if $\gamma=1$ and $c_{ij}(n)=c_{ij}$ independent of $n$, provided that the $c_{ii}$ for $1\leq i\leq r$ are not too small compared to the $c_{ij}$, $i\neq j$. This result and the one of Section \[sec:two\] are consequences of the general criterion of [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014 Thm.2.1], which gives a necessary and sufficient condition for for general Markov processes. This condition is given by the two properties (A1) and (A2) below: there exists a probability measure $\nu$ on $\NN^r$ such that - there exist $t_0,c_1>0$ such that for all $x\in\NN^r$, $$\PP_x(X_{t_0}\in\cdot\mid t_0<\tau_\d)\geq c_1\nu(\cdot);$$ - there exists $c_2>0$ such that for all $x\in\NN^r$ and $t\geq 0$, $$\PP_\nu(t<\tau_\d)\geq c_2\PP_x(t<\tau_\d).$$ Hence we only have to prove that Assumptions \[hyp1\] implies (A1) and (A2). Our proof of (A1) is based on Lyapunov functions and makes use of the following general inequality on conditional distributions. \[prop:mu\_t\] Fix $n\in\NN^r$ and let $\mu_t(\cdot)=\PP_n(X_t\in\cdot\mid t<\tau_\d)$. Let $V:\NN^r\rightarrow\RR_+$ such that $LV$ is bounded from above on $\NN^r$. Then, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\label{eq:prop-mu_t} \mu_t(V)-V(n)\leq \int_0^t\Big[\mu_s(LV)-\mu_s(V)\mu_s(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\Big]\,ds,$$ where the value of the integral in the r.h.s. is well-defined in $(-\infty,+\infty]$ since $$\int_0^t\Big[\mu_s(LV)-\mu_s(V)\mu_s(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\Big]_-\,ds<\infty,$$ where $[x]_-=(-x)\vee 0$ is the negative part of $x\in\RR$. Fix $k\in\NN$ and let $\tau_k:=\inf\{t\geq 0:\|X_t\|\geq k\}$. We define $X^k$ as the process $X$ stopped at time $\tau_k$, and denote by $L^k$ its infinitesimal generator, given by $L^k f(n)=Lf(n)\mathbbm{1}_{\|n\|<k}$. Dynkin’s formula then entails $$\EE_n V(X^k_t)=V(n)+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[L^kV(X^k_s)\right]\,ds.$$ Letting $k\rightarrow+\infty$, Fatou’s lemma applied to both sides (mind that $V$ is bounded from below while $LV$ is bounded from above) imply that $$\label{eq:prop1} \EE_n V(X_t)\leq V(n)+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[LV(X_s)\right]\,ds.$$ Similarly, $$\EE_n\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X^k_t)=1+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[L^k\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X^k_s)\right]\,ds.$$ Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem applies to the l.h.s. and the monotone convergence theorem to the r.h.s., which entails $$\EE_n\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_t)=1+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_s)\right]\,ds.$$ Now, fix $T\geq 0$. We have $1\geq \PP_n(t<\tau_\d)\geq \PP_n(T<\tau_\d)>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Note first that, since $LV$ is bounded from above and $V$ is non-negative, implies that $t\mapsto\EE_n[LV(X_t)]\in L^1([0,T])$. In addition, $L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}\leq 0$ and $V\geq 0$, so $-\EE_n(V(X_t))\EE_n(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_t))\geq 0$. Then, either $$\int_0^t\EE_n(V(X_s))\EE_n(-L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_s))\,ds=+\infty,$$ and then is trivial since $\mu_t(f)=\EE_n(f(X_t))/\EE_n(\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_t))\geq\EE_n(f(X_t))$ for all $f\geq 0$, or $$\int_0^t\EE_n(V(X_s))\EE_n(-L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_s))\,ds<+\infty.$$ In this case, since $\mu_t(f)=\EE_n(f(X_t))/\EE_n(\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_t))\leq\EE_n(f(X_t))/\PP_n(T<\tau_\d)$ for all $f\geq 0$, we deduce from the fundamental theorem of calculus that, for all $t\in[0,T]$, $$\int_0^t\Big[\mu_s(LV)-\mu_s(V)\mu_s(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\Big]\,ds=\frac{V(n)+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[LV(X_s)\right]\,ds} {1+\int_0^t\EE_n\left[L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}(X_s)\right]\,ds}-V(n).$$ Inequality then follows from . The proof of (A1) is based on the following bounded Lyapunov function: fix $\varepsilon\in(0,\gamma-\gamma\beta_2)$ and define for all $n\in\NN^r$ $$V_\varepsilon(n)=\sum_{j=1}^{\|n\|}\frac{1}{j^{1+\varepsilon}},$$ and $V_\varepsilon(n)=0$ for all $n\in\d:=\ZZ_+^r\setminus\NN^r$. For all $m, n\in\NN^r$ such that $\|m\|\leq\|n\|$, we have in particular the inequality $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:bound-V} \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{(\|m\|+1)^\varepsilon}-\frac{1}{(\|n\|+1)^\varepsilon}\right)=\int_{\|m\|+1}^{\|n\|+1}\frac{dx}{x^{1+\varepsilon}} \\ \leq V_\varepsilon(n)-V_\varepsilon(m) \leq\int_{\|m\|}^{\|n\|}\frac{dx}{x^{1+\varepsilon}}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{\|m\|^\varepsilon}-\frac{1}{\|n\|^\varepsilon}\right).\end{gathered}$$ Step 1: Lyapunov function for the conditional distributions.\ Fix $n_0\in\NN^r$ and let $\mu_t(\cdot):=\PP_{n_0}(X_t\in\cdot\mid t<\tau_\d)$. It follows from that $$\begin{gathered} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon)=\sum_{n\in\NN^r} \mu_t(n) \sum_{i=1}^r \left\{\mathbbm{1}_{n_i\neq 1} \left(\frac{n_ib_i(n)}{(\|n\|+1)^{1+\varepsilon}}-\frac{n_i\left[d_i(n)+\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\right]}{\|n\|^{1+\varepsilon}}\right) \right. \\ \left.+\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left(\frac{b_i(n)}{(\|n\|+1)^{1+\varepsilon}}-\left[d_i(n)+\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\right]V_\varepsilon(n)\right)\right\} \label{eq:proof-1}\end{gathered}$$ Fix $n\in\NN^r$ and let $i^(n)$ be (one of) the argmax of $i\mapsto n_i$ and let $c^(n):=c_{i^(n)i^(n)}(n)$. Then $n_{i^(n)}\geq \|n\|/r$ and $$n_{i^(n)}\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\geq \frac{c^(n)^\gamma \|n\|^{1+\gamma}}{r^{1+\gamma}}, %\geq\frac{\underline{c}^\gamma}{r^{1+\gamma}}\|n\|^{1+\gamma-\gamma\beta_2}.$$ Using Assumption (H1) and since $d_i(n)\geq 0$, $$\begin{gathered} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon)\leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left\{\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}-\mathbbm{1}_{n\neq(1,\ldots,1)} \frac{c^(n)^\gamma \|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}}{r^{1+\gamma}} \right. \\ \left.-\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\right] V_\varepsilon(n)\right\}. \label{eq:proof-1-bis}\end{gathered}$$ In addition, $$-\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\leq\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n) \sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\right].$$ Denoting $a:=\frac{c^(1,\ldots,1)^\gamma}{r^{1+\varepsilon}} $, the last two equations imply $$\mu_t(LV_\varepsilon) -\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\leq \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left[\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}+a-\frac{c^(n)^\gamma \|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}}{r^{1+\gamma}}\right]+A,$$ where, by , $$\begin{aligned} A & :=\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+\left(\sum_{j=1}^r c_{ij}(n) n_j\right)^\gamma\right]\left(\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty-V_\varepsilon(n)\right) \\ & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\frac{\bar d \|n\|^{\beta_1}+\left(\sum_{j\neq i}c_{ij}(n)\|n\|+c_{ii}(n)\right)^\gamma}{\varepsilon\|n\|^\varepsilon} \\ & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left\{\frac{r\bar d \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}}{\varepsilon}+ \frac{C_{\gamma,r}\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}}{\varepsilon}\left(\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq r} c_{ij}(n)+\frac{1}{\|n\|}\sum_{i=1}^r c_{ii}(n)\right)^\gamma\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{\gamma,r}$ is a positive constant such that $x_1^\gamma+\ldots+x^\gamma_r\leq C_{\gamma,r}(x_1+\ldots+x_r)^\gamma$ for all $x_1,\ldots,x_r\geq 0$. Using Assumption (H2), we see that there exist constants $B>0$ and $C>1$ independent of $n$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon) -\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}) & \leq \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n) \left\{B(1+\|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon})-\frac{c^(n)^\gamma\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}}{2 r^{1+\gamma}}\right\} \\ & \leq \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n) \left\{B(1+\|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon})-\frac{\underline{c}^\gamma}{2 r^{1+\gamma}}\|n\|^{\gamma-\gamma\beta_2-\varepsilon}\right\} \\ & \leq \left(C-\frac{1}{C}\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\|n\|^{\gamma-\gamma\beta_2-\varepsilon}\mu_t(n)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\beta_1<\gamma-\gamma\beta_2$ and $\varepsilon<\gamma-\gamma\beta_2$. Step 2: Proof of (A1).\ Step 1 and Prop. \[prop:mu\_t\] imply that $$\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\int_0^t \left(C-\frac{1}{C}\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\|n\|^{\gamma-\gamma\beta_2-\varepsilon}\mu_s(n)\right)\,ds.$$ This implies that, for any initial condition $n_0$, there exists $s\leq 1/(\varepsilon C)$ such that $$\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\|n\|^{\gamma-\gamma\beta_2-\varepsilon}\mu_s(n)\leq 2C^2.$$ Let us define the set $K= \{n\in\NN^r,\ \|n\|^{\gamma-\gamma\beta_2-\varepsilon}< 4C^2\}$, which is finite since $\varepsilon\in(0,\gamma-\gamma\beta_2)$. Using the previous inequality and Markov’s inequality, we obtain that $ \mu_s(K)\geq 1/2. % ,\quad\forall n_0\in\NN^r. $ The minimum $p=\min_{x\in K} \P_x(X_u=(1,\ldots,1),\ \forall u\in[1/\varepsilon C,2/\varepsilon C))$ is positive because $K$ is finite, $X$ is irreducible away from $\d$ and the jumping rate from $(1,\ldots,1)$ is finite. Hence $$\begin{aligned} \mu_s\Big(\P_\cdot(X_u=(1,\ldots,1),\ \forall u\in[1/\varepsilon C,2/\varepsilon C))\Big)\geq \frac{p}{2} >0,\end{aligned}$$ Using the Markov property, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \mu_{2/(\varepsilon C)}\{(1,\ldots,1)\}&\geq \mu_s(\P_\cdot(X_{2/(\varepsilon C)-s}=(1,\ldots,1))\\ &\geq \mu_s(\P_\cdot(X_u=(1,\ldots,1),\ \forall u\in[1/(\varepsilon C),2/\varepsilon C))\\ &\geq \frac{p}{2}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $p$ does not depend on the initial distribution of the process, we deduce that (A1) is satisfied with $\nu=\delta_{(1,\ldots,1)}$, $t_0=2/(\varepsilon C)$ and $c_1=p/2$. Step 3: Proof of (A2).\ The same calculation as in shows that, for all $n\in \NN^r$, $$\begin{aligned} LV_{\varepsilon}(n)\leq \bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}-\mathbbm{1}_{n\neq(1,\ldots,1)} \frac{c^(n)^\gamma \|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}}{r^{1+\gamma}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, using Assumption (H1), we have $c^(n)^\gamma \|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\geq \underline{c} \|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon-\gamma\beta_2}$, with $\gamma-\varepsilon-\gamma\beta_2>(\beta_1-\varepsilon)\vee 0$. Hence, there exist two positive constants $C_1,C_2>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} LV_{\varepsilon}(n)\leq C_1-C_2\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon-\gamma\beta_2},\ \forall n\in\N^r.\end{aligned}$$ Since $V_\varepsilon$ is bounded and $LV_\varepsilon$ is bounded from above, we deduce from Dynkin’s formula as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:mu\_t\] that, for all $k\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \E_n\left(V_\varepsilon(X_{\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d})\right)&\leq V_\varepsilon(n)+\E\left(\int_0^{\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d}LV_{\varepsilon}(X_t)\,dt\right)\\ &\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\left(C_1-C_2\|k\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon-\gamma\beta_2}\right)\E_n\left(\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}$ is the first hitting time by $X_t$ of the set $\{m\in\NN^r:\|m\|\leq k\}$ Since $V_\varepsilon(X_{\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d})$ is almost surely non-negative, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{n\in\NN^r}\E_n\left(\tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d\right)\xrightarrow[k\rightarrow\infty]{} 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the same argument as in [@ChampagnatVillemonais2014 Eq. (4.6)], we deduce that, for all $\lambda>0$, there exists $k\geq 1$ such that $$\label{eq:moment-expo} \sup_{n\in\N^r}\E_n(e^{\lambda \tau_{\{\|m\|\leq k\}}\wedge\tau_\d})<+\infty.$$ Let us now denote by $\lambda$ the total jumping rate from $(1,\ldots,1)$. We choose $k$ such that holds for this constant $\lambda$. Defining the finite set $G=\{m\in\N^r \mid \|m\|\leq k\}$, we thus have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:expo-moment} A:=\sup_{n\in\N^r}\E_n(e^{\lambda \tau_G\wedge \tau_\d})<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ The irreducibility of $X$ and the finiteness of $G$ entail the existence of a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{eq:ineq-PB-catastrophe} \sup_{n\in G}\P_n(t<\tau_\d)\leq C\inf_{n\in G}\P_n(t<\tau_\d),\quad\forall t\geq 0.$$ For all $n\in \N^r$, we deduce from Chebyshev’s inequality and that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:domination} \P_n(t<\tau_G\wedge \tau_\d)\leq Ae^{-\lambda t}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the last two inequalities and the strong Markov property, we have $$\begin{aligned} \P_n(t<\tau_\d) & =\P_n(t<\tau_G\wedge\tau_\d)+\P_n(\tau_G\wedge\tau_\d\leq t<\tau_\d)\\ &\leq Ae^{-\lambda t}+\int_0^t \sup_{m\in G\cup\{\d\}}\P_m(t-s<\tau_\d)\P_n(\tau_G\wedge\tau_\d\in ds)\\ &\leq Ae^{-\lambda t}+ C\int_0^t \P_{x_0}(t-s<\tau_\d)\P_n(\tau_G\wedge\tau_\d\in ds),\end{aligned}$$ where $x_0:=(1,\ldots,1)$. Now, by definition of $\lambda$ and by the Markov property, $$\begin{aligned} \P_{x_0}(t-s<\tau_\d)e^{-\lambda s}& =\P_{x_0}(t-s<\tau_\d)\P_{x_0}(X_u=x_0,\forall u\in [0,s])\\ &\leq \P_{x_0}(t<\tau_\d). \end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned} \P_n(t<\tau_\d) &\leq Ae^{-\lambda t}+ C\P_{x_0}(t<\tau_\d)\int_0^t e^{\lambda s}\P_n(\tau_G\wedge\tau_\d\in ds).\end{aligned}$$ We finally deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \P_n(t<\tau_\d) &\leq A \,\P_{x_0}(t<\tau_\d)+CA\,\P_{x_0}(t<\tau_\d).\end{aligned}$$ This entails (A2) for $\nu=\delta_{x_0}=\delta_{(1,\ldots,1)}$. Birth and death processes with neutral competition in not too large dimension {#sec:two} ============================================================================= The second case we study corresponds to the following assumptions. \[hyp2\] : There exist constants $\bar b$, $\bar d$ in $(0,\infty)$ and $\beta_1\in[0,\gamma)$ such that, for all $n\in\NN^r$ and $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $$0<b_i(n)\leq \bar b\|n\|^{\beta_1},\quad 0\leq d_i(n)\leq\bar d\|n\|^{\beta_1}.$$ : There exists a constant $c>0$ such that, for all $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $c_{ij}(n)=c$ (neutral competition). \[thm:two\] Under Assumptions \[hyp2\] and if $r< 1+e\gamma$, there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that holds true. In the classical logistic case $\gamma=1$, this gives the existence and exponential convergence in total variation to the quasi-stationary distribution up to dimension 3. The larger $\gamma$ is, the larger the dimension $r$ can be taken. We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:one\]. Fix $\varepsilon\in(0,\gamma)$. First, we deduce from and from the fact that $n_i\mathbbm{1}_{n_i\neq 1}\geq n_i-1$ that $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon) & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left\{\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}-c^\gamma\sum_{i=1}^r(n_i-1)\|n\|^{\gamma-1-\varepsilon}\right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left. -\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+c^\gamma\|n\|^\gamma\right] V_\varepsilon(n)\right\} \\ & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left\{\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}+\frac{rc^\gamma}{\|n\|^{1+\varepsilon-\gamma}}-c^\gamma\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon} \right. \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad \left. -\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+c^\gamma\|n\|^\gamma\right] V_\varepsilon(n)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, $$-\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})=\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n) \sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+c^\gamma\|n\|^\gamma\right].$$ Hence, $$\label{eq:proof-v2} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon) -\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r})\leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left[\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}+\frac{r c^\gamma}{\|n\|^{1+\varepsilon-\gamma}}-c^\gamma\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\right]+A,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} A & := \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\sum_{i=1}^r\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\left[d_i(n)+c^\gamma\|n\|^\gamma\right] \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right) \notag \\ & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\biggl[\bar d r\|n\|^{\beta_1}(\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty-V_\varepsilon(n)) +c^\gamma r^{1+\gamma}\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty \notag \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.+c^\gamma\|n\|^\gamma(r-1) \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)_+\right], \label{eq:proof-v2-2}\end{aligned}$$ where the last two terms are obtained by distinguishing between the cases where $n=(1,\ldots,1)$ (and hence $\|n\|=r$) and $n\neq(1,\ldots,1)$ (and hence $\sum\mathbbm{1}_{n_i=1}\leq r-1$). Now, defining $W_\varepsilon(n):=\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty-V_\varepsilon(n)$, it follows from that $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\|n\|^\gamma \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)_+ \\ % =\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\|n\|^\gamma W_\varepsilon(n)\left(1-\frac{\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)}{W_\varepsilon(n)}\right)_+ \\ \leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\gamma/\varepsilon}}\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)W_\varepsilon(n)^{-\gamma/\varepsilon} \left(W_\varepsilon(n)-\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)\right)_+\\ \leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\gamma/\varepsilon}}\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)W_\varepsilon(n)^{1-\gamma/\varepsilon} \left(1-\frac{\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)}{W_\varepsilon(n)}\right)_+.\end{gathered}$$ Defining $$w_\varepsilon(n):=\frac{\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)}{W_\varepsilon(n)},\quad\forall n\in\NN^r,$$ we obtain $$\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\|n\|^\gamma \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)_+\leq \frac{\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n) w_\varepsilon(n)^{\gamma/\varepsilon-1}(1-w_\varepsilon(n))_+}{\varepsilon^{\gamma/\varepsilon}\,\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)^{\gamma/\varepsilon-1}}.$$ Now, it is elementary to check that $$x^{\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}(1-x)\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{\gamma}\left(\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\gamma}\right)^{\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}},\quad \forall x\geq 0$$ and Hölder’s inequality implies that $$1\leq\mu_t(W_\varepsilon)^{1-\varepsilon/\gamma}\mu_t\left(W_\varepsilon^{-\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\varepsilon/\gamma}.$$ Hence, it follows from that $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\|n\|^\gamma \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)_+ & \leq \frac{\mu_t\left(W_\varepsilon^{-\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}\right)}{\gamma\varepsilon^{\gamma/\varepsilon-1}} \left(\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\gamma}\right)^{\frac{\gamma-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}} \\ & \leq\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{\gamma}\right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\varepsilon}-1} \sum_{n\in\NN^r}(\|n\|+1)^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\mu_t(n).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\left(1-x\right)^{\frac{1}{x}-1}=\frac{1}{e},$$ under the assumption that $r<1+e\gamma$, we can find $\varepsilon>0$ small enough such that, for some $\delta>0$, $$(r-1)\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\|n\|^\gamma \left(\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)_+ \leq (1-\delta) \sum_{n\in\NN^r}(\|n\|+1)^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\mu_t(n).$$ Combining this with and , since $\beta_1-\varepsilon<\gamma-\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon<\gamma$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon) -\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_{\NN^r}) & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\left[\left(\bar b+\frac{\bar d r}{\varepsilon}\right)\|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}+c^\gamma\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon-1}\right. \\ & \left.+\frac{c^\gamma r^{1+\gamma}}{\varepsilon} -c^\gamma\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}+c^\gamma(1-\delta)(\|n\|+1)^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\right] \\ & \leq C-\frac{c^\gamma\delta}{2}\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\|n\|^{\gamma-\varepsilon}\,\mu_t(n).\end{aligned}$$ The rest of the proof is the same as for Thm. \[thm:one\]. A few extensions to other models {#sec:ext} ================================ The method that we used is based on a Lyapunov type argument to prove conditions (A1) and (A2). This method is general enough to apply to a wide range of other models. We give here a few simple examples for which the exponential convergence of conditional distributions can be proved following the same arguments. One dimensional birth and death processes with catastrophes.* We consider a standard birth an death process on $\Z_+$ with birth (resp. death) rate $b_n$ (resp. $d_n$) from state $n\in\Z_+$, with $d_0=b_0=0$ and $b_n,d_n>0$ for all $n\in\N$. This process is absorbed at $\d =0$. Moreover, we add a catastrophe rate $a_n\geq 0$ of jump from any state $n\in\N$ to the absorption point $\d$. Such models have been studied in [@vanDoorn2012; @ChampagnatVillemonais2014] with an assumption of uniformly bounded catastrophe rate, which we relax here. In this example, we restrict for simplicity to the logistic cases, where there exist constants $\bar{b}>0$, $\underline{c}>0 $ and $\delta\in(0,1)$ such that, for $n$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cata} b_n\leq n\bar{b},\quad d_n\geq n^2\underline{c}\quad\text{and}\quad a_n \leq \delta \underline{c}n.\end{aligned}$$ This simple situation allows a similar computation as in Section \[sec:one\] (with $\gamma=1$ and $\beta_1=\beta_2=0$). Of course, the arguments can be easily adapted to any other cases where explicit Lyapunov functions are known. \[prop:ex1\] Assume that holds for $n$ sufficiently large, then there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that holds true. We use the same Lyapunov function $V_\varepsilon$ as in Section \[sec:one\] and we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon)&=\sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n)\left(\frac{b_n}{(n+1)^{1+\varepsilon}}-\frac{c_n}{n^{1+\varepsilon}}-a_n V_\varepsilon(n)\right)\\ &\leq \sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n)\left(\bar{b}n^{-\varepsilon}-\underline{c}n^{1-\varepsilon}-a_n V_\varepsilon(n)\right).\end{aligned}$$ In addition $$\begin{aligned} -\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_\N)\leq \\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty \sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n)\left(\mathbbm{1}_{n=1} c_1+a_n\right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \mu_t(LV_\varepsilon)-\mu_t(V_\varepsilon)\mu_t(L\mathbbm{1}_\N)&\leq C-\underline{c}\sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n) n^{1-\varepsilon}+\sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n) a_n \left(\\|V_\varepsilon\\|_\infty-V_\varepsilon(n)\right)\\ &\leq C-\underline{c}\sum_{n\in\N} \mu_t(n) n^{1-\varepsilon}\left(1-\frac{\delta}{\varepsilon}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\varepsilon\in(\delta,1)$, we can conclude as in Section \[sec:one\]. Multi-dimensional birth and death processes with catastrophes. We now study the multi-dimensional case with catastrophes, for which, as far as we know, no result on quasi-stationary distributions is known. We consider the same model as in Section \[sec:one\] with an additional jump rate $a(n)\geq 0$ from any state $n\in\N^r$ to $\d$. The next result can be proved by an easy combination of the arguments of the proofs of Theorem \[thm:one\] and Proposition \[prop:ex1\]. Under Assumption \[hyp1\] and the assumption $$\begin{aligned} a(n)\ll c_{ii}(n) \|n\|^\gamma,\end{aligned}$$ there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that holds true. Multi-dimensional birth and death processes with multiple births. We consider the same model as in Section \[sec:one\] with an additional feature: we allow multiple progeny at each birth time. To do so we consider, for all $n\in\N^r$, a probability measure $$\begin{aligned} p_n:=\sum_{k\in\Z_+^r} p_{n,k}\delta_k.\end{aligned}$$ Then, when a birth occurs (at rate $b(n)$) in a population $n$, the new state of the population is $n+k$ with probability $p_{n,k}$. A one-dimensional case has already been studied in [@champagnat-claisse-15]. Under Assumption \[hyp1\] and the assumption $$\begin{aligned} M:=\sup_{n\in\N^r} \sum_{k\in\Z_+^r} \|k\|\,p_{n,k}\ <\ \infty,\end{aligned}$$ there exist constants $C,\lambda>0$ such that holds true. The only term which differs from the proof of Theorem \[thm:one\] is the birth term in $\mu_t(LV_\varepsilon)$, given by $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\sum_{i=1}^rn_ib_i(n)\sum_{k\in\ZZ_+^r}p_{n,k}\sum_{j=\|n\|+1}^{\|n\|+\|k\|}\frac{1}{j^{1+\varepsilon}} \\ \begin{aligned} & \leq\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\sum_{i=1}^rn_ib_i(n)\sum_{k\in\ZZ_+^r}\frac{\|k\|}{\|n\|^{1+\varepsilon}}p_{n,k} \\ & \leq M\sum_{n\in\NN^r}\mu_t(n)\bar b \|n\|^{\beta_1-\varepsilon}. \end{aligned} \end{gathered}$$ Thus, we obtain a similar bound as in Section \[sec:one\] for this term, and the proof can be completed as there.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'C. Circosta[^1]' - 'V. Mainieri' - 'P. Padovani' - 'G. Lanzuisi' - 'M. Salvato' - 'C. M. Harrison' - 'D. Kakkad' - 'A. Puglisi' - 'G. Vietri' - 'G. Zamorani' - 'C. Cicone' - 'B. Husemann' - 'C. Vignali' - 'B. Balmaverde' - 'M. Bischetti' - 'M. Brusa' - 'A. Bongiorno' - 'S. Carniani' - 'F. Civano' - 'A. Comastri' - 'G. Cresci' - 'C. Feruglio' - 'F. Fiore' - 'S. Fotopoulou' - 'A. Karim' - 'A. Lamastra' - 'B. Magnelli' - 'F. Mannucci' - 'A. Marconi' - 'A. Merloni' - 'H. Netzer' - 'M. Perna' - 'E. Piconcelli' - 'G. Rodighiero' - 'E. Schinnerer' - 'M. Schramm' - 'A. Schulze' - 'J. Silverman' - 'L. Zappacosta' bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' title: \| SUPER I. Toward an unbiased study of ionized outflows\ in $z \sim 2$ active galactic nuclei:\ survey overview and sample characterization[^2] --- Introduction ============ Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the center of galaxies undergo periods of gas accretion becoming visible as active galactic nuclei (AGN). The enormous amount of energy released during these growth episodes is thought to shape the evolutionary path of AGN host galaxies. It may play a significant role in regulating and even quenching star formation in the galaxy by expelling gas out of the galaxy itself or preventing gas cooling. The process by which the energy is injected by the AGN and coupled to the surrounding medium is the so-called AGN feedback [@fabian12; @king15; @harrison17]. It can be particularly crucial at $z \sim 2$, since this redshift corresponds to the peak of star formation and SMBH accretion in the Universe [e.g., @madau14] and therefore the energy injected by the central engine into the host galaxy may be maximized. However, the full details of the specific effects this may have on the host galaxy’s life are still not clear. Feedback of AGN is invoked from a theoretical perspective [e.g., @ciotti97; @silk98; @dimatteo05; @king05; @somerville08] to explain key observations of the galaxy population, such as the tight correlation between black hole masses and bulge masses as well as velocity dispersions of the host galaxies [@kormendy13], the bimodal color distribution of galaxies [@strateva01], and the lack of very massive galaxies in the most massive galaxy haloes [@somerville08; @behroozi13]. According to some models [e.g., @king05; @springel05; @debuhr12; @costa14], fast winds are launched by the accretion disk surrounding the SMBH and driven by radiative and mechanical energy during its active and bright phase. These winds propagate into the host galaxy coupling to the interstellar medium (ISM) and drive fast outflows out to large scales (up to $\sim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$ on kpc scales), potentially removing the gas which fuels star formation. It is important to test the models with observations by measuring key outflow properties such as kinetic energy and momentum injection rates [@fiore17; @harrison18]. AGN-driven outflows can therefore be a manifestation of AGN feedback. The presence of outflows in AGN host galaxies is now quite well established: they have been detected at different physical scales [e.g., @feruglio10; @tombesi15; @veilleux17] and in different gas phases [e.g., @cano_diaz12; @cicone14; @rupke17], both in the nearby [e.g., @rupke13; @perna17] and distant Universe [e.g., @nesvadba11; @carniani15; @cicone15]. An important property shown by outflows is their multi-phase nature so to fully characterize them we need to trace all the gas phases, neutral and ionized, atomic and molecular [@cicone18]. The ionized phase has been studied through absorption and emission lines in rest-frame optical [e.g., @bae17; @concas17; @perna17], ultraviolet (UV) [e.g., @liu15] and X-ray [e.g., @tombesi10]. When the velocity shift of these lines with respect to the rest-frame velocity is not representative of ordered motion in the galaxy as traced by stellar kinematics, it can be considered as evidence for the presence of non-gravitational kinematic components, such as outflowing gas [@karouzos16; @woo16]. To understand the impact of AGN outflows on the gas and star formation in the host galaxy, it is necessary to explore large galactic scales ($\approx 1-10$ kpc). A commonly used diagnostic for this kind of studies is the forbidden emission line doublet \[\]$\lambda$5007,4959 Å. It traces the kinematics of ionized gas on galaxy-wide scales, in the narrow line region (NLR), since being a forbidden line it cannot be produced in the high-density environment of the broad line region (BLR) on sub-parsec scales. Therefore asymmetric \[\]$\lambda$5007 profiles, showing a broad and blue-shifted wing, are used to trace outflowing kinematic components. Long-slit optical and near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a useful technique to reveal outflow signatures [e.g., @das05; @crenshaw07; @brusa15]. However, it is able to provide spatial information along one direction, therefore lacking a detailed mapping of the outflow distribution in the host galaxy together with its velocity. In recent years, integral-field spectroscopy (IFS) studies have offered a more direct way to identify and interpret outflows, allowing astronomers to spatially resolve the kinematics of ionized gas [e.g., @cresci09; @alexander10; @gnerucci11; @foerster_schreiber14; @harrison14]. Nevertheless, the observational evidence available so far at $z>1$, the crucial cosmic epoch to study AGN-driven outflows and on which this paper will be focused, is sparse, mainly limited to bright objects or observations performed in seeing limited conditions and therefore not able to resolve scales below $3-4$ kpc, which limits how well the observations can constrain model predictions [@harrison18]. In Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\] we collect IFS results from the literature tracing ionized outflows in AGN host galaxies through the \[\] emission line. The left panel compares AGN bolometric luminosities and redshift for each target, in order to summarize the state-of-the-art of ionized AGN outflow IFS studies. Contrary to the uniform coverage of the parameter space at $z<1$ (gray crosses in Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], left panel), at $z>1$ it is limited to a small number of objects, mainly at high luminosity ($L_{\textnormal{bol}} > 10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$, see points in Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], left panel). The targets of previous studies are mostly selected to increase the chances to detect an outflow, meaning because they are powerful AGN (e.g., in the IR or radio regime), they have already known outflows or characteristics suitable for being in an outflowing phase [e.g., high mass accretion rate of the SMBH and high column density; @brusa15; @kakkad16]. Because of this observational bias, it is still controversial how common these outflows are especially in sources with low AGN bolometric luminosity. Nevertheless, detailed single object studies have provided evidence that powerful outflows may suppress star formation in the regions where they are detected [e.g., @cano_diaz12; @cresci15; @carniani16], although it is still not clear the impact that such outflows may have on the global star-forming activity occurring in the host galaxy (i.e., including regions of the galaxies not affected by the outflow). In addition to negative feedback mechanisms, outflows have been proved to be responsible for positive feedback mechanisms in a few cases by triggering star formation [e.g., @cresci15; @molnar17; @cresci18]. In order to draw a coherent picture and definitively address the impact of such outflows on the galaxy population evolution it is necessary to conduct systematic and unbiased searches for outflows in large samples of objects. The KMOS AGN Survey at High redshift [KASHz; @harrison16 Harrison et al., in prep.; blue rectangle in Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], left panel] has first started to provide spatially-resolved information for hundreds of X-ray selected AGN. These observations are seeing limited, which sets a limit on the spatial scales that can be resolved at $z>1$. The range of spatial scales resolved in current observations is shown in the right panel of Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], plotted as a function of redshift for the same collection of data as in the left panel. At $z>1$, the spatial resolution is mainly in the range $3-10$ kpc (i.e. $> 0.5''$). To provide higher spatial resolutions (down to $\sim 2$ kpc at $z\sim2$), one needs to exploit the possibilities offered by adaptive optics (AO), which corrects for the distortion caused by the turbulence of the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been done by, e.g., @perna15, @brusa16, @vayner17 and [@vietri18]. Such observations require a larger amount of observing time, therefore it is necessary to focus on smaller but still representative samples. Our on-going ESO Large Programme called SUPER (the SINFONI Survey for Unveiling the Physics and Effect of Radiative feedback), represented by the red rectangle in Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], is taking advantage of the AO corrections by reaching angular resolutions of $0.2''$. It combines spatially-resolved AO-assisted IFS observations for a fairly representative sample of sources selected in an unbiased way with respect to the chance of detecting outflows, aiming at investigating the physical properties of AGN outflows and their impact on the star formation activity in the host galaxies as well as connecting the physical properties of AGN and host galaxies to those of ionized outflows. As shown in Figure \[fig:summary\_IFS\], SUPER probes a wide range of AGN bolometric luminosities, up to four orders of magnitude, with spatial resolutions between $\sim 1.7$ and 4 kpc (i.e. $0.2''-0.5''$). This paper is the first of a series of publications dedicated to the survey. It focuses on providing an overview of the survey (i.e., characteristics, goals and sample selection criteria), as well as describing the physical properties of the target sample and the way they have been measured through a uniform multi-wavelength analysis from the X-ray to the radio regime. We derive stellar masses, star formation rates (SFRs) and AGN bolometric luminosities from the multi-wavelength spectral energy distributions (SEDs), X-ray luminosities and column densities from the X-ray spectra and BH masses and Eddington ratios from the optical spectra. The paper is organized as follows: in Sec. \[s:survey\] we present the properties and the main goals of the survey as well as the sample selection criteria and its X-ray properties. In Sec. \[s:Characterization\] we describe the multi-wavelength dataset and the SED-fitting code used to derive host galaxy and AGN properties of the targets. These properties are then discussed in Sec. \[s:overall\_results\], with particular emphasis on stellar masses, SFRs and AGN bolometric luminosities as well as the target properties in the radio regime. We finally summarize our results and discuss future follow-up work in Sec. \[s:Conclusions\]. In this paper we adopt a WMAP9 cosmology [@hinshaw13], $H_{0} = 69.3$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\textnormal{M}} = 0.287$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.713$. ![image](Lbol_z_updateGold){width="9cm"} ![image](res_z_plot_spatial_log){width="8.75cm"} The survey {#s:survey} ========== SUPER[^3] (PI: Mainieri - 196.A-0377) is a Large Programme at the ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT). The survey has been allocated 280 hours of observing time in AO-assisted mode with the aim of providing high-resolution, spatially-resolved IFS observations of multiple emission lines for a carefully-selected sample of 39 X-ray AGN at $z \sim 2$. The AO correction is performed in Laser Guide Star-Seeing Enhancer (LGS-SE) mode, which has demonstrated the capability to achieve a point spread function (PSF) full width at half maximum (FWHM) of $\sim 0.3''$ under typical weather conditions in Paranal [@nfs18], i.e., average seeing of $\sim 0.55''$ in K band [@sarazin08]. We have selected for all our targets the 50 mas/pixel scale of SINFONI which corresponds to a total field of view FOV$=3.2''\times3.2''$. The selected plate scale corresponds to a spectral resolution of about R$\approx 2730$ in H band and R$\approx 5090$ in K band. The redshift range covered by SUPER is crucial to investigate AGN feedback, being at the peak epoch of AGN and galaxy assembly. Key emission lines, such as \[\], H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$, are covered with H- and K-band observations in this redshift range. We will use asymmetric and spatially-extended \[\] line emission, traced by H-band observations, to identify outflowing ionized gas as extensively done in the literature [e.g., @alexander10; @cresci15; @harrison16]. The K-band observations will provide the possibility to map the H$\alpha$ emission, with the aim to construct spatially-resolved maps of the on-going star formation in the host from the narrow component of the line, which could be less affected by AGN emission, and compare it with the outflow geometry derived from the \[\] line profile [see, e.g., @cano_diaz12; @cresci15; @carniani16]. The comparison between these two tracers will give us the opportunity to constrain systematically the role of AGN outflows in regulating star formation. Thanks to the extensive set of AGN and host galaxy physical properties (AGN bolometric luminosity, BH mass, Eddington ratio, obscuring column density, radio emission, stellar mass and SFR), derived in a uniform way for each target as explained in the present paper, and outflow parameters which will be extracted from the H-band observations (such as mass outflow rate, kinetic power, momentum rate, size), SUPER will explore the potential relations among these quantities [@fiore17]. The science goals of our survey are: - Systematic study of the occurrence of outflows in AGN host galaxies and investigation of any possible link between the physical properties of both SMBHs and their hosts, and the outflow properties. - Mapping AGN ionized outflow morphology on kpc scale using \[\] and constraining their impact on the on-going star formation in the host galaxies using the narrow component of H$\alpha$. If the signal-to-noise of the latter is not good enough to produce spatially-resolved maps of star formation, we should still be able to compare the outflow properties with the integrated SFR (as derived by SED fitting). - Investigating the variation of outflow properties as a function of the host galaxy location with respect to the main sequence of star-forming galaxies [MS, e.g., @noeske07], in order to investigate empirically the relation between galaxy and AGN. An important further goal of this survey will be the comparison of our results to a mass-matched control sample of normal star-forming galaxies at the same redshift and with similar AO-assisted observations [e.g., the SINS/zC-SINF survey, @nfs18 see Sec. \[s:MS\_comp\]], to investigate the differences between galaxies hosting active and inactive SMBHs. In the following we describe the criteria adopted to select our sample. \[s:selection\]Sample selection ------------------------------- Our Large Programme is designed to conduct a blind search for AGN-driven outflows on a representative sample of AGN. Therefore, we do not preselect AGN with already known outflows or with characteristics suitable for being in an outflowing phase [@brusa15; @kakkad16]. Instead, aiming at performing a statistical investigation of this phenomenon, the first goal is to cover the widest possible range in AGN properties. One of the most efficient tracers of AGN activity is offered by their X-ray emission, since it probes directly the active nucleus with a negligible contamination from the host galaxy, providing the largest AGN surface density [e.g., @padovani17]. We identified our targets by combining X-ray catalogs from several surveys characterized by different depths and areas. While shallow and wide-field surveys provide a better census of the rare high-luminosity AGN, deep and small-area surveys, limited to a few deg$^{2}$, are able to reveal fainter sources [see Fig. 3 in @brandt15]. By adopting this “wedding cake” approach we are able to cover a wide range in AGN bolometric luminosity, $10^{44} < L_{\textnormal{bol}} < 10^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (see Fig. \[fig:summary\_IFS\]), spanning both faint and bright AGN. The selection was performed by adopting as a threshold an absorption-corrected X-ray luminosity $L_{X} \geq 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ from the following surveys: - The Chandra Deep Field-South [CDF-S; @luo17], the deepest X-ray survey to date which covers a global area of 484.2 arcmin$^{2}$ observed for a total Chandra exposure time of $\sim 7$ Ms, reaching a sensitivity of $\sim 1.9 \times 10^{-17}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the full $0.5-7.0$ keV band. - The COSMOS-Legacy survey [@civano16; @marchesi16], a 4.6 Ms Chandra observation of the COSMOS field, which offers a unique combination of deep exposure over an area of about 2.2 deg$^{2}$ at a limiting depth of $8.9 \times 10^{-16}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the $0.5-10$ keV band. - The wide-area XMM-Newton XXL survey [@pierre16], where we focus in particular on the equatorial sub-region of the XMM-XXL North, a $\sim$25 deg$^{2}$ field surveyed for about 3 Ms by XMM-Newton with a sensitivity in the full $0.5-10$ keV band of $2 \times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. - The Stripe 82 X-ray survey [Stripe82X; @lamassa16; @ananna17], $\sim$980 ks of observing time with XMM-Newton covering 31.3 deg$^{2}$ of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Stripe 82 Legacy Field and a flux limit of $2.1 \times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the full $0.5-10$ keV band. - The WISE/SDSS selected Hyper-luminous quasars sample [WISSH; @bischetti17; @duras17; @martocchia17; @vietri18], with both proprietary and archival Chandra and XMM-Newton observations available, described in @martocchia17. The choice of the fields was driven by their visibility from Paranal and the rich multi-wavelength photometric coverage from the UV to the far-infrared (FIR), needed to obtain robust measurements of the target properties by using an SED-fitting technique. Our targets are then selected to meet the following criteria: 1. Spectroscopic redshift in the range $z = 2.0-2.5$, whose quality was flagged as “Secure” in the respective catalogs. This redshift range was chosen in order to have H$\beta$ and \[\] included in H-band and H$\alpha$ in K-band together with their potential broad line components, by allowing a margin of 10000 km s$^{-1}$ between the peak of the lines and the edges of the filter bands. 2. Observed wavelengths for \[\] and H$\alpha$ characterized by a low contamination from the strong telluric OH lines, which affect NIR observations. The resulting sample consists of 39 AGN (namely 6 from CDF-S, 16 from COSMOS, 10 from XMM-XXL, 4 from Stripe82X and 3 from the WISSH sample), whose IDs, coordinates, redshifts as well as $H-$ and $K-$band magnitudes (AB) are reported in Table\[tab:sample\]. This sample results from an optimization between size, the amount of observing time required to carry out the observations, and a wide and uniform coverage in AGN bolometric luminosities, Eddington ratios, and column densities. All our targets have spectroscopic redshifts based on optical spectroscopic campaigns: for example VLT/VIMOS and FORS2 surveys for the CDF-S [@balestra10; @kurk13]; for the COSMOS field, a master spectroscopic catalog is available within the COSMOS collaboration (Salvato et al., in prep.) and includes results from several spectroscopic surveys of this field [see @marchesi16]; SDSS-BOSS spectra for the XMM-XXL field [@menzel16]; SDSS-DR12 for Stripe82X [@lamassa16]; SDSS-DR10 and LBT/LUCI1 redshifts for the WISSH subsample [@bischetti17]. Thanks to the parameter space covered by the survey (Fig. \[fig:summary\_IFS\], left panel), we will be able to probe AGN bolometric luminosities in the range $44 \lesssim \log(L_{\textnormal{bol}}/\textnormal{erg}\,\textnormal{s}^{-1}) \lesssim 48$, not covered so far by a coherent high spatial resolution observing program at this redshift. ----------- --------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------------- -------------- -------------- Field ID RA\[J2000\] DEC\[J2000\] $z_{\textnormal{spec}}$ H-band mag K-band mag $(1)$ $(2)$ $(3)$ $(4)$ $(5)$ $(6)$ $(7)$ XMM-XXL X\_N\_160\_22 02:04:53.81 $-$06:04:07.82 2.445 19.22 18.79 X\_N\_81\_44 02:17:30.95 $-$04:18:23.66 2.311 18.78 18.43 X\_N\_53\_3 02:20:29.84 $-$02:56:23.41 2.434 20.60 - X\_N\_66\_23 02:22:33.64 $-$05:49:02.73 2.386 20.56 20.33 X\_N\_35\_20 02:24:02.71 $-$05:11:30.82 2.261 22.07 21.70 X\_N\_12\_26 02:25:50.09 $-$03:06:41.16 2.471 19.83 19.53 X\_N\_44\_64 02:27:01.46 $-$04:05:06.73 2.252 21.31 20.77 X\_N\_4\_48 02:27:44.63 $-$03:42:05.46 2.317 19.57 20.43 X\_N\_102\_35 02:29:05.94 $-$04:02:42.99 2.190 18.76 18.19 X\_N\_115\_23 02:30:05.66 $-$05:08:14.10 2.342 19.79 19.26 CDF-S XID36 03:31:50.77 $-$27:47:03.41 2.259 21.49 20.80 XID57 03:31:54.40 $-$27:56:49.70 2.298 23.49 22.19 XID419 03:32:23.44 $-$27:42:54.97 2.145 22.44 21.84 XID427 03:32:24.20 $-$27:42:57.51 2.303 22.48 21.83 XID522 03:32:28.50 $-$27:46:57.99 2.309 22.98 22.27 XID614 03:32:33.02 $-$27:42:00.33 2.448 22.59 21.82 COSMOS cid\_166 09:58:58.68 +02:01:39.22 2.448 18.55 18.23 lid\_1289 09:59:14.65 +01:36:34.99 2.408 22.29 21.51 cid\_1057 09:59:15.00 +02:06:39.65 2.214 21.70 21.09 cid\_1605 09:59:19.82 +02:42:38.73 2.121 20.63 20.14 cid\_337 09:59:30.39 +02:06:56.08 2.226 22.12 21.54 cid\_346 09:59:43.41 +02:07:07.44 2.219 19.24 18.95 cid\_451 10:00:00.61 +02:15:31.06 2.450 21.88 21.37 cid\_1205 10:00:02.57 +02:19:58.68 2.255 21.64 20.72 cid\_2682 10:00:08.81 +02:06:37.66 2.435 21.46 21.17 cid\_1143 10:00:08.84 +02:15:27.99 2.492 22.90 22.27 cid\_467 10:00:24.48 +02:06:19.76 2.288 19.34 18.91 cid\_852 10:00:44.21 +02:02:06.76 2.232 21.53 21.05 cid\_971 10:00:59.45 +02:19:57.44 2.473 22.58 22.10 cid\_38 10:01:02.83 +02:03:16.63 2.192 20.42 20.21 lid\_206 10:01:15.56 +02:37:43.44 2.330 22.38 21.97 cid\_1253 10:01:30.57 +02:18:42.57 2.147 21.30 20.72 WISSH J1333$+$1649 13:33:35.79 +16:49:03.96 2.089 15.72 15.49 J1441$+$0454 14:41:05.54 +04:54:54.96 2.059 17.15 16.53 J1549$+$1245 15:49:38.73 +12:45:09.20 2.365 15.92 15.34 Stripe82X S82X1905 23:28:56.35 $-$00:30:11.74 2.263 19.72 19.15 S82X1940 23:29:40.28 $-$00:17:51.68 2.351 20.80 20.15 S82X2058 23:31:58.62 $-$00:54:10.44 2.308 19.79 19.29 S82X2106 23:32:53.24 $-$00:33:35.35 2.281 20.56 20.23 ----------- --------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------------- -------------- -------------- X-ray properties of the sample {#s:X-ray} ------------------------------ As described in Sec. \[s:selection\], our survey sample is selected from available X-ray AGN surveys. Apart from the source detection, these X-ray observations provide us with important information on the AGN properties from the analysis of their X-ray spectra. Since the obscuring column densities $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ and the X-ray luminosities $L_{\textnormal{X}}$ available from the various survey catalogs may be affected by inhomogeneities due to the adoption of different analysis methods and spectral models, we decided to perform a new systematic analysis of all the X-ray spectra, by using XSPEC v.12.9.1[^4] [@arnaud96]. For this purpose, we followed the method described in @lanzuisi13 and @marchesi16X for XMM-Newton and Chandra data respectively, which have been extensively tested in the low count regime typical of the current data set. Chandra and XMM-Newton spectra of sources in the COSMOS field are extracted following @lanzuisi13 and @mainieri11, respectively. For sources in the CDF-S we followed the approach described in @vito13, applied to the full 7 Ms data set [@luo17]. For sources in XMM-XXL, Stripe82X and WISSH (SDSS targets), we extracted new XMM-Newton spectra adopting a standard data reduction procedure[^5] (background flare removal, “single” and “double” event selection, CCD edge and bad pixels removal) and standard source, background and response matrix extraction from circular regions, whose radii were chosen to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio [e.g., @liu16 for XMM-XXL]. Typical background regions are $\sim 10$ times the source extraction regions. We considered the $0.5-7.0$ keV band for Chandra and $0.5-10$ keV band for XMM-Newton. All the fits were performed by using the Cash statistic [@cash79] and the direct background option [@wachter79]. The spectra are binned to 1 count per bin to avoid empty channels. For sources with more than 30 (50) net counts (reported in Table \[tab:summary\_results\]) for Chandra (XMM-Newton), we performed a simple spectral fit, modeling the emission with an absorbed power law plus Galactic absorption as well as a secondary power law to reproduce any excess in the soft band, due to scattering or partial covering in obscured sources. In 11 cases out of 39 this second component gave a significant contribution to the fit, while in the other cases its normalization was consistent with 0. The photon index was left free to vary during the spectral analysis for spectra with more than $\sim 100$ net counts (typical values within $\Gamma = 1.5-2.5$), otherwise we fixed it to the canonical value of 1.8 [e.g., @piconcelli05], being mainly interested in deriving reliable $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ and $L_{\textnormal{X}}$ values. For targets with less than 30 (50) counts, we relied on hardness ratios ($HR = \frac{H-S}{H+S}$, where $H$ and $S$ are the number of counts in the hard $2-7$ keV and soft $0.5-2$ keV bands, respectively), converted into $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ values at the source redshift following @lanzuisi09. Both in the case of spectral analysis and HR, we propagated the uncertainty on $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ when deriving the errors on the intrinsic luminosity. This is in fact the main source of uncertainty in $L_{\textnormal{X}}$, at least for obscured sources. We compared our results for the targets in the COSMOS field with those presented by @marchesi16X, who performed X-ray spectral analysis for all the targets with more than 30 counts in the $0.5 - 7$ keV band. Ten out of sixteen of our COSMOS targets were analyzed in @marchesi16X, for which the comparison results in an average $\langle \log(L_{\textnormal{X, literature}}/L_{\textnormal{X, this work}})\rangle\,=-0.08$ dex and $\langle\log(N_{\textnormal{H, literature}}/N_{\textnormal{H, this work}})\rangle\,=0.07$ dex, as well as a standard deviation of 0.2 and 0.3 dex, respectively. The results derived for column densities and $2-10$ keV absorption-corrected luminosities are listed in Table \[tab:summary\_results\]. X-ray luminosities range between $L_{\textnormal{X}} = 1.6 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $6.5 \times 10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$, therefore including AGN with Seyfert-like X-ray luminosities ($L_{\textnormal{X}} \sim 10^{42}-10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and quasar-like ones ($L_{\textnormal{X}} > 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$). In terms of column densities, the target sample covers uniformly a range from unobscured ($N_{\textnormal{H}} \le 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, given by the Galactic value) to obscured and Compton-thick AGN ($N_{\textnormal{H}} > 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$), with values up to $2 \times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$. For the objects whose column density derived from the X-ray spectral analysis is $\sim 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ we provide 90% confidence level upper limits. From an X-ray point of view, AGN are classified as unobscured when $N_{H} < 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and obscured vice versa. Overall the sample is split in almost an equal number of unobscured and obscured objects based on the X-ray classification. Further discussion about these results, in relation to other physical properties of our targets, is presented in Sec. \[s:X-ray\_SED\]. --------------- ---------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ID AGN type $\log \frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{\odot}}$ $\log \frac{L_{\textnormal{FIR}}}{\textnormal{erg\,s$^{-1}$}}$ SFR \[$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$\] $\log \frac{L_{\textnormal{bol}}}{\textnormal{erg\,s$^{-1}$}}$ X-ray net counts $\log \frac{N_{\textnormal{H}}}{\textnormal{cm$^{-2}$}}$ $\log \frac{L_{[2-10\,\textnormal{keV}]}}{\textnormal{erg\,s$^{-1}$}}$ $\log \frac{M_{\textnormal{BH}}}{M_{\odot}}$ $\log \frac{P_{\textnormal{1.4 GHz}}}{\textnormal{W Hz$^{-1}$}}$ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) X\_N\_160\_22 BL - - - $46.74 \pm 0.02$ $24.5 \pm 4.9$ $<22.32$ $44.77^{+0.14}_{-0.19}$ $8.9 \pm 0.2$ $<24.87$ X\_N\_81\_44 BL $11.04 \pm 0.37$ $45.93 \pm 0.20$ $229 \pm 103$ $46.80 \pm 0.03$ $94.8 \pm 9.7$ $<21.86$ $44.77^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ $9.2 \pm 0.1$ $<24.81$ X\_N\_53\_3 BL - $46.41 \pm 0.11$ $686 \pm 178$ $46.21 \pm 0.03$ $25.8 \pm 5.1$ $22.77^{+0.37}_{-0.67}$ $44.80^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ $8.7 \pm 0.1$ $<24.86$ X\_N\_66\_23 BL $10.96 \pm 0.29$ $< 46.00$ $< 268$ $46.04 \pm 0.02$ $118.7 \pm 10.9$ $<21.51$ $44.71^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ $8.3 \pm 0.2$ $<24.84$ X\_N\_35\_20 BL - - - $45.44 \pm 0.02$ $38.1 \pm 6.2$ $<22.27$ $44.00^{+0.07}_{-0.40}$ $8.7 \pm 0.1$ $<24.79$ X\_N\_12\_26 BL - - - $46.52 \pm 0.02$ $61.3 \pm 7.8$ $<20.90$ $44.56^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ $8.9 \pm 0.1$ $<24.88$ X\_N\_44\_64 BL $11.09 \pm 0.25$ $45.93 \pm 0.15$ $229 \pm 80$ $45.51 \pm 0.07$ $51.8 \pm 7.2$ $<21.97$ $44.21^{+0.11}_{-0.17}$ $9.1 \pm 0.2$ $<24.78$ X\_N\_4\_48 BL - - - $46.16 \pm 0.02$ $58.2 \pm 7.6$ $<21.85$ $44.52^{+0.09}_{-0.16}$ $9.1 \pm 0.2$ $<24.81$ X\_N\_102\_35 BL - - - $46.82 \pm 0.02$ $79.0 \pm 8.9$ $<22.17$ $45.37^{+0.05}_{-0.11}$ $8.9 \pm 0.1$ $27.05 \pm 0.01$ X\_N\_115\_23 BL - - - $46.49 \pm 0.02$ $131.8 \pm 11.5$ $<22.26$ $44.93^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ $8.4 \pm 0.1$ $<24.82$ XID36 NL $10.68 \pm 0.07$ $45.84 \pm 0.02$ $184 \pm 9$ $45.70 \pm 0.06$ $47.2 \pm 6.9$ $>24.1$ $43.84^{+0.31}_{-0.63}$ - $25.40 \pm 0.01$ XID57 NL $10.49 \pm 0.11$ $< 45.10$ $< 34$ $44.26 \pm 0.18$ $58.9 \pm 7.7$ $23.30^{+0.32}_{-0.39}$ $44.04^{+0.17}_{-0.24}$ - $<24.20$ XID419 NL $10.89 \pm 0.02$ $45.20 \pm 0.04$ $42 \pm 4$ $45.54 \pm 0.05$ $70.2 \pm 8.4$ $24.28^{+0.19}_{-0.31}$ $43.84^{+0.29}_{-0.44}$ - $<24.12$ XID427 NL $10.87 \pm 0.08$ $< 45.43$ $< 72$ $44.60 \pm 0.13$ $324.2 \pm 18.0$ $22.43^{+0.24}_{-0.34}$ $43.20^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ - $<24.20$ XID522 NL $10.42 \pm 0.02$ $46.26 \pm 0.02$ $492 \pm 25$ $45.02 \pm 0.02$ $35.1 \pm 5.9$ $>22.5$ $43.51^{+0.76}_{-0.87}$ - $24.37 \pm 0.05$ XID614 NL $10.78 \pm 0.08$ $45.97 \pm 0.02$ $247 \pm 12$ $44.97 \pm 0.13$ $78.3 \pm 8.8$ $24.25^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$ $43.61^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ - $<24.26$ cid\_166 BL $10.38 \pm 0.22$ $< 45.92$ $< 224$ $46.93 \pm 0.02$ $717.8 \pm 26.8$ $<21.25$ $45.15^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $9.3 \pm 0.1$ $<24.00$ lid\_1289 NL $9.59 \pm 0.14$ $< 44.98$ $< 25$ $45.09 \pm 0.08$ $123.4 \pm 11.1$ $22.50^{+0.29}_{-0.22}$ $44.69^{+0.26}_{-0.13}$ - $<23.98$ cid\_1057 NL $10.84 \pm 0.07$ $45.50 \pm 0.02$ $85 \pm 4$ $45.91 \pm 0.06$ $36.1 \pm 6.0$ $23.98^{+0.24}_{-0.28}$ $44.53^{+0.26}_{-0.30}$ - $<23.89$ cid\_1605 BL - $< 45.54$ $< 94$ $46.03 \pm 0.02$ $327.9 \pm 18.1$ $21.77^{+0.51}_{-0.75}$ $44.69^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ $8.4 \pm 0.2$ $<23.84$ cid\_337 NL $11.13 \pm 0.04$ $45.63 \pm 0.03$ $115 \pm 9$ $45.34 \pm 0.09$ $83.1 \pm 9.1$ $<22.76$ $44.22^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ - $23.99 \pm 0.07$ cid\_346 BL $11.01 \pm 0.22$ $46.13 \pm 0.06$ $362 \pm 49$ $46.66 \pm 0.02$ $124.1 \pm 11.1$ $23.05^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ $44.47^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ $8.9 \pm 0.1$ $24.86 \pm 0.07$ cid\_451 NL $11.21 \pm 0.05$ $< 45.67$ $< 125$ $46.44 \pm 0.07$ $136.9 \pm 11.7$ $23.87^{+0.19}_{-0.15}$ $45.18^{+0.23}_{-0.19}$ - $26.43 \pm 0.01$ cid\_1205 NL $11.20 \pm 0.10$ $46.16 \pm 0.04$ $384 \pm 33$ $45.75 \pm 0.17$ $33.9 \pm 5.8$ $23.50^{+0.27}_{-0.27}$ $44.25^{+0.21}_{-0.23}$ - $24.10 \pm 0.06$ cid\_2682 NL $11.03 \pm 0.04$ $< 45.54$ $< 93$ $45.48 \pm 0.10$ $35.5 \pm 6.0$ $23.92^{+1.01}_{-0.20}$ $44.30^{+0.96}_{-0.27}$ - $<23.99$ cid\_1143 NL $10.40 \pm 0.17$ $45.61 \pm 0.07$ $108 \pm 18$ $44.85 \pm 0.12$ $51.3 \pm 7.2$ $24.01^{+0.77}_{-0.29}$ $44.83^{+0.43}_{-0.36}$ - $24.39 \pm 0.05$ cid\_467 BL $10.10 \pm 0.29$ $< 45.74$ $< 147$ $46.53 \pm 0.04$ $446.8 \pm 21.1$ $22.31^{+0.23}_{-0.32}$ $44.87^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ $8.9 \pm 0.6$ $<23.92$ cid\_852 NL $11.17 \pm 0.02$ $< 45.57$ $< 100$ $45.50 \pm 0.11$ $25.0 \pm 5.0$ $24.30^{+0.38}_{-0.37}$ $45.20^{+1.14}_{-0.76}$ - $<23.90$ cid\_971 NL $10.60 \pm 0.12$ - $<96$ $44.71 \pm 0.24$ $33.1 \pm 5.8$ $<23.68$ $43.87^{+0.36}_{-0.38}$ - $<24.01$ cid\_38 NL $11.01 \pm 0.12$ $< 45.98$ $< 258$ $45.78 \pm 0.04$ $159.4 \pm 12.6$ $<22.95$ $44.41^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ - $24.10 \pm 0.05$ lid\_206 BL $10.30 \pm 0.25$ - $63 \pm 27$ $44.77 \pm 0.12$ $40.2 \pm 6.3$ $<22.55$ $43.91^{+0.39}_{-0.29}$ $7.9 \pm 0.1 $ $<23.94$ cid\_1253 NL $10.99 \pm 0.25$ $46.02 \pm 0.30$ $280 \pm 194$ $45.08 \pm 0.18$ $36.1 \pm 6.0$ $23.22^{+0.47}_{-0.39}$ $43.92^{+0.29}_{-0.31}$ - $24.30 \pm 0.08$ J1333$+$1649 BL - - - $47.91 \pm 0.02$ $174.5 \pm 13.2$ $21.81^{+0.22}_{-0.34}$ $45.81^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ $9.79 \pm 0.3$ $28.15 \pm 0.01$ J1441$+$0454 BL - - - $47.55 \pm 0.02$ $74.5 \pm 8.6$ $22.77^{+0.18}_{-0.21}$ $44.77^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ $10.2 \pm 0.3$ $25.78 \pm 0.03$ J1549$+$1245 BL - - - $47.73 \pm 0.04$ $1023.1 \pm 32.0$ $22.69^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ $45.38^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $10.1 \pm 0.3$ $25.91 \pm 0.03$ S82X1905 BL - - - $46.50 \pm 0.02$ $31.3 \pm 5.6$ $22.95^{+0.35}_{-0.17}$ $44.91^{+0.50}_{-0.50}$ $9.3 \pm 0.1$ $<24.79$ S82X1940 BL - - - $46.03 \pm 0.02$ $33.7 \pm 5.8$ $<20.50$ $44.72^{+0.30}_{-0.30}$ $8.7 \pm 0.2$ $<24.83$ S82X2058 BL - - - $46.39 \pm 0.02$ $29.5 \pm 4.3$ $<20.50$ $44.67^{+0.30}_{-0.30}$ $8.9 \pm 0.3$ $<24.81$ S82X2106 BL - - - $46.08 \pm 0.03$ $94.5 \pm 9.7$ $<22.08$ $45.08^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$ $9.2 \pm 0.1$ $<24.80$ --------------- ---------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ : \[tab:summary\_results\] Target sample properties summary, for both AGN and host galaxies. Target sample characterization {#s:Characterization} ============================== To draw a wide and complete picture of the physical properties of our AGN and host galaxies, a full multi-wavelength support is needed. We make use of the rich suite of multi-wavelength ancillary data available for these targets, which are unique in terms of amount and depth. They range from the X-rays (Sec. \[s:selection\]) to the optical, NIR and FIR regimes, and up to the radio (see Sec. \[s:radio\]). This allows us to gather information about AGN quantities, such as obscuring column density, X-ray and bolometric luminosity, BH mass, as well as galaxy ones, e.g., stellar mass and SFR. In this Section we describe the ancillary data collected for this work from the UV to the FIR when available, as well as the code used to perform the SED-fitting analysis of the target sample. Multi-wavelength dataset {#s:dataset} ------------------------ The counterparts to the X-ray sources in the CDF-S and COSMOS are provided along with the optical-to-MIR multi-wavelength photometry by the original catalogs [@hsu14; @laigle16], where in both cases images were previously registered at the same reference and the photometry was PSF-homogenized. The counterparts to the SUPER targets in XMM-XXL and Stripe82X are known in the SDSS optical images and the corresponding associations to the X-ray sources are likewise given in the original catalogs [@fotopoulou16; @lamassa16; @ananna17]. The remaining SDSS targets are WISE selected with follow-up in the X-ray band [@martocchia17]. We complemented the UV-to-MIR photometry with further FIR data from Herschel/PACS and SPIRE, when available, using a positional matching radius of $2''$, taking into account that we used 24 $\mu$m-priored catalogs which in turn are IRAC-3.6 $\mu$m priored. Here we briefly describe the multi-wavelength data set used for this study but further information can be found in the specific papers mentioned for each field in the following. In Table\[tab:dataset\] we summarize the wavelength bands used to build the SEDs of our AGN. The column description of the photometric catalog is available in Appendix \[sec:photo\_cat\]. ### CDF-S The multi-wavelength catalog used for this field, presented in @hsu14, provides UV-to-MIR photometric data for all the sources detected in the Extended Chandra Deep Field-South [E-CDF-S; @xue16; @lehmer05], combining data from CANDELS [@guo13], MUSYC [@cardamone10] and TENIS [@hsieh12]. MIR and FIR photometry at 24 $\mu$m with Spitzer/MIPS and at 70, 100 and 160 $\mu$m with Herschel/PACS is presented by @magnelli13, combining observations from the PACS Evolutionary Probe [PEP; @lutz11] and the GOODS-Herschel programs [GOODS-H; @elbaz11]. Herschel/SPIRE fluxes at 250, 350 and 500 $\mu$m are taken from the Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey [HerMES; @roseboom10; @roseboom12; @oliver12] DR3. We point out that the HerMES team provides also Herschel/PACS photometry for the same field. However, we decided to take advantage of the deeper data released by the PEP team, after verifying the consistency of the fluxes obtained by both teams. Two out of the six targets in the CDF-S are outside the area covered by CANDELS (namely XID36 and XID57). Therefore, we adopted FIR observations at 100 and 160 $\mu$m from the PEP DR1 [@lutz11], since the data products released by @magnelli13 cover the GOODS-S field only. The prior information for these FIR catalogs is given by IRAC-3.6 $\mu$m source positions. To this data set, we added ALMA data in Band 7 and 3 available from the ALMA Archive and @scholtz18. ### COSMOS The UV-to-MIR photometry is taken from the COSMOS2015 catalog presented in @laigle16, combining existing data from previous releases [e.g., @capak07; @ilbert09; @ilbert13] and new NIR photometry from the UltraVISTA-DR2 survey, Y-band observations from Subaru and infrared data from Spitzer. The source detection is based on deep NIR images and all the photometry is obtained from images registered at the same reference. Spitzer/MIPS photometry at 24 $\mu$m and Herschel/PACS at 100 and 160 $\mu$m is taken from the PEP DR1 [@lutz11] extracted using IRAC-3.6 $\mu$m source position priors, as mentioned above. The 24 $\mu$m data for the targets cid\_971 and lid\_206 were provided by Le Floc’h (priv. comm.), since they are particularly faint in this band and therefore not reported in the original catalog. Herschel/SPIRE photometry at 250, 350 and 500 $\mu$m is retrieved from the data products presented in @hurley17, who describe the 24 $\mu$m prior-based source extraction tool XID+, developed using a probabilistic Bayesian method. The resulting flux probability distributions for each source in the catalog are described by the 50th, 84th and 16th percentiles. We assumed Gaussian uncertainties by taking the maximum between the 84th-50th percentile and the 50th-16th percentile. As done for the CDF-S, we added ALMA data in Band 7 and 3 available from the ALMA Archive and @scholtz18. ### XMM-XXL North The multi-wavelength photometry from UV-to-MIR for this field is obtained by merging the photometric SDSS and CFHTLenS [@erben13] optical catalogs [see @fotopoulou16; @georgakakis17]. These data were complemented with GALEX/NUV photometry, YZJHK band photometry from VISTA as well as u and i bands from CFHT [see @fotopoulou16]. We considered total magnitudes for CFHTLenS data and model mag for SDSS. As for IRAC, we considered aperture 2 (1.9$''$) photometry corrected to total. The WISE data are taken from @lang16, who provide forced photometry of the WISE All-sky imaging at SDSS positions. Herschel/PACS and SPIRE data are those released by the HerMES collaboration in the Data Release 4 and 3 respectively [@oliver12]. Both sets of data are extracted using the same Spitzer/MIPS 24 $\mu$m prior catalog, whose fluxes are available along with the SPIRE data. We use aperture fluxes in smaller apertures, that is 4$''$ diameter. ### Stripe82X We used the photometry that was made public in @ananna17 and was used for the computation of the photometric redshifts in the field. The data are homogeneously deep in optical [@fliri16], but in the NIR and MIR a patchwork of surveys was used [see @ananna17 and its Fig. 1]. Similarly to the XMM-XXL photometry, we took WISE data from @lang16. ### WISSH For these targets we collected UV-to-MIR photometry from the WISSH photometric catalog (Duras et al., in prep.), which includes SDSS photometry, NIR data from the 2MASS as well as WISE photometry from 3 to 22 $\mu$m [see @duras17 for further details]. All the data used in this work are corrected for Galactic extinction [@schlegel98]. The resulting photometry, from NUV to FIR, spans a maximum of 31, 36, 27, 12 and 17 wavebands overall for XMM-XXL, CDF-S, COSMOS, WISSH and Stripe82X, respectively. However there is some overlap among bands from different surveys, which reduces the number of unique wavebands. As far as the mid and far-IR photometry from 24 to 500 $\mu$m is concerned, we considered as detections only photometric points with $S/N>3$, where the total noise is given by the sum in quadrature of both the instrumental and the confusion ones [@lutz11; @oliver12; @magnelli13]. The detections below this threshold were converted to $3\sigma$ upper limits. The number of targets with ($\geq 3\sigma$) Herschel detections in at least one PACS band is 7 out of 39, while there are 12 out of 39 targets with at least one SPIRE band detection. Five sources present detections in both PACS and SPIRE filters. All the targets have photometric data available from the UV to the MIR. Although these data enable a detailed SED modeling, they are collected and/or stacked over many years, so that issues related to variability (intrinsic properties of AGN) can potentially arise [e.g., @simm16]. While we cannot correct for variability in case of stacked images, we were able to correct this issue for the AGN whose photometry was taken in the same wavebands from different surveys. Clear variability was shown by the XMM-XXL targets X\_N\_4\_48, X\_N\_35\_20 and X\_N\_44\_64, for which the SDSS photometry was brighter than the CFHT one by up to two magnitudes. We have taken the latter since it is closer in time to the X-ray observations. Field $\lambda$ range Reference Telescope/Instrument Bands ------------ ------------------ ------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------ XMM-XXL UV to MIR @georgakakis17 and GALEX NUV @fotopoulou16 CFHT u, g, r, i, z SDSS u, g, r, i, z VISTA z, Y, J, H, K Spitzer/IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0 $\mu$m @lang16 WISE W1, W2, W3, W4 $24-500$ $\mu$m @oliver12 Spitzer/MIPS 24 $\mu$m Herschel/PACS 70, 100, 160 $\mu$m Herschel/SPIRE 250, 350, 500 $\mu$m CDF-S UV to MIR @hsu14 CTIO-Blanco/Mosaic-II U VLT/VIMOS U HST/ACS F435W, F606W, F775W, F814W, F850LP HST/WFC3 F098M, F105W, F125W, F160W ESO-MPG/WFI UU$_{38}$BVRI CTIO-Blanco/Mosaic-II z-band NTT/SofI H-band CTIO-Blanco/ISPI J, K VLT/ISAAC K$_{S}$ VLT/HAWK-I K$_{S}$ Spitzer/IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0 $\mu$m $24-160$ $\mu$m @magnelli13 or Spitzer/MIPS 24 $\mu$m @lutz11 Herschel/PACS 70, 100, 160 $\mu$m $250-500$ $\mu$m @oliver12 Herschel/SPIRE 250, 350, 500 $\mu$m $>1000$ $\mu$m @scholtz18 and ALMA Band 7 (800$-$1100 $\mu$m) ALMA Archive Band 3 (2600$-$3600 $\mu$m) COSMOS UV to MIR @laigle16 GALEX NUV CFHT/MegaCam u$^{\ast}$ Subaru/Suprime-Cam B, V, r, i$^{+}$, z$^{++}$, Subaru/HSC Y VISTA/VIRCAM Y, J, H, K$_{s}$ CFHT/WIRCam H, K$_{s}$ Spitzer/IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0 $\mu$m $24-160$ $\mu$m @lutz11 Spitzer/MIPS 24 $\mu$m Herschel/PACS 70, 100, 160 $\mu$m $250-500$ $\mu$m @hurley17 Herschel/SPIRE 250, 350, 500 $\mu$m $>1000$ $\mu$m @scholtz18 and ALMA Band 7 (800$-$1100 $\mu$m) ALMA Archive Band 3 (2600$-$3600 $\mu$m) WISSH UV to MIR Duras et al. (in prep.) SDSS u, g, r, i, z 2MASS J, H, K WISE W1, W2, W3, W4 Stripe 82X UV to MIR @ananna17 SDSS u, g, r, i, z UKIDSS J, H, K VISTA J, H, K Spitzer/IRAC 3.6, 4.5 $\mu$m @lang16 WISE W1, W2, W3, W4 Data modeling {#s:code} ------------- The analysis presented in this work is performed by using the Code Investigating GALaxy Emission [CIGALE[^6]; @noll09], a publicly available state-of-the-art galaxy SED-fitting technique. CIGALE adopts a multi-component fitting approach in order to disentangle the AGN contribution from the emission of its host galaxy and estimate in a self-consistent way AGN and host galaxy properties from the integrated SEDs. Moreover, it takes into account the energy balance between the UV-optical absorption by dust and the corresponding re-emission in the FIR. Here we provide a brief description of the code and we refer the reader to @noll09, @buat15 and @ciesla15 for more details. In this work we used the version 0.11.0. CIGALE accounts for three main distinct emission components: (i) stellar emission, dominating the wavelength range $0.3-5$ $\mu$m; (ii) emission by cold dust heated by star formation which dominates the FIR; (iii) AGN emission, appearing as direct energy coming from the accretion disk at UV-optical wavelengths and reprocessed emission by the dusty torus peaking in the MIR. The code assembles the models, according to a range of input parameters, which are then compared to the observed photometry by computing model fluxes in the observed filter bands and performing an evaluation of the $\chi^{2}$. The output parameters as well as the corresponding uncertainties are determined through a Bayesian statistical analysis: the probability distribution function (PDF) for each parameter of interest is built by summing the exponential term $\exp({-\chi^{2}/2})$ related to each model in given bins of the parameter space. The output value of a parameter is the mean value of the PDF and the associated error is the standard deviation derived from the PDF [@noll09]. The values of the input parameters used for the fitting procedure are listed in Table\[tab:input\_parameters\]. In the following we describe the assumptions and the models adopted. \(i) To create the stellar models we assumed a star formation history (SFH) represented by a delayed $\tau$-model (exponentially declining) with varying e-folding time and stellar population ages (see Table\[tab:input\_parameters\]), defined as: $$\textnormal{SFR}(t) \propto t \times \exp{(-t/\tau)}$$ where $\tau$ is the e-folding time of the star formation burst. The stellar population ages are constrained to be younger than the age of the Universe at the redshift of the source sample. The SFH is then convolved with the stellar population models of @bc03 and a @chabrier03 initial mass function (IMF). The metallicity is fixed to solar (0.02)[^7]. To account for the role played by dust in absorbing the stellar emission in the UV/optical regime we applied an attenuation law to the stellar component. One of the most used ones, also at high redshift, is the @calzetti00 law. However, in the literature there is evidence for shapes of the attenuation law different from the standard Calzetti one [e.g., @salvato09; @buat11; @buat12; @reddy15; @lofaro17 but see also @cullen18]. We used the modified version of the @calzetti00 curve, which is multiplied in the UV range by a power law with a variable slope $\delta$, where the attenuation is given by $A(\lambda) = A(\lambda)_{Calz.} \times (\lambda/550 \,\textnormal{nm})^{\delta}$. In this recipe, negative slopes of the additional power law produce steeper attenuation curves and vice versa positive values give a flatter curve, while a slope equal to 0 reproduces the @calzetti00 curve. We did not include the bump feature at 2175 Å. The same law is applied to both old ($> 10$ Myr) and young ($< 10$ Myr; @charlot00) stars. Moreover we took into account that stars of different ages can suffer from differential reddening by applying a reduction factor of the visual attenuation to the old stellar population [@calzetti00]. The reduction factor, $E(B-V)_{\textnormal{old}}/E(B-V)_{\textnormal{young}}$, is fixed to 0.93 as derived by @puglisi16. \(ii) The reprocessed emission from dust heated by star formation is modeled using the library presented by @dale14, which includes the contributions from dust heated by both star formation and AGN activity. In order to treat the AGN emission separately by adopting different models, and therefore estimate the contribution from star formation only with this library, we assumed an AGN contribution equal to 0. This family of models is made of a suite of templates constructed with synthetic and empirical spectra which represent emission from dust exposed to a wide range of intensities of the radiation field. These templates are combined in order to model the total emission and their relative contribution is given by a power law, whose slope is the parameter $\alpha_{\textnormal{SF}}$. For higher values of the slope the contribution of weaker radiation fields is more important and the dust emission peaks at longer wavelengths. The dust templates are linked to the stellar emission by a normalization factor which takes into account the energy absorbed by dust and re-emitted in the IR regime. \(iii) Accounting for the AGN contribution is essential for the determination of the host galaxy properties. To reproduce the AGN emission component we chose the physical models presented by @fritz06, who solved the radiative transfer equation for a flared disk geometry with a smooth dust distribution composed by silicate and graphite grains. Although a clumpy or filamentary structure has been observed for nearby AGN [e.g., @jaffe04] and is more physical, in this work we focus on the global characterization of the SED, for which both clumpy and smooth models provide good results and are widely used in the literature. As claimed by @feltre12, the major differences in the SEDs produced by the two dust distributions are due to different model assumptions and not to their intrinsic properties. The main AGN parameter we want to reliably constrain from the SED is the AGN bolometric luminosity, therefore the details of the dust distribution are not fundamental in this work. The law describing the dust density within the torus is variable along the radial and the polar coordinates and is given by: $$\rho(r, \theta) = \alpha r^{\beta} e^{-\gamma \mid \cos(\theta)\mid}$$ where $\alpha$ is proportional to the equatorial optical depth at 9.7 $\mu$m ($\tau_{9.7}$), $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are related to the radial and angular coordinates respectively. Other parameters describing the geometry are the ratio between the outer and the inner radii of the torus, $R_{max}/R_{min}$, and the opening angle of the torus, $\Theta$. The inclination angle of the observer’s line of sight with respect to the torus equatorial plane, the parameter $\psi$ with values in the range between 0$^{\circ}$ and 90$^{\circ}$, allows one to distinguish between type 1 AGN (unobscured) for high inclinations and type 2 AGN (obscured) for low inclinations. Intermediate types are usually associated to $\psi \simeq 40^{\circ}-60^{\circ}$ depending on the dust distribution. The central engine is assumed to be a point-like source emitting isotropically with an SED described by a composition of power laws parameterizing the disk emission. This emission is partially obscured when the line of sight passes through the dusty torus. Another important input parameter that handles the normalization of the AGN component to the host galaxy emission is the AGN fraction, which is the contribution of the AGN emission to the total ($8-1000$ $\mu$m) IR luminosity and is given by $f_{\textnormal{AGN}}=L^{\textnormal{AGN}}_{\textnormal{IR}}/L^{\textnormal{TOT}}_{\textnormal{IR}}$, with $L^{\textnormal{TOT}}_{\textnormal{IR}}=L^{\textnormal{AGN}}_{\textnormal{IR}}+L^{\textnormal{starburst}}_{\textnormal{IR}}$ [@ciesla15]. The input values available in the code are based on the results presented by @fritz06. However, as described by @hatziminaoglou08, using all the possible values would produce degeneracies in the model templates. Therefore we cannot determine the torus geometry in an unequivocal way and the parameter proving to be best constrained is the bolometric luminosity. The values of the above-mentioned physical parameters related to the torus geometry should be taken as indicative. For this reason we decided to narrow down the grid of input values and to fix some of them. Our selected values (see Table\[tab:input\_parameters\]) are partly based on the analysis performed by @hatziminaoglou08, who presented a restricted grid of input parameters. Differently from their setup, we fixed $R_{\textnormal{max}}/R_{\textnormal{min}}$ and the opening angle to a single value, as well as using a less dense grid for the optical depth. To the main emission components described above we also added templates reproducing nebular emission, ranging from the UV to the FIR. These templates are based on the models presented by @inoue11 and represent the emission from regions. They include recombination lines, mainly from hydrogen and helium, and continuum emission due to free-free, free-bound and 2-photon processes of hydrogen. This SED component is proportional to the rate of Lyman continuum photons ionizing the gas and takes into account the Lyman continuum escape fraction and the absorption of the ionizing photons by dust. The templates do not include lines from photo-dissociation regions and nebular lines due to AGN emission. Therefore they do not reproduce the AGN contribution to the emission lines which may contaminate the photometric data. We fixed the parameters of the nebular emission model (see Table\[tab:input\_parameters\]) as in @boquien16. Template Parameter Value and range Description ------------------------ --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- [Stellar emission]{} IMF @chabrier03 Z 0.02 Metallicity Separation age 10 Myr Separation age between the young and the old stellar populations Delayed SFH Age 0.10, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 Gyr Age of the oldest SSP $\tau$ 0.10, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, 10.0 Gyr e-folding time of the SFH Modified Calzetti $E(B-V)$ 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3 Attenuation of the young stellar population attenuation law Reduction factor 0.93 Differential reddening applied to the old stellar population $\delta$ -0.6, -0.4, -0.2, 0.0 Slope of the power law multiplying the Calzetti attenuation law [Dust emission]{} $\alpha_{\textnormal{SF}}$ 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Slope of the power law combining the contribution of different dust templates [AGN emission]{} $R_{\textnormal{max}}/R_{\textnormal{min}}$ 60 Ratio of the outer and inner radii $\tau_{9.7}$ 0.6, 3.0, 6.0 Optical depth at 9.7 $\mu$m $\beta$ 0.00, -0.5, -1.0 Slope of the radial coordinate $\gamma$ 0.0, 6.0 Exponent of the angular coordinate $\Theta$ 100 degrees Opening angle of the torus $\psi$ 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 degrees Inclination of the observer’s line of sight $f_{\textnormal{AGN}}$ 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, AGN fraction 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 [Nebular emission]{} $U$ $10^{-2}$ Ionization parameter $f_{\textnormal{esc}}$ 0% Fraction of Lyman continuum photons escaping the galaxy $f_{\textnormal{dust}}$ 10% Fraction of Lyman continuum photons absorbed by dust Overall properties of the target sample {#s:overall_results} ======================================= In this section we provide a detailed picture of the multi-wavelength properties of our target sample obtained using SED fitting and spectral analysis. In particular, we focus on the main AGN and host galaxy physical parameters that we aim to connect to the outflow properties, as traced by our on-going SINFONI observations. The AGN sample is characterized by a wide range of column densities, up to $2 \times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, derived from the X-ray spectra (see Section \[s:X-ray\]). This translates into different levels of contamination of the AGN to the galaxy emission at UV-to-NIR wavelengths. Therefore, host galaxy properties for the targets where this contamination is low, that is obscured AGN, can be robustly determined. At the same time, AGN properties are better constrained for unobscured targets, whose emission prevails in the UV-to-IR portion of the SED. In general, the classification of AGN into obscured and unobscured sources can be performed based on different criteria, such as X-ray spectral analysis, optical spectral properties, and shape of the UV-to-NIR SED [see @merloni14]. We adopt the following nomenclature: from an optical point of view, the classification depends on the presence of broad (FWHM $>1\,000$ km s$^{-1}$) or narrow (FWHM $<1\,000$ km s$^{-1}$) permitted lines in their spectra, defining broad-line (BL) or narrow-line (NL) AGN respectively; according to the shape of the UV-to-NIR SED, we can constrain the AGN type based on the inclination of the observer’s line of sight with respect to the obscuring torus; finally, AGN are classified as unobscured or obscured when the column density is smaller or larger than $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ (see Sec. \[s:X-ray\]). As explained later in Sec. \[s:X-ray\_SED\], the three classification methods broadly agree with each other. However, as final classification, we decided to adopt the optical spectroscopic classification (BL/NL, Table \[tab:summary\_results\]). In the following we will refer to type 1 and type 2 AGN as based on the optical spectroscopic classification. SED-fitting results {#s:results_sec} ------------------- The main output parameters obtained with CIGALE are reported in Table\[tab:summary\_results\], that is stellar mass, SFR, and AGN bolometric luminosity together with their 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. Two representative examples of SEDs are shown in Figure\[fig:sed\] for a type 2 (left panel) and a type 1 (right panel) AGN from CDF-S and COSMOS, respectively. The SEDs of the whole sample are presented in Appendix \[sec:SEDs\]. ![image](C522sed){width="8cm"} ![image](cid_166sed){width="8cm"} ### Stellar masses Stellar masses ($M_{\ast}$) are probed by rest-frame NIR flux densities shifted to the MIR at this redshift, which are dominated by old stellar populations. The uncertainty associated to stellar masses increases with the level of AGN contamination. As shown by the green template in the left panel of Figure\[fig:sed\], in type 2s there is a negligible AGN contribution in the UV-to-NIR regime. Conversely, for type 1s the green template in the right panel outshines the galaxy emission (orange curve) preventing a derivation of the stellar mass as robust as for type 2s. However, estimates of the stellar mass for type 1 AGN can still be recovered albeit with larger uncertainties [e.g., @bongiorno12], apart from very bright type 1s (e.g., Stripe82X, WISSH and some XMM-XXL targets in our sample) for which the uncertainties on this parameter are much larger than the parameter value itself and therefore an estimate of the stellar mass is meaningless. For these targets, we do not report a value of $M_{\ast}$ in Table\[tab:summary\_results\]. Our results range between $\sim 4 \times 10^{9}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $\sim 1.6 \times 10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$, with an average 1$\sigma$ uncertainty of 0.1 dex for type 2s and 0.3 dex for type 1s[^8]. ### Star Formation Rates SFRs are derived from the IR luminosity integrated in the rest-frame wavelength range $8-1000$ $\mu$m, when possible, assuming the @kennicutt98 SFR calibration converted to a @chabrier03 IMF (i.e., by subtracting 0.23 dex). This value is an indication of the SFR averaged over the last 100 Myr of the galaxy history and is produced by emission from dust heated by young stars as well as from evolved stellar populations. The AGN also contributes to the IR luminosity (whose percentage is given by the AGN fraction, see Sec. \[s:code\]), although it usually dominates the emission only up to 30 $\mu$m rest-frame as described in @mullaney11 [see also @symeonidis16]. Since our SED fitting allows us to disentangle the contribution of the two components (AGN and SF), we estimate the IR luminosity from SF removing the AGN contamination[^9]. However this is affected by intrinsic degeneracies that cannot be solved with the current data sampling at MIR and FIR wavelengths. Therefore an over-estimation of the AGN fraction will result in an under-estimation of the IR emission from the galaxy and thus of the SFR and vice versa [e.g., @ciesla15]. We provide a 3$\sigma$ upper limit on the SFR, derived as the 99.7th percentile of the FIR luminosity PDF, for the targets with only upper limits at $\lambda > 24$ $\mu$m. For the subset of targets without data at observed $\lambda > 24$ $\mu$m we did not include the dust templates in the fitting procedure. Therefore we report the average SFR over the last 100 Myr of the galaxy history as obtained from the modeling of the stellar component in the UV-to-NIR regime with SED fitting. This has been done for cid\_971 and lid\_206, since their 24 $\mu$m flux was not available in the catalog used as a prior for the extraction of the FIR photometry (see Sec. \[s:dataset\]). The targets without an estimate of the SFR are instead bright type 1s, therefore no information about SFR, and stellar mass, can be retrieved from the UV-optical regime. SFRs determined for our targets are in the range between $\sim 25$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\sim 680$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ with an average 1$\sigma$ uncertainty of 0.15 dex for type 1 and 0.06 for type 2 AGN (see footnote \[foot\]). The SFRs derived from the FIR luminosity and through the modeling of the stellar emission in the UV-to-NIR regime are in very good agreement (when the comparison is possible), with the low scatter due to the energy-balance approach used [see also @bongiorno12]. ### Comparison of $M_{\ast}$ and SFRs to literature results We compared our results with those presented by @santini15 for the targets in the CDF-S and @chang17, @delvecchio17 as well as @suh17 for the COSMOS targets. @santini15 collected $M_{\ast}$ measurements of the targets in the CANDELS field from several teams which used different SED-fitting codes and assumptions, in order to study the influence of systematic effects on the final output. The resulting estimates turned out to be clustered around the median value with a scatter of $25\%-35\%$. Their results are available for all of our CDF-S targets covered by CANDELS. @chang17 derived physical parameters for galaxies over the whole COSMOS field, @delvecchio17 dealt with a sub-sample of AGN as part of the VLA-COSMOS 3 GHz Large Project, while @suh17 provided physical properties for a sample of X-ray selected type 2s. 16, 6 and 7 out of 16 of our COSMOS targets have a match in these catalogs, respectively. However, the values from @delvecchio17 have been recomputed by adopting the same photometry used in this work (Delvecchio, priv. comm.). The overall comparison for stellar masses is quite satisfactory, with the average $\langle \log(M_{\ast,\,\textnormal{literature}}/M_{\ast,\,\textnormal{this work}}) \rangle$ equal to 0.30 dex (this result includes both type 2 and type 1 AGN), 0.03 dex and 0.18 dex for @chang17, @delvecchio17 and @suh17, and 0.20 dex for @santini15. The standard deviation is 0.38, 0.3 and 0.19 dex for the COSMOS targets and 0.19 dex for the CDF-S ones. The fits performed in @santini15 do not take into account the AGN contribution. As for the SFRs, the results are similar, with an average $\langle \log(\textnormal{SFR}_{\textnormal{literature}}/\textnormal{SFR}_{\textnormal{this work}}) \rangle\,=0.39$, -0.30 and 0.03 dex and standard deviation 0.44, 0.34 and 0.47 dex for @chang17, @delvecchio17 and @suh17, respectively. The AGN contribution was subtracted in all the estimates. For this comparison we did not consider the SFRs reported in @santini15, because their SED fitting did not include the FIR fluxes which are crucial to properly constrain the total SFR. The larger discrepancies for SFRs are mainly attributed to different and looser constraints in the FIR regime. In general, other sources of uncertainties are the diverse models used and the sparser data with large error bars (often just upper limits) compared to the UV-to-NIR regime. Although the SFR is a key quantity to be compared with AGN activity in order to understand the feedback processes, measuring the current SFR in AGN hosts is a well-known challenge, since the tracers are usually contaminated by AGN emission. Thanks to the SINFONI data that will be available for our targets, we will be able to compare various SF tracers (e.g., narrow H$\alpha$ vs. $L_{\textnormal{FIR}}$) in order to explore the systematic effects in this kind of measurements. ### AGN bolometric luminosities As described in Section \[s:code\], we used the @fritz06 models to reproduce the overall AGN emission. According to a comparison discussed in @ciesla15, type 2 AGN templates from the @fritz06 library are cooler than the SEDs obtained empirically by @mullaney11, which may indicate that those models do not reproduce all the physical properties of the AGN obscuring structure. Moreover, there are several models (both theoretical and empirical) in the literature reproducing the dusty torus emission [e.g., @nenkova08; @mor12; @stalevski12; @lani17] and approximations of the intrinsic AGN continuum [e.g., @telfer02; @richards06; @stevans14]. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that our main goal is not the detailed determination of the torus or accretion disk specific characteristics but just recovering the AGN bolometric luminosity. To test the reliability of the derived quantity we explored the input parameter space described in Section \[s:code\] (see also Table\[tab:input\_parameters\]) by fixing the input parameters to different values and comparing $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$ to those obtained using the whole grid of models used in this work. Even though the best-fit geometry varied through the different runs, the bolometric luminosity proved to be constrained within a variation of 0.2 dex. The same trend emerged for the dust luminosity due to star formation, which is related to the AGN luminosity by the AGN fraction. Moreover, we compared our results with available literature values for the targets in the COSMOS field [from @chang17; @delvecchio17] and those from the WISSH catalog [Duras, priv. comm., @duras17]. @duras17 modeled the AGN emission combining models from @feltre12 and @stalevski16; @chang17 used empirical templates by @richards06, @polletta07, @prieto10 and @mullaney11; @delvecchio17 adopted the @feltre12 library. In spite of the variety of models used by the different authors, the comparison is satisfactory and all the results are within 0.3 dex scatter: the average $\langle \log(L_{\textnormal{bol, literature}}/L_{\textnormal{bol, this work}}) \rangle$ is equal to 0.03, 0.18 and -0.09 dex for @chang17, @delvecchio17 and Duras (priv. comm.) respectively, with standard deviation 0.26, 0.30 and 0.14 dex. From our SED fitting, average 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of the bolometric luminosity are on the order of 0.03 and 0.1 dex for type 1s and type 2s respectively, with best-fit values in the range $2 \times 10^{44} - 8 \times 10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$. As pointed out for $M_{\ast}$ and SFRs, the uncertainties estimated through SED fitting can be underestimated. According to the comparison mentioned above, a more realistic typical uncertainty can be fixed to 0.3 dex. The physical quantities available for the SUPER sample give us the opportunity to study the distribution of the X-ray bolometric correction in the hard $2-10$ keV band (defined as $k_{\textnormal{bol, X}} = L_{\textnormal{bol}}/L_{[2-10\,\textnormal{keV}]}$) versus $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$. This can be done over a wide range of bolometric luminosities with a set of values determined in a uniform way. In Figure \[fig:kbol\] we compare our results to the relation derived by @lusso12 for a sample of more than 900 AGN (both type 1 and type 2) selected from the COSMOS field [see also @lusso16]. At variance with their AGN selection, which includes sources with hard X-ray fluxes larger than $3 \times 10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, 23% of our targets reach fainter values (down to $\approx 5 \times 10^{-17}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, triangles in Fig. \[fig:kbol\]). Moreover, we can probe the $k_{\textnormal{bol, X}} - L_{\textnormal{bol}}$ relation for targets with bolometric luminosities an order of magnitude higher [see also @martocchia17]. We plot the relations obtained by @lusso12 for type 1 and type 2 AGN (solid and dashed lines respectively), although they do not differ too much. The shaded areas depict the dispersion of these relations, while the red and blue squares represent the sample of type 1 and type 2 AGN, respectively, from which the relations were obtained. Our results for both type 1 (shown in red) and type 2 (shown in blue) are well consistent with the trends found by [@lusso12] with only the presence of three targets outside the $\pm 1\sigma$ scatter, according to the errorbars. The rest of the SUPER targets are within the scatter shown by their sample and also the most luminous AGN are well represented by those curves. One of the outliers has faint hard-band flux (marked by different symbols to distinguish the targets below the threshold adopted by @lusso12) and a total number of X-ray counts $< 60$. We note that the error bars in the plot are given by the error on $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$ provided by the SED-fitting code. In the upper-left corner of the panel we plot a median error bar taking into account a systematic error of 0.3 dex on $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$ which is more representative. Accounting for the scatter of the data presented by @lusso12 around the best fits and the underestimated error bars for our $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$, our estimates result to be in agreement with the literature trends and therefore we can consider $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$ and $L_{\textnormal{X}}$ obtained with our analysis reliable parameters. ![Bolometric corrections in the hard $2-10$ keV band versus bolometric luminosities. Circles and triangles mark the SUPER targets with $2-10$ keV fluxes higher and lower than $3 \times 10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ respectively, while type 1 and type 2 AGN are plotted in red and blue. The solid and dashed lines show the relations obtained by @lusso12 for type 1s and type 2s with fluxes higher than $3 \times 10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively. The shaded areas depict the scatter of these relations. We plot as red and blue squares the sample of type 1 and type 2 AGN, respectively, analyzed by @lusso12 to show the dispersion of the data around the best-fit relations. The error bar in the upper-left corner takes into account a systematic error of 0.3 dex on $L_{\textnormal{bol}}$. The SUPER data points are well consistent with the trends found for the bolometric correction. []{data-label="fig:kbol"}](kbol_plot_lussoData){width="9cm"} Bolometric luminosities can be also combined with black hole masses, when available, in order to obtain the Eddington ratio $\lambda_{\textnormal{Edd}} = L_{\textnormal{bol}}/L_{\textnormal{Edd}}$, where $L_{\textnormal{Edd}} = 1.5 \times 10^{38} (M_{\textnormal{BH}}/M_{\odot})$ erg s$^{-1}$. BH masses for type 1 AGN, ranging between $8 \times 10^{7}$ and $1.6 \times 10^{10}$ $M_{\odot}$, are reported in Table \[tab:input\_parameters\] together with the respective references. These values are derived via the “virial method” mainly using the broad $\lambda 1549$ emission line and the calibration of @vest_pet06. Such method is affected by well-known limitations since the emitting gas could be affected by non-virial motion [@trak_netz12]. However, in the present paper we only want to give a broad idea of the coverage in the $\lambda_{\textnormal{Edd}}$-$M_{\textnormal{BH}}$ plane that will be provided by our survey. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Mbh\_eddRatio\], where we plot the distribution of BH masses and Eddington ratios, we will be able to sample both accretion rates close to the Eddington limit and more moderate ones ($\sim 10^{-2}$ the Eddington limit) and to connect these quantities to the potential outflows that will be detected by SINFONI. To take into account the heavy uncertainties -based BH mass estimates are affected by, we assume in Fig. \[fig:Mbh\_eddRatio\] a systematic error on $M_{\textnormal{BH}}$ equal to 0.4 dex and plot a median error bar as a reference. Importantly, SINFONI observations will allow us to derive accurate estimates of $M_{\textnormal{BH}}$ combining broad H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ line profiles with continuum luminosities verifying, and improving upon, the -based measurements. ![Eddington ratios versus BH masses of the 22 type 1 AGN in the target sample. The Eddington ratio is given by $\lambda_{\textnormal{Edd}} = L_{\textnormal{bol}}/L_{\textnormal{Edd}}$, with bolometric luminosities estimated through SED-fitting analysis. BH masses (given in Table \[tab:summary\_results\]) are derived via the “virial method” mainly using the broad emission line and the calibration of @vest_pet06. We plot a representative error bar at the bottom-right corner of the plot which takes into account a systematic error of 0.4 dex on $M_{\textnormal{BH}}$. The black histograms show the projected distribution of the two quantities along each axis. SUPER will allow us to sample both accretion rates close to the Eddington limit and more moderate ones and to connect these quantities to the potential outflows detected by SINFONI.[]{data-label="fig:Mbh_eddRatio"}](Mbh_Edd_dexErr){width="9cm"} ### Comparison to the Main Sequence of star-forming galaxies {#s:MS_comp} In Figure\[fig:mainSeq\] we show the location of our targets in the SFR-$M_{\ast}$ plane for the objects with an estimate of both parameters, that is obscured AGN and a subsample of unobscured ones (24 targets, those for which we provide $M_{\ast}$ and SFR in Table \[tab:summary\_results\]). SFRs are already corrected for the AGN contribution. The distribution of our targets is compared to the so-called main sequence of star-forming galaxies [e.g., @noeske07]. We adopted the parametrization derived by @schreiber15, who performed a stacking analysis of deep Herschel data in several extragalactic fields (GOODS, UDS, COSMOS), finding a flattening of the MS at high stellar masses ($\log(M_{\ast}/M_{\odot})>10.5$) and a SFR dispersion of 0.3 dex. Our sample covers in a quite uniform way the SFR-$M_{\ast}$ plane, probing a wide range in terms of SFRs. About 46% of the targets are within the $\pm 1 \sigma$ scatter of the main sequence at the average redshift of the sample $z \sim 2.3$, while the rest are subdivided above (33%) and below (20%) it. As far as the stellar mass range is concerned, our AGN reside in massive hosts (median $M_{\ast}$ of $10^{10.88}$ $M_{\odot}$). This can be ascribed to a selection effect, as already pointed out by, e.g., @bongiorno12 and @aird12. In particular, they found that AGN with a low Eddington ratio are more numerous than AGN with a high one. At a fixed X-ray flux limit there is a bias toward galaxies hosting an AGN with higher stellar masses, given the relation between $L_{\textnormal{Edd}}$, $M_{\textnormal{BH}}$ and $M_{\ast}$. Over a sample of 1700 AGN in the COSMOS field analyzed by @bongiorno12, the host galaxy masses range from $10^{10}$ to $10^{11.5}$ M$_{\odot}$, with a peak at $\sim 10^{10.9}$ M$_{\odot}$. The color coding in Figure\[fig:mainSeq\] refers to the AGN bolometric luminosity of each target. The detailed analysis of potential outflows in our AGN, as a function of their position in the SFR$-M_{\ast}$ plane and their bolometric luminosity, will expand the physical understanding of the impact of AGN outflows on host galaxies by investigating the variation of outflow properties (such as mass outflow rates and energetics) moving from above to below the MS. Currently the largest AO-assisted NIR IFU observations of galaxies in the same redshift range covered by SUPER is represented by the SINS/zC-SINF survey [@nfs18]. These observations focus on the H$\alpha$ and \[\] emission lines, probing their distribution and kinematics in the galaxy, with a spatial resolution of $\sim 1.5$ kpc. Excluding objects classified as AGN in @nfs18, this SINFONI survey includes 25 objects, shown in Figure\[fig:mainSeq\], in the redshift range $2<z<2.5$ of the SUPER sample. The total stellar mass and SFR intervals, used to match the SINS/zC-SINF sample to the SUPER one, span a range which takes into account also the uncertainties on these quantities. As can be seen from Figure\[fig:mainSeq\], the SUPER and SINS/zC-SINF (excluding AGN) samples have an overlap in this plane, in the stellar mass range $\log (M_{\ast}/M_{\odot}) = [9.5-10.8]$, which will enable an interesting comparison of the properties of galaxies hosting active and inactive SMBHs. ![image](MS_noUV){width="12cm"} X-ray vs. optical spectroscopic and SED-fitting classification {#s:X-ray_SED} -------------------------------------------------------------- In Fig. \[fig:lum\_columnD\] we plot the distribution of our targets in the AGN bolometric luminosity and column density plane. The coverage of this parameter space is quite uniform. The bolometric luminosity probed by our survey ranges from $\sim$10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ up to $\sim$10$^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}$, spanning almost 4 orders of magnitude. In terms of column density, the sample covers uniformly a range from unobscured ($N_{\textnormal{H}} \le N_{\textnormal{H}}^{\textnormal{gal}}$) to heavily obscured objects, with values up to $2 \times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$. We adopt a separation value of $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ between obscured and unobscured AGN [@mainieri02; @szokoly04]. In Fig. \[fig:lum\_columnD\] we also compare the X-ray and optical (spectroscopy and SED fitting) diagnostics to distinguish between obscured and unobscured AGN as introduced at the beginning of Sec. \[s:overall\_results\]. The diagnostic recovered from the SED fitting is the inclination of the observer’s line of sight with respect to the torus equatorial plane, shown by the color coding in Fig. \[fig:lum\_columnD\]. The optical spectroscopic diagnostic (i.e., the presence of broad or narrow lines in the spectra) is depicted with different markers for broad- and narrow-line AGN. As can be clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:lum\_columnD\], the three diagnostics agree rather well. Upper limits refer mainly to objects for which the column density derived from the X-ray spectral analysis is consistent with $\sim 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (given by Galactic absorption) and are therefore classified as unobscured from an X-ray point of view, even if the formal upper limit for $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ is larger than $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. In some cases, the SED-fitting procedure is affected by significant degeneracies, since the same SED can sometimes be fit by either a type 1 AGN template and a negligible contribution from the host galaxy or an absorbed AGN template together with a very young and UV-bright set of stellar populations. In most cases the results of the SED fitting were in agreement with the overall classification of the target, returning a robust estimate of the AGN type. For some of the bright (type 1) AGN we restricted the range of inclinations based on the obscuration type suggested by the spectroscopic diagnostic in order to overcome the degeneracy. There are also some ambiguous cases. We find 2 targets classified as unobscured in the X-rays but showing obscured characteristics in the optical regime (both in the spectra and in the SEDs), although the upper error for $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ is very large. Six targets show an obscured X-ray spectrum ($10^{22} <N_{\textnormal{H}}< 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$) but with broad lines in the optical spectrum and Intermediate/Type 1 characteristics in the SED [see @merloni14]. The final classification is performed according to the optical spectroscopic diagnostic, which divides the sample in almost an equal number of type 1 (22) and type 2 AGN (17). ![image](L_Nh_hist_LbolSPEC_update){width="13cm"} Radio regime {#s:radio} ------------ All our AGN are located in fields targeted by radio surveys. In particular, the E-CDF-S has been observed with the Very Large Array (VLA) at 1.4 GHz [@miller13], with a typical rms of 7.4 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ ($2''.8 \times 1''.6$ beam size). A catalog of optical and IR counterparts for this survey is provided by @bonzini12. As for the COSMOS field, we took advantage of the deep 3 GHz VLA-COSMOS project [@smolcic17], characterized by an average rms sensitivity of 2.3 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ and an angular resolution of $0''.75$. The other targets (from XMM-XXL, Stripe 82X and WISSH) are part of the VLA’s FIRST survey at 1.4 GHz [@becker95], with a typical 5$\sigma$ sensitivity of 0.15 mJy beam$^{-1}$ and a resolution of $5''$. We want to study the radio properties of our targets to see, in particular, which ones are jetted and non-jetted[^10]. We do this by comparing their FIR and radio luminosities. Namely, when an object lies along the FIR-radio correlation both its radio and FIR emission are supposed to be driven by recent star-formation [@yun01]. Instead, if an object is off the correlation its “radio excess” is interpreted as evidence for radio emission from strong jets [@padovani17_comment]. In Figure \[fig:radio\_FIR\] (left panel) we plot these quantities for the 24 targets with detections or upper limits in the FIR regime for which we could derive FIR luminosities through SED-fitting modeling (Section \[s:code\]). The values are reported in Table\[tab:summary\_results\]. We computed the radio power at 1.4 GHz for all sources, converting the 3 GHz flux for the COSMOS targets assuming a radio spectral index $\alpha_{\textnormal{r}} = 0.7$. For the objects without radio detections (blue hexagons in the left panel of Figure \[fig:radio\_FIR\]) we used the 5$\sigma$ sensitivity flux values (0.02, 0.037 and 0.15 mJy beam$^{-1}$ for the COSMOS, CDF-S and XMM-XXL/Stripe82X/WISSH targets respectively) to estimate upper limits for the radio power. The plot includes $\sim 62\%$ of the sample although most of the datapoints are actually radio and/or FIR upper limits. The comparison with the FIR-radio correlation and its 2$\sigma$ dispersion shows the presence of 4 outliers: cid\_451, cid\_346, cid\_1143 and XID36. Since FIR luminosities are not available for the whole AGN sample, we further explored its radio properties by deriving the so-called q parameter, defined as the logarithm of the ratio between IR monochromatic and radio flux densities. The photometric band at the longest wavelength which allows us to use actual detections for most of the sample by keeping the number of upper limits as low as possible, is 24 $\mu$m. We therefore use $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}} = \log (S_{24\, \mu \textnormal{m}}/S_{\textnormal{r}})$, where $S_{24\, \mu \textnormal{m}}$ is the observed flux density at 24 $\mu$m and $S_{\textnormal{r}}$ is that at 1.4 GHz [see, e.g., @bonzini13]. For the only target which is undetected at 24 $\mu$m and without an upper limit, S82X1940, we used an upper limit of 6 mJy given by the WISE All-sky survey 5$\sigma$ sensitivity in the 22 $\mu$m W4 filter. The distribution of $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}}$ as a function of redshift is plotted in Figure \[fig:radio\_FIR\] (right panel). Red dots mark targets with detections both in the MIR and radio regime; blue-dot upper and lower limits represent sources with detections only in the radio or in the MIR, respectively; green squares depict AGN with upper limits both in the MIR and in the radio, for which the two limits go in opposite directions. As done by @bonzini13, we compare our results to the $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}}$ of M82 (as representative of SFGs) and compute $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}}$ from its SED as a function of redshift [for more details see Section 3.1.1 and Figure 2 in @bonzini13]. The SFG locus is defined as the region of $\pm 2 \sigma$ around the M82 template (dashed lines in the plot) and sources below this region show a radio excess. We are fully aware of the fact that, using the 24 $\mu$m flux density (which corresponds to $\lambda \sim 7.3$ $\mu$m rest-frame at the average $z$ of the sample), we are actually probing a wavelength regime where the AGN can dominate the total energy budget. To have an estimate of the increase in $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}}$ the AGN emission may produce, we evaluate the average AGN contribution to the total 24 $\mu$m flux from the SEDs where we can model all the emission components (i.e., 24 targets, 62% of the sample). The median value of this fraction is $\sim 86\%$ which, when subtracted from $q_{24\,\textnormal{obs}}$, would produce a down shift of the data points by $\sim 0.8$ dex. In the right panel of Figure \[fig:radio\_FIR\] the datapoints are already downshifted by such value. After accounting for this correction we find that four of our targets display a clear radio excess: the COSMOS target cid\_451, whose jetted nature is confirmed also from the FIR-radio comparison; the CDF-S target XID36, which was inside the 2$\sigma$ area before the correction but an outlier in the FIR-radio plane; the targets J1333$+$1649 and X\_N\_102\_35, not plotted in the left panel of Figure \[fig:radio\_FIR\] because they lack an FIR detection. The targets cid\_346 and cid\_1143 are still within the dispersion after the correction, but classified as jetted according to the position in the FIR-radio plane. Combining the results of the two panels in Fig. \[fig:radio\_FIR\], we estimate a jetted AGN fraction of $10-15\%$, which is consistent with the typical values observed in X-ray selected samples. ![image](FIR_radio_paper_finalUL){width="8.9cm"} ![image](radio_24um_minusF){width="9.1cm"} Summary and future work {#s:Conclusions} ======================= We have presented the sample targeted by SUPER, an on-going ESO’s VLT/SINFONI Large Programme assisted by AO facilities, designed to map the ionized gas kinematics down to $\sim 2$ kpc spatial resolution in a representative sample of 39 AGN at $2<z<2.5$. It will provide a systematic investigation of AGN ionized outflows and their effects on star formation in the host galaxies, by exploring a wide range in AGN and host galaxies properties. The sample was selected in an unbiased way with respect to the chance of detecting outflows, with the aim to cover the widest possible range in AGN properties. In this first paper we fully characterized the physical properties of the AGN sample, drawn from X-ray surveys (i.e., CDF-S, COSMOS, XMM-XXL, Stripe82X, WISSH) which benefit from a wealth of multi-wavelength data, from the radio to the X-rays as follows: - By collecting UV to FIR photometric data we built up the AGN SEDs and performed a detailed SED-fitting modeling which allowed us to derive stellar masses, $\log (M_{\ast}/M_{\odot}) = [9.59-11.21]$, $\textnormal{SFR} = [25 - 680]$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, and AGN bolometric luminosities, $\log (L_{\textnormal{bol}}/\textnormal{erg}\,\textnormal{s}^{-1}) = [44.3-47.9]$.\ - A detailed X-ray spectral fitting was performed to determine column densities $N_{\textnormal{H}}$ up to $2\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ and X-ray $2-10$ keV luminosities, $\log (L_{\textnormal{X}}/\textnormal{erg}\,\textnormal{s}^{-1})=[43.2-45.8]$.\ - For AGN characterized by broad lines in their optical spectra we reported BH masses obtained using the “virial method” on the and H$\beta$ lines, with results in the range $\log (M_{\textnormal{BH}}/M_{\odot}) = [7.9-10.2]$. These values were combined with the bolometric luminosity to compute Eddington ratios for this subsample of AGN which includes BHs accreting at the Eddington limit and down to $10^{-2}$ times $\lambda_{\textnormal{Edd}}$.\ - Finally, we retrieved the radio fluxes (or upper limits) for each target and, by comparing their FIR luminosities (when available) or their 24 $\mu$m fluxes, we inferred the presence of at least 6 jetted AGN in our sample.\ As clear from the wide parameter ranges given above, our survey probes a representative sample of AGN, in terms of both host galaxy properties, such as stellar mass and SFR, and AGN ones, like column density, AGN bolometric luminosity, BH mass and Eddington ratio. This will give us the context to place our IFS studies and the opportunity to investigate possible links among all these quantities and connect them to the outflow properties. To achieve one of the main goals of the survey, namely inferring the impact that outflows may have on the ability of the host galaxy to form stars, we need to quantify their gas content. Molecular gas represents indeed the principal fuel for star formation in galaxies and the fundamental link between SF and AGN activity. In AGN host galaxies, molecular gas fractions ($f_{\textnormal{gas}} = M_{\textnormal{gas}}/M_{\ast}$) and depletion timescales ($t_{\textnormal{dep}} = M_{\textnormal{gas}}/\textnormal{SFR}$) appear to be smaller than the values measured for the parent population of SF galaxies [e.g., @brusa17; @kakkad17 but see also @husemann17CO [@rosario18]]. The interpretation of these quantities is non-trivial and requires a joint characterization of the cold molecular and ionized gas phase. SUPER will achieve this goal by combining the SINFONI observations with two on-going programs with ALMA and APEX: - SUPER-ALMA (PI: Mainieri; Circosta et al., in prep.), which has been allocated 12.6 and 19.5 hours of ALMA Band-3 observing time in Cycle 4 and 5 respectively, to target the CO(3-2) emission line with $1''$ angular resolution over a sample constructed to include the SUPER sources. This project will perform a systematic study of the gas content of AGN hosts, in order to derive gas fractions and depletion timescales, but will also complement the goals of our SINFONI survey. In fact, information about the possible presence of outflows in these targets will be available and will allow us to infer whether there is a causal connection between a lower gas fraction and the presence of an AGN-driven outflow.\ - SUPER-APEX (PI: Cicone), a pilot project with the APEX PI230 Rx receiver that was allocated 28.2 hours to observe, in two of our targets, the \[\](2-1) transition as a tracer of the total amount of cold $H_{2}$ and the CO(7-6) transition, which will trace the warmer and denser phase of $H_{2}$.\ Recent studies showed that a significant fraction of the mass and momentum of AGN-driven outflows can be contained in the molecular gas phase [e.g., @cicone14; @carniani15; @fiore17]. To obtain a comprehensive picture of the feedback processes, it is crucial to investigate the molecular gas properties. The next step will be to map the molecular gas, tracing the fuel for star formation and feedback, with the same $\sim$kpc spatial resolution of the ionized gas [e.g., @cicone18]. A comprehensive and dynamic view of the evolution of the star formation process and the impact of AGN feedback across the host galaxy, at the peak epoch of galaxy assembly, will be finally possible. This will have far reaching implications on theoretical models and simulations of galaxy-AGN evolution. The final goal of the SUPER project is to be a reference legacy survey for future work and to establish a unique statistical sample at high redshift characterized by a wide set of ancillary data. The systematic approach adopted will reveal key clues about outflow physics and feedback in AGN host galaxies. We thank the anonymous referee for carefully reading the paper and providing comments. C. Circosta also thanks: D. Burgarella and L. Ciesla for helpful advice in using Cigale; I. Baronchelli, G. Calistro Rivera, A. Feltre, E. Hatziminaoglou and D. Rosario for useful discussions about SED fitting; E. Le Floc’h for providing MIPS fluxes for the targets cid\_971 and lid\_206; Y.-Y. Chang and I. Delvecchio for providing their SED-fitting results, and F. Duras for the WISSH photometric catalog; E. Lusso for providing the data of her sample plotted in Fig. 3 and P. Lang, D. Liu and J. Scholtz for the ALMA data of COSMOS and CDF-S; A. Zanella for helpful discussions and support while the paper was written. C. Circosta acknowledges support from the IMPRS on Astrophysics at the LMU (Munich). CF and CC acknowledge support from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 664931. BM acknowledges support by the Collaborative Research Centre 956, sub-project A1, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). GC acknowledges the support by INAF/Frontiera through the “Progetti Premiali” funding scheme of the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research. GC has been supported by the INAF PRIN-SKA 2017 programme 1.05.01.88.04. This research project was supported by the DFG Cluster of Excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe” (www.universe-cluster.de). This research has made use of the following data: data based on data products from observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under ESO programme ID 179.A-2005 and on data products produced by TERAPIX and the Cambridge Astronomy Survey Unit on behalf of the UltraVISTA consortium. Data from HerMES project (http://hermes.sussex.ac.uk/). HerMES is a Herschel Key Programme utilising Guaranteed Time from the SPIRE instrument team, ESAC scientists and a mission scientist. The HerMES data was accessed through the Herschel Database in Marseille (HeDaM - http://hedam.lam.fr) operated by CeSAM and hosted by the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille. HerMES DR3 was made possible through support of the Herschel Extragalactic Legacy Project, HELP (http://herschel.sussex.ac.uk), HELP is a European Commission Research Executive Agency funded project under the SP1-Cooperation, Collaborative project, Small or medium-scale focused research project, FP7-SPACE-2013-1 scheme. Description of the photometric catalog {#sec:photo_cat} ====================================== Column number Label Description --------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- 1 ID ID of each target as given in Table \[tab:sample\] 2 z Redshift 3, 4 NUV\_galex, NUV\_galex\_err GALEX NUV flux and error 5, 6 U\_ctio, U\_ctio\_err CTIO-Blanco/Mosaic-II U-band flux and error 7, 8 U\_vimos, U\_vimos\_err VLT/VIMOS U-band flux and error 9, 10 u\_megacam, u\_megacam\_err CFHT/MegaCam u-band flux and error 11-20 u\_sloan, ..., z\_sloan\_err SDSS fluxes and errors 21-30 B\_subaru, ..., z\_subaru\_err Subaru/Suprime-Cam fluxes and errors 31-42 WFI\_U, ..., WFI\_I\_err ESO-MPG/WFI fluxes and errors 43-52 acs\_f435w, ..., acs\_f850lp\_err HST/ACS fluxes and errors 53-60 wfc3\_098M, ..., wfc3\_H160W\_err HST/WFC3 fluxes and errors 61-72 u\_cfhtl, ..., z\_cfhtl\_err CFHT fluxes and errors 73-76 J\_ctio, ..., Ks\_ctio\_err CTIO-Blanco/ISPI fluxes and errors 77, 78 z\_ctio, z\_ctio\_err CTIO-Blanco/Mosaic-II z-band flux and error 79-88 VISTA\_Z, ..., VISTA\_Ks\_err VISTA fluxes and errors 89-94 J\_ukidss, ..., K\_ukidss\_err UKIDSS fluxes and errors 95, 96 H\_sofi, H\_sofi\_err NTT/SofI H-band flux and error 97, 98 isaac\_Ks, isaac\_Ks\_err VLT/ISAAC Ks-band flux and error 99, 100 HAWKI\_Ks, HAWKI\_Ks\_err VLT/HAWK-I Ks-band flux and error 101-108 Y\_uv, ..., K\_uv\_err VISTA/VIRCAM fluxes and errors 109, 110 Y\_hsc, Y\_hsc\_err Subaru/HSC Y-band flux and error 111-114 H\_w, ..., K\_w\_err CFHT/WIRCam fluxes and errors 115-120 J\_2mass, ..., Ks\_2mass\_err 2MASS fluxes and errors 121-128 irac\_ch1, ..., irac\_ch4\_err Spitzer/IRAC fluxes and errors 129-136 W1, ..., W4\_err WISE fluxes and errors 137-138 mips24, mips24\_err Spitzer/MIPS 24 $\mu$m flux and error 139-144 pacs70, ..., pacs160\_err Herschel/PACS fluxes and errors 145-150 spire250, ..., spire500\_err Herschel/SPIRE fluxes and errors 151-154 ALMA\_band7, ..., ALMA\_band3\_err ALMA Band 7 and 3 fluxes and errors Spectral energy distributions of the SUPER sample {#sec:SEDs} ================================================= ![image](X_N_160_22sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_81_44sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_53_3sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_66_23sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_35_20sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_12_26sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_44_64sed){width="7.9cm"} ![image](X_N_4_48sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_102_35sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](X_N_115_23sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C36sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C57sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C419sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C427sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C522sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](C614sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_166sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](lid_1289sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_1057sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_1605sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_337sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_346sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_451sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_1205sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_2682sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_1143sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_467sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_852sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_971sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](cid_38sed){width="7.8cm"} ![image](lid_206sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](cid_1253sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](SDSSJ1333sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](SDSSJ1441sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](SDSSJ1549sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](S82X1905sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](S82X1940sed){width="7.7cm"} ![image](S82X2058sed){width="7.6cm"} ![image](S82X2106sed){width="7.8cm"} [^1]: [^2]: Table \[tab:photo\_summary\] is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via <http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/> [^3]: <https://www.super-survey.org> [^4]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/xanadu/xspec/> [^5]: We used SAS v.16.0.0, <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xmm/xmmhp_analysis.html> [^6]: <https://cigale.lam.fr> [^7]: The impact of lower metallicity on the SED-fitting output was tested by fixing the metallicity to a value 0.3 dex lower than the solar one. The results of the fitting procedure are well within the uncertainties. [^8]: \[foot\]In general, the statistical uncertainties in the determination of $M_{\ast}$ and SFR through SED modeling are typically around 0.3 dex for stellar masses and larger for SFRs [e.g., @mancini11; @santini15], usually underestimated by the SED-fitting tools. Moreover, systematic differences in the results are due to the models used, degeneracies and a priori assumptions as well as the discrete coverage of the parameter space. [^9]: AGN fractions (derived for the targets with FIR detections) range between 0.05 and 0.90, with a median value of 0.36. [^10]: We follow @padovani17_comment and use this new nomenclature, which supersedes the old “radio-loud/radio-quiet” distinction.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.